The Instigator
Labrat228
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points
The Contender
Vageesh
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points

Gun Bans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 12 votes the winner is...
Labrat228
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,311 times Debate No: 5308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (12)

 

Labrat228

Con

Hi all, and good luck to my opponent.

I will open with two points i will expect my opponent to offer an opposing view to.
1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

A great man named Thomas Jefferson once said.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I will now rephrase it so my opponent can understand this statement. If you are to take guns away from the people, you are simply taking guns away from those who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place. Criminals don't obey the law, therefor why do you think they wouldn't have guns after a gun ban was to come into place? Gun banns disarm the innocent and help the murderers, rapist, robbers and other types of criminals who rely on guns to assault the innocent.
2. Gun banns have a reverse effect on the intended purpose.
"banning guns to the general public increases people's vulnerability and fails to reduce violence because the law-abiding citizenry are victims of violent crime, not perpetrators." According to http://www.law.harvard.edu...
The gun banns presented in Washington DC "Murder Capital of the USA" haven't reduced violent crimes. According to http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vageesh

Pro

Well as worthy opponent said that gun bans are not doin' any good (for everyone),well in that case just look around you..
Those people who carry arms with a malicious intent cannot be justified on account of their carrying them.What I'm intending to highlight here is that
1.)Would you like to count yourself among the many others who have no concience(the killers etc...)
2.)How can you say that having a gun n your pocket won't prevent you from any assault(not every one knows youre' carrying a gun.
3.)How can you prove that you yurself won't use the gun when you are offended..after all anger maketh a person mad.
4.)As to what Thomas Jefferson once said that
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

well you justify this statement with basic intent of saving innocent people from injustice.. I hold high regards to that Concern of yours but why do you lose faith in your judicial system..
. For beter explanation,let's take an example..
You were assaulted in an alleyway..you had gun andoyu shot at the person in SELF DEFENCE..who'll know whether you did not do it intentionally.Would'nt killing/harming a person play on your Conscience.
You killed/harmed the person the person without knowing the reason why he assaulted you in the first place.
THEN WHAT ACCORDING TO YOU SIR WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND A GUNSLINGER!!!
Debate Round No. 1
Labrat228

Con

Thank you for taking my debate pro. I will use the format my opponent used.

1.) I would like for you to rephrase the first one and try again please.
2.) The ability to use the gun reduces the criminals ability to assault you.
3.) You cant prove that you wont use a gun if offended, would you Vageesh?
4.) My opponent is taking self defense and slamming it up against the wall, why do you need to know the reason they assaulted you, its assault, plain and simple. According to law self defense is simply this: Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. According to http://www.lectlaw.com... This law "Sir" is the difference between you and the gunslinger.

My opponent hasn't offered a logical reason as to why gun bans should be in place. Every reason he has offered has been defeated, besides his first reason (I have no clue what he meant). My opponent used self defense as a reason against gun bans, when in all actuality they are a reason to have gun bans according to Thomas Jefferson.
Vageesh

Pro

I thank my oppnent for 'TRYING' to disapprove my logic.It seems sir, you did not understand the first point i mentioned, well... i'll clear it first.I said
Would you like to count yourself among the many others who have no concience(the killers etc...)! Well the basic gist of using this phrase was to enlighten the fact that, would your Conscience allow you to carry a weapon capable of killing a living person,respective of the fact that you can kill a person in self defence.What you,sir, are trying to defend is the fact that killing a person would'nt play on your mind(even after, you are doing it to save yourself).
Secondly..you mentioned the fact that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".................
Well' are you trying to portray the fact that guns are people friendly!!!!!!!!Sir if this is the view you are trying to portray then sir, look closely what guns are doing all around you....the statement you later provided in your defense that "The gun banns presented in Washington DC "Murder Capital of the USA" haven't reduced violent crimes. According to http://en.wikipedia.org... i agree with the fact that crimes haven't reduced because of the fact that they have increased.Accordind to
http://archives.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six in ten Americans believe that laws covering the sale of firearms should be more stringent than they are now, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday.
Would you generally favor or oppose a law that would hold parents legally responsible if their children commit crimes with the parents' guns?
Favor69%
Oppose24%
No opinion7%
Now moving on you said.....
The ability to use the gun reduces the criminals ability to assault you.Here too sir you fail to see the major glich the ability of the criminals to assault you is decreased but not nullified fully..you can't say whether the attacker won't instigate you into shooting first in which case ,my dear The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.
For example, in the U.S. state of California a defendant can be convicted of manslaughter but not murder when imperfect self-defense applies.[2] [3]
The doctrine of imperfect self-defense recognizes a defendant's honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. An appellate court in Kansas held that "Imperfect self defense is an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances justified deadly force."[4]
Another court, in Maryland, held that:
When evidence is presented showing the defendant's subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect self defense....The theory underlying the doctrine is that when a defendant uses deadly force with an honest but unreasonable belief that it is necessary to defend himself, the element of malice, necessary for a murder conviction, is lacking.
—State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759,769 (Md. 1984) [5]
As regarding your third point i could'nt understand it...
But in your fourth statement you jackhammer the fact of not knowing the reason for the assault,Iagree on that but don't you think they have got a family to support..They are following unlawful means but only with a sole purpose to live in a world where people like yousir,(plse no offense)deprive them many times of their rights.

