• 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!

Civilian owned firearms make American society safer: True or False

?


  • Total voters
    54
Do you know how many military veterans there are in the USA?

16.5 million per the 2021 Census. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2022/veterans-day.html

Let me rephrase: 16,500,000.

Then we have the estimate that as many as 81 million Americans own guns. https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/

The Chinese People's Liberation Army is the largest in the world, but is only a little over 2 million. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/29-largest-armies-in-the-world.html

So yeah, the fact that we have an armed population is likely daunting.
Do you seriously think that any enemy today who is targeting America is going to roll up on the beaches and fight a small arms war? The country will be mostly a nuclear wasteland before that happens. The argument that an armed civilian population was going to stop an enemy attacking disappeared when nukes arrived.
 
Safer than a society that bans civilians from owning guns

Then my vote is true
many drugs that are banned are everywhere and easy to get

Id rather not be put in danger and not do something that empowers criminals

the issue in America is the guns are already here in mass numbers so banning them isn't really a solution i support and all it would do is give criminals empowerment that i now dont have one

so "society" would be safer IMO
careless people still wouldn't
 
Last edited:
Do you seriously think that any enemy today who is targeting America is going to roll up on the beaches and fight a small arms war? The country will be mostly a nuclear wasteland before that happens. The argument that an armed civilian population was going to stop an enemy attacking disappeared when nukes arrived.

Appeal to the absurd. :rolleyes::rolleyes:o_O

Even if we are subject to a nuclear attack, (and for some reason do not retaliate in kind) do you REALLY think this would completely "disarm" the surviving population?

Most "Nukes" will target military assets, and perhaps large population cities. That will leave hundreds of millions of Americans around the nation in untargeted areas.

It appears that most citizens who really support the 2A don't live in "highly populated anti-gun Leftist" cities.

As I point out there are 85 million armed citizens including some number of the 16.5 million veterans.

Only someone who is completely blind to the possibilities of trying to deal with tens of millions of armed insurgents would think as you do.
 
Well?

Not going to load the 1st post with evidence for my opinion. I will let the poll speak for itself.
Reality is never as simple as one variable.
 
Well?

Not going to load the 1st post with evidence for my opinion. I will let the poll speak for itself.
Had you asked this poll question a few decades ago I’d have a different answer.

Now, in late 2022, we’re definitely suffering as a nation from far too many guns.

I felt very safe in Japan. I could easily live with their restrictions/policies.
 
I made a change to the wording for my vote. That is IMHO although I do not own a gun it makes homeowners safer. Especially in suburban and rural area, where police response time will not be fast enough if someone breaks into my home. Actually thought about getting a gun during the riots of 2020.
This is a bit of a chicken and egg discussion. In first world societies where effective gun control has been in place for decades, home owners don't feel the need for guns because the criminals don't have them. Criminals (and the mentally ill) don't have them because the purchasing checks are robust, and owners are held accountable for keeping their guns secure from theft or some mentally disturbed person accessing them. So the real answer to home security is to disarm the criminals, but you can't do that without robust purchasing laws and making people accountable for securing their guns.

With 400 million (?) floating around the USA, it would take decades to implement any sort of solution and see the eventual results. People don't think about the safety of their grandkids or great grandkids if they feel it might infringe on their 'rights' today, and the gun lobby would fight tooth and nail against anything that might cost them their 'power' in the future, no matter how much it might improve the safety of the people.
 
The reason Russia doesn’t invade has zero to do with civilian gun owners. It has everything to do with US Military and NATO.


Don’t be foolish.
Is that based on your military expertise....ranger? Lol
 

Do you think it would be even remotely possible for Russia to launch a ground invasion of the USA? Do you have any idea of the logistics involved?
And where are the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines while this is happening?
The concept that armed citizens are needed to prevent an invasion is just laughably stupid imo.
Of all of the laughably stupid non "reasons" why every citizen in the US should have guns...thats probably the most laughably stupid of all. Please stop saying it so you stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Do you think it would be even remotely possible for Russia to launch a ground invasion of the USA? Do you have any idea of the logistics involved?
And where are the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines while this is happening?
The concept that armed citizens are needed to prevent an invasion is just laughably stupid imo.
Yes. They could attack Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico ( thru cuba) and Alaska at least
 
Well mine is based on military expertise.


So there's that. Lol
How did Russia do against Afghanistan? How are they doing against Ukraine?

You think they’d stand a chance against the US? A nuclear armed U.S.? With cruise missiles, nuclear submarines, and long range bombers?


You must have zero military experience. Russia knows invading the US would be mass suicide. That’s without an armed civilian population.
 
Yes. They could attack Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico ( thru cuba) and Alaska at least

I try to limit my time in interacting with some of the more preposterous angles. (y)
 
How did Russia do against Afghanistan? How are they doing against Ukraine?

You think they’d stand a chance against the US? A nuclear armed U.S.? With cruise missiles, nuclear submarines, and long range bombers?


You must have zero military experience. Russia knows invading the US would be mass suicide. That’s without an armed civilian population.
How did we do against Afghanistan?


We lost.


Get em ranger
 
Civilians own firearms for various reasons, but living in a high crime and deeply divided society, usually as a means of self defense should the need arise.
If you want to make society safer, perhaps making the punishment for ALL those convicted of being INVOLVED in the commission of a crime involving a gun LWOP.
 
You must have zero military experience. Russia knows invading the US would be mass suicide. That’s without an armed civilian population.

many of them dont live in an evidence based world. Reality is meaningless to these folks.
 
OK I accept your concession

Oooo....clever! I see what you did there! By posting really dumb stuff on the internet....you just "won" and you accepted my "concession"! That is precious! never seen that before!

:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom