Login/Sign Up




Should guns be considered a weapon of mass destruction?
Weapons

supremebeing
Dec 05, 2007
23 votes
15 debaters
29
17
12
4
4
2
2
2
2


+ Add Argument

7
yes


supremebeing
Dec 05, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
I believe so. How many innocent people die every year from guns? How many people die everyday from guns worldwide? I suggest mandatory 25 year prison sentences for anyone in possession of a firearm. Life sentence for those caught using a gun during a crime.

 
sandraboltryk
Dec 05, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
guns are weapons anyway you slice it. Weapons are used for destruction. They kill, they injure and usually are in te wrong hands. They do the same job as the harsher weapons and they most certainly need to be regulated with high caution.

 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Where does it say the Weapons of Mass Destruction are limited not by how many people they kill, but how QUICKLY the WMD does its job. I was under the impression that something becomes a WMD because it causes a massive loss of human life, and that is what I am basing my argument on.

Here we are, spending TRILLIONS of dollars, editing our constitution, and torturing people in order to prevent a WMD from killing a massive amount of people…when the biggest killers of US citizens is other US citizens using firearms…Even if we lost a million people to a terrorist attack, it still would not out shadow the death caused by firearms… ironically the only country to ever repeatedly use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population was the United States.

No, you bear logic is flawed…

“It’s like saying that if
(WMD's) are (weapons), then all (guns)
are (WMD's).”

Any object can be a WMD if enough people are killed by it…ex (box cutters, airplanes, etc.)

If you take away our nuclear attack on the civilian population of Japan, you can add up all the WMD deaths ON THE PLANET, and the United States firearms deaths from only ONE year overshadow the deaths from WMD’s.

Your logic is based on IMAGINATION of a worse case scenario; my logic is based on facts:

More people die every year from handguns than any other weapon (of course I am not taking into consideration the hundreds of thousand of Iraqi’s killed by the US Military/Mercenaries).

And since firearms have been the most destructive weapon to human life, collectively they should be considered a weapon of mass destruction. And that’s why collectively they should be eliminated.


 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

By labeling guns a WMD maybe then we could bring awareness to the real threats that face Americans, not phony/imaginary ones that we are bombarded with on the cable news channels/Government officials. The United States is in the business of starting world wars to prevent something that hasn’t killed anyone yet, while hundreds of citizens are being killed every week...

The US government created the phrase WMD to scare and manipulate the American public. Maybe by labeling guns “WMD’s” we could bring awareness to a weapon that is far more dangerous than make-believe nuclear weapons programs or imaginary “dirty bombs”

So using that “single strike” phase, a terrorist group can kill a massive amount of people overtime…say 1 month, and that weapon would not be considered a WMD??????


 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
I think the government created definition is wrong, and does not account for massive destruction over a longer period of time. Anything that has the ability to take such a massive amount of life should be characterized as a WMD.

 
patriot
Dec 06, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

My argument is that the defintion of WMD is flawed, it should include firearms.

SO if a terrorist group set off thousands of small nuclear devices or any device that only took out one or two people each, it would not be considered a WMD?

 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Are you saying it is worth a hundred thousand lives a year so some schmuck can shoot a gun in an Olympic event and pretend he/she is participating in some sort of sport?

Yes, all the innocent people that die every year are dying so some rednecks can shoot animals and paper targets…what a worthy cause…


 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Brett Stubbs Show

Once swords start killing a hundred thousand people a year, then we can talk about swords…ANY object that kills 100,000 people a year is a WMD!

 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriot Show

Well said patriot!

 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Of course a single gun has never killed 1,000 people in a month...but it could....more likely than a "dirty bomb".

 
patriot
Dec 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

I think the argument/debate is whether the definition should be changed. There are a lot of posts-let me get back to you on this.

 
patriot
Dec 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

You call it muddle, I call it debate.

 
supremebeing
Dec 10, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

I think you make a good point about automobiles being a weapon of mass destruction, especially when you take in to account the amount of pollution automobiles has released and will release into the future.

As soon as rocks or rock music or even lyres for that matter begin killing such a massive amount of people, then we should label whatever object it is that kills so many people a WMD.


 
supremebeing
Dec 10, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

My statement still stands: I believe that guns should fall under the definition of WMD because of the massive amount of people they kill.

 
+ Add Argument

16
No.


supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
5 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Brett Stubbs Show

I find it hard to believe that a teenage kid, or anyone, would be able to kill nine people at a shopping mall with a stone. And that’s exactly my argument. Guns allow people to commit mass murder, thus making them a WMD.

 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

If anything has been taken lightly, it’s the 100,000 dead each year from firearms.

