The Instigator
TS82
Pro (for)
The Contender
frankfurter50
Con (against)

Gun Control is Bad

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
frankfurter50 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 342 times Debate No: 106022
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

TS82

Pro

I am pro gun and am willing to have my mind changed.

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Arguments
Third Round: First Rebuttal
Fourth Round: Second Rebuttal
Fifth Round: Closing Statements

No personal attacks.

I hope we can have a good debate!
frankfurter50

Con

Sounds pretty neat. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TS82

Pro

I did not initially title this debate that well so let me define what I mean "gun control is bad". I mean that gun control is a flawed policy that should not fully be implemented within the United States.

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies by their intentions rather than their results"- Milton Friedman. I believe these words have never been truer, especially on a topic like gun control. On paper, gun control sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it falls flat on its face. I will explain why.

First, gun control is in itself, a policy that perpetuates a logical fallacy. Unarming law-abiding citizens does not protect law-abiding citizens. 2.5 million citizens protect themselves using guns every year (hoplofobia.info). If their guns were taken away, those 2.5 million citizens would not have had the protection they needed and would have had whatever violent crime committed against them.
Not only that, but when a citizen with a gun intervenes before the police, 1/8th the number of casualties occur. We have no reason to implement a policy that takes defensive measures against law-abiding citizens. (Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics, Davi Barker, July 2013).

We also must consider the fact that gun control doesn't work. This is evident because in almost every place gun control has been implemented, disasters have been grave. 92% of mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" (crimeresearch.org). That alone should showcase how inefficient this policy is at keeping crime from happening. Not only that, but the U.S. government itself has "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes" (First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing the Violence: Firearms Laws, CDC, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, October 3, 2003). Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country but is reported to be one of the most dangerous places to live in. If we examine policies in other countries we could find similar results. A 2007 British journal of criminology study and a 2008 Melbourne study conclude that the temporary gun ban that occured in Australia had no effect on the gun homicide rate. There was actually an 89% spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of this occurring after the gun ban.

This isn't my lengthiest argument, but the points I bring up are still valid. Gun control does not have a history of actually being effective at stopping crime but it is effective at disarming innocent people. For these reasons a pro vote is the only logical outcome.
frankfurter50

Con

Round two. Arguments. Hmm. I have to lay my chips out well here. I'll give it a SHOT. Get it? Ha ha.

Here's my opening argument. Banana headed gun wielders, when asked about their obsession over deadly weapons, usually use the following, highly cliche argument:

"Guns don't kill people. People do".

And it's a good exercise in logic, absolutely true, but, like math, nothing is ever perfect. People choose to use guns to kill people. OF COURSE guns won't kill people on their own, they don't have sentience. But they are a very efficient way to take lives. Just take your finger, put in the hole, move it back, and you've got a fresh cadaver on your hands. No wonder the "people" in that little metaphor choose to use guns as their weapon of choice. Guns are the best way to dispose of people you don't like. Think about it for a moment. Do we ever see mass shootings where the attacker uses a sword? Or a boomerang? Or nun chucks? No.

See, that's because if a guy used those things, he wouldn't be able to kill anybody and he wouldn't have a chance when the cops arrived. Those things aren't automatic, they're just hard and they rely completely on physics, there's no high-tech chemistry involved. Guns are, without a doubt, the greatest killing machines of all time, and that's why they're every murderer's weapon of choice.

Guns don't kill people. They won't come alive and go rampant on the streets like in some kind of science fiction movie. But people sure use them a heck of a lot, and that's the main problem here. Think about it. If we removed all the guns in the world, people wouldn't be able to kill each other as well. They'd have to resort to using old fashioned stuff, like swords, and after a while, they'd realize that it just wasn't worth the effort, because those things can only kill one person at a time, and they get rusty. We'd have to stop killing people forever. Think about it. A gun free world would have a lot less violence, you've got to admit. Everybody uses guns. Without them, things would be much nicer.

I'm not talking about gun "banning," here, I'm talking about going into people's homes and taking those suckers right out of the populace's hands, then sending them off into space. If we do that, there's not gonna be any black market selling. If there is black market selling, we should just control it more. It's as easy as that.

