The Instigator
dbushwacker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Voiceless
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Right, Again I Know, Extreme vs Withdrawn

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  
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: 12/9/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 66667
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

dbushwacker

Pro

Hey ladies and gents :). Now I know what you're thinking," Man, not another gun debate," but today myself and my friend Voiceless will be arguing from an Extreme ( argued on behalf of myself) and an Anti ( argued on behalf of Voiceless ) firearm point of view. We hope not only to argue on the behalf of our fellow debaters, but also to come to a fair and equally recognizable compromise between the two parties. Comments are greatly encouraged along with circumstantial evidence for both sides to use to the full extent of our debate. First round is simple, acceptance, and a quick summary of the points that we will hope to represent.
I'll go first. And by the way, I accept ;)
I believe, that while only a minority may share my point of view, that not only should weapons be easily accessible and that they should be regulated rarely. But I also believe that military grade firearms and vehicles should be accessible to the militias for the eternal preservation of these great states and the liberty of its people from complete federal control. I believe that its only fair that if the government can give this equipment to our law enforcement, that it is only fair that we too should be able to defend ourselves against corruption should it get out of control in the future.
Now, I leave it to Voiceless to present her point to you all.
Voiceless

Con

Thank you for the challenge. I accept this debate. (:

I believe that the right to own any gun on the market is a dangerous right given to the people and a more peaceful solution can be created without the need for excessive firearm use.
I believe that certain powers are given to certain people who have worked for them and who have practice the protection of proper ethics and highly appreciated values.

I believe that giving gasoline (military grade firearms) to the public will result in an extreme inferno (the consequence of giving civilians military grade firearms) that could take America down one bullet at a time.
Debate Round No. 1
dbushwacker

Pro

While a peaceful solution does seem well enough to everyone, and that it is a righteous idea for someone to think, my opponent must remember that we do not live in a righteous nor fair world. Its evident in the news, and evident in our lives, that it is human nature to want to take things that do not belong to them or whom try to take things that cannot be taken willingly. While I would be happy to come to a peaceful conclusion, what will you do ( men ) when someone invades your home and threatens your life, what will you do ( women ) when you are cornered and are confronted by the makings of sick thoughts. We cannot deny, that while weapons may seem frightening or dangerous to some, that weapons have been known to have the lives of honest Americans in the process.

Just read the first of these ten examples if you don't believe me.
http://townhall.com...

I can agree that people should be trained in the use of firearms and/or taught in the right sense of morals, after all, a weapon in the hands of someone untrained is in as much danger to themselves as they are to others. I can say that before you even think of giving military grade arms to a militia, or more relevantly the police force, that they best be taught the proper use so that you don't end up doing something stupid to ruin your life or others.

My opponent makes good, simple points; but I believe that she is still missing some valuable ideas in her arguments that could be of closer relevance. Therefor I shall leave my argument here, so that this conversation of ours can develop further before I press on into how this peoples militia should be run.

I now turn it over to Voiceless.
Voiceless

Con

It's not just a peaceful solution I am fighting for, it's a safe solution.

"Its evident in the news, and evident in our lives, that it is human nature to want to take things that do not belong to them or whom try to take things that cannot be taken willingly."
I completely agree. The founding fathers made this clear by allowing the people to have rights that protect their life, liberty, and pursuits of happiness. One of these rights is the right to bear arms; however, one must recognize that the arms that were available to them at that time were only able to fire about 7 rounds a minute. These days a semi-automatic rifle can fire over 180 rounds per minute.

I believe that a homeowner should be allowed to securely conceal a weapon in the house, but an unprofessional should not wander the streets with a gun. Take it from an incident in a Utah elementary school where a teacher accidentally shot the toilet (1).

Breaking down those 10 examples:
3 of the 10 examples were about off-duty officers and armed guards saving the day.
5 of the 10 examples were about homeowners defending themselves.
1 of the 10 examples was about a situation in a public places where the person didn't even use the fire arm in defense.
The last 1 of the 10 examples is about a neighbor helping a young girl in danger (I really applaud that by the way).

These cases explain how useful fire arms can be in self defense.

I will explain more in the next round.

