azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Well then they don't get to murder deers with glocks anymore. No sport shooting doesn't kill 10,000. You used it as an excuse for why guns should be legal. Just pointing out how shitty a trade off that is. (This is how many gun murders btw)Even if the 4.2 does include self inflicted "injury" (death) How many people die from toasters each year. Because the number of people who die from guns in the U.S. annually is over six figures if you include self inflicted harm. I would use nothing if someone was trying to rob me. First of all, it rarely, if ever happens to people in their lives. You make it sound like you're scaring them off left and right. Again only 0.5% have reported using their gun to scare someone off. And the reason you're 4.2 times more likely to be shot is because a criminal with a gun will shoot some dumb John Wayne who thinks he's going to save the day. Give then your $40 keep your life and help create a society that doesn't have people who need to rob you instead of arming everyone like its Mad MaxOf course I can. You can't just say your stats don't count lol. Legal guns BECOME illegal guns when they're stolen. You all use this illegal guns thing but its a lot fucking harder to get an illegal gun then a legal one. They will never go completely away. But if you look at NYC (safest city and strictest gun laws) or any other industrialized country with its head on straight. You'll see your argument doesn't have any weight.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Deer aren't aggressive animals likely to charge you if you don't kill them in the first shot. Some animals, like boar, are, and if you're getting charged by a wild boar you might appreciate having a glock at your side and not some single-shot rifle with a scope. Sport shooting was just one of the reasons guns should be legal. Do you not know where you got the statistic from?And it's not a matter of how many people die from toasters each year, it's a matter of the statistic being completely unimpressive and almost completely irreverent to the discussion we're having if it does include self inflicted injury or death. Obviously owning something (anything) is a great way to increase your chances of hurting yourself with it. Like, "people who own weight sets are 4.2 times more likely to drop a weight on their foot than people who don't own weights." Well duh. I've been robbed (like, me, my person, not my apartment or car) twice in the past 3 years. Gave up my stuff voluntarily once and got shit shit kicked out of me and had it taken the other time. My car and my residence have both been broken into on other occasions. I have been pick-pocketed. Perhaps these things are rare occurrences if you live in suburbia, but some of us live inner-city, where this shit is a daily reality.We don't actually know if the 4.2 statistic exists because of the John Wayne-complex because you haven't cited it yet so I don't know what info the statistic draws on. How does giving criminals your money when they mug you "help create a society that doesn't have people who need to rob you instead of arming everyone like its Mad Max"?I can say they're pointless stats to reference when your proposed solution to stop the law-breaking activity you are referencing is just to throw another law on top. Legal guns become illegal when stolen ("hot," actually,) but some guns are illegal from the get go, shipped here from out of country or illegally procured or produced here. And I don't know about it being more difficult. Legal guns are usually more expensive, and there's a bunch of background check shit and paperwork and sometimes a waiting period when you go to buy a legal gun; I just need to make a phone call and have a few hundred bucks and I can get an illegal gun. Also according to some info I pulled from the US Department of Justice, only about 8% of violent crime is committed with a gun... where are you getting the 67% figure? My stat was from 2008 but even still I would have a hard time believing it increased 59% in 5 years.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

So 10,000 dead people so you can shoot Boar. Got it4.2 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. I spend half my year in NYC. Hardly Suburbia. Safe city though. Might have to do with the strict gun laws.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.And you're right. SOME guns are shipped here from out of country. I guess we shouldn't improve anything then lol. I'm going to lift something from another comedian friend of my Sam Rudykoff. Guns crimes are the only crime that people think they can solve with more of the problem. When kids get molested nobody says we should get more pedophiles. That's exactly the line of thinking you're subscribing too.And the statistic about 67% of crime being committed from a gun was from justfacts.com A website someone on your side tried to use against me early. 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.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Sorry Boars and Angry DeersIt's 0.5% of gun owners (which should have been obvious. Not everyone.Also it's pretty silly to say even those people would all be MURDERED lol. You're 4.5 times more likely to be shot. 4.2 times more likely to be killed by one. So not just foot injuries. http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html And yes NYC is safe. It would be very reasonable to think their strict gun laws help. Unfortunately you seem allergic to logic. So you won't put that together. If you want to discuss how to improve society as a whole I think we need a new thread. You say you're not for more guns, isn't keeping guns legal more guns. You can't possible think the entire supply of legal guns in America would be smuggled across borders?
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

