The Instigator
MassRebut
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philosophybro
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Ban Civilians Ownership of Firearms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Philosophybro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 62664
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

MassRebut

Con

This is the first round and is for acceptance only.
Philosophybro

Pro

This will be my very first debate :). I accept and good luck
Debate Round No. 1
MassRebut

Con

MassRebut forfeited this round.
Philosophybro

Pro

A forfeit........
Debate Round No. 2
MassRebut

Con

Sorry for the previous round. I was gone and did not have WiFi for a few days.

The debate at hand is whether to ban ownership of firearms for civilians and I will be speaking against this motion.
My first line of argument and principle idea is self defense. Government, the head of affairs in your country, is always concerned for the safety and security of the people. You implement bans and take away their guns, you will be taking a large part of their security from them. You can not just have the people on your country to be unsafe and insecure. There must be a strong, stable and collective sense of security in the country. Would you want some random person to walk into your home and kill you? No, you want to have a fighting chance and without a gun you can not. People should have firearms.

Another thing that the ownership of guns between normal people does is that it increases the amount of people standing up for themselves. Even if people do not use their firearms and just keep them around it acts like a symbol, it symbolizes something very important and also increases a person's confidence who realizes that with a firearm he/she is better protected and thus feels more safe. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. With these tragedies in mind, we can conclude that an armed society is a safe and secure society.

I would also like to talk about the crime factor in this round. When someone or some people approach you and try to harm you, what would you do if you had a firearm? You would fight them and defend yourself obviously. But on the other hand, what would happen if you did not have a firearm? You would have helplessly handed your things over or maybe taken a beating and disrespected and there are also chances that you would have gotten shot like the Waynes. If you have a firearm at times like these, the risks are reduced. Crime rates are climbing all over the world, society is tainted and governments are not doing much about it. But we as a country can. Everyone having guns would lead to a society with less crimes, because criminals about to commit a crime will think twice now, since everyone owns a firearm and the criminals chance of success will be low as there are people who can now stand up and fight for themselves now. In Switzerland everyone is required to own a gun and their crime rate is literally at the bottom of the world and it is ridiculous to hear government officials say that banning guns will stop gun crimes. Will a criminal go into a house with or without a gun? It is something people really need to prioritize and resolve. Completely different is the United Kingdom, who have strict firearm regulations and a lot of crime. So, does this not prove that firearms will make a better country.

This concludes my argument
Philosophybro

Pro

No guns doesn't mean there can be no self defense. We can take less lethal options. I think your argument is begging the question. Youre assuming less guns will make more crime and that guns keep people safe. Assume the position to argue for the position isn't a sound tactic mate.

You said
"Another thing that the ownership of guns between normal people does is that it increases the amount of people standing up for themselves."

This can be a good thing but it looks like its more of a bad thing. More people standing up for themselves will create overconfidence. We don't want people shooting or brandishing weapons over small disputes.

You said
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated."

You copied and pasted this from one of those conservative chain emails.

http://mediamattersaction.org...

In the soviet union guns were still hard to get. You had to be rich in order to get one. And Hitler made gun laws less strict.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

He disarmed the jews but many didnt wish to fight back anyway and correlation doesn't necessarily mean there's a causation

You said:"what would happen if you did not have a firearm? You would have helplessly handed your things over or maybe taken a beating and disrespected"

Yes because nobody could ever defend themselves before firearms existed. There no other way to stop violence other than a firearm. Your line of reasoning is silly to the point of absurd followed by blind assertions that guns prevent crime.

You said: "In Switzerland everyone is required to own a gun and their crime rate is literally at the bottom of the world and it is ridiculous to hear government officials say that banning guns will stop gun crimes"

Haha yeah the swiss military members can have their guns at home but they can't have ammunition and they can only keep their weapons if they have a special license.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

and your Switzerland didn't stop a mass shooter when he stormed Parliament and killed 15.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Your arguments only take a small sample and you're trying to deduce an argument from that. If we want good results we need a large rigorous study. This is to remove any type of statistical anomalies. We have a study that does this. It is the largest study on guns ever and it found that more guns equal more deaths

http://ajph.aphapublications.org...
Debate Round No. 3
MassRebut

Con

MassRebut forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Heil Hitler.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
MassRebutPhilosophybroTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
MassRebutPhilosophybroTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF