Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.
Debate Rounds (3)
I grew in very conservative community where everyone had guns, hunting was done before school and you might have a deer in the back of the pick-up and a gun in the back window when you arrived at school in the morning. As conservative and gun toting as it was though, we always settled major disputes with a brawl, eventually followed by handshake somewhere down the road.
It was always the perceived "thugs in the ghettos" who were the ones who couldn't solve disputes through argument or a good, clean fistfight. Even in the "wild west" men left their firearms at the edge of town and handled disputes like men.
All of the "tough guy" conservatives seem to have faded, now we're left with these NRA members who are afraid to go to a suburban 7-Eleven without packing a piece. And many of whom, are like Dick Cheney who couldn't hit a pheasant, if the birds life depended on it. We now have a growing majority of Republicans who couldn't scrap their way out of a wet paper sack and need the security of a gun for every black seventeen year-old in a hoodie, that they deem a potential threat. I used to think of Republicans as the gritty Veteran, that wasn't afraid of anybody and even at sixty years-old could still whoop the snot out of any liberal.
My how things appear to have changed. The image of the "old tough guy" has turned into a "soft" individual that can't escape an imagined paranoia, unable to feel safe in their own house without an easily accessible AR-15, unable to pick up their kids from school without their conceal carry on their person and no ability to defend themselves with the guns attached to their shoulders that God blessed them with.
People don't "want a gun so they can deal with any black teen in a hoodie they see on the street". Our nation has evolved past that, and people that don't think so are racists. People want guns so they can protect themselves from real dangers. It's saddening to see that former conservatives no longer view guns for what they are: tools. What's wrong with wanting to have a weapon when you go to a scummy 7-11? If there's a chance I'll be hurt, I should have the right to protect myself.
Would you question someone that wanted a gun to travel the roads of downtown Chicago alone at night? Probably not. That's the kind of things guns are for, not a display of strength, and not to make up for weakness. It's stupid to "settle your disputes in a good scrape". All that does is get you hurt. You shouldn't settle disputes by killing people, but you shouldn't protect yourself from danger with your fists.
I'm not anti-gun, I have shot many a guns in my lifetime and have even had one placed to my head in a scrape. I just feel the NRA and these pretend militia, the "don't tread on me" crowd are in actuality weak and paranoid. I would fully support any real militia such as the one lead by John Brown during the Civil War, but he was fighting abolitionism, not running to 7-eleven for a soda pop, a real man should be able to handle that task without the piece.
Let's take your argument that a gun is a tool, a deadly tool, but a tool. Well I'll let my three year old have a hammer and a screwdriver. So a gun must be a more dangerous tool than a hammer or screwdriver. Let's say a car and gun are both deadly tools. We require testing and licensing for anyone to be on the road driving a car, not so much with a gun.
So if you're 21 years-old, in a 7-eleven, denny's, or just on the street packing your nice glock and let's say you even passed all the checks to get your conceal carry license. Just the moment you knew was guaranteed to happen, you're in the back of a scummy 7-eleven and robber steps to the counter with a hoodie and a sawed off shotgun. What are you really going to do? Shoot the robber and then go shoot his accomplice outside or more likely accidentally shoot the clerk behind the counter.
Here's a nice link to a story about an ex-cop that shot a man in a movie theater over a small disagreement.
How am I supposed to know which individuals are properly trained and have the mental capacity to carry responsibly? Am I to believe that every conceal/open carry individual is safe to carry around my wife or child. I simply do not trust many these carriers to not do the stupid thing. Which is exactly why I don't carry, because although I don't have a criminal record I do rarely have anger management issues.
Now, to the argument here. Who's to say that someone shouldn't carry a gun to feel safe? It seems to me that someone would be more likely to be able to help a situation, if the need should arise, if they were armed rather than attempting to user their fists to deliver justice. Correct?
Sure, there's some people that shouldn't be using guns, but there's always someone that manages to use something they shouldn't. Like a car, for example.
Basically, I'm getting that you really just want people to have to undergo proper training in order to carry a gun publicly. That makes perfect sense, yes. We definitely shouldn't let just any old jerk carry around a gun because they want to feel safe. But we shouldn't say that people don't have a right to be safe either.
Guns don't(usually) turn people into complete wimps, and people don't usually want guns because they're wimps. It all comes back to safety. Why would you tackle a gunman willing to kill you? It would make a lot more sense for someone that was carrying to actually do something to him. That doesn't make the carrier a wimp, it makes them a logical human being.
I should have the right to eat at a restaurant, without some guy in mossy oak next to me with a sidearm and an AR, thinking he might have to be the next Rambo, if something goes down. He may feel safe surrounded by his armory, however, my wife, kids and I do not feel safe eating in such a situation.. Many of these individuals carrying these pieces for "protection", don't have the slightest idea what it means to kill someone, ask any soldier with PTSD.
I find it funny that you are not allowed to carry at most gun shows, many NRA meetings and most organized conservative events. Why? Because republican aristocracy knows it's less safe and ludicrous to have everyone with firearms everywhere, but it just wouldn't be good for Browning's sales to tell the public that inconvenient truth. It's also easy to get many republicans fired-up, if you campaign over and over, decade after decade, that the donkey's wants to take your firearm and you just won't be able to protect yourself from the impending tyranny (that's not going to happen) or from the 17 year-old in the hoodie.
Sometimes it's just better to give the bad guy in the hoodie the money, and more often then not, everybody lives to fight another day, Goodbye Bob Dole, hello Ted Cruz, I'd trust Bob Dole around a weapon, I doubt Ted Cruz knows much about handling his gold plated piece or how to use his fists. Bob Dole in his wheelchair could still whoop the snot out of Ted Cruz. I stand by my statement, Ted Cruz and those of his ilk, that claim to the saviors of all things that are constitutional, including these pervasive open/concealed carry laws that seem to dominate republican campaigns and ideology make the GOP and their voters appear weak and paranoid.
Now, having said that, your extreme example is still bad. People should be carrying a handgun as a weapon, not something so big they could use it as a weapon if it ran out of ammo.
People should be allowed to carry guns, and they should be required to know how to use them if they do. But they should also be able to without being judged as "weak" by people that don't agree with them.
How would you know how Ted Cruz is with a gun? My bets are pretty high you haven't seen him use one. And nothing against Bob Dole, but I think Cruz would be able to take the old man if(for some reason) it came to blows.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year 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:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro had the burden to show that these laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paranoid. Unfortunately, and as Con pointed out, Pro didn't present any substantial evidence as proof of these claims. At that point, Pro needed to provide evidence of GOP voters appearing weak and paranoid, and instead just presented hypothetical scenarios. Since this left Con's challenge standing, I must award these points to Con. Sources - Pro. Pro was the only one to utilize sources throughout the debate. I'd highly recommend both sides present stronger evidence in the form of studies, real-world scenarios, or articles reflecting the appearance of the people in consideration regarding gun laws.
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.