The debate "Donald Trump says Paris attacks would have been less deadly if people have guns Do you agree" was started by
November 14, 2015, 7:50 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Alex posted 13 arguments, vipul posted 1 argument, AstroSpace posted 3 arguments, liberalssuck posted 2 arguments, bigB posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
lance4u19 posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 6 arguments, Apollo8 posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, TheFalseEnigma posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
vercetti406, mtemple74, loupsolitaire, liberalssuck, bigB, benhawthorne, Tiredandred, DannyknowsItAll, RightWing and 9 visitors agree.
lance4u19, Sosocratese, toffeebrush, wmd, vipul, Apollo8, MarlemR, Nury, AnnaRrei, TheFalseEnigma, Tristanzee, obaidnb, omactivate, agent, Band_Nerd_24, Lane and 18 visitors disagree.
Realistically speaking, even an armed person would know better than to engage in gun race. For those who do want to be the hero, it would be better if they were even trained. Doing so, you mean to make your civilian power rise to the point equal to police power. An unintended effect would be that now, going beyond the Paris dilemma, it can surge out to a number of more harmful events such as:
(1) people can fight the police. For me it's not good because the police now wont have the power to subdue those who should be. Additionally, civilains with guns could just complicate the work.
(2) people can trade guns under the table. Likewise, since you would naturally expect everyone, if not most, to be armed, then you wouldn't ask them while in the streetcorners of the town if their guns were legal or not, right? Even if you say the government can just monitor them, you have to realize that people can just lie about them, making it harder to monitor, just as how drugs are hard to monitor
(3) Following that line of logic, it would be a norm to see people with guns, right? Because in your model you expect anyone to be armed since theyre supposedly trained right? The main problem with that is now you have a lot of people exposed to danger. You have a people that is openly walking with possible murderers and terrorists. It's not 24/7 that the government can or will inspect gun license, right?
Furthering that thought, (4) that entire policy you are talking about will promote even more violence. People who normally would fight with bare hand now have the propensity to use guns against their foe. And the police can't do anything since these people are armed, they can be a danger to the surrounding innocents, complicating their work even more.
And finally, (5) you now tell your people that they should always look out for themself. You show them that your government can't keep up with the current demand that you pass the responsibility of protecting the civilian down to them. You all the more have a weaker government with distrusting civilians.
It's not just how the free flow of guns can eventually help the people but also if it is even right to give too much power to the civilian part of your country. Guns can be used for protection. Yes I do believe that. But as it opens a door, it also open new doors to more problems because you now arm a civilian force with enough power for it to use its own means to speak their thought, even if it's uncalled for.
we are talking about if guns would have lessoned the deaths.
I'm changing to neutral because if you gave stupid people guns more people would die.
if you have a good gun plan,like mine, the attacks would have been way less
Alex, your gun plan is irrelevant since the discussion is on whether or not trump is correct. He didn't provide a gun plan. He simply wants to give more guns to more people...
also under my gun laws citizens would be trained enough to tell a gunshot from a firecracker. also under my gun plan guns will not be handed out to random people who ate stupid.
let me know when terrists switch to handguns.
To further dismiss the "good guys with a gun" claim, I offer you this
the report shows annual number of incidents averaging 7.5 between 2000 and 2006, and jumping to an annual average of 16.3 between 2007 and 2013. The increase in casualties each year is even more dramatic, with the totals (not including the shooters) going from 247 between 2000 and 2006 up to just under 800 over the following seven years. It should be noted, incidentally, that the FBI defines an "active shooting" as an incident during which "both law enforcement personnel and citizens [my italics] have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses."
More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun.
More than two-thirds of all the active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013 took place in locations which were NOT readily understood to be gun-free zones.
I suppose Ole' Donald hails from the side that says "The one person that can defeat a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".
Though I can see the security in that way of thinking, I don't necessarily believe in it. Between the mass of people, the surprise nature of the attacks, and the mass panic that ensued, I can't see anyone finding their bearings in the midst of that chaos. Well, not at first anyways. Specially trained individuals could be the exception, but the key word is "Specially Trained". The average civilian typically isn't mentally prepared for that kind of carnage. Hell, the average civilian doesn't know the difference between a gunshot and firecrackers.
