My debate #2 with an anti-self defense anti.

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DerringerUser

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
238
This is my second debate with an anti, how did I do this time? Im completely open to constructive critizism (no, i don't consider "quit" constructive")

I responded to an article on how the catholic vatican wanted to regulate and restrict the sale of arms. I said

Well, i guess the infallibility of the vatican is down the drain. How can he ignore so many statistics that prove that less gun control makes crime plummet, and that 800,000 crimes are deterred each year through firearms, and that shall issue concealed carry always makes crime drop. It seems to me that gun control kills, not guns.
Click to expand...

He replied

The pope's/Churches Infalibility is not regarding what will or will not lower Crime, It is infallible in matters of Christian Faith and morals.

the Church does not work on statistics or on opinions.... it works within the framework left by Jesus Christ.

The Sale of Small Arms assists in Sin and in Crime, Selling Guns to Law abiding Citizens may well help reduce the number of Crimes that guns often assist but it will only lead to more sin. The Act of killing someone in vengance for a crime commited against them for example is a sin.

It is a call to reduce the sale of small arms but at the same time the Chruch calls all people to itself, it calls on the criminal to not do the things he is doing and calls on the victim to forgive the sins against them.

Quote:
If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other also. And if anyone takes away your coat, don't hold back your shirt

Quote:
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

If the criminal puts down his Gun and you put down your Gun...no one is going to get shot!
Click to expand...

Then I wrote:

http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=239596&postcount=4

Too long, sorry.

After that, i replied with some of Oleg's work. My favorites of the bunch, and he replied:

http://www.a-human-right.com/possum_s.jpg

First of all I dont think that woman need carry a gun to protect herself from rape... Sheesh!

2nd Its obviously playing on fear.

3rd I dont really understand it.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_options.jpg

Wouldnt you rather save a life.... with a gun?

Thats just streaching it a little.... rape isnt murder and your more likely to end a life than save a life with a gun.



http://www.a-human-right.com/s_human.jpg

defend life by ending life?

http://www.a-human-right.com/twoways_s.jpg

equally the woman in the frist picture could be cowering away from the woman in the second picture.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_clinton.jpg

Again playing on fear, Guns are not the solution to Rape..The Rapist will get a Gun Too.

The solution to Rape is to enforce harsher Penalties... and the promotion of a morally correct society, moral education and respect for the opposite sex as well as respect for self.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_worth.jpg

this one is very clever and attaches the Pro Gun Movement to the Pro life movement...very Clever! obviously Guns are a contradiction to the pro life movement guns are designed to kill and maim. The pro life movment seeks to build respect for human life from Conception to natural death..this poster is saying that we should kill or maim anyone who dosnt respect human life...yet if we kill or maim another human being we ourselves are not respecting human life.....it is a very contradictory poster.


FACT:In 2003, there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S

-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006

A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

-A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991

FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.

-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:


373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

FACT: Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence


FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

Everyday in the United States, 8 young Americans ages 19 and under are killed in gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.
For every child killed by a gun, four more are wounded.

It seems to me, Guns dont defend life they end it!

In The UK where guns are Ilegal except for those who go through rigourous proceedigs and are licence holders or members of a Gun Club where All Guns are Kept and are locked only 54 people were murdered from firearms compaired to 11,789 in the usa..that is plain evidence that if Guns are not easily Available it saves lives

60 Million people in Uk, 280 Million people in US obviously there is Going to be some difference so lets x the number by 5

60 million x 5 = 300 million

54 x 5 = 270 people murdered with guns.

In Uk there are roughly 800 homicide offences recorded every year

800 x 5 = 4000 - 270 by guns = 3,730

In the USA roughly 18,000 murders, or 6.8 for every 100,000

FBI say assailants use firearms in seven out of every 10 murders

18000 murders - 11, 789 through guns = 6,211


Guns Kill people they dont defend life they end it
Click to expand...

I replied:

http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=239830&postcount=7


He replied:

Guns have never been legal in the UK and apparently Homocide is on the decrease as with all Crime.

Either there is something seriously wrong with American Culture or Guns Kill people....either way Guns should have much tighter restrictions on them.

If Guns kill people - They should have restrictions

If American Culture is seriously wrong then Guns should be restricted

Personally I think the Stats Speak for themselves... Guns Kill People.
Click to expand...

and

You think Christ would want you to arm yourself?


Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who live by the sword will die by the sword.


Today it is more likely that Jesus would have said "All who live by the Gun Shall Die by the Gun"

And statistically I think he is right.
Click to expand...

I said:

http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=240000&postcount=13

and

http://4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=240001&postcount=14

How'd I do this time?
 
