The Instigator
Scroderunner
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
360mph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Bans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 44072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Scroderunner

Con

Some of the most heated and talked about arguments of this time have been regarding gun control. After any type of shooting occurs in the country, it seems as though our first action is to abolish any type of personally owned weapon. People act as if it's easier to blame the gun for the killing than to ensure that a mentally psychotic doesn't get his or her hands wrapped around another weapon. Would you blame the pencil for writing a misspelled word? The 2nd amendment ensures our right to bear arms, but is that enough? We have a law that puts a gun in our hands but we have no law to keep a gun out of a monkey's hands. If they wanted, any person could get their hands on a weapon and that is the downfall of weapon control. Background checks are the key to keeping the guns in the right hands. Small measures like this will ensure our ability to own guns in America.
360mph

Pro

I thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Because you have begun to speak for your side, I shall do the same. My argument is that there really is no need for us to own guns. Firstly, some of the reasons the second amendment was created don't apply to us. At that time, America had just freed itself from Great Britain. We were afraid of the government becoming corrupt, and so, to be able to protect the people, they were given weapons so that if the government was to become corrupt or even harm it's people, the people would have a defense. Also, another reason was because of how close the people were to animals at the time. If a bear came and attacked, guns offered protection However, nowadays, society and animals are more separated than before. If the government turned on us, which there is a low chance of that happening, we'd lose anyways. Our weapons couldn't beat the military's weapons. So, there's no need for regular citizens owning weapons.
Debate Round No. 1
Scroderunner

Con

Scroderunner forfeited this round.
360mph

Pro

360mph forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Scroderunner

Con

Scroderunner forfeited this round.
360mph

Pro

Well, my opponent has once again forfeited. To avoid looking bad, I have decided to "post an argument" so that I will not get a forfeit, which won't look good. I have stayed with this debate, where my opponent, the instigator might I add, did not. Perhaps, he could not argue my words. With that, I implore all to vote for me when voting time comes, as my opponent, based on his performance in this debate (no offense) does not deserve a victory for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 360mph 2 years ago
360mph
I could not say anything during Round 2, as my opponent forfeited the round. Just making all aware that I am still in this. I'm simply waiting for my opponent to post some arguments.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Ok sorry about that
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Hey Scroderunner, could you tell me whether Pro has to support all guns being banned or just some? Seems unclear from the topic itself and from your first post which it is.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
You could make that argument, though I think it does more harm than good to your argument. I'll explain in a message so that we can stop expanding the comments on this debate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Would you have to narrow it down to U.S. History? Could you look at Australia's gun policies and use that as a view to America's future? Or is there just too many different cultural and government influences to be able to compare the 2 nations?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yes, you could use that example. But what you're trying to state as factual, or at the very least as likely, is that any gun law will lead to far more restrictive policies when it comes to guns. There's a lot of history to bring to bear on gun laws that have stayed relatively consistent and very minimal over the course of U.S. history, and that new gun laws rarely stick around for long. Using an argument like "government overreach in one area will lead to government overreach in this specific area" simply doesn't work for guns when it's become readily apparent that the government as a whole has no taste for such laws.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm going to look into this slippery slope fallacy. I try really hard not to have any cognitive bias at all this might be one of the more common ones with me.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Maybe I do suffer from the slippery slope fallacy a lot but, I have seen a lot of situations where there is a series of next logical steps that lead to completely separate results then could possibly be conceived by the person implementing the first next logical step. Especially in regards to constitutional law. You could use the example of the state using public domain laws to seize private property to put up a walmart.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Wylted, that sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy. Especially if we're talking about the U.S., actual policies regarding guns haven't followed the "no stopping point" route you're arguing exists here. It's just not empirically supported.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
The gun ban thing is implied because there is never a stopping point. Once one type of policy is in place that makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns, then a new gun crime gets thrown into the spotlight and now everyone's working on a new policy. There's no stopping point. Once one thing is in place to make guns harder to acquire then the anti gun advocates work on the next policy to make it harder. The next logical extension is reasonable in each case but if you zoom out you can see the end result is vastly different then the modest change originally proposed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.