The Instigator
ricar321
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Mallory
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Citizens should have guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,509 times Debate No: 29117
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (5)

 

ricar321

Pro

Ok, you say "if guns were illegal, it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals." Oh, really? That's why no one has any types of illegal drugs because they are illegal, right? If a criminal is crazy enough to shoot people, then nothing is gonna stop him from getting a gun, especially a law.
Mallory

Con

True, but a law against guns would make it more difficult for a "criminal" to get one. There is no getting around it, restricting civilian gun ownership will make it more difficult to gain access to guns.
Debate Round No. 1
ricar321

Pro

That is true, I guess, but look at it this way. For one, we cant completely ban guns right now, because there are hundreds of millions out there, and there is no way that people would give up their guns. Also, if no one had guns, a criminal could get them, shoot everyone he wants to and no one could stop him. No one could stop him because no one has a gun, and he does. Have you heard about the shootings where one man has a gun, and the only way he is stopped is when he runs out of ammunition, and people can actually get to him without being shot? That is the only time where a person like that can be stopped. Besides, what about the people that live off the food that they shoot, like deer and other animals. Or the people who go out and go skeet shooting (such as myself). This is a recreational sport, which is fun and safe and easy to go out and do. A gun doesn't make a person bad, a bad person makes a gun bad.
Mallory

Con

I agree with the statement "we cant completely ban guns right now, because there are hundreds of millions out there". I understand that it really would not be feasible to take away all guns. I believe that laws created now that restrict guns can have a greater impact on future generations and will be more effective in decreasing the likelihood of tragedies such as Newtown and Columbine. I do not, however, agree that there are many, if any, instances where a civilian carrying a concealed weapon has stopped a mass shooting. I believe the argument is flawed. The gunman would be stopped by police, for they would be able to carry guns. As for people who " live off the food that they shoot", in reality how many people are there like that? For the sake of this debate, let's assume that there are people who kill their own food, and live off only that. I say-You cannot please everyone. They may have to give up that lifestyle in order to protect their fellow citizens. As for you and your skeet shooting, there are, or could be, facilities that provide that kind of entertainment so that individuals do not need to own their own guns. I also agree with your statement "A gun doesn't make a person bad, a bad person makes a gun bad", but the only way to keep guns from becoming "bad" is to keep them from people who make them so.
Debate Round No. 2
ricar321

Pro

Well, I do not know of an instance where a concealed handgun stopped a shooter either. However, I do know of mass killings where a concealed handgun would have stopped a shooter, if they had one. It's not only that, but it is also that the criminal knows no one will have a gun, which means he can do it wherever, whenever he wants (if no one could conceal a handgun). He knows no one could stop him. However, if we are allowed to have handguns, then he does not know who could or couldn't have a handgun.
Mallory

Con

But not knowing whether or not people have a concealed handgun has not stopped the shootings anyway.
Debate Round No. 3
ricar321

Pro

That was not the point I was trying to make. It may not have stopped the ones that did happen, but think of all the ones it stopped before it happened just by the thought that people might have guns. If no private citizen had access to guns, then there is a VERY high chance these shootings would increase rapidly. you realize the vast majority of these shootings happen in gun free areas, don't you? There is a reason for that, which either you don't want to realize, or you are too stupid to realize. Not trying to be insulting, but thats just the way it is. The reason for that is because the criminals know that no one is going to be armed, right? Yes. The school shooting: gun free zone, the theater shooting: gun free zone, the mall shooting: gun free zone. Are you starting to see a trend?
Mallory

Con

If you are going to resort to name calling, then I'm done with this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
ricar321

Pro

Wow. I did not say you were stupid, I said either you don't want to believe it, or you are too stupid to realize it. I could have said, "or you are lacking common sense." I know you would not call that name calling, or in the very least abrasive. I chose to conserve my words. Sorry. However, I don't want to sound obnoxious, but if you are going to stop the argument because I resorted to "name-calling" then I do not believe you have another argument to reply to me. If you agree with what I said, then say you agree. You do not have to be stubborn and immature enough to disagree even if you think I'm right. If you do not agree with me, then tell me why. If you do not have another argument, don't weasel your way out of this. That's all I ask.
Mallory

Con

I have agreed with you many times during this debate, why would I be too stubborn now?

I do not agree with you. I do not feel that you have any knowledge of what shooters or would be shooters are thinking. You have no idea why or why not people have chosen to or not to go on a shooting spree. You also have no idea if " the thought that people might have guns" stopped ANY shootings.

Also, the gunman at the school killed himself, why would he be afraid to go somewhere where someone might have a gun?I doubt that he chose to go to a school because it's a gun free zone, he obviously wasn't concerned that someone may be carrying a concealed weapon.

Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Right now, I think the answer is talking about the issue. What we have now are two bitterly divided camps. Both camps want the same thing - an end to the violence. Both camps see the other's position as an attack on their own. Both camps' positions are defined by gun ownership.