Looks like you did fine, but you won't convince someone like that to our point of view until they are rudely awakened by either 1) being a victim of crime or 2) losing someone to crime. I would also recommend that in your next debate, you enter the concept of "right to choose" to own and carry a firearm. Just as the government should not be able to dictate whether or not a woman chooses to have an abortion (which is most certainly ending a life), the government also should have no say in whether you choose to save your life with a firearm (which does not necessarily have to end a life).
 
The Vatican isn't against against small arms everywhere. IIRC, the Vatican support restrictions upon the sale of arms to tyrannical dictators who specialize in such atrocities as murder and rape, and who more easily remain in power because of arms. However, because of the way documents coming from the Vatican are worded, and because many things from the U.N. regarding matters like these are sometimes supported by the Vatican, it can be really easy to not realize the Vatican's true intention and thus take the statements from the Vatican as blanket statements against arms. Couple that with a seriously uneducated Catholic like you were debating, throw in a few bishops whose opinions lean left in politics, and the true stance of the Church very easily gets lost.

So, I can understand where the guy you were debating was coming from, but that doesn't make him any less wrong in his major, major misunderstanding of Church teachings.

Edit: I'm reading some more of what he said, he's really confused, including totally misunderstanding the teachings of the Church. *shakes head*
 
Last edited:
Much could be said, but...
The Act of killing someone in vengance for a crime commited against them for example is a sin.
Click to expand...
It always amazes me how antis cannot understand any difference between self-defense and vengance. Classic projection of their own shortcomings onto all others.
 
1 Samuel 11
5 Now behold, Saul was coming from the field behind the oxen, and he said, "What is the matter with the people that they weep?" So they related to him the words of the men of Jabesh.

6 Then the Spirit of God came upon Saul mightily when he heard these words, and he became very angry.

7 He took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces, and sent them throughout the territory of Israel by the hand of messengers, saying, "Whoever does not come out after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen " Then the dread of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out as one man.

8 He numbered them in Bezek; and the sons of Israel were 300,000, and the men of Judah 30,000.

9 They said to the messengers who had come, "Thus you shall say to the men of Jabesh-gilead, 'Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you will have deliverance.'" So the messengers went and told the men of Jabesh; and they were glad.

10Then the men of Jabesh said, "Tomorrow we will come out to you, and you may do to us whatever seems good to you."

11The next morning Saul put the people in three companies; and they came into the midst of the camp at the morning watch and struck down the Ammonites until the heat of the day. Those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together.

:eek:
 
Genesis 14

Kidnapped family member?

14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

15 He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.

16 He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people.

God's Promise to Abram
17 Then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley).

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.

19 He blessed him and said,
"Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
20And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand."
He gave him a tenth of all.
 
Red Letters

Luke 11

21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

22 But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder."

Was Jesus using a bad parable to explain his power to cast out demons?
 
At the Last Supper

Luke 22

33 But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!"

34 And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me."

35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" [Note for the biblical illiterates: This is an obvious reference to sending out the seventy in Luke, chapter 10, and his instructions to them. Read it for context.] They said, "No, nothing."

36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."

38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."



Now, a coat is an important thing in those days, so selling one's coat to buy something else emphasizes the importance of what is to be obtained. See 2 Tim 4:23, where Paul is writing from his second imprisonment in Rome, deserted by most of his associates, with winter approaching, requesting that Timothy bring him the coat [cloak] he left at far-away Troas.
 
John 18:36: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

He didn't say that His servants had no right to fight, He rather explained that because His kingdom did not have its origin in this world His servants would not use physical weapons to fight what is essentially spiritual warfare. We are not to attempt to spread the gospel by the "sword." Those who have attempted to spread the faith by the "sword" have always brought shame to true Christians.


Isn't it odd that after three years with Jesus the disciples were still carrying swords, if, in fact, carrying a weapon was such a bad thing, in itself, in the Lord's eyes? If something appears to be a contradiction, check your premises. You will probably find out there is no contradiction, but instead you have a flawed premise.
 
Malum has the right idea; the only way to argue with him is going to be with scripture from what i can see.
 
I think you did well.

The other guy, while staying measured, committed repeated errors of circular reasoning and maintaining a causal relationship where at best a corollary has been established. I am always suspicious of statistical statements using multiples. "A gun increases the chance of . . . 6 times." How is that number reached and what is the base number, %0.01?

