The Instigator
Thaddeus
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Charles0103
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

A jolly good debate on gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Thaddeus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,126 times Debate No: 17048
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Thaddeus

Con

'Sup Charles.
Resolution: On balance gun control by the state should exist and be enforced. I will be con. My opponent has the BOP, as he is affirming an a positive action (restricting or banning gun ownership)

Definitions: Gun control - efforts to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns by private citizens. In this context, the guns in question are generally personal firearms: handguns and long guns.
From that wiki [1]

Citizen - A person that is a legally recognized as a member of a state, with associated rights and obligations.
I only include this definition so that debate isn't derailed by discussion of whether we should restrict children from owning guns

Any other definitions can be stated by Pro. I hope this is sufficient to avoid semantic arguments.

As Pro is affirming gun control, he may go first. I would request that he does not argue in his final round.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Charles0103

Pro

Thanks for the chance to debate you, Thaddeus. I hope this will be a fun debate! First things first, I accept all the definitions you have stated. I'll start out with basic arguments, and I'll go into more detail as the debate progresses.

I don't believe that people shouldn't own guns, but people shouldn't be able to buy certain types of guns. While I'm not completely comfortable with it, guns for hunting can be kept on the market as long as the government does back ground checks. However, fully automatic weapons and handguns with extended magazines (like the one that shot 31 times without reloading at the Tuscan shooting), etc. should not be on the market.

A common case for gun control is that people need a way to defend themselves. However, having a gun in your house is 43 times more likely to accidentally kill a person in the house than an intruder. (1)

The government needs to make sure that gun stores do more back ground checks. After the Tuscan shootings, some investigators from New York wanted to see how easy it was to get a gun without a background check. At an Arizona gun show, only 15 days after the shooting, these investigators bought a Glock and a 33-round magazine with absolutely no background check. Here's one example of a conversation that one of the investigators had with a seller. "According to a transcript from one investigator's purchase of a Sig Sauer pistol at the Phoenix show, the exchange went like this:

Investigator: "So, you're not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?"

Seller: "No. No tax, no form, you don't have to do transfers or nothing."

Investigator: "Yeah, yeah."

Seller: "Just see an Arizona ID and that's it with me."

Investigator: "So no background check?"

Seller: "No."

Investigator: "That's good, because I probably couldn't pass one, you know what I mean?"

The seller sold the gun for $500." (2)

This is ridiculous. Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws.

The fact is, certain guns can do more damage than others. Guns that are too dangerous to society should be taken off the market.

(1) http://www.asahi-net.or.jp...
(2) http://politicalcorrection.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Thaddeus

Con

Alright C-dizzle (you don't mind if I call you C-Dizzle?) lets get down to business. My response has, alas not been as swift as a coursing river, but it has the force of a great typhoon and the strength of a raging fire. Somehow, it will make a man out of you.

Dear C-Dizzle
The type of gun control C-Dizzle appears to arguing for is a restriction of the purchase of automatic weapons and handguns with extended magazines. He proposes that these guns are taken off the market and background checks must occur before gun sales. If he has additional propositions I would request that he clarifies them.

My opponents argument is a single point; (By the way I try to keep a rudimentary form of tagging for my own sanity - don't feel you need to do the same)

1) These fully automatic and extended clip guns cause more harm to society than other types of guns.
He uses statistics and an interesting anecdote to support this claim.
I will first attack C-Dizzles use of statistics.
He claims;
"having a gun in your house is 43 times more likely to accidentally kill a person in the house than an intruder."
This statistic does not relate at all to the type of restriction C-Dizzle supports, that is, the restriction of automatic and extended clip weapons. It therefore can be disregarded unless C-Dizzle wishes to change his argument to "all guns should be restricted". I appreciate the amount of self-control it must have required to only use one terrible statistic*, when most debates of this nature are littered with them on either side.
I shall now address his anecdote. While it shows something interesting, it hardly supports my opponents argument. He hasn't even demonstrated that any control is necessary, so showing that it is easy to aquire a gun now means nothing!

Assertions
"This is ridiculous."
Really? Why? It has not been demonstrated that any control is required yet, so to imply that this is too little is slightly premature.

"Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws."
This is an assertion without warrent.

Now to my arguments. I'm not going to argue that guns prevent crime, or that one is safer for carrying a weapon as they are frankly terrible arguments due their impossibility to quantify and how frequently they are tied to absolutely dire statistics. I would request that my opponent recognizes this and does not attempt any of the similarly awful arguments which try to prove things which are impossible to quantify and fairly meaningless in relation to the debate which exist on his side of the debate too.

1. Guns are tools
Say I pick up a fully automatic gun. I do not point it at anyone. I do not verbally threaten anyone with it. I do not initiate any act of aggression or violence with it. Despite this, I am still commiting a crime under C-Dizzle's proposed restrictions. This is absurd. A law which criminilizes such a trivial act in which no parties are hurt is the act of a tyrannical government. Guns in and of themselves do not cause harm to others. It has to be used to hurt or threaten someone by an individual. Funnily enough these actions, perprated by the individuals are illegal. Such as armed assualt, or murder. Why is making these actions crimes not sufficient? Making an action which does not inherently harm anyone illegal is pointless.
Here is an example to reinforce my point; I'm a fairly large and strong young fellow. I could easily kill most people armed with my 1.2 meter high oak chair. It would be pointless to make owning chairs illegal no matter how many crazed individuals went into the street killing people with their chairs. Instead we make killing people illegal, as that actually is an act of aggression, and isn't particularly good manners.

2. Insufficient evidence to suggest that restricting guns would do anything
Prohibition creates black markets for those who don't care about things like laws - criminals - and oddly enough they are the type of people more inclined to go around shooting people. In particular the worst class of criminal; those working for the government. They would not need to observe these laws when aquire these guns and would be free to learn how to kill people with them in america before rolling off to kill non-americans in foreign lands.
Furthermore, for those who aren't willing to buy things off the black market and don't happen to be lucky enough to be commiting government approved murder, there are economic substitutes for guns. Explosives aren't too hard to make if you have the intent, (basic ingredients found in households) and are just as practical for the purpose of commiting mass murder.

3. The government does not have the moral authority to restrict gun ownership
Guns allow people to resist a tyrannical government. How can a government morally justify restricting liberty in this way?


*For those who can't see why that type of statistic makes me want to eat a bucket of KFC (dunno, I'm just hungry):
1. The link provided just parrots the statistic without giving any idea of the methodology used to aquire it.
2. It is meaningless; so what if people are bad at using tools? If it turns out that people are 43 times more likely to hit their thumb when using a hammer rather than a nail, should we ban hammers?
3. Misses the point that guns still can be used for the purpose of defending ones home, regardless of the ineptitude of the user.
There are many other sins commiting by the different types of statistics thrown like horse poo in this type of debate, and I hope I don't have to bring attention to their flaws too.

Lots of hugs
Thaddeus
Charles0103

Pro

I would like to assure my opponent that the nickname "C-Dizzle" is completely acceptable.

1) My opponent states that the statistic I have stated is wrong because I do not believe in restricting ALL guns. I apologize for any confusion. However, by eliminating more "dangerous" weapons, this statistic will more than likely go down dramatically. The less guns, the smaller the chance you shoot yourself.

My opponent states that my statement "Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws" is an assertion without warrant. However, the fact is, most people prefer to kill people with guns. It's quick, easy, and does the most damage compared to a knife, baseball bat, etc.

1. My point is, is that people shouldn't be able to "pick up" dangerous weapons primarily because of accidents. A counter argument may be said that cars cause accidents. You must remember that cars are a necessity to many people. In my rural town, you can't walk from point A to point B unless you have a few hours to waste. Guns, especially fully automatic guns or guns with extended magazines, are NOT a necessity in our everyday lives.

My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time.

My opponent uses oak chairs as an example. The fact is, murderers use guns more than they are going to use knives or high oak chairs. You might as well get rid of some types of guns to keep people safe from themselves and from others. You can hurt yourself with an oak chair or a toaster, but by taking certain guns off of the market, lives will definitely be saved.

2. My opponent states that black markets would be created by restricting gun ownership. That's why it's the government's job to crack down on the buying and purchasing of illegal weapons.