We need to set aside the gun debate entirely, and discuss the reasons for people wanting to perpetrate such heinous acts. Guns are simply the most readily-available tool for such acts, but there are more effective weapons, as we learned from Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City. If we continue to focus on the weapon of choice, we'll become embroiled in an ever-increasing tide of violence as we attempt to protect ourselves, in vain, against the weapons instead of solving the cause.

I don't pretend to know the cause. I suspect mental health is at the core, but I'm no one to make such a determination. We need to work together on this, and not let the gun stand between those with similar goals.
Posted by Mallory 4 years ago
Mallory
Ricar---I'm not sure I think banning guns is the answer either, I also don't think nothing should be done. I think the best thing to do is to avoid both extreme ends of the spectrum...I just don't know how that should be done.
Posted by Mallory 4 years ago
Mallory
Deadlykris--what do you think could be done?
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
The fundamental problem with solving these horrific incidents is that people are looking to the wrong issue as a cause. Guns are the obvious answer, and just like speed limits back in the 70s, they're the wrong answer. It took decades to realize that speed limits don't appreciably reduce road deaths, and I'm hoping it won't take decades to realize gun control won't appreciably reduce mass-murder deaths. We have plenty of data to show that it's the wrong answer, but without finding the right answer I fear we'll support the wrong answer, just to feel like we're doing something.
Posted by ricar321 4 years ago
ricar321
@deadlykris, That's a very good point. That is why I think there should be the private ownership and CC of guns.

@Mallory Yes, I agree. I, much like most others, want to make events like Aurora and Newtown never happen again. However, I just don't know of anything that could have been done to prevent these shootings. However, I do not think banning guns is the answer. You might not believe this, or you might think this is very foolish, but I believe there should be no gun-free zones. Now, I know that is not the perfect solution, but a CCW could have stopped either of those shooting, but no one had the chance to because they were not allowed guns.
Posted by Mallory 4 years ago
Mallory
Ricar--
Honestly, I do not know what should be done about gun control. I can understand parts of both sides. I think it's more complex than either you and I can imagine. My only goal would be to make it so events like Newtown and Aurora happen less.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
It's impossible to know of an incident that was completely prevented due to the person who would have committed it choosing not to. The only things we can look it are things that did happen, and time and again, when there has been a law-abiding gun-wielding citizen present at such an event, such events are cut short and fewer people are hurt; when there isn't such a citizen present, the event lasts longer and more people die. I know of no incident wherein a law-abiding citizen with a gun caused the incident to last longer.
Posted by ricar321 4 years ago
ricar321
Well, no one has said you have had the better argument, which a couple have for me. Not trying to be cocky, but that's the truth. And I didn't say anything about restricting civilian ownership would not make it more difficult, I said the criminal would get a gun if they were legal or not. Yes, I don't know of a shooting that was prevented because the shooter thought someone would have guns, but you don't know that hasn't happened. You know, everything you "disproved me" is not a fact, it is just your assumption. He could have been concerned someone would have had a gun, maybe he wanted to kill himself. You don't know either. You don't know why people have chosen to go on a shooting spree. Ok, I have a question. What do you think the government should do for gun control.
Posted by Mallory 4 years ago
Mallory
If you disproved my beliefs, then nobody should win the debate and people should not be saying either one of us had better arguments.
Posted by Mallory 4 years ago
Mallory
-Restricting civilian gun ownership will make it more difficult to gain access to guns.

-You have no idea why or why not people have chosen to or not to go on a shooting spree. You also have no idea if " the thought that people might have guns" stopped ANY shootings.
These beliefs:

-Also, the gunman at the school killed himself, why would he be afraid to go somewhere where someone might have a gun?I doubt that he chose to go to a school because it's a gun free zone, he obviously wasn't concerned that someone may be carrying a concealed weapon.

- "A gun doesn't make a person bad, a bad person makes a gun bad", but the only way to keep guns from becoming "bad" is to keep them from people who make them so.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
ricar321MalloryTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a debate that I would have loved to argue on the Pro side. Ricar321 conceded points that should not have been conceded. Mallory did a good job in presenting his beliefs as fact and getting ricar321 to accept them
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
ricar321MalloryTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called his opponent "stupid" and "immature"--this is clearly inappropriate conduct.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
ricar321MalloryTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro made a better argument I will give conduct to Con, Because Pro used improper conduct even tho he declared he wasn't being insulting. It is insulting to say, " Either you agree with me or you are 2 stupid 2 understand. There are other ways of putting points accross than calling your opponent stupid.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
ricar321MalloryTied
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: No facts or sources in the debate, but pro made stronger arguments.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
ricar321MalloryTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Note the word 'should'. This means Pro has the burden of proof. Pro did not meet this burden of proof, because he didn't really provide any supporting evidence. I might also add that criminals are, technically citizens, and thus saying that citizens should not have guns also means that criminals should not have guns.