Hmm. There's another thing you guys sometimes say. You refer to the 2nd amendment of the constitution, and say that, just because it's legal, it's right. Not everything that's legal is right. Think about this for a moment. When the Constitution was written, slavery was OK. It was legal to own people. It doesn't mean it was right. We can amend the constitution at any time we want to, and if we choose not to, then we have to bear what happens, whether it be a devastating war or a mass famine. There are 20 or so amendments to the constitution as of right now. We've gone over that sucker a lot. We've taken out the parts that don't make sense. We need to remove that 2nd freakin' amendment.

It's fine for the military to own guns. And it's fine for the police to own guns. They have to use them. But I don't know why a civilian would ever need to own a gun. We don't shoot grizzly bears anymore, and that's about the only practical use I can think of for it. We never need to kill anything, so why do we own them? It's like getting an appliance that you never use. Even if an intruder breaks in your house, just call the police. No big deal. Even if you manage to shoot the guy (which is unlikely, because he probably has a better gun) you'll still have a hard time figuring out what to do with the corpse. Or what if the guy is really just your electrician? Then you'll be thrown in the coop.

Nobody needs a gun. Homeowners don't need a gun, they can get a good surveillance camera. Seriously, we have laws, you don't need to shoot criminals. Why are you trying to be a vigilante? Do you think you're Batman? You're not, Batman isn't real. You don't have the Batmobile, or the Batarang, or the Batcave, so you're not gonna kill that burglar. Chances are, he knows way more that you, since, ya know, he's devoted his entire life to crime. Just keep your cellphone on you and you can call the cops. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense.

The 2nd amendment was in the constitution back in pioneer times when we needed to shoot wild animals to eat. Now, you can just go to the store. We're civilized people now. We don't need to have any weapons.

That's my opening argument. Round three, we rebut each other's opening arguments.

Oh, and a pro vote ISN'T the only logical outcome, we're onyl on round 2, you can't just assume stuff.
Debate Round No. 2
TS82

Pro

Now that we are in the rebuttal, I will attack my opponents claims while reaffirming my own.

"They'd have to resort to using old fashioned stuff, like swords, and after a while, they'd realize that it just wasn't worth the effort, because those things can only kill one person at a time, and they get rusty. We'd have to stop killing people forever." This is false. No, we wouldn't. The gun isn't the reason people kill. It all depends on the criminal, and their motivations. Considering sword attacks, axe attacks, knife attacks, crossbow attacks, and beating people to death still happens in places where guns are taken away, this is not the case.

"Think about it for a moment. Do we ever see mass shootings where the attacker uses a sword? Or a boomerang? Or nun chucks? No." That is true, you can't have mass shootings with swords, nun chucks, or boomerang, and that's because those items can't shoot. There are still possibilities for mass attacks though. In 2014, knife attackers in China killed 29 people by stabbing them. Also, guns aren't every murderers weapon of choice. Before the "assault weapons ban of 1994", you were 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an "assault weapons (CDC AND FBI death rates). This shows that criminals can prefer other methods, and if we took every gun and shipped them off into space, we would just end up with criminals killing their victims in more creative and cruel ways, while at the same time stripping their victims of the most effective defense weapon.

My opponent also said it is only okay for the military and police to own guns. This is a disastrous idea. However, a Survey of Felons shows that in the U.S., "most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police". Not only that, but for kids in schools, police only end gun attacks 27% of the time (Department of Education 2002). As stated in my argument, waiting for the police to arrive ends up with 8 times as many casualties, so that notion that you don't need a guns should just call the police if someone attacks is wrong.

Another thing that needs to be said, people don't want to shoot criminals to feel like an edgy vigilante Batman. People don't even want to shoot criminals. A national self-defense survey shows that 92% of defensive gun uses are just people brandishing their guns or fire a warning shot to scare off criminals.

Another thing I don't understand is that my opponent said you won't kill the burglar since they devote their life to crime. That doesn't mean anything, since they are still vulernable to bullets. Not only that, but my opponent even said that guns are the "greatest killing machines of all time". What will stop that greatest killing machine of all time from killing the burglar?

My opponent said we don't need to have any weapons. The reason the 2nd amendment was put in place was because they A). Wanted the people to have a way to rise up against a tyrannical government and B). So citizens could defend themselves against an attacker.

Good surveillance cameras cannot compare to guns when it comes to bettering criminal attacks. What is more effective: Having video evidence of someone commiting a crime in your house, or getting the criminal out of your house by putting their life at stake?

And finally, it will be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to take guns out of the 270 million gun owners in the United States. This doesn't even need explanation.