My opponent also states that explosives or other substitutes for guns could be made. It's a lot faster to load and shoot a fully automatic rifle than it is to detonate an explosive. Besides, there's always the chance that people move out of the way, you run out of explosives, or the explosive just doesn't work.

3. My opponent thinks that guns allow people to resist tyrannical government. I think that this argument is basically obsolete especially in countries like the USA. What is a bunch of civilians with some guns against the Marines? You won't be resist anybody. You won't "resist" tyrannical government because it's impossible to overthrow it.

I would also like to add that my opponent completely ignores the fact of how easy it is to buy guns without a back ground check in the USA. I don't know about you, but I don't want convicted felons walking around with guns.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Thaddeus

Con

I'm not sure of the structure that this round will take. I'll start by doing quotations and responses and see how it looks at the end.

"My opponent states that the statistic I have stated is wrong because I do not believe in restricting ALL guns."
I didn't say it was wrong - merely intellectually dishonest. If you use this statistic to back up the banning of certain guns, you ought to be for the banning of all guns, as this statistic makes no differentiation between what type of gun was used.

"I apologize for any confusion. However, by eliminating more "dangerous" weapons, this statistic will more than likely go down dramatically. The less guns, the smaller the chance you shoot yourself."

If we ban hammers it would reduce the number of people hitting their thumbs significantly. The question is; so what? Why should the fact that people are capable of misusing guns mean that guns should be banned in and of themselves? You are begging the question here.

"My opponent states that my statement "Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws" is an assertion without warrant."

Well it still is as you haven't backed it up.

"However, the fact is, most people prefer to kill people with guns. It's quick, easy, and does the most damage compared to a knife, baseball bat, etc."

Yes, I probably would choose a gun to kill someone if I had to. (Unless I had access to a SAM or something - speaking of which I got to hold an SA-7 at work today. So. Freaking. Cool.) However, if I couldn't get hold of a gun (and I believe it wouldn't be difficult even with gun control - more on that later) it would not prevent me killing someone. The knowledge required to make explosives is easy to aquire and explosives can kill people just as quickly whilst doing a lot of damage. I already made this argument last round. There are many economic substitutes for guns, so no lives would be saved by banning them. In fact, though people with intent would be able to kill (due to being able to aquire decent subsitutes), people without intent, that is, the victims, would be worse off than before!

"1. My point is, is that people shouldn't be able to "pick up" dangerous weapons primarily because of accidents. A counter argument may be said that cars cause accidents. You must remember that cars are a necessity to many people. In my rural town, you can't walk from point A to point B unless you have a few hours to waste. Guns, especially fully automatic guns or guns with extended magazines, are NOT a necessity in our everyday lives."

Guns are tools which facilitate a purpose, that is the protection of ones liberty. While you may need to use a car more frequently, frequency is not a worthwhile metric on deciding whether things are a necessity. (Nor is necessity a worthwhile metric on deciding whether something should be controlled or not!)

"My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time."

This argument you are making here seems very bizarre. Are you asserting that the rate of fire directly correlates to the lives saved? This is certainly an assertion without warrant, and the opposite has been demonstrated; if there is intent to take life, suitable substitutes can be found - for example non-automatic weapons would be just as effective.

"My opponent uses oak chairs as an example. The fact is, murderers use guns more than they are going to use knives or high oak chairs. You might as well get rid of some types of guns to keep people safe from themselves and from others. You can hurt yourself with an oak chair or a toaster, but by taking certain guns off of the market, lives will definitely be saved"

C-dizzle unfortunately completely misses the point here. He doesn't respond to argument that anything can be used to harm someone, and just because it is used doesn't ipso facto mean that they ought to be banned. C-dizzle also repeats his mantra that lives would be saved by taking certain guns off the market. I'm going to have to ask him once more to provide warrant for that assertion.

2. My opponent states that black markets would be created by restricting gun ownership. That's why it's the government's job to crack down on the buying and purchasing of illegal weapons.
This is a total non-argument. It will be impossible to prevent black markets forming. I note that C-dizzle favours drug legalization (quite rightly) - I am sure that he understands how prohibition doesn't work. It ends up criminalizing a lot of people, but doesn't prevent those who want the good from aquiring the good.