And sport shooting and self-defense. And doomsday preparation. Not just hunting. I know it's .5% of gun owners; perhaps if more people owned guns, more murders and crimes could be prevented.And the statistic said, "at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." So actually it's not silly to think all those people would be murdered; murder was actually specifically what the statistic was addressing. Your 4.2 statistic does not include injuries, but it's not a survey of gun owners, either; just assault victims. In any case, it's still not entirely impressive, just a little more relevant; people who own cars are more likely to be in car accidents than people who don't own cars; people who own toasters are more likely to burn themselves making toast than people who don't own toasters; people who visit the beach frequently are more likely to drown at sea than people who never go to the beach; people who own firearms are more likely to be shot by firearms than people who don't interact with firearms. Interesting you seem to think NYC is safe... globally it's listed as #7 most victimized city. So maybe it's not so illogical I link personal safety to having means of self-defense. Also interesting to note, a lot of the cities with more crime victims are countries with very, very strict gun laws, like Britain. We don't need a new thread to discuss how to better society; you specifically said we could better society by handing over our wallets to criminals with guns. That is very relevant to this debate. A bit of a tangent, perhaps, but hardly worth starting a whole new debate over. Keeping things the way they are is keeping things the way they are. People crying for gun restrictions are proposing we have less guns. People who want armed guards posted by every school are asking for more guns. I think we should keep things how they are now; restricted, but still with access. Why would I think the entire supply of legal guns here is smuggled across boarders? What did I said to imply that? And what, you're just going to ignore the bit about robberies and 67%? Haha sneaky, sneaky you; luckily I caught it.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Boars and Angry Deer are sports shooting. Also self defense is in Ali's do to the 4.2 times statistic remember. Also you never said doomsday prepping because if you did I would have made fun of you for it. Yah thought someone might have been killed. Have you listened to yourself lol you think you're going to be killed at every turn. It's part of the gun ownership delusion. And why is it the gun gets credit for saving you but when it kills someone it doesn't. All those things are true. But you don't own a toaster and claim its for self defense. My entire point is guns don't make you safer. Call it whatever factor you want. It's the truth. So they're not effective for protection. See section 1. You're down to sports shooting and doomsday prepping as your argument. Seems silly doesn't it. And again you find a statistic that is obviously flawed to support your case. NYC is widely considered the safest city in the world. You go and find a total number instead of a per capita statistic. Yes there is probably less crime where you live, there is also 12 million less people. In Britian a guy might beat the piss out of you. But there gun deaths are in the low hundred. AGAIN proving gun laws work. And if you quote me on everything else and then try to quote me incorrectly. At least make it bold so your lie looks ok. I never said that would make a better society and you know that right. I said it would be more worth while looking to create a society where people didn't need to rob you. Instead of just shooting anyone who does. Keeping things the way they are is more guns then banning guns. Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime. You can't deny that's you entire thesis hereAnd the reason I said that is because you didn't acknowledge that banning guns would mean less gunsAnd I already cited where I got my stat from. They conflict each other. Do we both wanna pretend we know which source is correct. Because I'm certain neither of us know.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Ok. You don't read wellI think the world is very safe. And that's why 10,000 dead people is needless. And there is no 162,000. That's 0.5% of the total population. Which is not the case. It's 0.5% of gun owners. Much smaller number. Also whose to say because they felt there lives were threatened if they actually were. People like you think your life is threatened constantly. Pretty flimsy statistic. You can't say crime is prevalent in NYC if crime rates are low. That means crime is not prevalent. What is so hard to understand? And your point about Britian and crime would be valid if the ENTIRE UK had more than 640 murders. By gun fist knife hammer or otherwise. Sounds pretty safe to me. Anyone with an above gr 8 comprehension would realize that was not my solution. Your need to harp on this proves how little you have left to stand on. You can grow Marijuana. You let me know when you have a gun plant. Also I'm against prohibition. But there has never been any prof that MORE people drank because of it. You can't just keep making stuff up. I'll catch you. Banning guns means less guns. Keeping them therefore would be more. If your mom said no dinner! And you said "one plate!" That would be more than no dinner right? It's pretty simple.You're right. The 67% is murders. Doesn't that still make the point guns don't make us safer. Even 8% of crime in general is a shit ton. That's still over 400,000 (8% of 5.1 million) crimes committed with a gun.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

