The Instigator
bgruber93
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Brenavia
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Gun Bans

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 4 votes the winner is...
Brenavia
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,187 times Debate No: 17721
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

bgruber93

Pro

Resolved: The banning of firearms, in rural towns, should be illegal.
NO EVIDENCE WILL BE ALLOWED IN THIS DEBATE! It is just thoughts on banning guns.
THE FOUTH ROUND IS ONLY FOR VOTING ISSUES.

OPENING ARGUEMENT
POINT ONE: Using firearms in a rural environment is vital.
The right to bear arms is not only important, but vital to the life style of the people that live in rural environments. We depend on the use of firearms to help prevent our livelihood from being lost. Imagine trying to kill a bear or mountain lion with a pocket knife. It will never work.
POINT TWO: If we ban firearms, criminals will hold the upper hand.
The banning of firearms only apply to law abiding citizens. If a gun ban is put in place, criminals will know that the likelihood of them having a fatal punishment will diminish greatly. This will promote more violent crimes and will cause the law abiding citizens to resort to illegal means of self defence. Basically it will be like prohibition revised.
Brenavia

Con

I look forward to this debate.

Since no evidence is allowed in the rules, all of the following arguments will be analytical.

I, debating as the Con, state that the banning of firearms should be legal.

I will first address my opponent's arguments, then I will move on to my own.

POINT ONE: Using firearms in a rural environment is vital.
^More often than not, rural communities aren't fighting off bears and mountain lions. I live in a rural community, and the biggest thing I've seen is a doe. Modern society has less need for guns than it did 100, even 50 years ago.

POINT TWO: If we ban firearms, criminals will hold the upper hand.
^Banning guns isn't getting rid of the firearms of the police. It takes them away from citizens who don't need them.

My points

According to the resolution, in the case that I'm supporting, gun control should be legal. Local communities should decide for themselves. Under the resolution of Pro, all communities are forced to allow guns. No more figures
Debate Round No. 1
bgruber93

Pro

I will defend my case then attack my opponents
POINT ONE: We live in rural Colorado and I have had to shoot coyotes, mountain lions and stray dogs that attacked our livestock because they were hungry and killed our livestock. Firearms are a vital tool when you are protecting what keeps you alive. My opponent said "the biggest thing I've seen is a doe" but that's not the problem its the other animals that attack your animals.
POINT TWO: My opponent must be living in a perfect world where there are police always ready to catch the criminal when the crime is committed, but in the real world this is not correct. Firearms are an equalizer to a criminal. When you don't have a firearm the criminal has the upper hand in almost violent crime. A firearm can be used to help police catch a criminal. Firearms are a deterrent to crime. more crime will be committed when criminals know the punishment will not be fatal.
ATTACK: It should be the choice of the individual and not be government regulated.
Brenavia

Con

His arguments, then mine.

Point 1: Under my contention, if there is a large wild animal problem in the area, the community can decide to allow firearms.
Point 2: So you would be willing to become a criminal yourself to stop one? Anyway, if there is a big crime problem in the area, the community can decide to allow firearms.

My opponent fails to realize that this is better than the current system. Instead of a federal or state mandated system, the local government decides what's best. Otherwise, Pro supports all communities have the right to own guns. This means that even if a commuity decides that the legalization of firearms is not in its best intrest, they still have to allow people to own them. This could be a dangerous, life threatening situation under Pro's solution. My plan solves, thus I win this debate.
Those who want firearms can have them, and no one is forced to allow weapons in their community. Its a win/win situation. Con solves, Pro does not. Out of characters.
Debate Round No. 2
bgruber93

Pro

My opponent said that local government should decide on gun rights but this issue would be much better by the people. When the government on any level tells the people that they can't have firearms this breaches the fundamental rights that our founding fathers gave us. In many towns the county government is located in a city not in the rural suburbs where guns are actually needed. what my opponent fails to see is that in the case of an armed robbery there are laws to use firearms in SELF DEFENCE so his attack is void because in the event where someone feels threatened in their home deadly force may be used. So they wouldn't "become a criminal to stop one." The firearm can be used to hold the criminal until the police arrive on seen. Furthermore, if criminals know that a communities have firearms they are less likely to commit a crime. By banning firearms they are making another law they can't enforce. that's why it should be the INDVIDUALS choice not GOVERNMENT!! Vote pro for freedom.
Brenavia

