Gun Control is an ineffective comfort tactic used by the government to fool the American people
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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
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:
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.
msaka33 forfeited this round.
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 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.