The Instigator
Dnick94
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,932 times Debate No: 5818
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

Dnick94

Con

I wish my opponent good luck, and I hope that we have an interesting debate.

Definition:
Right to keep and bear arms - people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons. (Usually interpreted to mean personal guns.)

The rules are:
1. We both have to prove our side. I have to prove the topic I'm going to state below, and you have to argue against it. The burden of proof is on both of us.

2. No semantics. We all know what we mean by something. It's the arguments that count.

I will let my opponent make the first arguments in this round.
wjmelements

Pro

I accept and look forward to this debate. Further, I ask all voters to drop all bias before voting on this debate.

My opponent will be able to present new points in the second and third rounds, and I will be able to in the first and second rounds.
I accept my opponent's definition. In addition,
Everyone- every human

This 'right' does not mean that there will be a governing body in charge making sure every one has a weapon or else.
It is, however, referring to the personal ability to own a weapon.
Bear is not referring to an animal.
(End Clarification)

Everyone should have the right to keep and bear weapons because:
1. There will still be weapons whether they are illegal or not.
2. Weapons have commercial interests.
3. Violence can still occur without weapons.

1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it. Declaring rape illegal has never stopped it. Delcaring murder illegal hasn't stopped it. We can't expect that incriminating the possession of weapons will discourage violent crimes, either. Gangs that want to have these weapons will still get have them. However, such a law would take away weapons from law-abiding citizens, rending them helpless to violent crime.

Self-defense is essentially useless when someone else has a weapon and the victim does not. Knowing this, more hardened criminals would be more successful. In addition, the law enforcement, which fits into the 'everyone', would also not having guns would increase the success of such criminals. The result is a lawless anarchy.

2. Weapons have commercial interests. For example, there are shooting ranges. http://www.nrahq.org... In addition, gun selling is an important industry that supplies jobs. Gun designing creates high-paying jobs. Gun competitions and gun shows can help bring communities together. Banning guns would end all of this.

3. Violence does not even require weapons. A little firls can still be raped by a strong man, especially if neither of them have weapons. Brawls can result in death. Banning guns will not end violent crime.

I will elaborate in later rounds as necessary.
Debate Round No. 1
Dnick94

Con

I thank my opponent for taking this debate and further wished him good luck.

1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it.

I agree with the statement. However, based on his statement, I have to conclude that my opponent thinks that declaring actions illegal is worthless. Declaring rape illegal may have never stopped it, but the law has reduced it. Declaring murder illegal hasn't stopped it, but the law has also reduced it. Forgive me for saying it, but it seems that my opponent encourages to declare all laws void. If rape and murder was legal, you can expect that actions to be encouraged. Laws elaborate rights and responsibilities in a variety of ways. Laws control equality, fairness, liberty and justice. Without laws, nothing would be illegal and we would have uncontrollable numbers of cases of murder and rape. I can't imagine our society where justice doesn't exist. Justice is one of the key features of society.
For further information, go to http://en.wikipedia.org...

There is more weapons than guns that people can own. People can own self-defense weapons that aren't lethal such as quality martial arts weapons, home security products, instructional fighting DVD, and even fun sporting goods such as blowguns, crossbows, and Airsoft BB Guns. If guns were banned, people such as criminals wouldn't have easy access of them and the law enforcement can also own more powerful self defense weapons or they can own guns. If only the law enforcement own guns, then the success of criminal wouldn't increase. Either way, people can have substitutes instead of dangerous guns.
For further information, go to http://www.naselfdefense.com...

2. Weapons have commercial interests.

If self-defense weapons were in an industry, I expect that they could replace guns when guns are banned. Guns may have commercial interest. I agree with you on that statement.

Unfortunately, the gun industry refuses to recognize its responsibility to make its products safer, choosing instead to place the sole burden on the user - even when that user is a four-year-old child. It makes and and markets the only widely available consumer products designed to kill. It is irresponsible in the way it markets and sells its products, failing to maintain standards for distributors which would prevent gun trafficking, misleading consumers about the use of guns in self-defense, and deliberately marketing products in such a way as to attract criminals.
For further information, go to http://www.bradycampaign.org...

