azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Mao Zedong: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."While in previous ages it was the sword this fundamental truth of power has not changed. All political power comes ultimately from the ability to utilize force. The balance of power between the state and the citizen has and presumably always will lean on the side of the state, however the degree of this imbalance is of import. In western liberal democracies we have a better balance of power than in North Korea and this is part of why our people are treated so well relative to these nations. By making those who wield force somewhat accountable to the people, we thereby create a better balance of power between state and citizen. Adding to this the ability of the citizenry to utilize force themselves grants further power to the citizenry, resulting in a more equitable balance of power. As aforementioned, this balance of power results in better conditions for the citizenry."One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over ."The fact that there are more guns than people in the U.S. would make for a difficult occupation, in addition to the inevitable multitude of military turncoats. If no civilian resistance existed then military desertion wouldn't happen at anywhere near the same rate. This is because, in addition to the trauma of having to kill one's own people, resistance wouldn't seem as futile and there would be an existing force to join. As for a fear of a government becoming oppressive being unfounded, I would point simply to the fact that over a long enough time frame an oppressive government is inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that advances in technology mean that progressively smaller numbers of people can control increasingly large populations.There is also self-defense issue; to defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after a crime has taken place. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible. Note also that Switzerland has no such gun violence problem, presumably due to cultural differences.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I wonder what makes the U S such a violent society that its citizens seem to be in a constant state of anxiety about threats from thugs ; thieves and a hostile government ?Over here we are totally unarmed as are the majority of our police force and I’ve never felt under threat from any of the above mentioned, if Americans feel 30,000 deaths and 70,000 gun injuries yearly are a “ fair price “ to pay for such a right well maybe they need to give it some real thought
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

"I wonder what makes the U S such a violent society that its citizens seem to be in a constant state of anxiety about threats from thugs ; thieves and a hostile government ?"These threats exist everywhere but there is a real gang-culture problem in the U.S., similar to the one we have in London."Over here we are totally unarmed as are the majority of our police force and I’ve never felt under threat from any of the above mentioned, if Americans feel 30,000 deaths and 70,000 gun injuries yearly are a “ fair price “ to pay for such a right well maybe they need to give it some real thought"That's only half the story, sexual abuse is thought to be prevented 200k times a year by gun use, for but one example (Source 1, pg36-37). Note also the total yearly incidents of defensive gun use are over 2 million (Source 1, pg36).Sources:(1) http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed%20Resistance%20to%20Crime-%20The%20Prevalence%20and%20Nature%20of%20Self-Defe.pdf
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I provided Dermot with a link to CDC statistics. The page is a stats too by which a user can look directly at the numbers. You can parce the demographics too. I would think he would be happy to see this. Instead he now seems unwilling to acknowledge that CDC statistics are credible.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Another total misrepresentation of my position by you , I don’t even know what point you’re attempting to make at this stage as you’re making no sense at all
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Thank you for your agreement on sources.Using CDC data, I am going to provide the numbers from 2015, which was a worse year for gun deaths than earlier years.In 2015 there were 36,252 total gun deaths. Of those, only 489 were unintentional. 12,979 were homicide. 22,018 were suicide. The population of the US is 323.1 million. That means the odds of dying from unintentional gunshot in the US, where almost half of all households have a firearm, is approximately .0000015 or 3 in 2 million. 4,814 people were murdered by means other than a gun. You are more likely to be murdered with something other than a gun, than you are to die from unintentional gunshot.Now let’s consider children (Child = 17 and under).In 2015 1,458 juveniles were killed by guns. Of those, only 77 were unintentional. 791 were homicides. 566 were suicides. The population of the US under 18 is 73.9 million. That means the odds of a juvenile dying from unintentional gunshot in the US, is approximately .000001 or 1 in 1,000,000.In 2015 there were 179 children under the age of 10 killed by guns. Of those, only 35 were unintentional.For whatever its worth, of the 632 children under the age of 4 that were murdered in 2015, 58 of them were murdered with a gun.Lets look at some other ways to die in the US.In 2015, 3,602 people unintentionally drowned. Given that 489 were unintentionally killed by gun, an American with a gun in his house is safer than an American who goes swimming.In 2015, 3,352 people died from non-drug unintentional poisoning. 44,126 died from unintentional drug poisoning. 33,381 died from unintentional fall. All significantly higher than the 489 unintentional firearm deaths.The US has a crime problem, not a gun problem. Switzerland and Finland do not have a gun problem and their crime seems to be well-managed. The above data comes from the CDC. https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I think the 44k deaths by unintentional drug poisoning may be incredibly persuasive to those who want drugs to be legal (such as myself).
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I think the 44k deaths by unintentional drug poisoning may be incredibly persuasive to those who want drugs to be legal (such as myself).Why's that?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

If someone wants drugs to be legal despite the deaths that they cause then they should in theory want guns to be legal despite the deaths that they cause. I suppose we don't know what fraction is caused by illegal drugs though.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Yes the sources seem to be as good or bad as each other The U S does indeed have a massive gun problem it’s truly tragic the way you never mention non fatal accidents which are unintentional which are by guns in any of your pieces or the 75, 000 yearly non fatal shootings in the U S , why’s that ?It’s also rather telling that you neglect to mention mass shootings according to data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.Despite your denial the U S most definitely has a gun problem
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

"you never mention non fatal accidents which are unintentional which are by guns in any of your pieces"Moving the goal post huh? That’s ok. In 2015 there were 17,311 unintentional gun related non-fatal injuries. There are 125.82 million households in the US and approximately 43% of those have firearms. That means the chances of a gun in the household correlating to a non-fatal unintentional gun related injury is approximately .000319 or just over 3 in 10,000. Let’s combine that with fatal injury and add the 489 deaths. The chances that a gun in the household will correlate to an unintentional shooting that I fatal or non-fatal is .000329, still just over 3 in 10,000.On the other hand, about 16% of homes have swimming pools. With 9,816 non-fatal drowning related incidents and another 4,425 fatal drowning related incidents, the chances that having a swimming pool will correlate to a fatal or non-fatal drowning is .000707 or just over 7 in 10,000. That means that a swimming pool in the household is more than twice as dangerous as a gun in the household. And that’s being generous. Consider the number of drownings that lead to death vs the number of accidental gunshots that lead to death. If you drown, your chances of death are 45%. If you are accidentally shot, your chances of death are 2.8%.Would you say the US has a swimming pool problem? I wouldn’t. There are 342,882 annual injuries due to dog bites, but I would say we have a dog problem either."or the 75, 000 yearly non fatal shootings in the U S , why’s that ?"In 2015 there were actually just under 85,000 non-lethal shootings. Just under 63,000 of those were assaultive in nature. Given that there were just under 13,000 actual gun homicides in 2015, the success rate of someone who is trying to kill you with a gun is just 17%. Perhaps they should try to drown you instead."It’s also rather telling that you neglect to mention mass shootings"Mass shootings are a bit trickier, since the definition is fuzzier. When defined as at least 4 people killed or wounded, the rate is much higher than under previous definitions, such as when defined as at least 4 people killed or wounded indiscriminately. Removing the indiscriminate nature often associated with mass shootings opens up the definition to gang violence, such as targeted drive by shootings or gang shootings in clubs. For my purposes, 4 dead people shot is 4 people shot. It’s a cleaner analysis.Even so, you must know that 475 is a low number when compared to the population, right?I am curious to see your response to my the numbers given, rather than just a move of goal posts. Though, if you slightly shift topic again, I will likely just look at the new numbers again.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Ok , in fairness that’s a well reasoned piece and I can appreciate that you’re genuine when you speak about guns and your realationship to them , as an outsider it’s incredibly difficult to understand the mindset of the “ average” American regarding guns especially when you hear some of the macho gun nuts on C D . I’ve actually enjoyed the exchange and it’s refreshing to debate on guns with an American without it turning into an all brawl
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Well that’s something they need to work on isn’t it ?Half the story ? It’s enough of a story for most rational people 30, 000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries are living proof of how bad the problem is ; so again are you saying guns do more good than damage ?It appears from your piece that not alone are citizens of the U S terrified of break in’s and hostile government take overs , but now it seems sexual abuse attacks are yet another significant threat the average citizen faces daily , personally I would emigrate ☺️Regards the study you cite the findings have been rubbished by experts in the field
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Another clarification, of the 30,000, about 2/3rd of them are suicides. I know your emigration quip wasn’t serious, even so, consider how big the US is. Most of the violence is focused in little pockets in cities that, to many of us, are far away. It would be like Paris having a problem with violence and people telling you all about how bad your Europe is. Almost half of us have legal guns in our homes. Around 10,000 of us are murdered each year by a gun. Most of those murdered are young black men dying in gang violence. That means the vast majority of us are perfectly reasonable in having guns.If you are going to discount a source on the basis that it has been “rubbished by experts in a field”, you should at least provide your own source so we can see what is rubbish.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

