The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

Gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 15 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,726 times Debate No: 10158
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (15)

 

abard124

Pro

On November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood Soldier Readiness center, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. He used an FN Five-seveN semi-automatic pistol, which, according to wikipedia, is used by SWAT teams because of their effectiveness against body armor. Why would any civilian need that? Now, Mr. Hasan did happen to be in the military, but he did not receive his gun from the military. He bought it legally at a civilian gun store. What that means is that any one of us could be Nidal Hasan, and any of us could be killed or injured.

Now, my full proposition is as follows: Civilians may not have access to weapons not made specifically for hunting. In order to gain access to hunting weapons, one must pass an extensive background check and be issued a permit, which shall be renewed yearly. Furthermore, guns must be in storage in urban areas, and must be visible at all times elsewhere.

Obviously, we can't take guns away from the military or law enforcement. It wouldn't be very practical for our soldiers and police officers to be carrying around deer rifles. Also, I don't think it's necessary to take away hunting weapons. Even though they can be used to kill people, I do recognize that some people live in very rural areas where it would be very inconvenient to go to the supermarket every week, but they still wouldn't need a Five-seveN or anything of the like.
Danielle

Con

Nicolo Machiavelli once said that there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character (lol). After all, how could any liberty be more vital than the second amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible. If not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government with their rights existing only at their government's pleasure [1].

I'll begin my rebuttal by responding to my opponent's claim that Hasan should not have been legally allowed to purchase the gun that was allegedly used to shoot people at the recent Fort Hood tragedy. First, the gun used could fire rounds that can penetrate SOME body armor, but those rounds are NOT available to the general public. Second, one avid gun user writes, "If you really want to be 'armor piercing' then use a rifle. Something like a .50 CAL will do just fine" [2]. In other words, Pro advocates that only guns like rifles be eligible for sale; however, rifles can be just as if not more dangerous than the one legally purchased by Hasan.

That brings me to my next point: Guns don't kill people, but radical Islamic extremists do... or stressed out military doctors do. Regardless of your opinion on the accused individual, the gun isn't responsible for the deaths at Fort Hood - Hasan is. Our right to own gun should not be stifled by a sick individual with an agenda. As I mentioned, there are several reasons other than hunting that some people wish to own a gun. Because those motives aren't meant to intentionally harm others, we shouldn't expect that one's intention in owning gun is to commit a crime.

Further, not only do guns not cause crime, but they help stop it. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. The point is that in this world there are people who can be identified as "prey." As the old saying goes, "God didn't make all people equal — Mr. Colt did." A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent. [3].

Now, obviously my opponent realizes that law enforcement and the military need to have weapons. In that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same protection (as I said, to ensure that American freedom is protected). If you think that this is an unreasonable protection, we only have to look to American history to see why this concern is relevant. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government. During World War II, Japanese Americans - citizens and resident aliens alike - were stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought [1].

So, that brings us to Pro's proposal for gun control. He submits that first and foremost, civilians should only have access to guns specifically made for hunting. This the part that I have a huge problem with. Not only do people reserve the right to have a gun for reasons other than hunting as I've said, but moreover gun shop owners, gun makers, gun collectors and the like all have the right to have their products bought and sold. This economy works on the basis of supply and demand. If people didn't supply these guns legally with current gun laws as they stand (the federal government requires gun store owners to perform background checks on all consumers wishing to purchase firearms already), then individuals would just buy these guns illegally on the black market. This would create a huge illegal market and expand the influence of corrupt organizations like the mafia and street gangs which would sell these firearms illegally.

Further, it kind of eliminates the purpose of a gun (safety and protection) to be forced to keep your gun in storage. While it's important to keep a close eye on any accessible guns - especially if there are minors around - the reality is that you're going to want your weapon to be readily available to you in a time of need. So, as long as the weapon is locked or somehow otherwise protected then I think it should be okay. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent for now. Good luck!

References:
[1] http://media.www.thebatt.com...
[2] http://www.drudge.com...
[3] http://www.mcrgo.org...
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you for your response.