He also does a skillful job of circling the center of his argument without stating it. His central argument is that it is better to receive evil than to stop it. This means that it is better for a woman to be raped than the rapist be shot. That is not a rational position nor is it supported by a reading of the ENTIRE gospels. Jesus did tell his disciples to carry swords. If I remember correctly Jesus told Peter to put his sword away only when he tried to be hot stuff when the men came to take Jesus away. Frankly, even knowing what I know from the story, if someone came to do Jesus harm I would probably try to do the same thing and accept Jesus' rebuke if I was wrong.

I would say that if living by the gun (i.e. carrying a gun to be prepared to stop evil) means that I will die by the gun then that is fine with me. "Sometimes it is better to die like a man than to live like a coward." (I think that is from an old Zorro movie)

At the risk of turning this into a full religion thread I would also like to point out that the purpose of life is not to avoid sin. We are to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. I will boil this down to trying to do good. The whole point of Jesus' death and resurrection was so we could focus on doing good without worrying about mistakes on the way. In racing there is a term called "target fixation" (Don't look at the pothole, look at where you want the wheels to go so you don't hit it.) I find that this holds true for life.

An old monk is walking through the forest accompanied by a young monk. These monks had taken vows to refrain from many things including contact with women. Yet as they came to a stream there was a beautiful woman who could not cross. The old monk picked up the woman and carried her to the other side where the old monk and his young companion continued their journey. The young monk was not pleased with the old monk's actions and the more he thought about it the more angry he became. After an hour the young monk said, "Master! How could you carry that woman? We have taken a vow to refrain from such actions." The old monk replied, "I left that woman by the stream but you are still carrying her with you."

It is not about sin. It is about right and wrong, good and evil. There are such things and your friend needs to decide which ones he wishes to advance and protect. (He also needs to stop claiming causal relationships were only corollary relationships have been established.)

Keep it smart and clean and you just might dent his thoughts a little.

Cook
 
You may want this person to look at his copy of The Catholic Catechism, section 2263 and following paragraphs: (especially the bolded passage) http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html#FIFTH

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."[65]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
 
I think we're also forgetting the example from Samson in the Book of Judges 15.

14 As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. 15 Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

16 Then Samson said,
"With a donkey's jawbone
I have made donkeys of them. [a]
With a donkey's jawbone
I have killed a thousand men."

17 When he finished speaking, he threw away the jawbone; and the place was called Ramath Lehi.
 
I'm always suspicious when I see something like this...

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
Click to expand...

Having actual numbers is fine but I'd rather see it in terms of population percentage. After all, we're a population of 300 MILLION people! That means that on any particular day there will be an absolutely astounding number of people doing any damn thing you can think of.

I also wonder what the numbers of homicides without guns are for the same countries. For example, if the Canadian number of 151 homicides with a gun is accurate but if (I'm making this number up for conversation) there were a statistic of 2,500 homicides WITHOUT a gun (i.e. with a knife, frying pan, automobile, etc) well that kinda dumps the importance of guns as a tool of death way down.

A lot of these statistics are also misleading because, for example, Japan lists as a suicide what we in the US would call a Murder/Suicide (One man kills his family and then himself... In the US that's 3 murders and one suicide, in Japan that's 4 suidices).
 
This is the single biggest issue that has driven me away from organized religion.
Click to expand...

In this case, it's not the religion, it's the individual's (in this case, DerringerUser's opponent) erroneous interpretation of the religion and its teachings.
 
Guns have never been legal in the UK and apparently Homocide is on the decrease as with all Crime.
Click to expand...

That is completely untrue. There were no restrictions upon civillian owernship of any weapons prior to 1920. Between 1920 and 1945, virtually anybody could own almost any gun for self-defence. SLRs were not banned until 1988 and pistols not until 1996 and 1997. Homicide and violent crime is on the rise, and has been almost universally since 1920, although crime overall has been falling slowly over the past couple of years. UK statistics, provided by the Home Office can be found here:

Certificates (permits) for the legal use of guns

In 1988: 1,037,400
In 2004/5: 698,800

A fall of over one third.

Deaths and injuries caused by the illegal use of guns.

In 1988: 410
In 2004/5: 4,140

A rise of over ONE THOUSAND percent.

Crimes involving the illegal use of handguns

In 1988: 1,484
In 1998/9: 2,687
In 2005/6: 4,652

Almost quadrupled overall, and almost doubled since 1998/9.

Note that during the period 1988-2005, there were four major guns bans (self-loading rifles, fullbore pistols, rimfire pistols and Brockock-style airpistols) as well as a sustained campaign, by the polise, against all gun owners, making it harder for them to get guns in the first place and also harder to shoot in general (for instance, the police at one point had stopped clubs from letting their members use .338 lapua rifles).

