Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

So 10,000 dead people so you can shoot Boar. Got itWhat do you have against listing all of the things I mentioned? Why do you only list one... is is because it seems like a less significant trade-off if you do it that way?Also, you keep throwing this 10,000 number around, but did you know that .5% statistic you used earlier (a low estimate, btw; some are as high as 3.5%) amounts to 162,000 incidents per year that someone uses a gun to prevent someone from being killed? So ban guns and you might save 10,000; you also kill 162,000. 4.2 times more likely to be shot was a statistic from the FBI. And it's completely relative to the argument. You say owning a gun makes you safer, from crime and what not. But it doesn't, it makes you 4.2 times more likely to be harmed. So you can't use defense as an argument.Did you read my argument at all? Until you link me the statistic we can't know if a gun makes you safer from crime or not; perhaps owning a gun just makes you 4.2 times more likely to shoot yourself in the foot, which says nothing at all about a firearms impact on crime. I wasn't using self-defense as an argument, I was asking if your argument included self-inflicted injury. And you flat-out refuse to show me the statistic, for some odd reason. I spend half my year in NYC. Hardly Suburbia. Safe city though. Might have to do with the strict gun laws.It doesn't really matter if it's not suburbia; the point is it's safe, and it's not like that everywhere. If you're safe and protected you probably don't feel the need for self-defense; if violence is a real problem around you on a daily basis, you might rethink that position. And I refuse to believe that even national strict gun laws will end violent crime. That's not the way we create a society where people don't need to rob you. Simply pointing out our efforts maybe better served creating that world instead of shooting anyone who plans to commit crime.First of all I would like to clarify that we were talking about shooting someone who was in the act of committing a crime against you, not "shooting anyone who plans to commit crime." Secondly, if that's not the way to create a better society, why did you say it was? You offered no way to "create that world" other than handing the criminal your wallet. When kids get molested nobody says we should get more pedophiles. That's exactly the line of thinking you're subscribing too.Excuse me, nowhere in my posts have I made the argument "we need to solve gun crime/violence with more guns," nor is that an argument you will ever hear me make. So putting words in my mouth like that is a blind and baseless assumption (at best) and a deliberate straw man (at worst).The difference in our stats is that you tried to sneak violent crime in as the same thing. Clever, but I noticed. really that would only leave murder and pistol whipping. Most violent crime is abuse or assault. 67% of crime includes robbery's and such. You know, the thing that happened to you.I didn't "try to sneak" anything; I simply thought a statistic talking about how often guns are used as tools of visual intimidation wouldn't do much for your position against violent gun use and crime, so I figured your statistic probably addressed violent crime. I see I was wrong. However, my statistic: "Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]" So my statistic does include "robbery's and such." Y'know, the thing that happened to me.