The Instigator
Cowboy0108
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Misterscruffles
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Gun control should be limited to age and only non-rocket weapons should be allowed.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Misterscruffles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,576 times Debate No: 31834
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Cowboy0108

Pro

I believe that if a person is over 18, he or she should be able to buy any gun and carry it anywhere. When you respond, keep in mind that I am no idiot and when I say gun, I mean it shoots lead, not a rocket launcher. Furthermore, I would like this to be based on common sense instead of fact. Keep vocabulary at a high school level for the ease of reading for the voters please.
Misterscruffles

Con

I accept your challenge.

I would like to thank my opponent here, as well as the audience (for listening in and giving their honest opinion), as well as Samuel Colt, Gaston Glock, and John Moses Browning.
Debate Round No. 1
Cowboy0108

Pro

One, I would like to say thank you for debating.
Now on to discussion.
Guns have been demonized and all a gun is is metal.
People kill, not guns
Why did anyone decide to control guns, it is only metal, and not control knives, screwdrivers, cars, etc. (answer this first)
If it is limited only to age, everyone is more apt to defend themselves and it could encourage learning about guns from earlier ages.
When you respond, do not address tanks and rocket launchers, just rifles, shotguns, AR's, and handguns.
Misterscruffles

Con

"Why did anyone decide to control guns, it is only metal, and not control knives, screwdrivers, cars, etc. (answer this first)"
Because
A) Guns are usually more destructive than knives and screwdrivers. You can kill someone with a knife or a screwdriver, but guns are generally more effective.
B) People are more afraid of guns than cars. This has nothing to do with the lethality of either, by rather, the perception of "scary" guns are and how "not scary" cars are, despite cars killing a few thousand more people each year.[1]
C) An argument made for gun control that if you make guns illegal or heavily restricted, then gun crime will decrease.
"Guns have been demonized and all a gun is is metal."
And usually plastic these days, and sometimes more exotic materials. More to the point, it's a "piece of metal" that can be used to kill people with greater efficiency than pieces of metal that aren't guns.
"People kill, not guns"
While it may be technically true in the sense that a gun cannot act independently, a person with a gun is demonstrably more dangerous than an unarmed person.
"I believe that if a person is over 18,""If it is limited only to age,"
There are legitimate reasons why a minor could arm themselves: target shooting, hunting, self defense, and practice for all of the above.
"he or she should be able to buy any gun"
Define "any gun". Are you including gyrojets and air rifles?
"carry it anywhere"
There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to restrict where one could carry guns. A politician making a controversial speech might rather not be shot at. An explosives storage facility might not want to risk a negligent discharge setting off an explosion. One might not want a murderous, psychotic ex sneaking into your house armed[2]. I do think that the carry laws as they are in the US in some places in some circumstances are too restrictive- but allowing people to carry guns literally anywhere is not a reasonable solution.

[1] http://1.usa.gov...
[2] http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 2
Cowboy0108

Pro

A. Fine, guns are more destructive. But, here is what is more destructive. A person who has access to the internet. That has plenty of recipes for nice bombs that can take out a school caffeteria. Personally, I would rather take my chances with a person with a gun than a merciless bomb. What are you going to do? Take away fertilizers, disable the internet, shut down pharmacies.
B. People are only more scared of guns because society, for unknown reasons, has demonized them. They should demonize cars, they are much more deadly.
C. You claim that by restricting and taking away guns gun violence will decrease. I will take two different routes for this. One, the only people who obey the gun laws are the law abiding citizens. The law abiding citizens do not hurt people. However, the outlaws, people who do not obey the law, will not obey gun laws, because they do not obey the law. Thus, these people can be significantly more destructive because no one can defend themselves. Route two. In a perfect world where all guns would disappear from the homes and the street, criminals will still be criminals. They will use knives, bows, blowdart guns(sarcasm, but you never know). I would rather be shot with a gun than with a broadhead arrow(ouch). Still, people will not be able to defend themselves from criminals. Not to mention that you have read my bomb comments earlier.
I already defined what I mean by any gun. It is toward the end of the previous debate.
D. It is illegal to carry a gun in a church. Problem is, the phycopaths don't care. Where better to shoot up. Plenty of people, Christians, defenseless. You mentioned a phycotic ex breaking into your house, shoot him. Problem solved. And still, removing the guns will not prevent him from walking in with a crowbar to beat you to death. That hurts more than a gun anyway. The politician making the speech can shoot back, along with all the other people in the audience who sees the shooter. That way we don't even have to waste tax dollars on a trial either.
E. Who is morally superior? A woman who has been raped and strangled or a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet(even if the rapist had no gun).
Yes, allowing people to carry a gun anywhere is perfectly reasonable. Besides, the criminals already do it, so why not beable to defend yourselves at these places.
By the way, the theatre and Aurora was a gun free zone. Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone.
Misterscruffles