World murder rates can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_Rate


The USA has the 24th highest murder rate. Virtually all of the countries above it, such as Mexico, Jamaica and Russia, have extremely opressive gun laws. Having said that, the USA does have the highest murder rate of any Western country, but that is not to say that guns specifically cause this - there is undoubtedly a wide variety of factors which affect the rate of murder.

Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world yet it comes in at 56 (lower than the UK, Australia, Germany, Canada etc).
 
You are doomed to lose the debate if you accept the other side's premises. When someone plays the religion card, facts and logic go out the window.

Just say that you will have to agree to disagree.

K
 
Try this:

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/world.htm

Arguments based on international comparisons select the countries carefully, and never mention the race differential. If one is going to compare the United States against a dozen other countries, one can get any comparison one wishes depending on what countries one selects. The comparisons that show the US as worse than the rest of the world by a factor of ten are cooked. They are out right lies.

Per capita, the homicide rate in non-Soviet countries stays nicely in an envelope between 0.5 and 5. The former Soviets are between 7 and 28. New England is 2.6. Whites in the US are at 3.8. The US overall is at 6.3. Blacks in the US are at 23.

Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate. In 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000 - so that's a rate of 6.

Using homicide and suicide data from a larger sample of countries, 35,
(International Journal of Epidemiologist 1998:27:216), Kleck found "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate in the largest sample of nations available to study this topic. (Associations with the total suicide rate were even weaker.)"
(Targeting Guns, p 254.)

There is no strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. If the historical data is to be believed, the murder rate among human beings has been statistically flat except in times of war and within some subcultures. In fact, researchers in one study found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership.

The recent murder rates are declining, not increasing, which contradicts the predictions of 'the culture of fear'.

Now, if you want to talk about total crime, and not just violent crime, you'll find out something else that nobody seems to want to tell you.

Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):

4161 - US
7736 - Germany
6941 - France
9927 - England and Wales

Thus the US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries!

Here are the Interpol 1995 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):

5278 - US
8179 - Germany
6316 - France
7206 - England & Wales

Hence the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate, while the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime rate.

However, the homicide rates have been dropping dramatically as we have been increasing penalties:

Homicide Rate/100,000 by Date in US:

1980 - 10.2
2000 - 5.5

Also, our murder rate is high largely due to the multicultural nature of our society. Inner city blacks, members of a distinct subculture, have a vastly higher criminal and victim homicide rate than our society as an average:

Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000):

3.4 - White
25.8 - Black
3.2 - Other

It is often hypothesized that blacks are over represented in murder statistics due to racism on the part of police and the justice system. If this were true, one would expect that the race of victims would have significantly different distribution than the race of the perpetrators, but this is not the case:

Homicide Victim Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000):

3.3 - White
20.5 - Black
2.7 - Other

Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only
2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91).

One might ask why blacks are singled out. The reason is that inner city blacks are not representative of our culture. The black population is only about 13% of the total, and many blacks do not live in the inner city welfare cultures. Also, dividing the raw numbers into "white", "black" and "other," as was done by the Justice Department, shows that there are more black murderers (9316) than there are white and "other" combined (8346). I do not have statistics breaking out homicide by race AND location, but since most homicides committed by blacks are done in the inner city, the overall black statistic should be a good proxy.

Many, including myself, blame the high inner city crime rate on several factors. Misguided welfare policies, which have helped to create a culture of irresponsibility. Hey! There's one for you! 'Culture of Irresponsibility!' The ideology of racial separatism (black power, etc.) and its relative, multiculturalism and the cult of victimology. Centuries of slavery and oppression, which really only came to an end in the 1960-current time period. That the dramatic increase in the black crime rate came after the rise of the welfare state and the creation of black racial separatism and victimology suggests the causative nature of those factors. It could well be argued that the victimological nature of black society is fostered by black leaders, who in turn actually work to keep their 'people' subjugated for personal gain. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a few others seem to be expert at this.

Nio
 
Didn't he make the Red Sea crash down on the Egyptians chasing him and the Isralites (why not call them Israelis?) out of Egypt? Maybe it was god who actually did the deed but Moses asked him to so a court of law would say he did it too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
My debate with an Anti.
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Lemon328i
L
P
  • Locked
How to debate with anti-gunners
Replies
8
Views
680
KriegHund
K
C
  • Locked
Expect the Antis to use this news...
Replies
23
Views
1K
GEM
G
F
  • Locked
Anti-gun Laws
Replies
8
Views
835
Flashpoint
F
K
  • Locked
Here's a new anti "gun-crime" tactic.
Replies
3
Views
1K
Blackhawk
B
Back
Top