9/11 was a one time attack that killed only 2974 people. And the weapon of mass destruction used was box cutters and airplanes. Both items still prevalent in our society.

Every month nearly 9000 people die from firearms…you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize which is a bigger threat to society. Or which is truly a weapon of mass destruction.


 
unlabled00
Dec 05, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandraboltryk Show

There is a reason that the term Weapons of Mass Destruction was CREATED in the first place. Weapons that dealt more damage than anything before imagined gained the term.

To say that every weapon is a WMD robs the term of its status as something not to be taken lightly.

 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Well almost 100,000 thousand people die every year from firearms, so in only 10 years we are at 1 million people dead. In your lifetime (saying you live 80 years) we are now at 80 million dead. Given 2 lifetimes…etc….etc…

So just because they don’t kill millions in a day it is an acceptable loss?????? So if terrorists devise a way to kill 100,000 thousand Americans a year, because it isn’t “a million” their weapon would not be considered a weapon of mass destruction????


 
supremebeing
Dec 06, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryalan Show

So the only thing stopping guns from being a WMD is because it doesn’t kill enough people fast enough. So if terrorists used a weapon that killed millions of people, but over a longer period of time…say 3 weeks, this weapon would not be considered a WMD?????

 
unlabled00
Dec 05, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
When one gun, fired once, can kill over 1,000 people... yes it should be considered a WMD. Until then the shot-kill ratio is much lower than that of a nuke or bio-chemical strikes.

 
monyberg
Dec 05, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Weapons of mass destruction provide no asset to society. You cannot compare something that does nothing more than kill and destroy with a gun. While guns can and have been used to kill an destroy they have served many positive purposes to society that weapons of mass destruction never will. You cannot lump them together.

 
Brett Stubbs
Dec 06, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Well, with a sword it's pretty easy, and that includes every age past the stone age. The Khan's used to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a few days. They were just spectacular when it came to killing a lot of people. And they didn't have any WMD's. I guess a sword can be qualified as a WMD based on your definition.

 
unlabled00
Dec 06, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

It would, however thats with one strike. Not millions of bullets.

Face it, the argument is a little naive. Its like saying that if bears (WMD's) are mammals (weapons), then all chipmunks (guns) are bears (WMD's). See the flawed logic?

 
unlabled00
Dec 06, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

"Any object can be a WMD if enough people are killed by it�ex (box cutters, airplanes, etc.) "

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

You're saying that because guns kill millions of people it should be considered a WMD. It is not. Kills millions? Yes. In one strike? No.

Like I said, WMD's are single-strike, mass damage weapons. A bullets kill radius does not exceed the range of the gun... nuclear weapons and biochemical weapons hit a much wider area than any single gun shot ever could.

Your 'logic' for why guns should be considered WMD's has and as I can see always will be flawed. Allow me to help:

WMD's as defined by army-technology.com: Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material. Weapons of Mass Destruction are also known by the abbreviation WMD.

Like I said, guns are one shot, one kill. WMD's are one shot, 5,000+ kill.

"If you take away our nuclear attack on the civilian population of Japan, you can add up all the WMD deaths ON THE PLANET, and the United States firearms deaths from only ONE year overshadow the deaths from WMD�s. "

No duh, do you think we use WMD's lightly? The reason the death toll is vastly lower is because IF IT COMES TO WMD WARFARE the death toll will be 6.5 billion people.

Lets break it down FURTHER for you! Count the number of WMD strikes in history, count the number of casualties. Divide casualties by WMD strikes and you have your average kill per strike ratio, mmkay? Now take the number of guns used in war/crime, divide that by the number of casualties. Divide casualties by guns and you have your average kill per gun ratio. Now which has a higher ratio? Which kills more in one strike?

 
unlabled00
Dec 06, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

I think your new definition is wrong, and does not take into account the weight the term WMD carries and would rather have it tossed onto all weaponry.

Also, just tell me TELL ME when a single gun managed to kill 1,000 people a month. Single meaning the same gun.

I anxiously await your reply.

 
unlabled00
Dec 07, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriot Show

If you change the definition of WMD's to include firearms then there is no reason for the term WMD to exist.

They're called WEAPONS, not of mass destruction, just weapons.

Please tell me what 'small nuclear devices' that 'took out one or two people each' exist. Last time I checked, carpet-nuking didn't exist.

Moving on, even if terrorists DID somehow manage to get their hands on weapons grade plutonium/uranium there would be no reason for them not to put it all into one warhead. The 'attack' you are envisioning is ignorant towards how weaponry, and particularly nuclear weaponry, works.

 
unlabled00
Dec 07, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Ok heres an experiment for you:

Have one guy go around with an AK-47, have another with a button that will launch a single nuclear weapon.

