The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
metalfingerz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own firearms

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 3 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,001 times Debate No: 24547
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

thett3

Pro

A firearm is defined as: a weapon that launches one or more projectile(s) at high velocity through confinedburning of a propellant.[1]

The resolution applies generally across all human societies, not US specific, however since most raw data available is from the United States it's likely that the debate will center mostly around this country.

The first round is for acceptance and clarification of terms only.

Advocating silly or semantic arguments like "there is no good way to measure "should"" or "the resolution means only citizens can own guns not the military..", makes you lose all 7 points automatically.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
metalfingerz

Con

You didn't exactly argue anything in your first post, so i suppose i shall start the debate. Guns are bad, mmkay? Here's why. We all know the old saying "oh guns dont kill people, people kill people." While this is true, guns do make it EASIER to kill people. Guns literally put a person's (or multiple people's) life/lives into the palm of one's hand. They make murder possible with simply the pull of a trigger. I've held a gun, I've shot a gun. And I'm gonna be honest, they're pretty freaking cool. But the problem is, they make you want to shoot things! Not because you're a bad person, but because with a gun, you can. Giving someone a gun and saying "don't shoot this!" is like giving a teenager a bottle of alchohol and saying "don't drink this". A gun is for shooting! Why wouldn't you wanna shoot it?! Guns simply make murder much easier and quicker, and they're simply destructive and pointless. There's no reason to own a gun, that's that. If you like to shoot, go to the shooting range! that's perfectly fine. But there's no reason why one should be up in your house, just waiting to accidentally go off and hurt someone (trust me, I know someone that happened to). I just don't see the need for the right to bear arms. Anyone who says "i just like to shoot for sport", again, go to the range. If you STILL want a gun after being given that choice, then you clearly want it for other reasons. Now, people do argue guns are good as a defensive tool. However, if guns are banned, there wouldn't be any reason to have a gun as defense! No one's gonna shoot you, and we can get back to the old baseball bat next to the bed to handle burglars, cuz worst case scenario you'll just have to have a baseball bat duel. This is all the I can think of off the top of my head, I'd love to hear some other points though, because I'm probably missing a lot.
Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

I'll refute my opponents argument in the next round. He forfeits the conduct point for breaking the round one rules.

Observe first:

1. The failed prohibition of drugs and alcohol tells us that when there is a demand for something that can easily be manufactured/grown, governments fail to keep those objects outside of their nations borders. From this it follows that since their is a vast demand for firearms, then gun control will generally fail.

2. Governments exist to protect rights. It's only a discussion of which rights exist and therefore need to be valued; in my case I will explain how the ownership of firearms is a right.

Case

I. NAP

The non aggression principle (NAP) posits that aggression is inherently immoral. Aggression can be defined as the initiaion of coercion with force, threats, or lies. Essentially you have the right to do any action you wish that does not harm others. The NAP is self affirming because to attempt to logically disprove it uses it. That is, if my opponent comes to my house and shoots me, he hasn't rationally defeated my argument, he's just committed aggression. To rationally disprove anything requires the use of the non-aggression principle, so it is irrational to deny it.

The ownership of firearms is not inherently aggressive and is therefore morally justifiable under the NAP.

In fact, the FBI reports[1] that from 2005-2009, there were 72,828 murders using firearms, and during the same period there were 56,910,060 background checks for firearms purchased[2]. This means that EVEN IF we assumed that these were the only firearms in the United States during this time period (not at all) barely one in one thousand (.0013%) of firearms were used in homicides. Taking into account the greater number of firearms and the greater number of aggressive crimes unnaccounted for, we can assume that the percentage of weapons used for aggression is roughly the same if not lower. One in a thousand is not inherent aggression, it's an exception to a rule. Since firearm ownership is not an act of aggression, then ownership of them is justifiable and the resolution is affirmed.

II. Tyranny

An armed population has the ability to overwhelm their government with sheer numbers, and overthrow a tyrannical state. The threat of spilled blood is often enough to keep a leader in line--if they mistreat their people they will be over thrown and shot. For this reason, widespread gun ownership is the best way to ensure a peaceful and just regime.

The historical truth of this is widely observed, as virtually all major genocides had a restriction of weapon ownership preceding them. Zelman and Stevens, in their book "Death by "Gun Control"" report that in the 20th century, 89.8 MILLION individuals were murdered by their governments after being forced to disarm[3]. They explain the significance of this to the gun control debate:

"When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history."

