The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
SandlasJuagas
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Gun Control = Poo

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,673 times Debate No: 790
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

policydebategod

Pro

- Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves.
- The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this.
- Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one.
- In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.)
SandlasJuagas

Con

Hello policydebategod,
I'm going to start by saying that I have a bad habit of using harsh sarcasm. I'm trying to cut back but if some slips in then please don't be offended. It's just the way I argue.

In your next statement, please be more specific as to what kind of gun control you are talking about. I'm confused about the amount of control you are against.

You say that innocent people are left defenseless, but the innocent people can still go out and buy a gun. The people who don't buy guns are probably the ones that aren't going to know how to effectively use one anyway. Also, the Constitution says people can have guns, and they can. They just have to register themselves so that everyone can make sure that they aren't psychotic killers.

Criminals won't register their guns whether there is gun control or not so I don't see a real difference in this subject.

Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives. This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic, but accuracy aside: I believe that it takes a great deal more mental and physical effort to kill a person with a knife instead of a gun. A knife needs a forceful stab or cut at a person multiple times before the person is dead. A gun takes one pull of a finger. With a knife the killer must be close to the person. However, with a gun the killer can distance himself from the person, severing emotional connection. Also, if a knife gets into the wrong hands (for example: a small child) it is less likely to kill itself than with a gun. My point is that gun control is important because guns a very efficient killing machines that can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

- Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves.
- The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this.
- Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one.
- Criminals will attain better guns that civilians can not have and shoot at us.
- You have NO offense. There is no reason to allow gun control. So far I win this debate for that as well.

- In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.)

- You say that innocent people are left defenseless, but the innocent people can still go out and buy a gun. The people who don't buy guns are probably the ones that aren't going to know how to effectively use one anyway. Also, the Constitution says people can have guns, and they can. They just have to register themselves so that everyone can make sure that they aren't psychotic killers.
+ Psychotic killers and sane killers wil not register their guns. Instead they will find some way to obtain them illegally. Only non-criminal civilians will(do) abide by this law.

- Criminals won't register their guns whether there is gun control or not so I don't see a real difference in this subject.
+ Civilians have to wait 72 hours, have guns under restrictions, have certain types of guns, not have guns if they have a certain circumstance. But they should have the same rights and non law abiding criminals.

- Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives.
+ 117% So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous.

- This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic, but accuracy aside: I believe that it takes a great deal more mental and physical effort to kill a person with a knife instead of a gun. A knife needs a forceful stab or cut at a person multiple times before the person is dead. A gun takes one pull of a finger. With a knife the killer must be close to the person. However, with a gun the killer can distance himself from the person, severing emotional connection. Also, if a knife gets into the wrong hands (for example: a small child) it is less likely to kill itself than with a gun. My point is that gun control is important because guns a very efficient killing machines that can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.
+ Criminals WILL get guns ILLEGALLY. While a person who is not allowed to have a gun (yet) or the same type of gun is stabbing aay or shooting a pistol against a rocket launcher, the civiliian will die. Think of our rights and lives.
SandlasJuagas

Con

You used a lot of words to say one thing:
You think that because of gun control criminals will get guns while civilians will be left unprotected because of restrictions to their gun rights.

This is the reason for gun control:
To keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them to harm or commit crimes.

You seem to think that it is easy for criminals to go and get a gun. This is not the case, it is more difficult to get an illegal weapon than getting milk at the grocery store. If there was no gun control then every criminal who wanted one would be able to get one, and civilians would still be able to get guns. The only difference is that there are more criminals with guns if there's no gun control.

"- Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives.
+ 117% So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous."
Well, I'm confused. You did read my argument didn't you? You read the part that said "This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic"? Meaning that I don't think this is right. You said that 66% of murders were from guns and that 51% were from stabbings. 66 + 51 = 117. So I completely agree with you when you say "So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous."

Please read and comprehend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

- You seem to think that it is easy for criminals to go and get a gun. This is not the case, it is more difficult to get an illegal weapon than getting milk at the grocery store. If there was no gun control then every criminal who wanted one would be able to get one, and civilians would still be able to get guns. The only difference is that there are more criminals with guns if there's no gun control.
+ Two things: For you or I it is more difficult to get a gun than get milk, but for a person whose life revolves around violence it will not be as difficult. Every criminal who wants a gun can get one. Criminals are people who commit crimes, typically in criminal gangs. Those gangs have international contacts, national contacts, can make guns in the country, sneak guns in the country, purchase guns from Americans, etc. The gun control is inneffective and will always be.

"- Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives.
+ 117% So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous."
Well, I'm confused. You did read my argument didn't you? You read the part that said "This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic"? Meaning that I don't think this is right.
+ Alright so heres what it boils down to: my fake statistis apparently. I suppose the website I got that from was not credible, however, there are a significant number of other weapons. Why not ban those?

The rest of my arguments have gone unresponded to:
- Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves.
- The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this.
- Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one.
- Criminals will attain better guns that civilians can not have and shoot at us.
- You have NO offense. There is no reason to allow gun control. So far I win this debate for that as well.
SandlasJuagas

Con

SandlasJuagas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by policydebategod3 9 years ago
policydebategod3
I appreciate your comments. Sorry about the statistic. I got it from a website. My account was deleted for insulting somebody.
Posted by hjfrutwiufy 9 years ago
hjfrutwiufy
I think the winner of this debate was VERY clear. Pro EASILY won this. Hands down by...117%. lol

Clearly won.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
and why was your account deleted?
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
policydebategod, this was hard to decide. the things you point out at the end of your last speech are true, but like Con said, you never specified the level of gun control. So you jump all over the place on that. And then you lost some major credibility on that 117% stat. I noticed that right away, and it didn't exactly help. I'm not sure who i'll vote for, or if i'll vote.
Posted by policydebategod2 9 years ago
policydebategod2
My debate account was deleted...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
policydebategodSandlasJuagasTied
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 SandlasJuagas 9 years ago
SandlasJuagas
policydebategodSandlasJuagasTied
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 
Vote Placed by DoctorW312 9 years ago
DoctorW312
policydebategodSandlasJuagasTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
policydebategodSandlasJuagasTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by hjfrutwiufy 9 years ago
hjfrutwiufy
policydebategodSandlasJuagasTied
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:30