The Instigator
abyteofbrain
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
leojm
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
leojm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,721 times Debate No: 37841
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (7)

 

abyteofbrain

Pro

Gun's are easily available to children because of irresponsible adults. Multiple times, these children have killed someone, sometimes adults, sometimes fellow children. The first thing an escaped convict is going to get is a gun, even if he has to kill for it, and he's NOT going to use it for deer hunting. People who politically support gun freedom are usually not trustworthy; they have gun or ammo shops or manufacturers, own shooting ranges, etc., or they own guns and would like to keep them no matter the cost to our country. Guns are dangerous, too much so to leave in the hands of our people. If criminals don't have guns, then why would anyone else need them? Hunting is the only answer, and hunting does not require guns. Most hunting injuries have been caused by guns. Even if someone attacked without a gun, there are cops, and a good chance that the criminal won't harm anyone until the police arrive. Robberies would nearly cease: imagine a man trying to rob a bank with baseball bat.

P.S. In case I confused you, I really am for gun freedom, I just want to practice defending it.
leojm

Con

To let everybody know I’m against gun control, so I’m for the right to bear arms.


“Good chance that the criminal won't harm anyone until the police arrive”
No, criminals will shoot you no matter what. They are not going to stay and wait for the police.

“Robberies would nearly cease: imagine a man trying to rob a bank with baseball bat.”
Once again robbers are criminals; criminals do not follow the law.


Now these are the point’s I’m going to debate in the next following rounds.

1. What are the pros of owning guns?
2. Second amendment.
3. Criminals?
4. How effective has some states have been with gun control?
5. Comparing to other countries.
6. No guns?

Thank you for challenging me to this debate.

As this is my first round, I shall only post the attack of my opponent’s argument and the points I will be debating. I will also attack my opponent’s points and arguments along the way.

Good luck!

Debate Round No. 1
abyteofbrain

Pro

Thanks for accepting. Just so you know, most of these are arguments I've heard before.

You did not address the majority of my argument, and simply refuting my my arguments does not prove your own point of view.
If the criminal doesn't have a gun, It shouldn't be too hard to hold him off or scare him away while the police are on their way. Guns used in defense frequently injure or kill innocent bystanders. The primary source of the mafia's power is firearms. When a person is murdered, it's usually with a gun (according to the FBI, 60% of murders are with a gun).
Guns are dangerous, one mistake can be fatal. For example: "A guy had a S&W 629 (44 Mag.) that he wanted to dispose of after a mishap at the range. He said there was a loud bang when he tested his new ammo, (Chinese made),
and the gun smacked him in the forehead, leaving a nice gash." "Jenn" 23 June 2010 Snopes.com, fortunately, this man didn't die, but he was rushed to the hospital and could have; the magazine exploded and could have easilly killed him and multiple bystanders.
"for every burglar who is halted by the sight of a handgun, four innocent people are killed by handgun accidents" Nan Desuka faculty.mdc.edu As this person also states, People will be much more likely to escape a murder attempt if it is done with a knife or club. 90% of burglaries are committed while no-one is at home, but if someone were home, he/she would not be expecting to grab a gun in defense, but the criminal would likely already have one in-hand, so guns for personal home defense aren't effective. If someone were to show aggression towards you in the street, the time and warning it would take to draw your gun, turn off the safety, and possibly load would be enough for the aggressor to subdue you whatever his weapon may be, so guns for personal defense in the public wouldn't be effective either.

P.S Usually those who oppose gun freedom call themselves "liberal"... go figure!
leojm

Con

“ You did not address the majority of my argument, and simply refuting my my arguments does not prove your own point of view.”

I only addressed what I wanted at that point, and I didn’t want to address all of it.

“If the criminal doesn't have a gun, It shouldn't be too hard to hold him off or scare him away while the police are on their way.”

Once again, criminals will have guns with them. They will not go in a place without a gun. So they will always have gun power over someone who doesn’t have a gun.

“Guns used in defense frequently injure or kill innocent bystanders.”

Guns do not kill people; the ill in the head who hold the gun and shoot people. I don’t think the gun pulls its own trigger.

