The Instigator
NickLawrence
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Ban Guns Permanently

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 3 votes the winner is...
NickLawrence
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,138 times Debate No: 28386
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

NickLawrence

Con

Guns should NOT be banned.
RationalMadman

Pro

If no one had a gun we wouldn't need them.
Debate Round No. 1
NickLawrence

Con

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Do pencils misspell words? No, people misspell words. Do cars make people drive drunk? No. Do spoons make you fat? No. Cigarettes kill people only because they choose to smoke them. Spoons only make you fat because you choose to eat to much. Pencils only misspell words because you can't spell. It all goes back to the people.
If they take away guns, people are going to start using bows. Then people are going to start killing with bows. Then they'll ban bows. Then what are we going to use? Rocks?
RationalMadman

Pro

we should ban all weaponry, starting with the hardest to defend oneself against: guns.

We must truly evolve from merciless blood-thirsty tribal chimps.
Debate Round No. 2
NickLawrence

Con

What are you going to do if someone breaks into your house and has a gun to a loved ones head? What are you going to do? Throw a pencil at them? Then that would become a weapon and pencils would need to be banned.
RationalMadman

Pro

That is an error in enforcement, not a sufficient point in favour of proving of why banning guns is bad. If we banned them permanently no one would have the gun in the first place, only would they have this if there was error in enforcing the beautiful law (notice how there are virtually zero gun crimes in Britain and Germany?... Well guess what, it's because gun laws are SUCCESSFULLY implemented. The only reason it increases in USA afterwards is the retards in the senate LEAVE THE GHETTO GANGSTERS WITH GNS and the innocent civilians without them, OBVIOUSLY they haven't banned them permanently because people still have them!

Debate Round No. 3
NickLawrence

Con

Even without guns, there will still be crime. Guns are needed for wildlife hunts and many other uses. Here in the United States, colleges even have rifle teams. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. A gun will only shoot at the object in which it is pointed at. Same thing with a car; a car will go where ever the tire is pointed. If you drive off the side of a cliff, it's not the cars fault, most of the time, it's yours. Yes, sometimes guns malfunction if they are not treated properly. That's why you have to have a card to buy a weapon.
RationalMadman

Pro

"guns do not kill people, people kill people" yes but tell me this: without cocaine, altogether, would there be dealers and suppliers in the first place?
Debate Round No. 4
NickLawrence

Con

If there wasn't cocaine, no, there would not be no dealers. Cocaine doesn't kill people. People who use cocaine, kill their self. You have a choice to use it or not.
RationalMadman

Pro

My analogy (that you correctly replied to) proves that without the tool, there is no crime involving it. Ban guns permanently and gun crime = zero. The ONLY, SINGLE argument is when guns are not permanently banned and end up arising again (hence non-permanently).

You failed to meet your BOP due to the single, sole, argument of yours being this: people will resort to other weapons but surely those weapons would be only further bans until true civilisation is achieved if we followed my philosophy.

My argument was as follows:
Eliminate the weapon, no crime. No guns, no one needs them.

Neither of these points was successfully refuted (the first was accepted in the round 5 debate of con).
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by martianshark 4 years ago
martianshark
You're all idiots.
Posted by NickLawrence 4 years ago
NickLawrence
Bows as in Bow and Arrow?
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
LOL what?? "Then they'll use bows." LOLOLOLLOL.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
NickLawrenceRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument in regard to the black market was compelling
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
NickLawrenceRationalMadmanTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better points and logic. Pro if guns were out lawed there would be a black market for them like there are for drugs. Criminals would get guns and civilians would be helpless.
Vote Placed by danmhood 4 years ago
danmhood
NickLawrenceRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a poor debate by both parties, but pro made slightly more convincing arguments than con.