The insanity to think that all those people's lives were actually in jeopardy is hilarious. You're trading REAL lives for hypothetical crime. Again! Owning a gun makes you 4.5 times more likely to be shot. Therefore! Those 0.5% are still not safer. While that is a fact, there is no self defense argument. You Are Not Safer Statistically! Also, NYC is the safest city in the world by per capita crime. Yes there is more crime than Augusta Georgia, but the population is 100 times more. You can't refute this. Like I said about Britian. You might catch an ass whooping. Which btw has much more to do with the culture than gun laws. But point is, they don't have guns SO THEY DON'T DIE. Stats again prove it. You have no applicable data that doesn't rely on the opinion of gun owners. That 0.5% is not a fact. It's an opinion. There is no way to prove there life was in danger. LOL and the fact you think you've defeated anything is hilarious to me. You've yet to prove once that guns have helped in any tangible way. And I'm not but hurt. You tried to misrepresent what I said because you have no leg to stand in. Again on weed. You ignore the fact your point is baseless. It's a completely different scenario. If you could find a proper example you would. If you do the math, the amount of crime committed with a gun is much greater. 8% of 51 million crimes is 400,000. 0.5% of imaginary life saving is 162,000. The numbers are right there for you. And one of them is based in facts not opinions of already nervous weirdos.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Rob loves to argue, but he's not very good at it.Come back when you're willing to address all the points I make and not pick and choose certain ones you think you can refute. Ignoring the 1,000,000+ statistic, for example (because it is tangible and not reliant on the opinion of gun owners) so you can say my self-defense statistics are based on paranoid delusions. You have such an obvious bias against gun owners (thinking being a gun owner makes you a "nervous wierdo," for example) perhaps you ought to work to eliminate that before you can participate in a logical debate about gun facts.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

So that stat isn't based on opinion of gun owners? Explain how. Don't throw a fit and runaway.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

At least I responded to all of your points. Up until now. See how you like it, I guess.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

That's what happens when your argument is so poor it's impossible to distinguish what is actually a point
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Never mind. I went back and read all of this. You got slammed in this debate. You should runaway.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

You've never looked up those numbers, have you? Most likely got your info at some right wing info outfit.Here is the link for those of you who want to look at the numbers for yourselves:http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html Nearly 70% of murders committed in the U.S. are done so using firearms.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

The point is people kill people, a weapon is a tool. Why are there not mass deliberate blue-on- blue shootings in the military??
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

No he's right. 8% of total crime is committed with guns. The around 70%?is murders. For some reason that makes it better lol. And btw the 8% if of 51 million crime. So roughly 400,000 crimes involving guns. As opposed to a third that were supposedly stopped by them.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Clearly it Is NOT the gun. So you are telling me that the gun has a mind of its own? It decides to kill people? No. Its the person who wields the gun. How much more clearly can I state that?
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Yah but if they didn't have the gun. It would take a lot more to kill someone. Guns make it too easy. And what good do they do.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