In my personal opinion though, adding too many guns to an equation makes it all the deadlier.
In order for your argument about AK 47's to be mute, all the terrorists would have to do is switch to handguns.
The other argument about Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.. is an argument of emotional appeal with little to no basis in reality. It implies a intent by the government to oppress. It is a pretty big claim which requires hard evidence. You haven't provided any and thus it can be dismissed without providing any. However, if you look at countries which have implemented gun control in the recent past, I can't see a single one which used these gun control measures to oppress their citizens.
The same applies to your argument. If terrorists simply switched to handguns, your argument is mute.
All the experts in the field disagree with you and actually caution against doing exactly what you're describing. Please tell me what expertise you have in the field, or provide me with sources from expert in the field that support your claim. Otherwise you are making an argument by assertion which I can simply dismiss by asserting you are wrong. If you don't provide evidence for your claim, I don't have to provide any in order to dismiss it.
A study from October 2013 analyzed data from 27 developed nations to examine the impact of firearm prevalence on the mortality rate. It found an extremely strong direct relationship between the number of firearms and firearm deaths. The paper concludes: “The current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.”
Study using data from 1981–2010 and the best firearm ownership proxy to date, the study found that for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate and a 0.7 percent increase in the total homicide rate. This was after controlling for factors such as poverty, unemployment, income inequality, alcohol consumption, and nonhomicide violent crime. Further, the firearm ownership rate had no statistically significant impact on nonfirearm homicides, meaning there was no detectable substitution effect. That is, in the absence of guns, would-be criminals are not switching to knives or some other weapons to carry out homicide.
Do you guys have anything but assertions? Are there any studies that support your claims?
Dave, I haven't been at all racist or sexist, that just seems to be your cop-out when losing a debate. Unless you are mentally retarded, there's no way you couldn't tell an AK-47 from your typical handgun. You might be aware that the guns used in the terrorist attacks are rifles, you know, long range, big guns, don't you? Those look PRETTY different from handguns if you ask me. I have experience with shooting handguns and rifles, and trust me, just about everything about them is different.
umm guns save people. Generally when gun shots are heard, you pull your side arm and run to the face of danger. Could be the "right" thing to do. If more people were armed then those crazy f***ers would have killed a few instead of more than hundred. But then again it could make too much since, because those guns could grow legs and start randomly shooting people
I thought in a terrist attack the terrist shoots first? that not the case?
the ak47 will be shot first, the average person will think "that was not a handgun, shoot the guy with the big illegal gun shooting at us"
So if a crowd of hundreds heard gunshots you expect the average person to recognize the gun by the sound and for there to be no mistakes when they see people all around them draw weapons? Unless the ak47 is the only weapon fired, that difference is meaningless anyways.
an ak-47 would not be a gun permitted under my gun laws. people see a guy shooting people with an ak-47 then he is bad. an ak-47 also sounds much different then a typical hanndgun. most people should be able to hear the difference.
I don't care if you are alright with being racist or sexist. If you make a racist argument I am going to call you on it regardless of whether or not you care.
You again say that the crowd could tell the terrorists apart from the good guys, but seem to have no real way of explaining how. Now we know what guns the terrorists used, the crowd would not. Now we have information that would not be available to people instantly after the first shot was fired. If a Muslim man pulled a gun to protect himself and his family during a shooting, what do you suppose the odds are that you or someone like you would shoot him dead claiming he was one of the terrorists? Until you can give a better answer that "they just would" to how people could tell good guys from bad before the news reports any of the details you don't really have a valid argument.
Chicago does have a lot of gun violence, and it has gun control. That would stop people who can't go for a short drive out of the city from buying a gun but not much else. Chicago is a city with gun control in a nation without, and the other issues they have that doesn't really help.
Lastly, fear mongering isn't a very effective debate strategy. There are lots of nations with much stricter gun control that haven't had leaders go mad with power, so your argument is flawed at best and intentionally intellectually dishonest at worst. Saddam Hussain had very lax gun laws and was a terrible dictator. Just like with your examples it had nothing to do with his gun control. The only way your guns would stop a tyrannical government is if you were able to fight the police and military. Anything less and you are just as vulnerable as you would be without them.