To summarize, my opponents concerns and propositions are completely unrealistic. Gun control never works, no matter how docile or extreme.
frankfurter50

Con

Hello, there, sir. As I write this, I'm listening to the "Peter Gunn" theme... GET IT? GUNN? Hahahaha...

Anyway, time for the first rebuttal of your round 2 opening argument. I must say, sir, I admire you neatly you set this thing up. Very well organized. It prevents a "GUNfight" from breaking out... Oh, gosh, I kill me...Heeheehee...

You open your round 2 argument up with a quote from a guy that I don't know about, futilely hoping that adding a quotation to your argument will give it a dash of credibility. I don't know who Milton Friedman is. Could he be related to Milton Bradley? Oh, I Googled him. He's an economics professor. How unrelated to the topic of gun control. Very sly move, there. You could just as easily put up any quote from any philosopher. It doesn't really matter.

On paper, gun control sounds like a good idea. Very true. In practice, it falls flat on its face. Let me ask you, sir, how do you know that it falls flat on its face when used in practice? Has it ever really been used in practice? No, we're scared to change our laws. Very, very few places have any restrictions on the use of guns at all. Sickening, is what it is.

Although, when used in practice, it could fall flat, the success of it depends on several outside factors, including how many people within a country are potential criminals, how many people in a country have a tendency to be provoked in fits of rage, how much money guns sell by, and so on. In a country where all these factors are set up just right, a ban on gun use could work out. But we'll never know how it works out, because gun control is something that only ever stays on paper.

You go ahead and give us some dull statistics, hoping to rack up that big ol' evidence point from the judges, without realizing that long, dull statistics tend to bore audiences when they're not counterbalanced by peppy anecdotes or corny quips. Don't worry, though. I can provide evidence, too. Big, dull statistics. Here's a graph from 2016:

https://www.statista.com...

I highly encourage you to click on this graph. Then, look at it. See the undeniable, cold, hard truth. Then, imagine how the graph would look in a world without guns. I think it would look quite a bit different.

You claim that, without guns, 2.5 million citizens would not be able to protect themselves. I have to ask, here, since your logic is so deeply flawed. In a world without guns, would those 2.5 million people need to protect themselves in the first place? No, because the other guy wouldn't have a gun, either.

Use your head, for gosh sakes.

You say that, when a citizen with a gun intervenes before the police, 1/8th the number of casualties occur. I'll leave a video here. https://www.youtube.com...

But, I have to ask you, when does a person these days encounter a sociopath? Do you live in some kind of bizarre, alternate reality where shootings happen every minute? I mean, in my whole life, I have never been in one single bank robbery.

If there are a lot of shootings, we need to amp up our police force, not give more people guns.

You'll only need to use a gun about once in your lifetime, if at all. Why pay $100 for it?

Unarming law abiding citizens does not protect law abiding citizens. However, unarming a man who's about to go do a big heist does protect the world from a man who's about to do a big heist. Now THERE'S logic.

'Then some more dull, useless statistics, and so on and so forth, never assuming that we could just dump all the guns in the world into a big hole and cover them with dirt. Seriously, you need to think outside the box, here, or you're done for.

Guns don't kill people. But they play a big part in it.

I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 3
TS82

Pro

Since this is the second rebuttal I will do my best to "shoot down" your points.

It sounded good in my head I promise.

I would like to start this rebuttal off by saying that whether or not an economics professor is related to gun control is irrelevant, as the quote still has merit when discussing the topic. What it means is that you should judge a policy not by what is supposed to happen but by what actually happens. This relates to gun control because people who advocate it believe in the idea of taking away guns, and never judge the policy by its history of flawed results.

Then this lovely quote was made by my opponent in an attempt to rebut my point that gun control falls flat on its face in practice: "Has it ever really been used in practice? No, we're scared to change our laws." That is a lie. Gun control has been used in practice. Let's look at Venezuela, the country that is number one on the international crime index yet has a total gun ban. We can even look back to my first argument, in which I pointed out that 92% of mass shootings occur in "gun free zones", and that enormous spikes in gun crime occured in Australia when they implemented a gun ban. In 1987, the National Institute of Justice found that after the implementation of Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the "breaking and entering" crime rate rose 25%. Not only that, but the U.S. government itself has found no proof that gun laws are effective in reducing crime. Of course, my opponent's response to all this is predictable. Since what I just typed isn't counterbalanced by peppy anecdotes or corny quips, it is invalid and will be glossed over by my opponent.

