• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does owning a hand gun for protection make you more safe or less safe?

Does owning a hand gun for protection make you more safe or less safe?


  • Total voters
    81
Okay, you might find this interesting. This was a study by the CDC, commissioned by executive order, by Obama. Gee, I wonder why the findings weren't widely reported. Has anyone ever heard of this? All of the supporters of this study are Obama supporters. I am guessing the results weren't what they were hoping for. CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is

And the link you provided give excerpts from a book which can't be read online. For instance, using the link you gave, there is NO way to verify what they consider a "defensive use" of a firearm, nor how the data for that particular claim was compiled.

Not only that, if firearms were an effective crime deterrent, then America would NOT have the very worst homicide rate (the vast majority of it gun-related) out of all first-world nations.

You can make all the claims you want, but you cannot get around that last sentence. That's something you can't explain away.
 
Look up ^^^ :wink:

The study commissioned by Obama estimated that guns are used defensively 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year. I'd say that qualifies as "often". :wink: :wink:

Except for the fact that the link you provided referenced a book which cannot be read online...which means that NO, you haven't provided any solid proof. In an online debate, you can't just say, "it's in this book" that we can't read without spending our hard-earned money for it.

That, and America has the highest homicide rate out of ALL first-world nations. If guns were an effective deterrent, then America would NOT have the highest homicide rate. You can't get around that simple fact.
 
And the link you provided give excerpts from a book which can't be read online. For instance, using the link you gave, there is NO way to verify what they consider a "defensive use" of a firearm, nor how the data for that particular claim was compiled.

Not only that, if firearms were an effective crime deterrent, then America would NOT have the very worst homicide rate (the vast majority of it gun-related) out of all first-world nations.

You can make all the claims you want, but you cannot get around that last sentence. That's something you can't explain away.

that's really stupid

if gun bans made people safe, chicago and DC wouldn't have any homicides
 
Except for the fact that the link you provided referenced a book which cannot be read online...which means that NO, you haven't provided any solid proof. In an online debate, you can't just say, "it's in this book" that we can't read without spending our hard-earned money for it.

That, and America has the highest homicide rate out of ALL first-world nations. If guns were an effective deterrent, then America would NOT have the highest homicide rate. You can't get around that simple fact.


why do white americans-who per capita have the highest rate of gun ownership in America and in the first world, have lower rates of firearms crimes than whites living in gun restricted eurosocialists nations

and why do blacks living in Democrat controlled anti gun cities have so much higher rates of gun violence than whites living in gun friendly GOP run areas?
 
Except for the fact that the link you provided referenced a book which cannot be read online...which means that NO, you haven't provided any solid proof. In an online debate, you can't just say, "it's in this book" that we can't read without spending our hard-earned money for it.

That, and America has the highest homicide rate out of ALL first-world nations. If guns were an effective deterrent, then America would NOT have the highest homicide rate. You can't get around that simple fact.



Well, carry on being unarmed then. I don't care; it is your right to do so.


Me, I'll continue going armed anyway, thanks.
 
And city-wide bans are and always will be utterly ineffective since it's so incredibly easy to drive from one county to another. That's why the proper comparison is state-to-state.

I guess you cannot figure out that breaking the law is breaking the law

its what you gun banners always engage in

you push for stupid laws that we tell you won't work and which you know won't work

and when the don't work, you use that as an excuse to demand more gun laws and when the second round doesn't work you demand a third round

you are impervious to logic proving your moronic laws don't work to control crime because controlling crime was never your goal in the first place-its harassing conservatives and/or pandering to the slow witted voters who want SOMETHING TO BE DONE

ever notice EVERY fan of gun restrictions on DP are progressives or far lefties?

sorry Glen-the crap you peddle doesn't work
 
And the link you provided give excerpts from a book which can't be read online. For instance, using the link you gave, there is NO way to verify what they consider a "defensive use" of a firearm, nor how the data for that particular claim was compiled.

Not only that, if firearms were an effective crime deterrent, then America would NOT have the very worst homicide rate (the vast majority of it gun-related) out of all first-world nations.

You can make all the claims you want, but you cannot get around that last sentence. That's something you can't explain away.

Alright, I'll see if I can find any info at the CDC, you know, like you could've done. Are you afraid it will turn out badly for your side?

Do you have hard numbers to prove a direct correlation? If guns aren't a crime deterrent, why did the study commissioned by Barack Obama conclude otherwise? How do you get around that?
 
Last edited:
Alright, I'll see if I can find any info at the CDC, you know, like you could've done. Are you afraid it will turn out badly for your side?

why bother? if you think crime control or I should say, the failure of gun control to control crime means anything to gun banners, you are sadly mistaken. Its all about harassing people who aren't far left loonies
 
Except for the fact that the link you provided referenced a book which cannot be read online...which means that NO, you haven't provided any solid proof. In an online debate, you can't just say, "it's in this book" that we can't read without spending our hard-earned money for it.

