The Instigator
seraine
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
ilovedebate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun Rights

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 2 votes the winner is...
seraine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 671 times Debate No: 16948
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

seraine

Pro

I will be arguing that your everyday citizen should be allowed to access guns. I will NOT be arguing against all gun control, such as background checks, age requirements and the requirement of permits.

My opponent will be arguing that your everyday citizen should not be allowed to access guns.

The first round is for acceptance, and good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
ilovedebate

Con

Thank you for posting this topic

I Accept all of my opponent's terms (we are not going into the details of gun access) and wish him goodluck

Since the first round is acceptance...I accept
Debate Round No. 1
seraine

Pro

I am keeping my argument short in this round as I would like to see how my opponent responds before getting in depth.

1. Why gun control doesn't work.

The reason gun control doesn't work is because guns are used for protection more than they are used for crime. That is the most basic, but true, reason why it doesn't work. Gun control may save some lives, but in the end it ends more lives than it saves.

1A. Evidence that guns are used for protection.

Guns are used about 8,000 times for self-defense every day, or approximately 3,000,000 times a year[1]. This is a astonishingly high amount, and will form much of my main argument. Though some may criticize my blurbing of statistics, it goes to show why gun control doesn't work. I will address "more than they are used for crime" in later arguments.

1B. Guns are a very effective method of self defense.

Imagine the destructive force of a gun. It is able to easily kill anyone it fires at. This weapon is the true great equalizer. A small child could take on the most hardened of criminals if he or she has a gun. It is probably the most powerful self defense method available, and is therefore one of the best methods of self defense for the weak. After all, "God didn't make everyone equal, Mr. Colt did".

And there is evidence that guns are a very effective method of self defense. About 90% of the time guns are used for self defense, they stop the criminal simply by brandishing the gun[2]. Just think about it. 90% of the time, simply brandishing a gun is enough to scare the criminal away. Especially if we are talking about the less physically fortunate, guns become very effective.

With what else could a grandma protect herself, and scare away 90% of criminals simply by brandishing? There is literally no real way to attain the 90% rate, short of hiring a bodyguard or with guns.

1C. Police are not a very effective source of self defense.

The average police response time to 911s is 8 minutes, 30 seconds[3]. When seconds matter in crime, 8 minutes and 30 seconds is not acceptable, especially when a handgun provides people with round the clock protection. If you are carrying a handgun, you do not have to wait 8 minutes and 30 seconds to use it. You simply pull it out and scare the criminal away.

How would the cops protect you if a mugger suddenly pulled a knife on you? Unlike cops, handguns provide you with round the clock protection and thus will be almost always a better option for self defense than relying on the cops.

2. The ultimate argument for gun rights.

Guns are used approximately 3,000,000 times a year for self defense. Not only that, about 80% of the time, the criminal lacks a gun. When you look at the fact that guns are used 1,000,000 times a year for crime, gun rights become the obvious decision.

What this effectively means is that there is 3 times for crimes prevented with guns than helped by guns. There is no effective argument against this statistic. It is fairly simple. The criminal attempted to attack the victim, the victim pulled out a gun and scared, wounded, or captured the criminal.

Conclusion

Guns are one of the best, if not the best, method(s) for self defense. They are used 3,000,000 times a year for self defense in the US alone, and scare away the criminal simply by being brandished about 90% of the time. They are a lot better than other self defense options, especially the cops. Not only that, they are used to prevent crime about 3 times more than they are used to instigate crimes.

Considering all of this information, why should we deny citizens an effective self defense option that has been proven to prevent more crime than it causes?

Sources

[1] http://gunsafe.org...
[2] http://www.foxnews.com...
[3] http://www.washingtontimes.com...
ilovedebate

Con

ilovedebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
seraine

Pro

Extend all arguments... forfeits are extremely annoying.
ilovedebate

Con

ilovedebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Unfortunate, looks like you went to a lot of effort to refine your argument.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
It might be useful to define guns, are you talking about anything and everything that could be called a gun and all forms of ammunition. Some other definitions could be helpful as well such as "everyday citizen".
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
seraineilovedebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
seraineilovedebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit