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

Okay, sport shooting and hunting and target practice and self defense and doomsday prep. Which is not an invalid reason; governments and countries turn to shit all the time, and it's completely realistic to think that there could come a time when the gov/police are unable or unwilling to protect you or are in fact your biggest threat. This happens globally and throughout history with the rise and fall of nations. If some shit like that happens here, chaos and anarchy and riots in the street, it's perfectly reasonable to want some firepower.Have you listened to yourself? You think someone is going to be killed at every turn. It's part of the gun ban delusion. I brought up the statistic because you said 10,000 deaths are not an acceptable trade off for all of the things owning guns entails. That includes self-defense. But 162,000 lives are saved every year with firearms. So is 10,000 people dead a good trade off for 162,000 people alive, or would you rather save the 10,000 and let the 162,000 die? The gun doesn't get credit for killing someone because you need intent to kill someone and a gun isn't the only way to do it; as a weapon and a visual tool of intimidation a gun can allow someone who otherwise wouldn't have been able to defend themselves to walk out alive. You can still kill someone without a gun; your intent is more important than your weapon. You cannot always save yourself from someone with a weapon without an equal or better weapon; your weapon is more important than your intent. And (I'm going to use the high estimate this time) would you say 972,000 incidents per year that someone saves a live or prevents a murder with a gun means guns are "not effective for protection?" Because if almost a million lives saved every year isn't support for keeping guns legal, 10,000 (or whatever % of crime) deaths makes absolutely no case for having them banned. A total number statistic wouldn't tell me what I need to know. A per capita statistic analyzes each person and their experiences, and my source found that NYC had more victimized people. The gun crime rates are low, yes, but crime itself is still prevalent. Again going back to my assertion that banning guns isn't the same thing as stopping crime. 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.My point in bringing up Britain was to show that, even without guns, crime still happens. Banning guns might reduce the number of people killed by guns, but not killed in general. Kind of like if you banned cars auto-related deaths would drop but bicycle related deaths would go up. London is a city with next to no guns and a fuckton of people victimized by criminals. Perhaps if people in London has the ability to adequately defend themselves; perhaps If a burglar knew breaking into someones flat could very well mean staring down the barrel of a 12gague; perhaps if a mugger knew you could act like you were reaching for your wallet but actually pull out a .22 and shoot his ass; perhaps London would have less crime with more guns. 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.Here's what I said the just of your argument was (notice I didn't originally use quotes; I wasn't quoting you, I was summarizing your point): "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"Here's the direct quote: "...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 Max."With the exception of "$40" and "wallet" I don't see a lot of difference between your quote and my summary of it. Do you?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 hereHow the fuck does that make any sense? If your mom asks if you want second helpings at dinner and you say "no thanks, I'm okay with what I have on my plate already," are you actually asking for "more food?" No. I think things should stay the same; we shouldn't be posting armed guards with guns outside schools (more guns) and we shouldn't be banning guns (less guns) we should keep things the same (the same amount of relative gun ownership we currently have). And the reason I said that is because you didn't acknowledge that banning guns would mean less gunsThat's because banning something isn't the same as making it not exist. Marijuana is illegal, yet it is just as popular and prevalent as alcohol and tobacco, which are legal. Did banning marijuana make marijuana not exist? And, arguably, banning something increases use, and certainly makes illegal use less safe. Look at prohibition. You had people going out to illegal clubs to illegally drink illegal booze, people who arguably wouldn't be going out and getting shitfaced if it wasn't illegal, and people who are more likely to get hurt by the illegal alcohol culture that the ban on alcohol created. And 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.The only statistic I found I justfacts that had 67% in it was: "Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]"Could you post the exact quote that supports your "67% of crime is committed with a gun" statistic? The thing is, my 8% statistic comes from the same website. So unless "nonviolent crime with a gun" accounts for 59% of crimes committed with a gun (so not simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders), you misquoted your stat.