3. Violence does not even require weapons

I also agree with the statement. However, having guns will not end violent crime. They can be used to be in suicide, in murder, and in crime such as bank robberies. A little girl won't be able to own a gun, but she might be able to own a self-defense weapon such as peppermint spray. Therefore she won't kill anyone and she won't get raped.

I will also elaborate in later rounds as necessary.
wjmelements

Pro

1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it.
Yes, laws are often neccessary, and often discourage things from happeining, but for this instance, it is not the case.
As my opponent said, the law enforcement could have a superior weapon or even a gun. However, the law enforcement falls underthe category of 'everyone', as I have already claified, and this is not the case. The law enforcement would be almost powerless, and there would be a limited justice.

My opponent has also brought up that people could have lesser weapons. However our current definition of 'keep and bear arms' is:
"Right to keep and bear arms - people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons. (Usually interpreted to mean personal guns.)"
Under this definition, all weapons, including blowguns, crossbows, and airsoft BB guns, fall under the definition of 'arms'.
In addition, my opponent has stated:
"Either way, people can have substitutes instead of dangerous guns."
All weapons can be deadly. Even a rock can be deadly.

For this reason, I would like to put forth a definition of 'weapon':
-something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy http://mw1.m-w.com...
Even peppermint spray falls into this category.

Banning guns has not prevented violent crime in Great Britain.
"An independent report, Illegal Firearms in the UK, to be
published by the Centre for Defence Studies at King's
College in London tomorrow, says that handguns were
used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in
1997, an increase of 40 per cent. " http://www.gunblast.com...

Again, a ban on weapons will not keep criminals from obtaining them. They will still be sold and traded through the black market.

2. Weapons have commercial interests.
"Unfortunately, the gun industry refuses to recognize its responsibility to make its products safer, choosing instead to place the sole burden on the user - even when that user is a four-year-old child."
Often, it is illegal for a four-year-old child to obtain a weapon.

Why would we kill an industry as soon as it becomes slightly corrupt? The gun industry, as well as the other weapon industries, supply weapons to hunters as well as people who just carry them around for self-defence.
Reforming, regulating, and/or consumer awareness could solve all of the problems my opponent has stated.

3.Violence does not even require weapons.

As proven earlier, not having guns will not end violent crime either. Before guns, suicides often involve hanging one's self. Murders and assassinations have also occurred with the use of poison.

Also, I present a new point (as deemed legal in r1):
4. There are other ways to harm people without weapons.
Fists can be deadly. A punch to the neck would kill someone. A knee putting about a hundred pounds of pressure on the neck would also be deadly. Someone could be choked or strangled to death.
Legs and arms can be broken without weapons (I myself have been in many martial arts classes).
Ribs can be broken under minute pressure. A broken rib can then puncture lungs.

I will further elaborate in later rounds.

In addition, I challenge the validity of my opponent's sources.
Wikipedia can be editied and information can be edited by anyone, so information on that website is not always accurate.
Kevin Brady's political campagn website is not a place to look for facts, as he is a politician.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Dnick94

Con

Counterarguments:

Weapons may be something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy. Based on this definition, I have to conclude that any body part may be used as a weapon. However, my opponent actually wants to debate on gun rights. In this context of this debate, arms will refer to firearms or guns. Therefore, my opponent will argue on this resolution: Everyone should have a gun as the right to keep and bear arms.

1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it.

Declaring anything legal doesn't not stop it. However, we try to reduce the number of cases and I already have stated that without laws, people will be encouraged to do anything they want. Without justice, there wouldn't be society and then everyone would start trying to kill the other. Therefore, if we ban guns, we have less cases of homicide and murder.

The law enforcement could have a superior weapon or even a gun, because even though they fall under the category of "everyone", the guns could be restricted to law enforcement ONLY. Regular civilians won't have guns so they can't commit a crime without being defenseless from a gun. So if civilians don't have guns, they couldn't commit the crimes. Therefore, we would have less cases and the almost invincible law enforcement.

There is the old saying that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Britain is already taking further measures against outlaws who use guns and have made an intensified effort against illegally smuggled weapons and a determination to punish criminals who use guns.
For further information, go to http://www.gunblast.com...