My opponent also states that explosives or other substitutes for guns could be made. It's a lot faster to load and shoot a fully automatic rifle than it is to detonate an explosive. Besides, there's always the chance that people move out of the way, you run out of explosives, or the explosive just doesn't work.
I concede that on balance, despite my personal taste in the matter, guns are probably preferable to explosives for killing people. That explains why guns are the most popular method at the moment. However, should we be able to somehow magic guns out of existance, explosives would be an acceptable susbtitute for the murderously inclined. Or maybe not. Maybe they'd prefer something else. I can't really say. The point is, is that there will be an effective substitute, which will mean no lives are saved.

"3. My opponent thinks that guns allow people to resist tyrannical government. I think that this argument is basically obsolete especially in countries like the USA. What is a bunch of civilians with some guns against the Marines? You won't be resist anybody. You won't "resist" tyrannical government because it's impossible to overthrow it."
Last I checked the population of America was a bit over 300 million - and the armed forces at around 1 and half million [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I don't know about you, but even making the implausible assumption that most of those solidiers would turn on their country men, I'd still bet on the 300 million with their guns.

I would also like to add that my opponent completely ignores the fact of how easy it is to buy guns without a back ground check in the USA. I don't know about you, but I don't want convicted felons walking around with guns.
Have they done their time? I'm assuming the answer is yes and that they aren't escapees from jail (and if your statement assumes they are, the only thing we could possibly draw from it is that the bakery as well as the gun shop should be asking their customers whether they have just escaped from prison). They've done their time and their liberty is restored to them. They are citizens, they should have the same rights as the others (I don't know if they do become fully fledged citizens again in US law with all rights intact - if they don't, then they are not valid examples due the definitions of citizens given at the beginning)

Arguments dropped.
The act of ownership is not an act of aggression and therefore is terrible basis for law
Insufficient evidence to suggest that restricting guns would do anything
Lack of moral authority to restrict gun ownership

Thanks C-Dizzle
I hope you get back from what ever it is you are doing (I'm assuming it is a hardcore Christian metal concert) in time. I left my response as late as possible.
Charles0103

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for putting off his argument until the last minute because I was at the beach with no access to a computer.

My opponent points to my first statistic. What I'm trying to say is that if you take away certain types of guns, don't sell guns to people who shouldn't have guns (teens, people with mental handicaps, people convicted of crimes, etc.), lives will be saved. Should we take away all guns? No. However, the government should do some small changes to protect society and not punish the average responsible gun owner.

My opponent states that if we should ban guns, we should ban hammers because people hit their thumbs using them. First off, hitting your thumb is a lot better than being shot. There is no need to own certain types of guns (fully automatic weapons, extended magazine guns, etc.). Gun owners say they want "target practice" or "self defense." You can shoot targets with a hunting rifle or shot gun. You can also defend yourself with a gun. I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable with everyone owning an AK-47.

My opponent says that I can't back up my statement that lives would be saved by banning certain types of fire arms and not letting certain people (that I mentioned above) buy guns. I think it's just common sense. Look at the Tuscan shooting in Arizona. The guy had mental problems. If the government would put more regulations on these gun companies to see who they're selling to, the people killed at Tuscan, Arizona was still be alive including one little nine year old girl.

My opponent talks about substitutes for guns. He thinks that if we ban guns, then substitutes will come up. Am I saying that we will end murder in America? Of course not. We just can save some lives and slow down criminals.

How do guns protect our liberty? Do you honestly think we can defend ourselves from the army? In the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers thought that people would have the same technology that the army did (in that age, everyone had a musket). Now, we are not allowed to own the same types of stuff the military has, therefore, we can't "protect our liberty" from the big, bad government.

Let me clear up what I said when I said:
"My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time."

