Debate Rounds (3)
First off, allow me to summarize Con's argument into a single resolution: "Banning guns is wrong because you take away gun ownership from responsible citizens, and criminals will obtain guns anyway".
My resolution is this: "Banning guns would improve society because widespread gun ownership would not actually lower crime rates, but provoke an arms race between citizens and criminals, and lead to needless deaths from civilian altercations."
First off, I'd like to debunk a myth conservative media has been telling you: there really is no correlation between lax gun policy and crime rate. Places such as Israel, which you have been told has an essentially no holds barred policy on gun ownership, actually have much stricter gun laws than you may believe. For instance, in an article in the Washington Post (source link below), it reads "...Israel laws, Rosenbaum [an American scholar] writes, 'are designed to keep amateurs from carrying guns in the street - even amateurs who have served 3 years in the army'" . Israel has much lower crime rates than the US, but not because of its lax gun policy, but rather, its tendency to leave guns in the hands of professionals: police, soldiers, hunters, etc.
Also, if citizens carried guns, and possible criminals were essentially out-gunned by the public, they wouldn't just roll over and die out; they'd probably look for bigger, stronger, more modernized weaponry to outclass any firearm citizens would carry on their person. Then, it'd just turn into a legally questionable arms race between gun-owning citizens and criminals, each trying to overpower the other with superior weaponry. Then, the police would have to overpower both of them just to keep civilian life civil; this means there'd be enhanced police vehicles, advanced firearms, more equipment like breaching charges, grenades, tear/poison gas, flashbangs, etc. being used on civilians and criminals in public, which means someone is bound to get caught in the crossfire, innocent lives will be lost.
Then, there's the problem of making sure each citizen with a gun would actually act responsible with their newly acquired toys. Small, drunken arguments could lead to colossal shootouts just because some gun-toting badass wants to show his machismo to others. Then there's the idea that maybe gun-wielding civilians wouldn't be ready to actually kill someone who is a danger to others. If they aren't ready to take a life, then there really is no use for guns to be in the hands of many civilians, since they, meaning the civilians, may end up just running away or finding help. Here's one of the many cases where a regular citizen didn't end up saving the day, "In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine" .
I have held up my end of the BoP, my opponent has failed to do so. Con has also agreed on my position based upon his last response, something which he obviously did not agree with prior to this debate.
Thus, he concedes defeat, vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: It was REALLY obvious.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.