A clarification of what exactly ? The emigration quip was indeed just that , but Winston worried me with that snippet about Americans warding of sexual predators in such large masses ☺️ Again for every stat you bring up for the pro gun side I can do likewise for the anti side , this issue is beyond resolutionI’ve asked before and will do so again ..... If a total gun ban was enforced in the U S what do you think would happen ? I do indeed discount the source and I’m surprised you and Winston who are normally well up on such matters have not even heard of the various experts and sources who rubbish Gleck and Kertzs “ findings “ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ 2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262 Don’t take my word do your own research if you wish
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Don’t take my word do your own research if you wishI do. That’s why we disagree. Incidentally, I haven’t read that source he provided. I just don’t know on what grounds you were discounting it.Winston worried me with that snippet about Americans warding of sexual predators in such large massesRegardless of the source, there is cause for concern. As I said, America has a crime problem. If a total gun ban was enforced in the U S what do you think would happen ?Wouldn’t happen. First, it would be illegal. If it was done without a Constitutional Amendment, the law would go largely unenforced. Where it is enforced, it would be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Then the legislators who are responsible would be voted out. If the government attempted to alter the Constitution without due process, there would be a massive social upheaval with the support of most law enforcement and much of the military. That would end similarly, with the removal of the responsible parties and the ban overturned.Doing a gun ban legally is politically impossible. The amount of support necessary for a Constitutional Convention to remove the 2nd Amendment just isn’t there. If it was there, then the US would be quite a bit different than it currently is. If that were the case, a few people would be upset and then quiet down. Regardless of the legality, a successful gun ban would not do anything to eliminate what is already illegal firearm possession. It would only criminalize what is currently legal, responsible gun ownership. It would also create stronger financial incentives for black market weapons trafficking. Similarly, a ban hasn’t done anything for heroin reduction, as heroin use has recently skyrocketed.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I was discounting it because the findings have been dismissed by many something you and Winston seem oblivious too So you accept that 200,000 possible sexual attacks yearly are thwarted by gun carrying citizens ?If a total ban on guns was implemented mainly criminals would have them so what ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

If a total ban on guns was implemented mainly criminals would have them so what ?In a country with such a crime problem as the US, saying “so what” to arming only criminals is callously dismissive. Furthermore, since the vast majority of gun homicides are committed by people who are already blocked from legal ownership, a ban that still fails to stop their possession will still fail to stop their murder.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I don’t see it as “ callously dismissive “ why are you upset at the thoughts of criminals eliminating each other ?I wonder where you got the stats for gun homicides ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

why are you upset at the thoughts of criminals eliminating each other ?Those criminals do more than that. Ask any small business attempting to serve the neighborhoods most affected by these criminals and you will understand the callousness of your question.I wonder where you got the stats for gun homicides ?Often the same as you. When I google your data I get the CDC as the source. Then I look into their information more to get the nuance, such as the suicide distinction from homicide. That’s why I clarify your data more than refute it. When you said X number of children die, I googled your numbers to find that “children” referred to people aged 19 and under.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

So American criminals now target mainly small businesses ?But you stated before that the main cause of deaths regarding guns was “ gang related “ and you’re still not answering what I asked No you don’t clarify my data you dispute it by going to your own source , and most recently you now ignore it as your recent posts demonstrateJust to further clarify your data rather than refute it what my numbers actually said was ......The study also found that an average of 1,297 children die annually from gun-related injuries, making guns the third-leading cause of death for children in America (behind illnesses and unintentional injuries like drownings or car crashes). The number is based on data taken from 2012–2014 for children up to the age of 17.Look at that up to the age of ....... 17
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