Although crime rates in England and Australia have skyrocketed since the gun limits went into effect, the U.N. (also called the United Nations) have proposed ways to keep criminals from obtaining them from being sold in illegal trade and the black market.

These proposals include:

*Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule;

*A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges;

*Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U.N. computer bank.

"The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun – every single gun worldwide – to be under U.N. and government control," warns LaPierre. "And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation."

If the U.N. have every single guns worldwide under their control, criminals will be prevented to have guns. This will reduce all the cases concerning guns and criminals will have to find another way to kill enemies. I doubt that those criminals are intelligent enough to develop guns on their own, especially since criminals buy guns and if no one is making guns, no criminal will have access to one.
For further information, go to http://archive.newsmax.com...

2. Weapons have commercial interests.

Self-defense weapons also have commercial interest if guns were banned. Guns can still be used to kill people even after reforming, regulating, and/or consumer awareness. Criminals are aware that guns kill people and won't need to listen to the dangers of the weapon. They are more interested on executing crime than to listen to people's advice on how to use it for self-defense.

People who carry them for just self-defense and hunters have other supplies that they can use.

In my second round, I stated that people can own self-defense weapons that aren't lethal such as quality martial arts weapons, home security products, instructional fighting DVD, and even fun sporting goods such as blowguns, crossbows, and Airsoft BB Guns.
For more information, go to http://www.naselfdefense.com...

Hunters have other alternatives to hunt down other animals. They could use self-defensive weapons such as the pistol crossbow supplied with cyanide-tipped arrows as an alternative to rifles or handguns.
For more information, to to http://www.naselfdefense.com...

3. Violence does not even require weapons. (Your next point is exactly this point reworded.)

Banning guns will help reduce violence, because of the almost invincible law enforcement. How can you kill 5 to 30 people without a single gun? How can you defend yourself against the law enforcement who has guns? If self-defense weapons are truly stronger than guns, the law enforcement has the advantage.

Not many criminals who use guns know martial arts like you do. Even if criminals are physically strong like Bruce Lee, I don't think they can fight against a self-defense weapon from a civilian or a gun from the law enforcement. Therefore, banning guns will reduce violence, because either criminals will have to know martial arts or be invincible against any attack from a gun or a self-defense weapon.

I will also further elaborate in later rounds.

The opponent of the my Wikipedia sources who is citing sources will most likely check the link themselves. Virtually every time someone posts a link, you would be a fool to just accept the information, rather than examining it yourself. If I post inaccurate information that I used from Wikipedia, then you should have found evidence against my arguments. However, I think that anyone can make a website just like Wikipedia and edit their website, so information from any website is not always accurate.

I would like to thank my opponent once again for this debate and hope that he would also enjoy having this debate.
wjmelements

Pro

wjmelements forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dnick94

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. He could have wrote as much as he can, and left a simple sentence stating that he was unable to post a full argument and will return for the next round. Due to his lack of time, I will forgive him and in the fairness of debate and in the hope that my opponent will return for Round 4, I will not post new points. However, I will elaborate on my arguments so that this round won't be wasted.

1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it.

Children and Gun Violence:

According to the latest national data released in 2002, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States in a single year. According to Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries.

American and Gun Violence:

According to Centers for Disease Control. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In a single year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.
For further information, go to http://www.neahin.org...

The statistics basically states that the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and therefore, the United States have more cases of gun violence that any other industrialized nation. If the United States were to have a gun ban, we would have less homicidal cases.

"Banning guns has not prevented violent crime in Great Britain."

Great Britain is not the only country to have a gun ban. Japan has a gun ban too. Japan's crime rate is very low, and its gun crime rate virtually nothing. The police, the military and hunters are the only group that is allowed to posses guns is hunters, and that possession is strictly circumscribed. Civilians are not allowed to obtain handgun target licenses and laws have harshly restricted possession of guns to hunters. In 1985, only 35 crimes,, were committed with hunting guns. Since the Japanese crime rate is dramatically lower than the U.S. rate, Tokyo, the world's major industrialized city have suffered only 40 muggings per year per one million inhabitants. Robbery is almost about rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4.