Thus my opponent has used reasons to justify the uprising crimes(homicide etc.)
His nearly every reason has been countered with a logical one....
I hope he has reasons logical enough to support his views in the next round.....Adios amigo!!!!
Debate Round No. 2
Labrat228

Con

It has been proven time and time again that when we are attacked our primal instincts kick in. We suddenly know how to fight back or how to resist. It then makes it obvious that if you are under attack, you would not hesitate to fight back, even if you couldn't pull the trigger, would the guy having a gun on him change his mind about attacking you?
My opponent is attacking "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", he says that I am trying to portray guns as people friendly. Tell me then, can a gun, in a gun case, murder a man? Can a gun in a woman's purse, for protection, kill a man? Not unless a person pulls the trigger, therefor reinforcing the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
My oppoenent stated this:
"the statement you later provided in your defense that "The gun banns presented in Washington DC "Murder Capital of the USA" haven't reduced violent crimes. According to http://en.wikipedia.org...... i agree with the fact that crimes haven't reduced because of the fact that they have increased.Accordind to
http://archives.cnn.com...;
My opponent defeats himself in that statement, Gun banns have been in Washington DC since 1976, If gun violents has been increasing since 1976 with gun ban, after gun ban, after gun ban, Its obviously not working! My opponent then says that Ive missed the glitch, that Ive looked over something, he says that having a gun doesn't fully prevent you from being assaulted, But no sir you've looked over something, having a gun, and decreasing the chances is better than not having a gun and remaining defenseless. Please pay attention to the fact that my opponent has stated this:
1. "The statement you later provided in your defense that "The gun banns presented in Washington DC "Murder Capital of the USA" haven't reduced violent crimes. According to http://en.wikipedia.org...... i agree with the fact that crimes haven't reduced because of the fact that they have increased.Accordind to
http://archives.cnn.com...;
2. "Here too sir you fail to see the major glich the ability of the criminals to assault you is decreased but not nullified fully"
The debate is over if gun bans are a good thing, according to him in the above statements, they make things worse.
Thank you all for reading my points, thank you vageesh for this debate, and good luck in the voting round!
Vageesh

Pro

Yet again.................yet again you, sir, provided the statement that "even if you couldn't pull the trigger, would the guy having a gun on him change his mind about attacking you?"
well wouldn't he just shoot you outright. Here please take note that my intention is not just justifying violence of which I am against but highlighting the fact that having a gun on you doesn't prove a single thing in your defence other than your point that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", hence making it clear that manslaughter is ok with you, without even the inkling what your family would do without you while you are serving sentence..............
This reckless nature again portrays the fact that you sir are hanging on to the only branch to survive and that's violence.......
I'll cite an example here....I suppose you have seen the movie "crash"...If not then please do sir,'cause it'll do a damn good job of enlightening you on what keeping guns for self defence eventually results in.....
You also attacked the fact that gun bans though in effect have still been unsuccessful in curbing crimes!!!!!!!!!!!
Then sir you again overlook the fact that people like you who support the motion against the gun bans are the real culprits behind the scenes for this............Just think of some remorse.....
But of course you in the end seem to favour my opinion that gun bans after all are good for you,the nation and the world.
"The debate is over if gun bans are a good thing, according to him in the above statements..."
Thank you sir for yet again trying to disapprove my facts.......Thank you for this enlightening debate(I'm surely going to use the topic in my upcoming school debate!!!!!!!!)...May luck be with you in the voting rounds!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
Stats prove out that in areas where a right to carry, crime is either down or is going down. That doesn't mean there are accidents or lawful people won't commit a crime with a gun. But criminals aren't law abiding citizens to begin with, so what makes us think that all we need is just one more law?
Posted by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
I plan on joining DeMolay
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
it seems like only Vageesh is the condescending one.
Posted by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
My father was a mason.

Some weird stuff. Mostly connections.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Jurist24,
I'm afraid respect has to be earned, and around here - it's pretty expensive.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Shakespeare redux. I just keep on getting more correct.
Posted by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
Idk, i didn't really enjoy being called "Sir" the way i was being called it.
Posted by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
Why were the two debaters so condescending? What happened to respect?
Posted by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
Yes, I now know a member of the Freemasons and I plan to interview him.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Labrat,
I believe the Freemasons are an organisation that has descended from a guild of masons who worked building European cathedrals in the middle ages. This is why their lodges always have a set-square and compass on them as their symbol.
They apparently have a lot of peculiar traditions and even a funny handshake. People around here call the "goat worriers" heheheh K-D
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
Labrat228VageeshTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 9 years ago
Jamesothy
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 Nox 9 years ago
Nox
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Labrat228VageeshTied
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 greengrl223 9 years ago
greengrl223
Labrat228VageeshTied
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:07