By banning fully automatic weapons and weapons with extended magazines (so you don't have to reload as much), lives can be saved. If you're in an office building with a fully automatic weapon, you can spray bullets everywhere almost non stop. Let's say you had a shot gun. You wouldn't be able to shoot nearly as fast. Someone could simply tackle you while you were reloading. It goes the same way with hand guns with extended magazines. Again, I bring up the shootings in Tuscan, Arizona. The guy shot a hand gun 31 times without reloading once. After he ran out of bullets, one of Congressman Gifford's staff ran up to the guy and held him down. What if he could have only fired 10 times? Maybe that nine year old girl would be alive. Maybe Congresswoman Giffords wouldn't have been shot in the head.

Yes, it is impossible to stop the creation of black markets now. We just need the government to crack down on the buying and selling of guns and ammunition especially for certain types of weapons.

My opponent says that it is quite possible for the American people to overthrow the government. Out of that 300 million, there are elderly people, children, women, and smart people that wouldn't want to overthrow the government. Either way, it's not going to happen because nobody wants to overthrow the government (except some people with very extremist views), and the people brave/crazy enough to try would instantly be knocked down.

I don't care if you've "done your time." If you're convicted of an armed robbery or have attempted to or have murdered someone, it's not safe for you to be able to own guns especially fully automatic ones.
Debate Round No. 3
Thaddeus

Con

Bet you thought I'd forfeit didn't you? Hah! I would never forget (actually I did forget and I'm cutting this rather fine =P)

As agreed you won't post anything next round to keep things even. Just post something like "C-dizzle is awesome" or declare your undying love for me. Something like that.

"My opponent points to my first statistic. What I'm trying to say is that if you take away certain types of guns, don't sell guns to people who shouldn't have guns (teens, people with mental handicaps, people convicted of crimes, etc.), lives will be saved. Should we take away all guns? No. However, the government should do some small changes to protect society and not punish the average responsible gun owner."

Sadly my opponent has failed to substantiate this argument again. Why will lives be lost? You have failed to refute the sustitute argument and so there is no compelling reason to believe that people wouldn't use another tool to kill. Or even just ignore the law, seeing as that is what they are planning to do.

"My opponent states that if we should ban guns, we should ban hammers because people hit their thumbs using them. First off, hitting your thumb is a lot better than being shot. There is no need to own certain types of guns (fully automatic weapons, extended magazine guns, etc.). Gun owners say they want "target practice" or "self defense." You can shoot targets with a hunting rifle or shot gun. You can also defend yourself with a gun. I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable with everyone owning an AK-47."

The idea of the comparision is to illustrate how just because people can use something to harm themselves or others, it doesn't mean it should be banned. Freedom is always assumed. The potential for accidental misuse is not justification enough for the removal of such freedoms. In addition, whether you feel comfortable with someone owning a gun is immaterial. I feel uncomfortable whenever I see my brother completely fail at chatting up girls. Though I would like this to be illegal, I recognize that it would be irrational.

"My opponent says that I can't back up my statement that lives would be saved by banning certain types of fire arms and not letting certain people (that I mentioned above) buy guns. I think it's just common sense. Look at the Tuscan shooting in Arizona. The guy had mental problems. If the government would put more regulations on these gun companies to see who they're selling to, the people killed at Tuscan, Arizona was still be alive including one little nine year old girl."

Appealing to common sense isn't much of an argument. In addition, the lack of support for your argument was made in light of the substitute argument. I made the argument that there would be no difference in lives saved, as people can use other weapons. For example, the guy in Tuscan could have used explosives. Or got an illegal firearm. Though I do like your appeal to emotion with the nine year old girl =)

"My opponent talks about substitutes for guns. He thinks that if we ban guns, then substitutes will come up. Am I saying that we will end murder in America? Of course not. We just can save some lives and slow down criminals."

This isn't an argument against the substitution argument...

"How do guns protect our liberty? Do you honestly think we can defend ourselves from the army? In the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers thought that people would have the same technology that the army did (in that age, everyone had a musket). Now, we are not allowed to own the same types of stuff the military has, therefore, we can't "protect our liberty" from the big, bad government."

Yes actually, I do believe that there is no nation with an army large enough which couldn't be overpowered by its people. And as to the second part, isn't that an argument against gun control? Ie, if we were allowed all the military hardware, we would be able to resist tyranny.