That, and America has the highest homicide rate out of ALL first-world nations. If guns were an effective deterrent, then America would NOT have the highest homicide rate. You can't get around that simple fact.

It's not a book, it's an article about a study done by the CDC which was commissioned via EO by Barack Obama. What are you talking about?
 
And city-wide bans are and always will be utterly ineffective since it's so incredibly easy to drive from one county to another. That's why the proper comparison is state-to-state.

Hard drugs are nation-wide ban yet it's so incredibly easy to obtain. Hmm, care to explain why?
 
And city-wide bans are and always will be utterly ineffective since it's so incredibly easy to drive from one county to another. That's why the proper comparison is state-to-state.

Thank you for admitting that gun bans are utterly useless, I agree.
 
It depends. In many instances people who get killed during encounters end up getting killed with their own guns. I have seen that in many cases that I have handled. On the other hand, there have been times when people have been able to fend off an attacker. So...I don't really know the answer. Its probably a little of each and neither!
 
It depends. In many instances people who get killed during encounters end up getting killed with their own guns. I have seen that in many cases that I have handled. On the other hand, there have been times when people have been able to fend off an attacker. So...I don't really know the answer. Its probably a little of each and neither!



an earlier post

true enough

when a mope sees the gun you should already be ready to shoot him

Hunter Thompson noted people who pulled guns on Hells angels often got seriously hurt because they weren't ready to use the gun. on the other hand, those who were ready to use it-the bikers almost always backed down. mopes are good at telling that. I've been around enough of them to know that. its like that scene in Tombstone when Wyatt Earp said he was gonna make a canoe out of one of the cowboy's head. and another said he's just bluffing and the almost wasted victim said no-he's not bluffing. and they all backed down. I walked through Central park past people I knew were mopes. and they knew that I knew they were mopes. and I never got hassled. and when I told a former NYC cop about that he noted-hell you look like you could kill a few of them (he knew I was packing but I also was a pro squash player at the time-6-1 175 and the best shape of my life). he said those guys read people really well and its not worth picking a fight with a guy who will probably take one or two of them with him. and all sorts of studies prove that

so you are probably right and for the reasons I mentioned
 
Hmmm,... the "Less Safe" count jumped another 500 overnight again.

Boy that level of dishonesty in an internet poll on a relatively obscure internet forum is really teaching us a lesson. Proof positive firearms ownership is less safe if I have ever seen it.
 
Thank you for admitting that gun bans are utterly useless, I agree.
It's utterly useless mainly because guns have been possessed by civilians for a long period of time. If the gov cannot confiscate all guns in short order, hazards will ensue.
 
It depends. In many instances people who get killed during encounters end up getting killed with their own guns. I have seen that in many cases that I have handled. On the other hand, there have been times when people have been able to fend off an attacker. So...I don't really know the answer. Its probably a little of each and neither!
I don't know the answer, either. It is absolutely a sensible idea if the government can better regulate the guns and if possible, provide enough training for civilians. But hey, normal people can turn into lunatics without being noticed. And if they deliberately scheme a shooting spree, there is no way we can nip it in the bud. But with guns in our hand, we can minimize the harms[emoji44]
 
I don't know the answer, either. It is absolutely a sensible idea if the government can better regulate the guns and if possible, provide enough training for civilians. But hey, normal people can turn into lunatics without being noticed. And if they deliberately scheme a shooting spree, there is no way we can nip it in the bud. But with guns in our hand, we can minimize the harms[emoji44]

What is "sensible" about placing undue burdens on law abiding citizens? Shouldn't we be focusing on the criminals?
 
What is "sensible" about placing undue burdens on law abiding citizens? Shouldn't we be focusing on the criminals?
Criminals don't come out of nowhere. Ordinary people can be instant law-breakers under some circumstances.
 
Criminals don't come out of nowhere. Ordinary people can be instant law-breakers under some circumstances.

That's your excuse for punishing law abiding citizens? They might become criminals?

Well sorry, you aren't going to strip us of our God given right of self preservation. Don't like it? Tough ****.
 
Criminals don't come out of nowhere. Ordinary people can be instant law-breakers under some circumstances.

That "criminal potential" does not change one bit based on passing a BG check or paying a registration fee. It is also believed that law-breakers can become ordinary people which is why we often let them loose.
 
There are other ways to be safe, like getting good door locks. Double checking that your door and windows are locked before going to sleep or leaving home. Then there is dealing with your own hypersensitivity and imagination: how much in danger are you actually? How much is merely in your mind? Keeping a baseball bat around. Being generally a scary person can make some people leave you alone.
 
Back
Top Bottom