My opponent then brings up a graph and tells me to imagine how the graph would look in a world without guns. I know exactly what it would look like. The amount of knife victims would skyrocket, along with the personal weapons and blunt weapons categories. That is, of course, if a world without guns is even possible. I would like my opponent to know that I do think outside the box, but only after I use common sense. I would like for my opponent to tell me how he plans for the 270 million gun owners in the U.S. to have their guns taken away without any repercussions of insane proportions.

"In a world without guns, would those 2.5 million people need to protect themselves in the first place?" Technically yes. As I stated before, a criminal is not motivated by their weapon, they are motivated by other things. Robbers rob for money or stuff they didn't have before. Murder happens usually because of harsh feelings towards someone or something or their victim was just in the way. Those 2.5 million people wouldn't have the perfect scare tactic to ward off an offender, yet the offender would most likely have another weapon, like a knife, club, or homemade bomb.

"Do you live in some kind of bizarre, alternate reality where shootings happen every minute?" The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (in the fall of 1995) found that since people defend themselves 2.5 million times a year, that means more than 6,500 people defend themselves a day, or once every 13 seconds. So yes, I do live in some kind of bizarre, alternate reality where shootings happen every minute. "You'll only need to use a gun about once in your lifetime, if at all. Why pay $100 for it?" Because I want to save 8 times as many people as the police would save in a shooting situation. To quote you, Frankfurter50, "use your head, for gosh sakes".

"If there are a lot of shootings, we need to amp up our police force, not give more people guns". As great of an idea this sounds, the world doesn't work this way. I have shown you the 1/8th statistic which shows that when you wait for the police to arrive, more people die, and all you responded with was a video which did not have much relation to the topic. I, however, have evidence that proves giving more people guns helps reduce crime. In 1982, in the Atlantan suburban of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law that required heads of households to always keep at least one firearm in their house. The residential burglary rate dropped a crazy 89% (Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force".

Sadly though, this crucial fact won't have much impact. My opponent has not responded to any of my factual arguments but merely dismissed them as "dull, useless statistics", while hyping up his one graph as "undeniable, cold, hard truth". I would like to know my opponent's take on all my "dull, useless statistics". How does he decipher the fact that most mass shootings occur in "gun free zones", or that criminals are more worried about armed victims than they are of the police, or that places in which owning a gun is mandatory had a lot less crime? Or how about the fact that gun bans caused a spike in crime? I am curious as to how my opponent will respond.

"Guns don't kill people. But they play a big part in it". Just as spoons don't make people fat, but they play a big part in it. RIght, guys and gals?

I am ready for my opponents next argument.
frankfurter50

Con

Hmm. Here we are again. Time for me to rebut your round 3 points, then we go on to the end. The way you arranged this debate, it sure hasn't been a "massacre"... Yeah, that one wasn't very funny.

You claim that things like swords are just as efficient as guns. They're not. First off, guns are much faster. They can go into someone in a FRACTION OF A SECOND. Swords will take a second, if you're lucky. See, people use guns because they're easier. You have to have AGILITY to use a sword. You have to take fencing class and learn all sorts of positions and stuff. Most people aren't willing to learn all that, they're lazy. So they just buy a gun. You don't have to be Zorro to use a gun. You just point it at somebody and pull the trigger. It saves all the hassle.

When you use a sword, you have to take the time to put the thing in, take it out, then wipe it off and whatever. It's a lot of work. With a gun, you just squeeze your finger.

Think about it. If there were two bank robberies, and one of the robbers used a gun, and the other used a sword, which robber would be more likely to succeed?

People use guns because they're so freakin' easy. Machine guns, for instance, can kill, like, twenty people in ten seconds. That's two people per second. With swords, you can only kill one person at a time. Unless you get them to stand in a line and shish kabob them. But that's highly unlikely. I mean, when you're on a killing spree, you don't have time to skillfully murder everyone with a dinky little sword. You have to kill everyone as quick as possible before the cops arrive or somebody tries to stop you. Thus, a gun is a much more logical choice for a murderer.

Swords just fall flat. You can't call them effective. They're metal sticks. How tacky. Don't you realize that progress has, over time, given us better and better ways to kill each other? Guns are, without a doubt, the ultimate weapon, until we invent those phaser things from Star Trek. Guns can kill lots of people in an instant, and that's what they need. Without guns, they'd have a dang hard time figuring out how to kill people.