“ The primary source of the mafia's power is firearms. When a person is murdered, it's usually with a gun (according to the FBI, 60% of murders are with a gun).”

Going back to my statement, taking guns away will not make anything safer. Look at Washington D.C. That city is one of the cities in the US that has the highest crime level.

“Guns are dangerous, one mistake can be fatal. For example: "A guy had a S&W 629 (44 Mag.) that he wanted to dispose of after a mishap at the range. He said there was a loud bang when he tested his new ammo, (Chinese made),and the gun smacked him in the forehead, leaving a nice gash." "Jenn" 23 June 2010 Snopes.com, fortunately, this man didn't die, but he was rushed to the hospital and could have; the magazine exploded and could have easilly killed him and multiple bystanders.”

That’s why you go through gun training before you get a license to own a gun. Some people are idiots, and they deserve to die if they are being irresponsible with a gun. You can’t save stupid from stupid.

"for every burglar who is halted by the sight of a handgun, four innocent people are killed by handgun accidents" Nan Desuka faculty.mdc.edu As this person also states, People will be much more likely to escape a murder attempt if it is done with a knife or club.”

Gun against a knife or a club, think about it, a bullet travels faster than you can stab someone or hit them with a club. It doesn’t make sense. I’d rather shoot the son of a gun than have a 99.9% chance facing death that day.

“ 90% of burglaries are committed while no-one is at home, but if someone were home, he/she would not be expecting to grab a gun in defense, but the criminal would likely already have one in-hand, so guns for personal home defense aren't effective.“

I carry a gin with me all the time. And I have a rifle that is with me in every room I’m at. So if an unexpected intruder comes in, he will never see daylight again.

“If someone were to show aggression towards you in the street, the time and warning it would take to draw your gun, turn off the safety, and possibly load would be enough for the aggressor to subdue you whatever his weapon may be, so guns for personal defense in the public wouldn't be effective either.”

I disagree. To take the safety off takes only a second. When you place your hand on the gun there is a little button then you press. Then the gun is ready to fire. There are some guns that you can pull the trigger to unlock the gun from the safety.


I decided this round I will rebuttle your argument. As you have complained that I didn't rebuttle all of what you posted.

Debate Round No. 2
abyteofbrain

Pro

"I only addressed what I wanted at that point, and I didn't want to address all of it. " ---- this is not an argument.
Your statement that "Guns do not kill people; the ill in the head who hold the gun and shoot people. I don't think the gun pulls its own trigger. " ---- does not disprove or in any way contradict my statement; I agree with it.
"Going back to my statement, taking guns away will not make anything safer. Look at Washington D.C. That city is one of the cities in the US that has the highest crime level. "---- No guns would make things much safer, think about it: no sniping, no instant kills, no standoffs. Why do you mention Washington DC's crime levels? Even if the crime levels got worse directly after gun control was initiated, that doesn't prove that gun control was the cause.
"That"s why you go through gun training before you get a license to own a gun. Some people are idiots, and they deserve to die if they are being irresponsible with a gun. You can"t save stupid from stupid." Not everyone has to be "trained" before they can own a gun. If you're implying that they should, I must remind you that that is gun control. Even if someone is forced to take "training", that doesn't insure that they won't be foolish. Besides the fact that your statement about stupid people was rude, I'l take your word for the fact that the stupid deserve to die. If someone is stupid in the handling of a gun, that doesn't mean that it will be the stupid person who will die. It's quite likely that others would die instead, or in addition to the stupid person.
Once again, your next statement fails to argue or disprove what I just said, in fact, it's part of the point that I was making.
You said that you carry a gun (paraphrased ;-)) with you all of the time, you are one of the few paranoid who do, my argument still applies to most people.
About the safety, turning it off is not instant unless you've got a good deal of experience with that gun. There is no such thing as a gun which has a safety that turn off upon pulling the trigger; a gun like that would be the equivalent of a gun without safety. In case I need to remind you,wearing a gun without a safety mechanism tuned on is very hazardous.