(1) http://www.sltrib.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dbushwacker

Pro

Indeed the world has changed, my friend brings up a great point, not only have the designs of firearms changed since the old days but so have the ways that firearms are portrayed in society due to liberal media and television. Whereas in those days firearms were indeed a weapon to defend oneself with, we must not forget that in those days those weapons were exclusively meant to be used for hunting in such environments like the frontier that stopped at the Appalachians mountains at the time. What I meant to say is that, where firearms were once used for honest means in rural societies, we see that the media and television both have shaped our interpretation of weapons to only be used in means of self defense or be used by such individuals as murderers and fools. While I do indeed argue at the means to defend ourselves, we must also not forget that how firearms are seen may be taken from a biased or inaccurate source, though often than not the media is fair enough to give us most of the facts. While firearms should be taken seriously, we should take care to understand that you should not always bend to the level that society has asked of you but to create your own level. Whether it may fall short or far surpass that of modern, politically fashioned beliefs.

And indeed, there seems to be the need for further reform of firearm distribution to people who have neither the training or morals necessary for someone to handle a gun. Such as we see in her example of toilet seat manslaughter at the hands of one inexperienced teacher ( I applaud her for that example :). As of now, I have no disagreement that people are indeed in need of proper training, lest they do something far more regrettable than discharge a firearm on a toilet.

But, as for my belief in arming organized militia with military grade weapons, it still stands. I can concur, that if such are eager to obtain the equipment, that they best purchase them with their own money such as even a government must to equip its own troops. It would make it far more difficult for the wrong men to get their hands on such the equipment, seeing as most that are mentally unstable and the like are less active in society and therefor less likely to amass the funds to purchase military equipment themselves, while allowing the common man in an organized militia to be able to protect themselves under the duress of any emergency.

Until next time, I give you Voiceless.
Voiceless

Con

I do think it is appropriate to have an organized and armed militia to defend those who feel they cannot defend themselves, or just wish for a little extra help. This militia already exists. They are called the police. The police are required to complete background checks, pass all types of training, and defend and protect the people's respectable values and morals.
Now, there have been many situations where the police's morals and values have been in question; however, you must ask yourselves this:
If we cannot trust those who have earned the badge, then how can we trust random strangers with the same power?

A militia that is organized and armed with military grade weapons that come to the aid of the people in extreme conditions is called the military. They are so organized, in fact, that they have 5 different branches that specialize in their own ways of defense. "U.S. Armed Forces are made up of the five armed service branches: Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy." (1) You can read more about them on their website that is provided below.
The U.S. Armed Forces undergo more thorough checks. They do not allow any members to have any current or treated mental illnesses which reduces the chance of power getting into the wrong hands.
The U.S. Armed Forces are trained in more difficult circumstances. They require their members to pass even the most difficult of tests, be extremely fit, and learn to
and will fight anywhere in the world to protect our freedom. They also meet the other criteria that you wish a militia had-- military grade weapons.

Now, we cannot only rely on those with the power to save us. What if we have no one else to defend us but ourselves?
I do think that guns should be available to the public. With the proper training, guns can be life-saving tools. Without the proper training, they can kill the innocent.

So, how would we go about regulating proper gun control laws? The people should be allowed their right to bear arms, but I believe this power should not be unlimited.

I will end this round with a famous quote.

"With great power comes great responsibility." - Spiderman

(1) http://www.military.com...
Debate Round No. 3
dbushwacker

Pro

dbushwacker forfeited this round.
Voiceless

Con

My friend, dbushwacker, did not have a chance to post his final round, so I will finish it with this:

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! (:
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dbushwacker 2 years ago
dbushwacker
Friend zone, where's that? :p
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
It's okay @dbushwacker you'll get out of the friend zone soon.
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
Oh my goodness. Whatever. xP
Posted by dbushwacker 2 years ago
dbushwacker
Find who ?! :p *Lucky has everything to do with it* :D
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
You'll find her. Luck has nothing to do with it, really.
Posted by dbushwacker 2 years ago
dbushwacker
Lying about what?! :D
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
You are lying!
Posted by dbushwacker 2 years ago
dbushwacker
What?! :p
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
Oh, shut up. xD
Posted by dbushwacker 2 years ago
dbushwacker
XD hahahaha Nope, Voiceless about summed it up. I'm not lucky enough to have a girlfriend anyways. :p
No votes have been placed for this debate.