I could easily kill someone with my finger, or my bare hands.His point was the intent to murder someone doesn't require a gun to carry out. With the chemicals in my house I could make a bomb that would easily blow up a classroom. With my car I can run someone down and grind them into a pulp. With my knife I can slice someone to pieces. If someones wants to murder someone else, they're going to murder them, gun or no, and I think that was his point. It''s better to regulate the psychos who might kill someone than every little thing they might think to kill someone with.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

First of all. You could not EASILY kill someone with your fingers, hands, feet or any limb. It's possible, but pretty fucking far from easy. And yes you could make a bomb out of chemicals (something that happens far less than shootings) but those chemicals serve others purposes. Guns only kill things. And chemical companies do everything they can to make them safer. It's not statistically true that without guns, people will kill anyways. It take FAR more pre meditation to kill someone without a gun. People make snap bad decisions with guns.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Not really. Choking someone to death or stomping their brains out onto the curb has got to be at least as hard as all the work it would take to raise hundreds or thousands of dollars to buy a gun. Bombings and chemical attacks are more frequent in countries that have banned or severely restricted firearms. At least compared to here. If you take away guns people will still find a way to kill one another. So I don't know, would you rather be shot, blown up, or gassed? You have to pick one, apparently. It might take a bit more premeditation to kill someone without a gun (unless you happen to have a car or a knife or some wire handy), but I don't know about FAR more. Really. People snap and make bad decisions with their hands and feet, with their knives, cars, etc.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

It's realatively easy to kill someone with a finger, you just need to know how. Well, two fingers actually, sharp jab to the mid-bottom of the throat.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

If you tried to kill me with two fingers I'd bludgeon you to the point they couldn't tell who the aggressor was.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Really? Then my answer to the debate question is, people should have a psychological profile to show that they are sane before they are allowed a gun.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Lol yeah. Without a gun it's harder (not impossible) to kill someone. This way though, the bad people will come into posession with guns that much easier
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Wait. If we ban guns it will be easier for criminals to get them?
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

no, yeah thats what I was trying to say =) sorry for the confusion! Haha
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

If more innocent death is desirable, then it is a brilliant idea.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

You're comparing to Mexico, where there is an active cartel war going on. Ridiculous. Try Canada on for size smart guy.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Not comparing anything to Mexico, many people in America get killed because they have no gun whereas the criminal does.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

That's not true though. Owning a gun makes you 88% more likely to be shot. How does that sound safer?Also the Mexico thing was for the guy below you. My bad.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

I am glad this discussion was brought up, I strongly disagree that the Government should have the right to ban the sale of guns to the civilians in America. The second Amendment gives us the right to "Bear Arms". That is a right that the government has no right to take away. Their argument is hardly valid, they want to stop the selling of firearms to people because they think it will decrease the crimes and school shootings along with other dangers that are caused by guns. But it isn't the 'Gun' that is doing the killing! It its the person who wields the gun! They should be the ones taken out of society, not the gun itself. Do they honestly think getting rid of guns will solve anything? Granted the fact that the one thing it will be successful in is enraging many Americans. And since when do Criminals follow the law anyways? There is a reason they are criminals! Banning the sale of guns is not going to stop them! If they want to kill they are not going to simply think to themselves "Oh you know what, guns are banned, therefore I really shouldn't kill all these people" NO. That's not how it works. If they are twisted enough to want to murder people in the first place, then they will find a way around the law. They could care less about what the government says. Americans have the right to own guns. In fact, the majority of us use them for the GOOD. They can actually PROTECT us from those who use them to induce harm. So that is my opinion. And I hope I made it clear, and maybe even brought light to some of you who perhaps didn't look at it this way.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

Here is the 2nd amendment in its entirety:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."States now have standing armies called the National Guard. That nullifies the 2nd amendment.
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and they look pretty safe.....right?
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

They don't have complete gun control like Mexico Canadians can still own certain types of guns
Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Uh, totally!

You are not allowed to carry a firearm in Canada. It has to be kept in a safe. It's as good as banned in Canada.