As explained in Wikipedia, "During the Tokugawa period in Japan, starting in the 17th century, the government imposed very restrictive controls on the small number of gunsmiths in the nation, thereby ensuring the almost total prohibition of firearms.[56] Japan, in the postwar period, has had gun regulation which is strict in principle. Gun licensing is required, and is heavily regulated by the National Police Agency of Japan.

The weapons law begins by stating "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords", and very few exceptions are allowed.[57] The only types of firearms which a Japanese citizen may acquire are rifles or shotguns. Sportsmen are permitted to possess rifles or shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[58] Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in his or her hands." And as a former debater (imabench) in favor of gun freedom on this site mentioned, Japan is fairly stable.
leojm

Con

My opponent here has rarely used his own argument, he has pulled so much info from other sites.

Gun Control won't make US a better place to live. The only way to take over the country is to take away one most important thing that protects us from the uprising of the government. If you take the guns away, we won"t have any way of defending ourselves. As Hitler said, the only way to take over a country is to take away their guns. Plus, if you take away our guns you will take away our first amendment. We might as well burn The Bill of Rights. As the first amendment, pertains to all our other rights. We might as well become a communist country. Guns are one of the top priorities in keeping our country free.
Gun control has been a total fail in some countries. Let"s take a look at the police officers; they will only be able to carry only so many bullets. Let"s say they are only aloud six. Well he goes to protect himself or others, what happens if there are 10 people who attack him, guess what? He has no way of protecting himself or in that matter of fact your life.
Also hunting, some families depend on the food they hunt to survive, you take the guns away, they starve and die.
Debate Round No. 3
abyteofbrain

Pro

So you're expecting an "up-rise" from the government? Assuming you're implying attempted tyranny, why would you assume that? We've got the best government worldwide, any such event could not happen for a very long time. Also, why would you think that it would destroy the first amendment? There's no affiliation.
About the bullets, those laws can and should be changed if they're as restrictive as you say. The minimum maximum :) should be around 24 (except for highway patrol). I truly used to believe what you said about hunting, but starvation is not an American problem. Hunting may help some individuals, but is not required for their survival (in America). As I said before, Guns aren't necessary for hunting. Bows and arrows and traps are effective enough.
You have provided no reliable sources or evidence.
I would like to conclude by reminding you that even if guns are effective for defense and prevent gun violence (which they haven't, look at the recent shootings), that they cause many accidental deaths and injuries. Guns are weapons designed to kill, and if they do anything, that's what it will be. Guns have no other purpose. My grandmother keeps a handgun around, and nearly shot her husband one day due to her excessive paranoia. Guns can cause much trouble, but can they stop it? I believe I've shown good reasons otherwise.

Thank you for accepting this debate, and I hope you will accept a reversed debate on gun control.
leojm

Con

"So you're expecting an "up-rise" from the government?"
Yes, I do, as the government is trying to take many of our freedoms.

"Assuming you're implying attempted tyranny, why would you assume that?"
I'm not assuming anything here. There already a tyrrany with the government, hence the gun control.

"We've got the best government worldwide, any such event could not happen for a very long time. Also, why would you think that it would destroy the first amendment? There's no affiliation."
I beg to differ. Because if you take away our guns you are taking away our right to speech, which also pertains the right to bear arms. It's a freedom that we have. If one right goes down, so do the rest. The first amendment states this; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...


"About the bullets, those laws can and should be changed if they're as restrictive as you say. The minimum maximum :) should be around 24 (except for highway patrol)."
Gun control also means control of how much amo you can use. This is the definition of gun control; "efforts to regulate or control sales of guns" [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...


"I truly used to believe what you said about hunting, but starvation is not an American problem. Hunting may help some individuals, but is not required for their survival (in America). As I said before, Guns aren't necessary for hunting. Bows and arrows and traps are effective enough."
Really? Well bows and arrows are really deadly as well. Many hunters die with gettin hit by an arrow. Should we outlaw those just sa well? No we shouldn't, also knives are so dangerouse as well, many people get killed with knives; should we outlaw those? Hell, why don't we just outlaw everything that is so dangerouse for us; would that make America safe?