I am aware that the US is bigger than Paris. Which nation should I compare it to? The US tops the list at 133 mass shootings and Germany comes second at 6, followed by a tie between Russia and China with 4 each.
If you are curious about how many have happened this year, http://www.shootingtracker.com/ has an ongoing list, which is at 325 so far this year. They do use a different criteria of at least 4 people shot rather than the more old fashioned method of at least 4 people killed though, which inflates the number.
Finally, you are saying that you can recognize a terrorist just by looking at them and that they don't blend in with the civilians. That is not true. They do look exactly like anyone else. While in this case they were carrying rifles, how would the people in the crowd have any way of knowing that? All they would know is that there were shots fired. So tell me, how do you tell a terrorist apart from an innocent person at a glance?
I agree are u conservative
Okay Dave, let's get this straight. First of all, I couldn't give a flying rats a** if you call me racist or sexist or whatever. I'm not worried about being politically correct. At all. Secondly, your argument that you can't tell a terrorist from other citizens has several flaws. I will agree, it is not easy to distinguish a terrorist from anyone, but in a mass shooting? I'm pretty sure it will be apparent who the shooters are. The shooters used AK-47 rifles, which are totally illegal in Paris by the ay, lol. Though it is legal, civilians don't typically carry rifles like that in USA. Lastly. Have you ever considered that Chicago has the strictest gun laws, yet it holds #1 for most homicide rates? Or why don't you consider this: Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin all used gun control to disarm their countries then annihilate them. But no, that must be just a coincidence.
Dave my gun control plan there will be a balance between free for all guns and no guns.
I know balance is hard for you liberals to understand.
I'm my gun plan it says that only a few types of guns will be sold. these guns will not be the type that is good for a mass shooting so a terrists would not have them.
FYE America is a lot bigger then Paris
saying the bigger country has more of something proves nothing.
how are terrists and criminals a race?
A lack of gun control has killed more Americans than terrorists have in Paris. Keep that in mind while you make trite comments.
So what you are saying is that you can tell a criminal or terrorist just by looking at them? And you don't see how that could come across as racist?
Yes, they were wearing explosive belts that could be concealed and carrying rifles. After the first shot, once all of the armed civilians draw their weapons, how many of them would know that? How many would draw their weapon and see people with guns and know who was a good guy and who was a bad guy?
The US has lax gun laws and more mass shootings than any other developed nation. Between 2000 and 2014 there were 133 mass shootings in the US. Until that changes, the world shot not adopt US gun control under any circumstances.
Haha, gun control worked out great for Paris, didn't it Dave?
You're completely forgetting the fact that even if the civilians did have some friendly fire, it would have still been much less than 160 deaths. ?? Great job on thinking that one through guys. You know how long police take? They took hours in Paris. Plus, in pretty damn sure people can tell a terroist with a rifle from a civilian with a handgun...
scroll down and look at my gun plan. training and background checks are required.
also do terrists look like civilians? I thought these terrists were wearing suicide bomb belts.
except the armed civilians don't know who the terrorists are and who the other civilians are. all the terrorists have to do is fire a few shots and the armed civilians will kill each other. plus these attacks will happen alot more often because any wacko will be able to get a gun and shoot people.
100 people better be able to kill 2 terrists pretty quickly. 100 shots and not one of them hits the 2 terrists?
AstroSpace, if you want to claim that having more guns keeps you safe from mass shootings, first you need to justify why the US has more mass shootings than any other developed nation. If guns haven't stopped shooting sprees in the US, how could you possibly claim they would have stopped one elsewhere?
Beyond that point, gun advocates like to use the "good guy with a gun" argument for stopping crime and violence. Let's say guns were plentiful in France and 100 people at the concert were carrying. When the first shot went off, all of these people would have drawn their weapons to be the good guy who stops it. Now you have a small group of armed terrorists who cam work together, and a large number of civilians who are just as likely to shoot at each other when they see am armed person as they are to shoot a terrorist. When the police arrive they have to try to figure out who is armed with the intention of killing people and who is armed trying to be a hero. How does this scenario work out better in any way?