Con

It appears to me that you perhaps missed throughout this whole debate that I am pro-2nd amendment, and am arguing against your resolution, not concealed carry for self-defense.

"By the way, the theatre and Aurora was a gun free zone. Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone."

Actually, in the case of Columbine, the presence of an armed guard helped save the lives of children there.[1]

a/b/c
I was presenting a response to "Why did anyone decide to control guns", not arguing in favor of A/B/C.

"When you respond, keep in mind that I am no idiot and when I say gun, I mean it shoots lead, not a rocket launcher.""When you respond, do not address tanks and rocket launchers,"

If you're going to craft legislation regarding how to regulate or how not to regulate guns, "shoots lead" and "not a rocket launcher or tank" are not sufficient, as they do not cover the variety of odd guns, such as gyrojets. Furthermore, "shots lead" would include missiles which contain lead compounds (such as lead oxide used in thermite, or lead picrate used in primary explosives), and would exclude many bullets used for hunting (Hornady"s GMX) and self defense (Winchester PDX1 .410).

"Yes, allowing people to carry a gun anywhere is perfectly reasonable."

I'm not arguing against the right of self-defense. But, I am arguing for reasonable limits on where you can carry.

"Besides, the criminals already do it, so why not be able to defend yourselves at these places."

Murder is illegal, and yet people commit murder.

"It is illegal to carry a gun in a church. Problem is, the phycopaths don't care. Where better to shoot up. Plenty of people, Christians, defenseless. You mentioned a phycotic ex breaking into your house, shoot him. Problem solved. And still, removing the guns will not prevent him from walking in with a crowbar to beat you to death. That hurts more than a gun anyway. The politician making the speech can shoot back, along with all the other people in the audience who sees the shooter. That way we don't even have to waste tax dollars on a trial either."
That doesn't always work. At the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there were concealed carry permit holders, who did not shoot because they would have hurt bystanders[2]. I the case of the killing of Travis Alexander, his ex, Jodi Arias, ambushed him in the shower. Even if he had a gun, it wouldn't have helped him unless he was carrying a water-resistant gun while showering. As I mentioned, earlier, at the Columbine shooting, an armed guard saved lives- but not every shooting is like Columbine.

In my opinion, my opponent has not met his BOP in this argument. He failed to demonstrate why tying gun control to age was positive, why limitless concealed and open carry should be allowed, and even what his exact definition of gun was that he was discussing. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that in this argument, my opponent had the burden of proof, and failed to meet that burden.

[1] http://exm.nr...
[2] http://bit.ly...

Once again, I would like to thank my opponent, the audience, and fluffy kittens.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
I made a mistake in the last round. I meant to type Taurus Hex instead of Winchester PDX1, and missed that while proofreading.
Posted by Gondun 4 years ago
Gondun
I don't really see how you can have a complete debate on this without good facts. Why are you against them?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Cowboy0108MisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued, "There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to restrict where one could carry guns. A politician making a controversial speech might rather not be shot at. An explosives storage facility might not want to risk a negligent discharge setting off an explosion." Pro responded that psychopaths do not obey rules. But if for, say, seeing the president at an event the Secret Service puts everyone through a metal detector. Con could have done a better job of pressing counterexamples, but his few examples were adequate. The debate should have focused on the particular circumstances when restrictions were reasonable and could be enforced.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Cowboy0108MisterscrufflesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/24052/49/ 7 from top, hopefully erased.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
Cowboy0108MisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually used sources so that goes to him, Arguements go to Con because Pro seems to go on to the defense and have absolutely no offense after round 2.