You claim that, in a world without guns, murderers would just figure out more new and inventive ways to torture their victims. Again, sir, I ask you to look at that graph:

https://www.statista.com...

7,000 people use handguns. 3,000 people use other firearms. Only 1,000 people used knives. Think about it, man. By getting rid of those guns, we'd cut murder in half. Probably more than that. Murderers just wouldn't know what to do. They'd have to resort to playing cat's cradle. OK? They would be left on an island without a boat if they didn't have guns.

EVERY OTHER WEAPON DOESN'T WORK AS WELL!

You also claim that, without guns, the victims wouldn't have any way to defend themselves. Au contrary, my little pro gun dumpling. In a world without guns, victims would actually have a better chance of defending themselves. here, I'll illustrate what I mean by using two scenarios:

SCENARIO 1-The world without guns
Joe is standing in line at the bank. Suddenly, a crazed madman bursts through the door, threatening all the employees and customers. He's holding a long, six inch kitchen knife. Joe decides to be a hero, bursting out of the line towards the assailant. The guy tries to slash at Joe's chest, and he makes a small cut, but Joe has enough time to grip the guy's arm and shove him into the wall. the police arrive, everybody walks away safe, and Joe is proclaimed a hero.

SCENARIO 2-The world with guns
Joe is standing in line at the bank. Suddenly, a crazed madman bursts through the door, threatening all the employees and customers. He's holding a long, six foot automatic machine gun. Joe decides to be a hero, bursting out of the line towards the assailant. Unfortunately, the guy pulls the trigger, sending Joe toward the ground, bullet ridden, like a hunk of Swiss cheese. The guy laughs and heads out to his getaway car.

Which one would you rather be in?

By removing guns from the world, we're not stripping victims of their most valuable defense weapon. We're giving them more of a chance to do away with the bad guys. If a guy tries to stop a criminal, and the criminal has a gun, that guy doesn't have a chance. If the guy just has a sword, then the guy has a chance to disarm the criminal. Swords and knives are a lot slower, and victims of those things at least have a chance of covering up their wound. When you get shot by a gun, you're dead. You don't have time to think. The finger squeezes, and you're dead.

By stripping everybody of guns, we're making crime prevention by brave citizens a lot easier. You can be in the news if you want to. You can be given the key to the city. Whatever. the point is, by ridding the world of guns, we'd help citizens stop murder, because they would be in much, much less danger.

You claim that the police are inept at preventing crime. I say, that doesn't mean we should give everybody a gun, it just means that the police are inept and they should shape up or ship out. We shouldn't be stuck in a perpetual limbo of bad police, we should fix those guys up and create progress. If we didn't send them out to a shooting, that shooting would be a lot worse. Let's just give 'em better weaponry and better pay, and they'll be speeding to that shooting like a bullet.

I think that people DO want to shoot criminals to feel like an edgy vigilante Batman. Think about it. If I was in a shooting, and the guy told me to get down on the floor, I would damn well do what he said. I wouldn't care about winning, I would just care about LIVING. I would not confront that guy unless I had a good plan. And I mean good. They always get caught sooner or later, through DNA evidence and whatnot, so why try to stop them? You would die. People only stop criminals because they want to feel like an edgy vigilante Batman.

A few more things. Say you're at a shooting. Would you have your gun? Do you carry your gun around everywhere with you, just in case you encounter something like this? Do you consider it as valuable as a wallet? How does it fit in your pocket? You would rarely ever need to use your gun. Once in a lifetime. In the meantime, you're just carrying your gun around with you, normally? Do you go around looking for shootings for you to shoot your gun off at? That's just asking for trouble.

In many states, you can't carry guns around, it makes you look suspicious, like you're gonna kill somebody. It's a minor offense. So, if you were at a shooting, would you have your gun? Would you have left it at home?

They rarely need to be used. Paying 200 bucks for them is a waste of money.

The 2nd amendment was put in place to A). Wanted the people to have a way to rise up against a tyrannical government and B). So citizens could defend themselves against an attacker. But we don't have a tyrannical government, and chances are that if we do live in a dystopia, we won't have a chance anyway. And people never need to defend themselves against an attacker, that's what the police are for. the 2nd amendment is outdated. We needed it during the days of Al Capone. We don't need it now. The U.S.A. has very little crime. We're not Iraq, we're one of the most politically and legally stable countries in the world. So be thankful for it and quit worrying.