"By banning fully automatic weapons and weapons with extended magazines (so you don't have to reload as much), lives can be saved. If you're in an office building with a fully automatic weapon, you can spray bullets everywhere almost non stop. Let's say you had a shot gun. You wouldn't be able to shoot nearly as fast. Someone could simply tackle you while you were reloading. It goes the same way with hand guns with extended magazines. Again, I bring up the shootings in Tuscan, Arizona. The guy shot a hand gun 31 times without reloading once. After he ran out of bullets, one of Congressman Gifford's staff ran up to the guy and held him down. What if he could have only fired 10 times? Maybe that nine year old girl would be alive. Maybe Congresswoman Giffords wouldn't have been shot in the head."

Guns are potent, yes. But there are still comparable substitutes, the closest of course being illegal guns.

" Yes, it is impossible to stop the creation of black markets now. We just need the government to crack down on the buying and selling of guns and ammunition especially for certain types of weapons."

Another non-argument. If governments can crack down and prevent all laws being broken fully, what is the need for gun control? Can't they just prevent all murders?

"My opponent says that it is quite possible for the American people to overthrow the government. Out of that 300 million, there are elderly people, children, women, and smart people that wouldn't want to overthrow the government. Either way, it's not going to happen because nobody wants to overthrow the government (except some people with very extremist views), and the people brave/crazy enough to try would instantly be knocked down."

Willingness is not an argument. Obviously the assumption has already been made that people are willing to resist this hypothetical government in this hypothetical scenario. Also, women can be perfectly effective fighters, especially when they have guns!

"I don't care if you've "done your time." If you're convicted of an armed robbery or have attempted to or have murdered someone, it's not safe for you to be able to own guns especially fully automatic ones."

So are you trying to say that they don't have rights? I'm afraid this is a very unsubstantiated argument. Why do they not have rights, yet still count as citizens. Remember, the definition of citizen at the beginning included the pre-requisite they have all rights.

To conclude my opponent has dropped these arguments;
The act of ownership is not an act of aggression and therefore is terrible basis for law
Lack of moral authority to restrict gun ownership
He also failed to support the notion that restricting guns would do anything.
I urge the voters to vote con

(Another reminder to pro to leave the next round blank so we have an equal number of rounds)
Charles0103

Pro

To keep the number of rounds even, Thaddeus and I have agreed for me not to post new arguments. I'll just do a quick summary.

-We shouldn't ban all guns, just guns that people don't really have a need for that are more of a threat to society than traditional hunting weapons.
-Getting rid of more dangerous guns and not letting certain people (I mentioned them in a previous argument) get guns, and make gun owners do better back ground checks are good ways to keep society safe. Should we ban all weapons? No. Will this stop muder? No, but it can slow criminals down, minimize the risks of accidents, etc.

I would like to thank Thaddeus for a wonderful debate. Win or lose, this has been a great debate, and I hope Thaddeus and I will have many more in the future.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Enjoyable read on both sides though it fragmented towards the end.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
It's so easy to get a hold of deadly weapons.

I'm 16 years old, live in suburbia, and have no real knowledge on explosives or firearms.

All I need are several glass coke bottles, pieces of cloth, and gasoline.

In a matter of minutes I can make several molotov cocktails, and molotov cocktails are banned but that doesn't stop me from tossing them against rocks in my backyard for kicks.
Posted by Charles0103 5 years ago
Charles0103
Haha ok, good!
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Don't worry. I won't forfeit. I'm just feeling a bit lazy today.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
ThaddeusCharles0103Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Solid refutations from Con, not enough depth from Pro.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ThaddeusCharles0103Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a lot of assertions and drops specific arguments from Thaddeus. A lot of Pro's argument comes down to the Chewbacca defense which doesn't hold a lot of weight. 3:1 on argument, 2 pt for amusement to Thaddeus and 1 pt to Pro for being a good sport.
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
ThaddeusCharles0103Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: What Kermy said.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
ThaddeusCharles0103Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: CON does not cite any sources. PRO does not meet the BOP as needed as PRO. He uses many assertions, and misleading statistics. PRO also fails to refute CON's substitute argument, liberty and black market argument effectively.