The Instigator
Nataliewardwood
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Ban guns in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Mharman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 750 times Debate No: 105073
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Nataliewardwood

Pro

I believe that the U.S.Government should ban guns because of all of the shootings that keep occurring. I feel like It would be more safe and make citizens of the USA feel more safe. Although I am against gun, I do believe that Everyone should have some sort of weapon for defense purposes only.
Mharman

Con

I accept this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Nataliewardwood

Pro

Like I said before, in my opinion I would think that U.S. citizens will feel more safe. Also, there are always self defence classes just in case you do not have a weapon on you. I feel like If they do make guns illegal the Risk of shootings may drop. If every place in the U.S. had some sort of security, we would be more safe
Mharman

Con

Sorry I'll have to waive this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nataliewardwood

Pro

Woooow, You're reaaallly good at this...
Mharman

Con

I. Criminals will ignore gun laws.
Criminals are already committing a crime, why would they care if they're committing another crime by using a gun to do it? They won't.

II. Criminals are resourceful.
Criminals are criminals. Even if you are successful in getting rid of guns for good, criminals will find other ways to kill people. They may use baseball bats, knives, hammers, cyanide, or an axe. It happened in London with knives [1].

III. Conceal and Carry Zones Ward off Criminals.
Think about it. If you were a criminal, would you try to rob a store where you know the owner has a gun under the counter, or would you try to rob a store where you knew the owner didn't have a gun? I have an image for this as well.

IV. Overall Crime Rate Goes Down in Places With No Anti Gun Laws.
Here's some advice for you. Compare the crime rate of Bremen, IN [3] with the crime rate of Indianapolis, IN [2]. The crime rate in places where there are more adults with guns, the crime rate has gone DOWN.

V. Peple Kill People.
Guns don't kill people. The reality is that people kill people. A gun is just an inanimate object, it cannot fire without a human behind the trigger. Blaming the gun for a murder is ridiculous.

VI. Innacurate Depiction of Gun Use.
If you've seen the movies, or political cartoon made by liberals, chances are that you have seen superheroes of NRA members armed to the teeth with guns and this crazy look in their eyes. This is not what gun use looks like.

VII. Political Megalomaniacs
A lot of politicians who want to disarm you are only seeking to gain more power.

"The best way to take over a country is to take away their guns first." -Adolf Hitler

VIII. The Reasoning Behind the Second Amendment.
The reason the Founding Fathers placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was in case the government had become corrupt, and We the People needed to rise up and defend freedom. Back when America was under the control of the British, the Colonists were not allowed to own guns, only the military was. The Founding Fathers had experinced the effects of this and added the Second Amendment to protect the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

SOURCES
1: http://www.bbc.com...
2: http://www.areavibes.com...
3: http://www.areavibes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 7 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Good debate, Mharman!
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: zmikecuber// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Since Pro didn't lay out any rules for what's allowed, it's ok for Con to post his arguments in Round 3, but it's still bad conduct. Of course, Con's arguments then go uncontested and its a pretty easy win, so conduct goes to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine specific arguments made by both sides and explain why those arguments produce the voted result. Simply stating that some arguments made by one side are uncontested is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: The-Voice-of-Truth// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: con made the most convincing arguments that also went uncontested

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to examine specific arguments made by both sides and explain why those arguments produce the voted result. Simply stating that some arguments made by one side are uncontested and "the most convincing" is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ragnar// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is weak, boiling down to what they feel may potentially happen, namely there might be less shootings... Kitten weak as this is, con decided to not contest it, and waived the first and second rounds. Going for a cheap victory by waiting for closing remarks to even begin to build a case, which is not to be rewarded (imagine you hire a lawyer, and they pull this in court?); not only is it awful conduct, but we voters must only consider the debate when voting, when the final round has nothing to do with the actual debate leading up to it, it's our duty to reject it. https://docs.google.com...... ... within con's attempt to cheat, is the Hitler card, using a made up quotation, a variant of ones that have long since been disproven (the closest actual quote was "let?s not have any native militia or native police").

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is allowed to assess arguments in the fashion presented above, particularly if they feel that a debater has engaged in behavior that is against the basic standards of debate. Both conduct and arguments are explained sufficiently within that frame of reference.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 7 months ago
Ragnar
Copy paste error, as bad as "con made the most convincing arguments that also went uncontested"
Posted by Ragnar 7 months ago
Ragnar
It would be perfectly reasonable for any voter to treat con as having committed a full forfeit. That there's a vote as poor as "let"s not have any native militia or native police." on this debate, reminds me of back when people were trading votes and not even reading each others debates before voting (not saying this is what happened here, but the voter BoP has clearly not been met).
Posted by Mharman 7 months ago
Mharman
They're not twisting facts lol

Notice I did it as a percentage, so population number doesn't matter.
Posted by Oromis 7 months ago
Oromis
@Mharman that is ridiculous your two examples about the crime rates is some seriously twisting the facts. There is a better explanation to the crime rate than guns, and that is the 860,219 population difference. I would of liked to see a source for your third statement. And during your 7th statement could you please add a source to that quote. It doesn't take much to realize that you won this debate. While yes I do believe that firearms should be more regulated, but a total ban is not a good idea.
Posted by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
@BryanMullins I will when I have time
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 8 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Mharman come on, argue!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 7 months ago
Ragnar
NataliewardwoodMharmanTied
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: Pro's case is weak, boiling down to what they feel may potentially happen, namely there might be less shootings... Kitten weak as this is, con decided to not contest it, and waived the first and second rounds. Going for a cheap victory by waiting for closing remarks to even begin to build a case, which is not to be rewarded (imagine you hire a lawyer, and they pull this in court?); not only is it awful conduct, but we voters must only consider the debate when voting, when the final round has nothing to do with the actual debate leading up to it, it's our duty to reject it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.fqhyjzd2wxfi ... within con's attempt to cheat, is the Hitler card, using a made up quotation, a variant of ones that have long since been disproven (the closest actual quote was "let?s not have any native militia or native police").
Vote Placed by Coveny 7 months ago
Coveny
NataliewardwoodMharmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro lost the Conduct point for being snarky "Woooow, You're reaaallly good at this...". Life happens and we don't always have time to respond. Con didn't let time run out and bug the game though, and Pro should be thankful. Con's BBC supports his claim that "Criminals are resourceful" point for Con for most reliable sources. Pro's argument was emotion based with statements like "I believe", "I feel", "I do believe", and "in my opinion" making his whole argument his opinion. Pro also sent conflicting messages with "Everyone should have some sort of weapon for defense purposes only." and "every place in the U.S. had some sort of security, we would be more safe". I think Con could have done a better job with this, but there was no resistance, so it's a clear win for Con even though some of his points had holes in them.