To compare a society with and without guns is like the idiom "comparing apples and oranges." One culture cannot simply adopt laws from different cultures. America culture simple takes workplace safety less seriously than the Japanese business. The Japanese perceive no need to own a gun for individual self-defense because the crime rate is so extraordinarily low. In other words, for the Japanese, it is not the presence or absence of guns that matters, but how they are treated. But to the Americans, liberty is much more important and it includes having guns. The gun ban is readily obeyed in Japan, but is massively resisted wherever it appears in America. In order for gun bans to work, America has to limit its liberties and rights in an attempt to adopt the Japanese culture. Gun laws of Japan are a part of an authoritarian philosophy of government that is fundamentally at odds with America's traditions of liberty. Japan functions without a right to bear arms and without other rights as well. What I'm basically saying is that because the United States have so many rights and liberties such as the right to keep and bear arms, America has became the world's freest, most uncontrolled gun culture for over 300 years. As a result, America has more gun violence than any other industrialized nation.
For more information, go to http://www.davekopel.com...

When America has a gun ban, it would only work if the U.N. have every single guns worldwide under their control. As I already stated, if no criminals have access to guns, the gun violence will sharply drop. Unlike Japan, America cannot control its people to stop using guns due to its different culture from Japan. However, if guns didn't exist, criminals will have to seek other methods to kill people. I doubt that any other weapon is more efficient on killing more people faster than guns.

2. Weapons have commercial interests

There are two entrenched interests that have opinions about the gun industry: (a) participants in the industry, and (b) people affected by the deaths attributable to gun violence. These interests conflict as they involve large amounts of money, long-held (historically) belief systems, and the deaths of loved family members. It can also apply to the tobacco and the alcohol industries. They don't care about who dies when people use their products. They just want the money. In addition, people who have easy availability of these killing machines from these gun industries made it easy for them to kill a lot of people.

Self-defense weapons can have commercial interest if guns were banned. Gun bans would result in more progression of self-defense weapons if people would manufacture them instead of guns.

3. Violence does not even require weapons.

Guns are more effective on committing murder than a taser gun, a self-defense weapon. Although tasers are lethal when abused, I'm sure that tasers can't kill people as fast as guns. Self-defense weapons are made to be less lethal than firearms. Stun guns have soared in popularity as a nonlethal alternative to bullet-firing gun Since tasers came into widespread use to stun suspects, law enforcers have counted more than 180 deaths in the years. 180 deaths from tasers is a joke compared to gun statistics which include about 10,000 murders are committed using firearms annually.
For more information, go to http://www.yourlawyer.com...

Homicidal data states that more murders were committed by firearms than any other weapon.
If we have a gun ban, the total firearms incidents would sharply decrease due to the decreased availability of guns. Knives or cutting instruments, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), and personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) will be the top causes of homicidal cases once the gun ban has been implemented. They are only half the number of cases of firearm incidents. Therefore, if we have a gun ban, we can predict to lower homicidal rates by half or more.
For more information, go to http://www.fbi.gov...

The most important point about is that we have better substitutes to firearms for self-defense. Those include tear gas, tasers, and peppermint spray. Declaring guns illegal will reduce the number of homicidal cases. I hope that lack of time won't still persist as a problem for my opponent in the next round.
wjmelements

Pro

Firts, I would like to apologize for missing round 3. I was quite busy.
New Resolution:
I assume my opponent meant, "Everyone should have the right to keep and bear firearms."

I will revise these points to fit the new definition of 'arms'.
1. There will still be weapons whether they are illegal or not.
2. Weapons have commercial interests.
3. Violence can still occur without weapons.
4. There are other ways to harm people without guns.

They are now:
1. There will still be guns whether they are illegal or not.
2. Guns have commercial interests.
3. Violence can still occur without guns.
4. There are other ways to harm people without guns.

Further, I will consolidate 3 points into one, leaving only two main points:
1. Making guns illegal will not significantly reduce violence or injury.
2. Guns have commercial interests.

1. My opponent has claimed that reducing guns would reduce cases of homocide and murder. However, as already stated, there are other ways to commit murder and homocide without guns. http://www.brusselsjournal.com... Obviously, these crimes occurred before there were guns. http://www.livius.org... Before then, people were killed by strangulation, hanging, poisoning, assault, etc. If we eliminate guns, then there will just be an increase in knife usage in killing. Knives will just replace guns as the weapons of choice, and that's disregarding the fact that guns would still be sold and bought illegally after such a ban.
This is because guns don't kill people, people do.