"You have provided no reliable sources or evidence."
Because I was attaking your points, that were on your opinion.

"I would like to conclude by reminding you that even if guns are effective for defense and prevent gun violence (which they haven't, look at the recent shootings), that they cause many accidental deaths and injuries."
Like I mentioned in my argument before, you have to go through training in order to have a lisence to own a gun. Those people whould know what a gun can do if you shoot yourself, or be irrisponsible with it. I agree guns are dangerouse, but it's the way you handle the gun that determines your life, and if you are to live that day.

"Guns are weapons designed to kill, and if they do anything, that's what it will be. Guns have no other purpose. My grandmother keeps a handgun around, and nearly shot her husband one day due to her excessive paranoia. Guns can cause much trouble, but can they stop it? I believe I've shown good reasons otherwise."
As I shall again repeat myself, your grandmother is not careful with a gun, therefore she should not even have one, it's for her own safety. But I'm not the one to judge, if people want to be stupid and irrisponsible, then let them be. You can't save stupid from stupid.

Gun free-zones are not always safe. There were two people shot in Chicago. While they were walking to school where it was supposed to be "safe" for them. Unfortunetly one died and the other had minor injuries. Gangmembers will always have a hand on guns. If the gangs get into a total gun fight, and some kids going to school walk bye and get shot, they don't really care. [3] http://godfatherpolitics.com...


Here are some images to get you to see what are the ranks.

[4] http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com...
[5] http://t3.gstatic.com...
[6] http://www.policemag.com...
[7] http://t3.gstatic.com...
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
I used other sources, remember complaint about it?
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
People why Are u making sources a tie here? It's plain to see I used sources, Pro I did not see any that I could link to. Sorry Pro but it's true. :)
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Thnx. You did a good job as well.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
Good job, nice finish!
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
Generally, those who are for gun control can't and don't defend their views.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
I don't seem to be losing, but that's probably because I'm for gun freedom.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
What a deluded person to think that gun control would mean that no criminal has a gun. I have seen this debate a hundred times, and the pro gun control man always loses.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
I posted it using essay-style references, not links. Sorry.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Where are your sources for the round u just posted?
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Yeah the worst and the most funniest typo I have done in my 4 months I've been on here, lol
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
abyteofbrainleojmTied
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: Pro seems to have wanted to be able to put aside his bias and argue effectively as the devil's advocate for a position he doesn't agree with. I applaud his attempt to expand his horizons in this way and encourage him to continue. However, I do not believe he succeed on this attempt. He merely argued as a straw man, and took his beating. He didn't represent the actual position that most gun control advocates hold, or use the actual arguments that most real liberals would use, he only played the role as a conservative caricature of what a liberal is or believes. He was thus easily beaten by Con.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
abyteofbrainleojmTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a better job at rebuttal. Pro failed to meet the burden of proof. Pro was also unclear about whether he was supporting gun control, or abolishing guns. Con was much clearer. However, Pro backed up his statements with sources. Con had better use of logic, but did not bring up any statistics or data to back up his position. Con also used demeaning words such as "idiots" and "deserve to die" Weak debating.
Vote Placed by TeaPartyAtheist 3 years ago
TeaPartyAtheist
abyteofbrainleojmTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to refute all of Pro's points and provide sources to concur with her opinion. However, she did have a couple of spelling mistakes.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
abyteofbrainleojmTied
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 rebutted all of Pro's claims and used sources.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 3 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
abyteofbrainleojmTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con overall made the best arguments and refutations. She had a little problem with spelling, so that goes to pro. Con gave sources that could actually be reviewd, that goes to con as well. Both did great job however, pro should work on his organization.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
abyteofbrainleojmTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more organized and gave a stronger argument. Both sides made S&G mistakes, so I found it fair to call it equal. Sources to Con because of her many sources listed in the last round.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
abyteofbrainleojmTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more organized, but made many spelling errors at round 4. Pro had many opinions and proved it with facts from citations, but Con countered all of those with more points and facts. Con made more convincing arguments and counter-arguments.