Who will kill 1000 people the fastest? By how much time? How much extra damage is caused by the fallout?

 
juggernaut
Dec 05, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Even though misuse of guns result in many deaths, that does not make them weapons of mass destruction.

The word destruction refers to non living objects while the word killings refer to living beings. So, if you were to say weapon of mass killing, you would be right. But weapon of mass destruction, no. Guns do not have the capability to completely destroy an item such as a weapon of mass destruction would.

Also, there is a problem with your method of banning guns.

1) People can purchase guns illicitly via the black market
2) I should never have to go to jail for defending my family.

 
xanthippa
Dec 05, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
To call guns 'weapons of mass destruction' completely demeans the term!

'Weapons of mass destruction' is a label we have chosen to represent things that can kill thousands or millions of people, without the person who 'pulled the trigger' ever seeing the face of a single one of them - and thus not having to see them as human.

Now, if you were to argue that, philosophically speaking, deities and supreme beings were 'sources of mass destruction', you would get my vote!

 
xanthippa
Dec 05, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sandraboltryk Show

MASS destruction is WAAAAAY worse than plain destruction.

I understand the 'guns very, very bad' sentiment, but you cannot expect people to take you seriously if you cannot differentiate between scales of destructive.....it's like saying the flu is the same as acute encephalitis: more people die per year from the flu, but the acute encephalitis is more worthy of the emergency room trip than a straight forward influenza virus. Both can be deadly, but you don't treat them as equivalent.

If you can't differentiate between levels of danger, you'll end up like that movie chicken, running around screaming that the sky is falling.....

 
xanthippa
Dec 05, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

ANYONE in posession of a firearm?????

What about Olympic athletes? Would you ban the international sports of pistol shooting and winter biathalon (as if there were any other biathalon of interest) - or would you simply throw the athletes and their coaches into jail?

Do you know just how much our Olympians, like Linda Thom, have done for our communities? Would you really throw her in jail for 25 years - just because she's an athlete who uses a firearm?

Sounds to me like there are much more dangerous things than guns: half baked ideas, wrapped up in righteous indignations!



 
ryalan
Dec 05, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
No guns in general should not be considered a weapon of mass destruction. A weapon of mass destruction must be able to kill a large amount of people at one time. I would think of it as a weapon you can not hide from or escape such as a large bomb. Guns do not have that ability.

 
Brett Stubbs
Dec 05, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Oh gosh. If it wasn't a gun, it would be something else. People just like to kill people, it's something people have done for a very long time. Different ages of pre-historic time are classified by the best available materials used to make tools and weapons of war. The stone age, the bronze age, the iron age. we've just evolved to the 45 mm age. I prefer getting shot rather than beaten of the head repeatedly by a stone object.

 
xanthippa
Dec 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Nobody has suggested that people who die from gunshots are 'accetable losses'. To imply that is manipulative.

Perhaps your difficulty comes from misunderstanding what the term 'weapons of mass destruction' means: weapons that can produce devastating results when delivered in a single strike. They include nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. (definition taken from American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - but most dictionaries define it similarly)

The key phrase here is 'IN A SINGLE STRIKE'.

Guns, thought they make killing easier, do it one bullet at a time.

Another impression I got from reading your posts on this topic is that you (and you are not alone) don't seem to think that gunshot victims can get the recognigion they ought to UNLESS their plight is given a dramatic name. If my preception is erroneous, I apologize, but I would like to address this sentiment - it exists.

It is a dis-service to gunshot victims to try to dramatize their unfortunate deaths by trying to re-classify the cause of their death as somehow being more dramatic. By picking an inappropriate label, such as 'WMD', sure, drama and emotions go way up - but that does not make it right!

To the contrary: it masks the problem and makes it that much more difficult to bring people into an objective, unemotional discussion where this may be addressed and, perhaps, come up with solutions to mitigate this problem.

Hysterics and famming emotions (like slapping bombastic labels to actions) are NOT conductive to reasonable actions....

 
xanthippa
Dec 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Actually, I was a 'rocket scientist'.

And no, they are NOT the same. Just because you have two valid threats does not mean that they are the same, or that they should be treated equally.

Each threat has to be assessed on its specific characteristics and dealt with accordingly - otherwise you will muddle-up the issues and not protect yourself from either one!

 
xanthippa
Dec 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Invest in a dictionary: WMD's ARE SPECIFICALLY DEFINED BY HOW FAST THEY KILL - SINGLE STRIKE!