My opponent has also suggested that law enforcement have a gun. However, because they fall into the category of 'everyone', they would not be able to have guns under this resolution. That entire argument is void.

My opponent has conceded that gun bans have historically increased crime.

The proposals of the U.N. are illogical.
-If it is illegal to have a gun, then why would they limit people to one gun, and how would they do that?

-Having only govenment officials having guns and only law enforcement having guns is against the resolution, as 'everyone' includes them. In addition, for the government to be such as this sets up the probability of a military/fear state of government. To give only the government weapons would result in tyranny.

-Worldwide liscensing of firearms by the U.N. wouldn't work because there are countries that aren't in the U.N. that would not be effected by this regulation. These countries would prosper as black market countries. Such countires could make money selling these illegal guns to gangs and terrorists in other countries. In addition, that proposal is void because if guns were to be banned in those countries, they could not be produced.

Those proposals would fail and therefore are void.

Again, my opponent has brought up this invincible law enforcement. Though this argument is void in this debate, I would like to further argue against it.
Why should a government have a military hold over its people? Government is made up of people. Having a government with such a power over its people would by tyrannic. The people would live in fear of the government. This is often called fascism. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Back to the debate:
Any civilian can choose to be a criminal. They would have access to such self defense weapons, and so be able to use them violently.

People dying from gun accidents is also void. Such an accident can happen with anything that relates to safety. Should cleaning chemicals be banned because children have swallowed then and died? Should commercial flight be banned because a malfunction is possible? Should sky diving be banned because of the possibility of malfunction? Should children's swim lessons be banned because children can accidentally drown? Should people be able to drive because they might slip up and die?
The answer is no. If people take the proper precautions, anything can be done safely.

My opponent has also used Japan as an example to prove that gun bans work. However, in most countries, they do not. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
A worldwide gun ban would not be efficient. other weapons would just replace them and either anarchy or tyrrany would result.

2. Guns have commercial interests.
Self defense weapons would also have a commercial interest, yes, but it would not be as significant. hunting would be less popular as it becomes nearly impossible. A deer cannot be safely approached to be subdued without a gun, as they are quite violent towards humans. http://www.dfg.ca.gov... Further, a crossbow that is lethal against a deer would also be lethal against a man. If these were to become as commercial as guns are now, they would just replace guns.

Obviously, guns do have commercial interests. They are bought and used to hunt. They could not effectively be replaced by anything that can kill a cow or a deer, but not a man. If they were replaced economically by something that can kill, then the purpose of the resolution would be defeated. If all things lethal were banned, then it would effect the agricultrural industry as well. If only guns were to be banned, then they would be replaced with something else.

Further, hunting helps the environment. Hunting controls the deer population, which would over-eat until extinction without population control. Deer starve when they aren't hunted. http://brianoconnor.typepad.com...
Animal meat and animal pelts have commercial interests as well.

Overall, a gun ban would be inefficient and would not reduce violence. Guns would be replaced by other items. A self defense weapon could become a weapon of violence easily. There is really no reason to ban guns. in addition, guns have commercial interest for hunters and guns provide power in the economy.
Debate Round No. 4
Dnick94

Con

"Everyone should have the right to keep and bear firearms." This isn't a new resolution. The right to keep and bear arms have been interpreted with the right to keep and bear guns.

1. Making guns illegal will not significantly reduce violence or injury.

Making guns illegal will significantly reduce violence and injury caused by guns. Guns make killing much easier than any other potentially lethal object available to the American public. Knife crimes may increase, but overall the total violence and injury will decrease. Killing a 300 pound full grown man with a knife, it would likely be difficult given the large imbalance of physical strength and we would have to be in close proximity of each other. If I wanted to take out as many people as possible such as in a high school, a firearm would be far more concealable, effective and time efficient compared to any other legally obtainable weapon or object. People may kill people, but the difficulty varies with the type of weapon owned.
Source: http://www.politicalforum.com...

The law enforcement may have a gun. When I'm against the resolution, I meant that guns should be restricted to the military, government, and law enforcement. Civilians will not be able to own guns.

