The Instigator
Storyteller
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tomschase
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Restriction

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,086 times Debate No: 42557
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Storyteller

Con

Gun restrictions will limit our ability to defend ourselves if the Military fails. Nobody would think that there are countries looking to invade America, but I believe that because of our debt to China they may become angry and want their money back. Except that we do not have any money for them to take, what's to stop China from getting the land equivalent to money. Maybe the Chinese government would invade just because they need more space for their overflowing population. If they over run our Military than the people and our weapons, our guns will be the only thing to stop them.
tomschase

Pro

First, I must ask, how do you define gun restriction? Because that could range from guns being completely banned to more destructive guns being banned. You argue that if we restrict which types of guns are allowed in the United States, that China would be not be as hesitant to invade. The United States currently spends more than the next 5 countries combined [1] and has the best equipped military in the world, so even if the Chinese surpass us in military capability, the United States will still be extremely intimidating, and an invasion would be very costly (both in money and lives). Even if the Chinese were angry at our outstanding debt, an invasion would simply be foolish. The mock scenario would never happen, and even if it did, a small militia of citizens with guns would not be able to stop an organized military with capabilities far superior to their own. This also assumes that America's allies have just abandoned it, possibly in an attempt to appease the Chinese? If the Chinese did something so hostile as invading the US, don't you think that the world would be concerned? What is to stop the Chinese from taking their natural resources? Assuming that no other world power has stepped up to the plate by that time, China would disturb the natural balance of power, giving them the ability to intimidate and influence the world because nobody is keeping them in check. Yes, the world may be quite anti-American, but would they really prefer the Chinese over us?

[1] http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Storyteller

Con

China has it's own allies to help them. I'm not saying that China is likely to invade, but I do think that during the Revolutionary War American militias could stand up to the Hessian and the British forces. I know that back then they didn't have any drones or smart bombs, but the right to have the comfort of our own weapons with no restrictions has always been the American way. To protect people against shootings at schools and malls, a sort of defense group other than the Police should guard citizens. Banning or restricting who buys guns is not going to stop someone from getting a gun. It's not always guns that are used either. A couple of years ago a boy with a Katana killed three people in his school. There should just be, as I said earlier, some sort of guard besides the police; The police don't act fast enough to stop a shooter, but an increase in public security would deter most would-be killers. I say guns aren't the problem ,the problem is the security of our public areas. I respect your decision to try and improve the safety of our nation. But I do believe that we could protect ourselves against shootings if we were allowed to carry our own weapons, as a defense. Or at least have an increase in Public security ,drastically.
tomschase

Pro

You are right, no guns would be a bad thing. However, I am curious as to why citizens would need semi-automatic weapons. It seems that a shotgun or a handgun would be enough to defend yourself against an attacker, and you certainly don't use them to hunt. If China did invade, it would probably be followed by a massive cyberattack which knocks out all of the power in the United States, people could quite possibly turn on each other in a panic and the stores would be emptied within an hour. It strengthens my argument that you point out that with the advanced weaponry we have today, a united militia against the Chinese would be almost useless. The country has become increasingly revolved around cities as well, of which the biggest ones would descend into anarchy as soon as the power went out, unable to be evacuated effectively. It would be easy for the Chinese to wipe out the largest concentrations of the population (NYC, LA, etc), although they ultimately may cause more harm if left alone. I ask you again, why would a citizen need anything more than a handgun to defend themselves? Assuming that our powerful military is able to ward off a Chinese invasion, there is no need for such violent weapons.
Debate Round No. 2
Storyteller

Con

Storyteller forfeited this round.
tomschase

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will restate my earlier points. Gun restriction would clearly not limit our ability to thwart an invasion, and only puts more destructive weapons in the hands of ill-intentioned individuals. There is no need for semi-automatic guns for self-defense or hunting, so I don't see why anybody would want one. Under your assumption that the Chinese will invade, why not arm our citizens with much more powerful weapons? Gun restriction is necessary to prevent ill-intentioned people from obtaining such powerful weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill.
I ask that you give me the conduct point for my opponents forfeit. Thank you, and vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by hoosty69 3 years ago
hoosty69
I feel that gun control is not even realistic in the US for the very reason that the country has been so flooded with weapons over the years that there is absolutely no way of getting them out of the unregistered hands and therefore honest citizens will always feel the need to arm themselves as a balance. That being said criminals will always find a gun as a junkie will find a drug, a irresponsible gun owner leaving an unsecured gun always has the chance of having it stolen, curious child using it, family member or friend going through a suicide depression - well we know how that can turn out. Yes even a honest and responsible gun owner can go through a unique mental switch over. Bottom line, the guns flow out of the manufactures like candy bars and they're everything from revolvers, semi-auto pistols , to assault type guns. Hunting equipment to me has never been the issue. Anyway more guns in the hands of people equal the need for more guns in the hands of people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.