Surveillance cameras are effective when you're not at home. You'll have a snapshot of their face so you can track them down. You evidently don't understand their purpose.

Finally, it will be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to remove all the guns from the world. But, if it happens, we'll be all the better for it, and we can breathe a big sigh of relief. Of course, it would require a lot of stuff, and that's why, for the purpose of this debate, it's just a hypothetical situation. Still, you need to think outside the box here, and have some imagination as to what a world like that would BE like. It would be pretty nice. Just because things are a certain way doesn't mean they can't be changed. Change is possible. I hope that, in a few centuries, all guns have been melted in a big cauldron.

But we have to work toward that. And the first step toward that, sir, is to quit buying guns, so that the firearm economy will become inactive. Or anything, really. Just don't shoot people. It's not rocket science. It's just simple logic.

If we take away things that are used for killing, people will stop being killed.

That's undeniable.
Debate Round No. 4
TS82

Pro

I apologize for this being so late.

It is clear that my opponent put a lot of effort into explaining why the gun is the most logical choice for a murderer's weapon, and I applaud him for that. The only problem is that I never said that the gun isn't the most logical weapon for murderer's to use, but I did state that if all guns were taken away, then criminals would resort to other weapons. That was the point that I was making.

"So, if you were at a shooting, would you have your gun? Would you have left it at home?" Ever heard of concealed carry? And even if we consider the point my opponent was trying to make in this statement, it helps me out more considering that in states where it is an offense to carry a gun around, there are more shootings.

Just because we don't have a tyrannical government now doesn't mean that we will never have one. Not only that, but crime still happens quite a lot in the U.S. To say that we have "little crime" is ridiculous. The areas that do have "little crime" in the U.S. are, coincidentally, the areas that have little to no restrictions on gun ownership.

"If we take away things that are used for killing, people will stop being killed". Again, this is false. My opponent has still not responded to my claim that murderers will resort to using other weapons. I hate it when I rehash my points, but the weapon is not the murderer's motivation. Their personal desires and goals are their motivations. Unfortunately, my opponent has never responded to that point, and that is most likely because there is no response you can make to it from a gun control advocate standpoint without completely lying.

I would like to edit scenario 2 for you if you don't mind.

SCENARIO 2 (In reality)- The world with guns (our current world)
Joe is in a church. Suddenly, a crazed madman holding an AR-556 shoots and kills tons of people. Someone nearby hears the shooting. That person then pulls out their gun and takes the shooter down, and the shooter eventually dies.

The main difference between the pretty picture my opponent painted in his "scenario 1" and my edited version of his "scenario 2" is that the edited version of scenario 2 actually happened. I basically just summarized the Texas church shooting that happened recently. Every victim dying from a shooter is a tragedy which should have never happened, and that is why I oppose gun control. If another person in the church had a gun, they would be able to defend everybody in the church by taking down the shooter before a nearby listener.

Something we must keep in mind is that all of my opponents points are predicated on the fact that without guns, the world would be a better place, yet even my opponent admitted that it would be nearly (which the word nearly should be omitted here) impossible to take away everyone's guns. This basically means that all of his points are invalid. I, on the other hand, had used facts to support my side of the resolution, that gun control is an inefficient measure for preventing crimes. My opponent has not upheld his side of the resolution but has went on an unprecedented emotion-based tyrade on how we need a world without guns. Not only that, but my opponent has not responded to any of my factual claims. He ignored everything that proves gun control is inefficient. My opponent talks about how the police will still be able to defend people against criminals better than the people themselves, but has ignored my evidence (the situation in Kennesaw in which citizens were required to own guns) that proves otherwise. When voting on this debate, consider these things.

Imagination is nice. Thinking outside the box is nice. But realistically speaking, a world without guns won't happen.

For these reasons, I can see no other logical decision than to vote pro.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 5 months ago
frankfurter50
Guns kill people and if we remove them from the world, less people will die.

That's all I need to say.
Posted by TS82 5 months ago
TS82
If you want you can post a concluding statement here in the comments. I would be okay with that. You may use as many comments as you need.
Posted by frankfurter50 5 months ago
frankfurter50
I forfeited because you are wrong. Sorry.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.