Con

Alright, the Founding Fathers created the government, and the 2nd Amendment (as written by the Founding Fathers) was designed to allow state militias to use firearms. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to allow one to own weapons, but if you want to go by the Founding Fathers, then government regulation is needed. Even if used for self defense, many cases in local and state courts have stated that using the weapons to harm the would be criminal is unlawful. And if guns are banned in a community, that doesn't mean that knives, nun chucks, throwing stars, or any other non firearm weapon can't be used. Criminals would have a very hard time getting a gun to rob or hurt someone, and the people can defend themselves. Police can enforce such a law, for local governments still allows the police to have firearms. That's why it should be the GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S choice, not the CRAZY LUNATICS WHO USE WEAPONS TO DO CRIMES. Vote Con for logic, peace, self governing and choice
Debate Round No. 3
bgruber93

Pro

I agree that some regulations are need but completely banning firearms from anyone is ludicrous. Their are laws like the "make my day law" that protect the person using self defence. If you and I have a fight and I have a gun and you don't I will win 99.9% if the time. Criminals will go to other countries that allow firearms. It will be like prohibition. like I have repeatedly said not allowing citizens firearms to protect themselves against one who does have one will produce much blood shed. The problem is police almost never are their when the crime is committed giving a criminal a huge advantage. The problem is that we always see in the news the bad things that happen to people when firearms are used, but when firearms are used safely by the thousands of people who shoot that's never heard of because there are too many of those stories. The use of fully automatic firearms should be more heavily regulated but not firearms that are useful. Vote pro for YOUR freedom and safety.
Brenavia

Con

Alright, completely banning guns is not ludicrous. While I support gun rights, people still need to be given the option to decide whether they want deadly weapons in their community. If guns are allowed, criminals can get guns and use them as well. If there are no guns to get access to, the threat of being harmed by a criminal decrease dramatically. Also, petty criminals, the ones most effected by firearm regulation, would not go out of the nation to get weapons. If no guns are available for criminals as well as citizens, the world would be a safer place. I don't support complete regulation of firearms, but the choice for local communities needs to be there. Vote Con for YOUR choice, safety, freedom, and kittens. Kittens are being killed everyday, and we must stop the kitten deaths.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
@Aronroy. I strongly believe in private property, and am a supporter of the 2nd amendment. However, this was a debate and I took the side I do not support. You generally do that on this website. So please, don't take debate speeches as my ideology, for in fact if you would take the time to look at my profile, I support gun rights. Thank you for voting, we (Pro and COn) appreciate you taking the time to view our debate.
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
"It takes them away from citizens who don't need them."
^Who are you to say that citizens do not need firearms? You're a bit subjective and I question your belief in private property...
Posted by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
Its alright, its still a good debate.
Posted by bgruber93 5 years ago
bgruber93
Yeah i know what you mean next time i will make it longer I needed more space too. when I made it i didnt think about the attacks. sorry:-(
Posted by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
Make the arguments a bit longer next time. I ran out of characters. I'm writing this comment simply to inform the voters that the character space is very limited, and thus limits arguments. I want to expand on my points more, and will do so in the next speech.
Posted by TheBoxTheorem 5 years ago
TheBoxTheorem
If you parametricize the debate to rural environments, nearly everyone is going to agree with you. Debates should be two sided.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Change character to 3000 already.
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 5 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
Evidence isn't allowed in a debate? FAIL.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
I'll accept In three more hours.
All I need you to do is up the charcter limit to 3000
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Lol. So no sources?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
bgruber93BrenaviaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made more convincing arguments
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
bgruber93BrenaviaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con was more polite and also better organized. Convincing: Con addressed points methodically. Pro's arguments were assertions. Evidence: None was allowed.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
bgruber93BrenaviaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is going off-topic by saying communities should have the right to enforce their own gun laws rather than the State enforcing it, but Con's contentions should be only refuting Pro's contentions..
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
bgruber93BrenaviaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro states that, "NO EVIDENCE WILL BE ALLOWED IN THIS DEBATE" pro is therefore unable to establish a burden of proof and automatically loses the argument points. Everything else tied.