The Instigator
msaka33
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
flaskblob
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun Control is an ineffective comfort tactic used by the government to fool the American people

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
msaka33
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,096 times Debate No: 34017
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

msaka33

Pro

Gun Control does absolutely nothing but provide a temporary positive feeling towards the American people, it hasn't worked even in our most violent cities and gun owners are labeled as enemies due to it
flaskblob

Con

By my opponents own stated logic in R1, he should also believe that nuclear weapons should be freely available to the public and that nuclear proliferation does absolutely nothing to prevent a nuclear bomb from being used.

If he agrees that nuclear weapons should be freely available to everyone including the mentally unstable, then I will concede this debate. If he does not concede this point, then he must point out in his R2 the differences between owning a nuclear weapon and owning a gun and how the conclusions differ logically.
Debate Round No. 1
msaka33

Pro

And so you see, this is where my opponent likes to put words in my mouth, I never said anything about nuclear weapons, firearms are about precision, accuracy, and about hitting a specific target, a nuclear weapon is used to demolish a large mass of a population, no one ever said they were used as self-defense tactics

I never said that nuclear weapons should be freely available so again you are putting words in my mouth, there is no reason to concede from this argument when my argument is completely valid and always has been proven for decades

Since when did nuclear weapons come up in a gun control debate? The NRA nor the law-abiding citizens are asking for permission to use nuclear weapons, we are demanding that the government respects our rights as Americans to keep and bear arms so that we can protect ourselves when they aren't there to
flaskblob

Con

My opponent has made clear that he is in favor of the government eliminating the use of weaponry that can be used to demolish a large mass of a population. He has used several criterion for restricting weaponry:

1. Imprecise
2. Able to demolish more than one person at a time
3. Unable to be used for self defense without endangering innocents

By being in favor of restricting nuclear weapons my opponent acknowledges a few key points:

1. Some forms of weaponry should be restricted by the government (as defined above in points 1, 2, & 3)
2. Government restriction of weaponry is effective enough to prevent use on a marginal basis (implied)
--->This is an implied point as my opponent. If my opponent believed that government restrictions of nuclear weapons did absolutely nothing to prevent them from being used then he would otherwise would have been against this issue.

Using my opponents logic he would also be in favor of banning/restricting/controlling the following:
1. Grenades
2. Bazookas
3. Automatic weapons

This clearly negates my opponents R1 that Gun Contol does "absolutely nothing". If my opponent believed that government control of guns did absolutely nothing, he would also believe that government control of nuclear weapons does absolutely nothing. Clearly he feels differently.
Debate Round No. 2
msaka33

Pro

msaka33 forfeited this round.
flaskblob

Con

No arguments to refute. Continue onto the next round
Debate Round No. 3
msaka33

Pro

Please excuse my absence, I have been busy doing more important things than debating strangers over the internet

I said there was no use of nuclear weaponry because it is not used to defend one's property or self, it is used to destroy an area of interest, I would be killing myself in the process, my opponent is once again putting words in the my mouth to throw me off the debate.

I don't have a problem with any of these weapons because they are not the chief weapons in mass shootings, in the last 10 years of mass shootings, I haven't heard any reports of grenades going off or bazookas killing dozens of people, this isn't gun control, it's common sense, guns are used on a personal level, nuclear weapons are used as a group, as a country, there is no use for nuclear weapons, I have a use for automatic weapons, to defend myself, something I couldn't possibly do with nuclear weapons.

Are you aware that you can legally own an RPG-7 in the United States? Why hasn't that been used in a mass shooting? Taking away guns does nothing because the people that don't follow the laws WON'T surrender their guns, so why should we put the responsible gun owners in a more vulnerable spot? My final statement on the fact that government gun control DOESN'T work is because it labels law-abiding citizens as enemies, people who just want to live their lives in protection and want true freedom, my opponent has used facile arguments that clearly don't pertain to this argument therefore I cannot recognize them as valid statements
flaskblob

Con

flaskblob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Can I just say flaskblob needs to put down the "flask" and grow some common sense,
Posted by msaka33 3 years ago
msaka33
Because controlling nukes ISN'T the same as gun control, the nuclear bomb was designed as a military weapon to dismantle a nation, not as a personal weapons to protect himself, you are alone in this argument
Posted by flaskblob 4 years ago
flaskblob
If the analogy is posed to show the effectiveness of restricting use then the lethality is irrelevant.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
I wouldn't even say a nuke and an AR are analogous because of their differences in uses and lethality.
Posted by flaskblob 4 years ago
flaskblob
There is a difference between "The same" and analogous
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Flaskbob, they're not the same. You think a nuke is just as deadly as an AR15? How about a tank?
Posted by flaskblob 4 years ago
flaskblob
I don't see the difference between controlling either. It's what the layman calls "an analogy"
Posted by STMAknight92 4 years ago
STMAknight92
he specifically says gun control
never did he mention nuclear bombs
Posted by flaskblob 4 years ago
flaskblob
WMDs are arms.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Con, when did he ever talk about nukes. He said guns. The 2nd says right to bear arms, not artillery and WMDs.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
msaka33flaskblobTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's logic is that of an elephant. No where did pro talk about nukes. people can't afford nukes. And Pro held burden of proof well.