Muddling the meaning of words through ignorance is not going to help prevent loss of life - from guns OR WMD's. Now, THAT should not take a rocket scientist to figure out (to use YOUR phrase).

 
xanthippa
Dec 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

By definition, it would depend on 'how many triggers occurred'.

For example, some biological or chemical or radiological weapons kill some victims relatively quickly, others over a period of time - or are a contributing factor in other deaths. So, the requirement is NOT how quickly it kills....BY DEFINITION, however, if there had been one incident - one trigger event - that percipitated this chain of events, THEN AND ONLY THEN is it a WMD.

Do you actually read the rebuttals to your arguments?

 
juggernaut
Dec 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Brett Stubbs Show

I second supremebeings statement. Even though people will use whatever they can to kill someone else, a gun was a tool MADE for killing. Which is more common. Dying by a gunman or dying by a man with non-lethal gardening supplies.

 
Brett Stubbs
Dec 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

OK, forget years, how about 100,000 in a few days? Swords have done that. Once again going back to the Khan's for this one.

 
xanthippa
Dec 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

All our sports are, in one way or another, based on combat. (yes, even jogging and chess). Are you suggesting we ban all sports?

But, hey, let's not stop there....rocks could be dropped on people and hurt them - we should ban rocks - oh, and rock music, too, 'cause rednecks who like rocks would glamorize them in their punky music.

And cars...you could drive into a crowd and kill people: do you really think it is more important for some schmuck to be able to get coffee at the drive-through than the lives of (insert unsupported but shocking statistic of your choice here) people?

Yes, let's all just sit on little clouds, playing our lyres....Hey - what are you doing with that lyre - you can't stick it THERE! OUCH!

 
xanthippa
Dec 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriot Show

If you were debating an issue, you would say things like: 'should we alter the definition of 'weapons of mass destruction' to include guns?'

Then, we would be debating the merits of the issues. But that is not the title of the debate, nor has anyone here suggested that this is the intent of the debate.

Asking if guns fit the current definition of WMD - which they demonstrably do not - and then disregarding the evidence, making emotional and inflammatory arguments that do not actually address the definition: that is muddling.

 
xanthippa
Dec 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

1. The US government did not coin the term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. It was invented by Reverent Lang, Archbishop of Cantebury.

2. The term WMD does NOT imply how serious, how important or how terrible a threat is: it is a specific label used to designate a class of weapons. There is no value-judgment attached to the term itself.

3. How many people are killed by an attack - military or terrorist - and over how long a period, how terrible such a thing may be - none of this is described by the label 'WMD'. The METHOD used in such an attack may or may not be a WMD - but that has no bearing on the suffering it causes.

How could I explain the difference?

The amount of pain you experience is NOT NECESSARILY indicative of how life-threatening your condition is. You could have a tiny bleed from a little blood vessel in your brain: a few mild headaches, but no other indication. Yet, it is something that is very serious and life threatening. On the other hand, you could dislocate a finger and be in terrible agony - when your life is not immediately in danger. If one followed your logic, you would insist that the mild headache is no more or less painful than the dislocated finger. (Other headaches could hurt that much, but THIS one may NOT.)

In the same way, you are implying that because there is a danger from guns - which may be very real - that we use a label to describe it which, by definition, does not fit! It's not about the pain/label, it's about the danger itself!

 
xanthippa
Dec 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

Well, if you check the statistics, you are likely to find that guns have not actually killed more people than other methods......and yes, you can get all kinds of really wild answers based on how long a period, and all that, but.....really think about it. Do you really think that the last few hundred years, while we had guns AND all the OLD ways of killing AND way newer ways of killing, that 'guns' were the instrument of death in more cases than not?

I guess what I'm trying to say is addressing the whole discussion, not just your last comment, but,

HAVE A SENSE OF PROPORTION!!!!!

 
xanthippa
Dec 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

You really need to learn more about things you rant about....

NO GOVERNMENT MADE UP THE TERM 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'!!!!

IT WAS COINED BY A BRITISH CLERIC!!!!