Disarming the population to be exterminated allows for governments to take them to their deaths with less resistance, which not only keeps the government from losing more soldiers and resources fighting them, but also allows for them to conduct their genocide in secret to the international community. While an essential civil war and uprising of a major minority population is a relatively easy thing for other countries to spot, secretly impounding defensless people who go quietly is not. So a decrease in gun ownership not only increases the probabality of a genocide, but it makes the genocide easier to carry out as well. Further, a governments legitimacy in the eyes of it's people is lowered if it's engaging in warfare with a segment of the population, even if that segment is considered to be subhuman.

III. Foreign invasion

There is a famous proverb/quote often attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of Japan, which is "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."[4]. An armed occupied population can make serious havoc for an invader, even without an organized military. The U.S. failure to conquer Vietnam, and the failure of the British to hold their colonies during the revolutionary war are many of the historical examples of what happens when an armed population faces down a hostile occupying power. It may be objected that ordinary citizens with their weapons could not hope to over come a modern war machine with Tanks, Planes, ect. but the point is that the population does not need to win a conventional war, just make the occupation so bloody and expensive that it's not worth it. In WWII, the Germans lost a significant portion of their power to the actions of partisans in the occupied countries; historically and logically an armed population helps to deter invasion.

IV. Self defense and crime

Criminals by definition do not follow laws. This means that criminals will commit aggression against law abiding citizens, even if all firearms were eradicated (observation one disproves this anyway), as the old adage goes: "outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them". The negative correlation between Gun ownership and crime is pretty firmly established, so much so that John Lott was able to write a 236 page book on the matter.

To give a few examples of firearms and their effect on crime, John Stossel writes[5]:

"... the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted."

Further, a survey indicated[6] that an incredible 95% of buglars would not break and enter a house if there was a chance the owner had a firearm.

Statistics are not even needed since common sense and logic overwhelmingly indicate that guns (and death) are a deterrent to crime. The arguments can thus be summed up in syllogistic form as follows:

1. Criminals do not follow laws
2. Gun bans are laws
3. Therefore, criminals will still obtain guns

and

1. Most criminals fear death
2. Firearms can cause death
3. Therefore, the possession of firearms will deter criminals.

The widespread use of fire arms in self defense led to Dr. Gary Kleck estimating that firearms, or the threaat of firearms, are used by law abiding citizens in the United States every 13 seconds[7]. He sums up the self defense argument nicely:

"If gun possession among prospective victims tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not, in and of itself, a social good. To disarm noncriminals in the hope that this might indirectly help reduce access to guns among criminals is a very high-stakes gamble, and the risks will not be reduced by pretending that crime victims rarely use guns for self-defense."

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Citizens need to be able to defend themselves from injustice and evil, or else they will perish.

It is for these reasons that you must affirm.

Citations:

1. http://www.debate.org...

metalfingerz

Con

metalfingerz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

How shocking
metalfingerz

Con

metalfingerz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
thett3

Pro

Thanks dog

metalfingerz

Con

metalfingerz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
Challenge him Thett! I need to read a good gun rights debate because I'm pretty much undecided.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Me too
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I really wish I took this.
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
Troll time!
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I am predicting a complete wipeout. Thett, you should probably place restrictions when you post open challenges. Anyways, this is should be a fun read.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Sure they can purchase them, they just can't use them aggressively. Buying those kinds of weapons is not an act of aggression by itself, and whatever protection agency exists (military or private sector in an anarcist society) is gonna have many more bigger and badder weapons than a civilian could afford. Btw an incredibly tiny amount of slayings occur using automatic or "assault" weapons.

And no, thats a dumb argument. It falls under "silly or semantic" and causes my opponent to forfeit the debate. It's pretty obvious that the ability to use is implied.
Posted by ldcon 4 years ago
ldcon
Also, to what degree does 'purchase and own' include regulation? Can ownership exist with use completely restricted?
Posted by ldcon 4 years ago
ldcon
Okay. What if we push the line further, should citizens have the ability to purchase heavy munitions, tanks, miniguns, etc.?
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
The term "assault weapon" is arbitrary and not a good basis for deciding policy. I would not support a ban
Posted by ldcon 4 years ago
ldcon
Do you draw any lines? I.e. citizens should be allowed to purchase any and all firearms? Assault Weapon Ban?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
thett3metalfingerzTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Kitty :)
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
thett3metalfingerzTied
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: NO GUN CONTROL
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
thett3metalfingerzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple forfeits after Pro demolished Con's arguments.