Gun laws may have historically increased crime. However, the "mixed quality of the evidence on the efficacy of gun control, along with its varying interpretations, means that lawmakers should be allowed to assess it for themselves to set reasonable gun control policies." Lawmakers want to decrease crime and doing nothing won't help the gun violence decrease by itself.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com...

"Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule."

This is only a proposal and may not be in effect. However these other proposals (which I already stated before) include:
# A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges;
# Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U.N. computer bank

Democracies like Japan have very strict laws against citizens owning firearms and don't reveal totalitarian tendencies.
There are several countries that have had gun control in place for many years—the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada for example—that are not totalitarian governments.

U.S. small arms are briskly — and illegally — sold all over the world. However, "in the last 10 years, the international community succeeded in establishing a global treaty against antipersonnel landmines and a global ban on cluster bombs — weapons of indiscriminate effect that can leave behind thousands of unexploded "bomblets" that pose a threat to military personnel and civilians alike." Therefore, if the world can ban landmines and cluster bombs, they should be able to ban guns. Shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next?
Source: http://www.fpif.org...

"Any civilian can choose to be a criminal. They would have access to such self defense weapons, and so be able to use them violently."

What kills 30 people faster and easier, a taser or a gun?

"People dying from gun accidents is also void." It is more gun violence than gun accidents that are causing all these deaths due to people abusing guns to kill people.

The statistics basically states that the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and therefore, the United States have more cases of gun violence that any other industrialized nation.

I didn't say that the reason Japan had low crime rate was because of the gun ban. I specifically stated: Gun laws of Japan are a part of an authoritarian philosophy of government that is fundamentally at odds with America's traditions of liberty. You will notice that Japan has very low crime rate and people will not resort to tyranny.

"Self defense weapons would also have a commercial interest, yes, but it would not be as significant." It will become significant once guns are banned, wouldn't you agree?

"Deer starve when they aren't hunted."
Isn't that statement a contradiction?

Hunting does not help the environment, because they have been the cause of extinction of various animals and made many species endangered: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Tasers could also be used to hunt deer as well as crossbow. Crossbow and tasers aren't more efficient on killing than a gun.

Guns can kill more easily than other weapons. If we ban them globally, the gun violence will be expected to sharply drop. That is why I strongly urge the audience to vote CON and I thank the readers for reading this debate.
wjmelements

Pro

I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Thank you, dnick.

First, my opponent still believes that law enforcement can have a gun if the resolution is negated. However, because what my opponent must prove (as he has burden of proof), is that 'Everyone should not have the right to keep and bear arms.' Under this resolution to be proved, 'everyone' includes the police, law enforcement, and anyone else.

Before arguing against my opponent, I would like to point out that he has not proved that we should not be able to have guns. He has attempted to show that guns are harmful and deadly.

As I have already stated, guns would only be replaced by other weapons. Law enforcement would not have weapons. Many people woud get around the gun ban by smuggling and/or law bending. They would be illegally bought and sold. Gun-like things would be invented to replace them that would be just as deadly. The global law would be avoided. In addition, many countries would willingly not or not be able to enforce the law and there would be little to do against it.

-My oppponent has suggested that it is possible for a global gun ban to avoid the above problems. However, he has not come up with one.

"There are several countries that have had gun control in place for many years—the United Kingdom"
The U.K.'s law enforcement doesn't have guns, so, yes, it is not totalitarian or a police state. However, crime rates have not dropped in that country. http://www.reason.com...
In addtion, British gun controls have not slowed gun crime. However, some British people believe the solution is even more of a gun ban (note the irony and read this article). http://www.guardian.co.uk...
There is much resistence to this law. http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk...
Again, gun bans do not reduce violence and rendure victims helpless. http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

"Australia"
Australia's gun ban has lead to a 45% increase in armed robbery in addition to other problems. http://www.worldnetdaily.com... http://www.gunsandcrime.org...

"and Canada"
The Canadian Gun Ban is new, and it's effects aren't yet as sure as the British Gun Ban, which has been in effect for over ten years.

As hunting has lead to the extinction of helping species, this has been reduced by protection of certain species deemed in danger. Modern hunting is most usually legal and beneficial to the species being hunted. These species made to be hunted by man tend to reproduce far more than their population can handle in preparation for potential predators.

"Tasers could also be used to hunt deer as well as crossbow. Crossbow and tasers aren't more efficient on killing than a gun."
Hunting with tasers seems unethical. A crossbow that can kill a deer effectively can also kill a man.

In conclusion, a gun ban would be impractical and harmful for the above reasons. I again thank my opponent for this debate, and urge voters to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
Agreed with before argument- Pro

Agreed with after the argument- Pro

Better Conduct- Tie, neither was rude. Pro did forfeit a round but that only hurts him and I sincerely believe he didn't mean to offend Con.

Spelling and Grammar- Tie, neither did real well in this category.

Convincing Arguments- Pro, Con conceded on some of his arguments and flip-flopped his view a bit throughout the debate.

Reliable Sources-Pro, hands down. Con I'm sorry but wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
I took back the sources point and gave it to Pro.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Before/After debate: Tie
I disagree with both positions. Pro says "everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms", and Con says "noone" should, basically. I believe legally sane individuals with clear records of legal age should have the right to keep and bear arms, and do under the Constitution of the United States. I don't believe children, blind people, felons, schizophrenics, or old people should own arms (not all old people anyways).

Conduct: Con
Pro forfeited a round.

S&G: Tie
Both made several major mistakes in spelling and grammar.

Arguments: Tie
Neither convinced me for their position.

Sources: Con
Pro did not provide sources.
Posted by Urisma_Ska-Kharib 8 years ago
Urisma_Ska-Kharib
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Pro

Who did you agree with after the debate?
Pro - pro provided better arguments, and also offered better rebuttals to Con's arguments

Who had better conduct?
Tied - neither made any rude/offensive comments

Who had better spelling and grammar?
Tied - there were few noticeable gramatical errors on either side of the debate

Who made more convincing arguments?
Pro - pro stuck to the debate topic and backed up his arguments well, while Con's included too much speculation and went off topic.

Who used the most reliable sources?
Pro - Wikipedia and the political campaign website are not reliable, and Wikipedia was cited several times by con. Pro, on the other hand, offered valid sites for his arguments

It was a good debate, however arguments over proposals in later rounds were unnecessary and did not pertain to the debate topic.

Con - I saw you contradict your arguments "law enforcement officers could have guns" twice, I believe (though you did clarify in round 5) I'd recommend stating your exact resolution in the first round, to prevent misunderstanding
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Conduct: Con
- Both debaters remained courteous in a potentially volatile issue. However, Pro forfeited a round resulting in this point being awarded to Con.

Spelling/Grammar: Pro
- Con had several grammatical mistakes, occasionally using the 'passive voice'. Pro was more eloquent and his writing style made his points more clear and easy to understand.

Convincing arguments: Pro
- One of the more major points that Con rested his case on is that guns should be taken away worldwide. The logistics of this are impossible. The other major point made by Con was that guns are harmful, used by criminals, and potentially deadly. Pro did an excellent job of using relevent sources to show that violent crime remains the same with or without guns, and in some cases it increases. Therefore, even if guns did not exist at all, violent crime would remain.

Sources: Pro
- Con did a poor job of showing the relevence of his sources. He merely presented the reader with links to obtain 'further information' instead of showing us why his sources were relevent. Conversely, Pro made excellent use of sources.

Note to Con: As I have in previous suggestions to Dnick, I suggest using the sources in-text rather than leaving a link for the reader to do your homework for you. Instead of providing links for 'further information', tell us why they are relevent.
Note to Pro: I have no suggestions. You had great coherence and flow. Your sourcework was commendable.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Can i get a reason for you voting that way?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Okay...
Posted by antisemantic 8 years ago
antisemantic
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Con

Who did you agree with after the debate?
Con

Who had better conduct?
Con

Who had better spelling and grammar?
Con

Who made more convincing arguments?
Con

Who used the most reliable sources?
Con
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Dnick94wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Dnick94wjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Dnick94wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Dnick94wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Dnick94wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Urisma_Ska-Kharib 8 years ago
Urisma_Ska-Kharib
Dnick94wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05