So American criminals now target mainly small businesses ?When you misrepresented my position as being that peer reviewed journals are 100% credible, it was similar to this misrepresentation. You haven’t been doing it until just recently. But it reflects poorly on your position. You should go back to not doing it.American criminals target those around them. In gang infested neighborhoods, that means mostly other criminals. Incidentally, that’s where most of the gun homicides in question occur. Now tell an innocent shop owner that he can no longer keep that shotgun behind the counter because all those assholes in his neighborhood are too dangerous with their guns that you aren’t getting rid of. It’s absurd. And when he counter argues that they all still have guns with which to rob him, your callous response is “so what?”No you don’t clarify my data you dispute it by going to your own sourceMost of your sources are drawn from the CDC. That’s where I am getting my data as well. If you wish to challenge my source, you’ll be challenging your own. The CDC is credible.(I just checked. Your study come from the journal Pediatrics. I’ll have to look at it. Your other numbers, 70,000 and 30,000 comes from the CDC.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

What I actually said was ......You don’t have to trust anyone or anything that’s why I asked to research the findings yourself , also why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed it must be 100 percent accurate.........How is that misrepresenting you as you seem to place an awful lot of trust on peeer reviewed papers Yes it’s still “ so what “ criminals mostly kill other criminals and shopkeepers are nightly fighting off armed criminals by threatening them with shotguns ...... really ?The last figures I posted are not from the C D C the very ones that gave the actual age of 17 years of age as opposed to the 19 you stated
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

This is where people start to get pissed at you. I show a preference for a peer reviewed journal over a news story and you ask “why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed that it’s 100 percent accurate”.I point out that innocent shop owners in high crime areas have a valid increased interest in keeping a firearm and you say “So American criminals now target mainly small businesses?”I know the last one you posted wasn’t CDC. They were from the journal Pediatrics. I told you I just checked and saw that. I haven’t read that piece. But tell me, is CDC data credible?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Really ? This is where I get pissed at you , I post a news story with a link to a peer reviewed paper destroying the claims made by Gluck and Kertz and you get upset , why’s that ? Yes your point about small shopkeepers is absurd to say the least , you keep ignoring my broader point as in so what if only criminals have guns Is the journal of pediatrics credible ? Is C D C credible ? Which one is more credible and why ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

This is where I get pissed at you , I post a news story with a link to a peer reviewed paper destroying the claims made by Gluck and Kertz and you get upset , why’s that ?I didn’t get upset at that article, I addressed what it said directly. I got upset at your misrepresentation of my position. It’s what you do when you start to get frustrated.you keep ignoring my broader point as in so what if only criminals have gunsSaying “so what if criminals have guns” isn’t exactly a point. Nonetheless here is my counter. Criminals are by far the primary cause of gun violence. If a ban does not take guns away from them, then it is not only fruitless, it is detrimental to those non-criminals who may benefit from a firearm, such as a shop owner in a bad neighborhood. Since non-criminals account for such a small portion of the gun violence, the real question is, so what if non-criminals have guns?Is the journal of pediatrics credible ?I don’t know anything about it. Is C D C credible ?It’s the source I most often see cited for statistics of the kind we are discussing. Are you willing to acknowledge it as credible?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

The piece I posted makes rubbish of the bold claims made by Gleck and Kertz , how I misrepresented you is beyond me Well it actually is a point as it’s asking you a direct question , so I get what you’re saying a ban wouldn’t work and that’s that , if non criminals have guns there are still gun deaths and accidents and quiet a lot of them , so you are off the opinion that a certain amount of gun deaths and accidents are just fine once you can have your gun ? Incidentally your claim that criminals are by far the primary cause of gun violence means what exactly ? Most gun deaths are not the result of gang violence so your point is ?I don’t know how credible the C D C or any other source are how am I meant to know ? The CDC is just as credible as the journal of pediatrics I guess , Why are you still banging on about the CDC I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

so you are off the opinion that a certain amount of gun deaths and accidents are just fine once you can have your gun ?No, I am of the opinion that taking away my gun will not change the data, so I will keep it.Incidentally your claim that criminals are by far the primary cause of gun violence means what exactly ?If criminals are the primary cause of gun violence, and a ban would not remove their guns, then a ban is not the best way to reduce gun violence.I don’t know how credible the C D C or any other source are how am I meant to know ?The CDC has been the standard for most studies, including the one in Pediatrics (They used CDC data). I'm banging that drum so that we can at least agree on sources. It is essential to an argument. To keep it all together, I am posting an actual argument in another thread.