How can I take you seriously when you continue to mis-state things, not notice when someone points facts out to you (even to refute them, should they be wrong), and hurl accusations around instead of presenting thought-out responses to your posts?



 
unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Oh no... Johnny shot a gun and now his shadow is burned into the ground for eternity, and everyone around him now has Leukemia!

 
unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
*Dramatic Suspense*

 
xanthippa
Dec 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

Mass murder is not the same as mass destruction...... and must never be treated as such.

 
juggernaut
Dec 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: supremebeing Show

One gun shot = possible death of one person

One weapon of mass destruction = death of 1000 people and destruction of property

 
juggernaut
Dec 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriot Show

One thousand gunshots is equal to one WMD. 1000 WMD's = 1000 WMD's

 
xanthippa
Dec 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

QED

 
kabukikmono
Jun 20, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The argument for guns being WMDs has a fatal flaw: a single firearm cannot injure several people at the same time. Even a bullet passing through several people hardly constitutes a weapon of mass destruction. Only when all gun deaths are totaled is the number large. But if we do it with guns, we can't just stop there. Cars, rocks, coconuts, water, anything is a WMD! Anyone arguing that they are weapons of mass destruction is merely a fearmongering anti gunner.

 
longrider
Nov 02, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
100,000 annual gun deaths is a bold faced lie. According to the FBI between 1976 and 2005 the average is less than 10,000 gun deaths a year.
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

Goes to show how insane and dishonest the anti self defense fantics are Guns as weapon of mass destruction? Insane concept. Based upon what? Guns protect and defend life property and well being. Guns are used two million five hundred thousand times a year to save a life.

When we deny law abiding citizens with the means to defend themselves. As in so called gun free zones mad men are given cart blanch license to slaughter as many as they wish with complete immunity. As in each of these places that had a rampaging mad man committed to killing as many human beings as possible.

February 14, 2008: In DEKALB, IL, Man shoots 23 students, kills six including himself

April 16, 2007: In Blacksburg, Virginia, Man shot 49 people killing 32 wounding 17 other, 6 were injured in the panic

October 2, 2006: In Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, a man shot and killed five girls at an Amish school.

March 21, 2005: On an Indian reservation in Red Lake, Minnesota, a male teenager fatally shot nine people, including five students.

March 5, 2001: In Santee, California, a teenager shot dead two students and wounded 13 others.

August 10, 1999: In Los Angeles, California, a man fatally shot three children and two adults at a pre-school.

April 20, 1999: In Littleton, Colorado, two teenagers shot dead 13 people and wounded 24 more at Columbine High School before committing suicide.

May 21, 1998: In Springfield, Oregon, a 15-year-old boy shot dead two students, wounded 25 after he was expelled for bringing a gun to school.

March 24, 1998: In Jonesboro, Arkansas, two boys aged 11 and 13 fatally shot four students and a teacher and injured 10 more.

December 1, 1997: In Paducah, Kentucky, a teenager fatally shot three students and wounded five others during a prayer group.

January 1, 1989: A man in Stockton, California shot dead five children and wounded about 30 people.

There is a reason none of these massacres occur on military bases, police academies, or gun ranges. Criminals are looking for prey not opponents

The ONLY time these massacres have ever been stopped is by an armed citizens. The police have NEVER EVER stopped a single one from occurring. They arrive in time to collect the dead bodies. Only armed citizens at the scenes are capable of stopping violent crimes as they occur. As in the following cases. Please Google the names for the full story. Google will also help you verify each of the stats presented below.

Kenneth K. Hammond carrying a concealed weapon stopped a massacre at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah

Jeanne Assam carrying a concealed weapon saved a 1,000 lives at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, by stopping a killer who had entered New Life Church with over a thousand rounds of ammunition and multiple guns intent on killing everyone in the church

Tracy Bridges & Mikael Gross stopped a mass murder at Appalachian School of Law, after lives were lost while they retrieved their guns from their cars, where they were required by policy to keep them. ( If college students legally licensed to carry concealed weapons been able to carry gun on school property no innocents would have died)

Principal Joel Myrick stopped a slaughter at Pearl High School with his .45 after lives were lost while he retrieved his .45 from his car, where it was required by law to be kept. ( Had legally licensed school principles and teachers been able to carry their gun on school property none would have died)

Restaurant's owner, James Strand stopped a killers rampage in Edinboro, Pennsylvania saving the lives of 240 students at a school dance a full eleven minutes before police arrived. One teacher John Gillette, 48, was killed

*Guns are used 2. 5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2. 5 million times every year or about 6,850 times a day 20. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. (Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime)

* Of the 2. 5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker. (Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime)

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. (Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,)

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606) (Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,)

* Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." (George F. Will, "Are We a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek)

* Concealed Weapon Permit holders are the single most law abiding segment of the population. More law abiding than doctors, judges, law enforcement and ministers (From FBI crimes statistics)

Since I have cited Dr. Kleck several times I thought it worth while to note that Kleck began his research as a firm believer in gun control. But in a speech delivered to the National Research Council, he said while he was once "a believer in the antigun' thesis," he has now moved "beyond even the skeptic position." Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate. "Armed Resistance to Crime" won Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award. This award is given for the book published that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

Afghanistan America army Crime Frankie Guns Iran Iraq Military Nuclear Obama War Weapons