People who disagree are in pure denial lmfao. It's right in front of your eyes, you're just afraid of admitting the truth.
a terrorist would say whatever it takes to complete their mission. if they have to break their religious laws then they absolutely will in order to do so. so saying they won't claim to be a civilian is just rediculous.
also I'm not saying everyone should have a gun, I'm saying that people need the right.
my gun control plan to prevent shootings and make a safer world.
1. right to bear arms
2. big background checks on buyers of guns.
3. restricted type of guns you buy.
4. training in how to use a gun, and store it.
I heard that these terrists were wearing suicide belts. if this is true then the guy with the suicide belt is the terrist.
terrists would almost never say "I'm the defender" it would be like a good catholic saying "im not catholic"
If everyone were just given a gun, then it surely would be a dog-eat-dog world. No matter how noble the cause is, if its unintended effects (I will explain later) is heavier, then it should all the more be opposed.
When people are given guns, they will become violent as a result of police power weakening. Untrained civilian can work against a trained Police force. Police power would lose its meaning since now people can just oppose them. Eminent domain would be useless because people can just reject them. Laws itself would be easier to dismiss since people can now collaborate against it. Giving the people too much power would result to them exerting their own opinions to the government. People will be left to their own state of nature. There would be no need for a social contract. The government has no other choice than to react with violence, branding its own people as insurgents. And a government killing its own people would be counter-intuitive. The government itself would lose value and meaning.
Even if the people can control themselves, the black market will rise. Guns will be harder to monitor. Terrorist can enter the country more freely. People will be left with weaker armaments than their terrorist counterpart. Life will become short, violent, and brutish. The government now has more problems, internal as insurgents, and external as terrorists. It would crumble at its inability to control both forces.
Anarchy will rampage over those who cannot protect themselves. In what way is that good?
let me know if I'm misrepresenting you're point here because what you said is somewhat unbelievable to me. If I'm understanding you correctly you are saying that terrorists will always announce themselves, will always stand out, and will never resort to hiding among civilians in order to carry out attacks and disappear again. By extension, you are saying that arming ordinary citizens without training would also not result in a change of tactic by terrorists because you are claiming that arming them is a viable tactic overall.....Aren't you being just a little over simplistic in your analysis?
Why would more guns go into the hands of trained people? Trump mentioned nothing of training the people of France in urban combat tactics or even basic firearms training. He is advocating for people to be armed like they are in the US; there is no mention of training in combat tactics, etc...
hey folks, if people of France to be given guns, it would mean easiness of granting gun license, that would mean more guns to trained people and thus would prevent that much life loss.
the guy who shoots first is the bad guy.
most likely the actions of the terrists and good guys will be different
for example the guy saying "die" is the bad guy and the guy saying "I'm the good guy is the good guy" territsts would never say they are the good guy in this situation, because they are terrists.
Alex, how would you prevent it form becoming a blind shootout? You have to remember that these are likely untrained civilians. It's also a fact that multiple shooters were involved so now you add more guns into the mix, more confusion and less certainty of who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. Tell me how that makes the situation any safer for anyone?
No I'm not for wild shooting, bit if there is a room of 50 people and a shooter. the shooters ate going to shoot everyone. one of those 50 pulls a gun and shoots the criminal. problem solved.
So, if everyone had guns; pulled out their guns the second they heard gunshots and fired in the direction of the gunshots. Now, none of this would be coordinated so no one would really know who was a good guy with a gun and who was a bad guy with a gun. So how exactly would guns have made this tragedy less deadly?
you think guns do not cause safty? yep that us why police have guns to not keep us safe. people git shot and died. if the people had gins they shoot the 2-3 criminals. people still die but not as much.
if everyone would be having guns, then this place would be an another Afganistan.
I never say agree or disagree, love
I think it is great topic to discuss with.
in my opinion I don't think it is a good idea because gun is just an object, but when it falls into terrorist's hand , it can cause a mass destruction.
So what your saying is that guns would have made it safer? Guns cause safety. Yep Amazing Logic