"Nicolo Machiavelli once said that there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character (lol)."

I will attack each one of these points respectively:
1. I've never so much as held a firearm, and I seem to have done okay for almost 36 years and counting. Guns are by no means essential to protect one's self.
2. How would one keep rulers honest with guns? they don't allow guns anywhere near the president, and even lower leaders are pretty well protected. So maybe that was an issue in the 15th and 16th centuries when Machiavelli lived, but it is now an obsolete point.
3. I have already conceded that controlled hunting is a necessity.
4. I have already conceded that the military is a necessity.
5. I'm not quite sure what he means by that, but he was very profound with the lol :-)

"After all, how could any liberty be more vital than the second amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible."
Because, of course, I need a gun to exercise my right to choose my religion, or publish a newspaper, or say that I don't approve of the job the president is doing. That is an extremely bold point that you brought up, but you have absolutely no evidence to support it.

"Second, one avid gun user writes, "If you really want to be 'armor piercing' then use a rifle. Something like a .50 CAL will do just fine" [2]. In other words, Pro advocates that only guns like rifles be eligible for sale; however, rifles can be just as if not more dangerous than the one legally purchased by Hasan."
Unfortunately, that is a true point. That is what the other regulations that I proposed are for. We want to be safe, but at the same time, we can't keep Governor Palin from catching her Carabou. I don't hunt because I'd rather eat humanely killed animals, but I do eat meat, and I do recognize that some people live far away from the grocery store, so they may hunt, as long as their guns are put away once they get into the city, and as long as they're completely visible elsewhere. There is a justifiable reason to buy a gun specifically made for killing food. The only justifiable reason to buy a gun specifically made to kill people would be if you are part of the government, i.e. the military or law enforcement.

"Regardless of your opinion on the accused individual, the gun isn't responsible for the deaths at Fort Hood - Hasan is."
Perhaps... But we can't just pull people off the street if they are suspicious, but we can do our part to get rid of the means in which they would perform the murder.

"Because those motives aren't meant to intentionally harm others, we shouldn't expect that one's intention in owning gun is to commit a crime."
Have you ever heard the expression, "hope for the best but plan for the worst?" Well, obviously both of us hope that people won't get murdered, but you almost seem to be looking at it as a necessary evil. But it's not.It's preventalbe, and it's at virtually no cost to non-murderers. And if you have a gun for any reason other than intentionally harming animals, it is to intentionally harm other people.

"A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." "
I assume that most of us have arms and legs. the first thing you do is run away. If you can't run away, you kick them (especially in a specific area, if they happen to be men) so that they will be at a disadvantage while you run away and call the cops. The only time I could think of where a gun would be particularly beneficial would be if you were disabled.

"In that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same protection (as I said, to ensure that American freedom is protected)."
You know, you're right. Speaking of which, I'm still trying to figure out what happened to that armored tank I ordered 2 months ago. And my machine gun hasn't shown up either. And let me tell you, if someone is pointing a gun at you, you do what they say. Doesn't sound like liberty to me. You may say that I'm only concerned about the people on the receiving end of a gun and I am ignoring those who are shooting the gun. I agree, and I don't care, because the person shooting the gun is not in imminent danger of being shot.

"In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government."
Last I checked, banning ill-intended guns and destroying free press are two very different things.

"Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought [1]."
How does this section help your argument? Banning ill-intended guns is not even similar to anything you mentioned.

"but moreover gun shop owners, gun makers, gun collectors and the like all have the right to have their products bought and sold."
This is going to sound off topic, but bear with me: I am generally in support of drug rights because they don't harm anyone other than the user. Now, one argument I would never use in support of my argument is that we need to legalize them because we are so profoundly concerned about the wellbeing and business interests of drug dealers, drug makers, and drug paraphernalia collectors. That's just silly.

"individuals would just buy these guns illegally on the black market. This would create a huge illegal market and expand the influence of corrupt organizations like the mafia and street gangs which would sell these firearms illegally."
Earlier you made an argument that we shouldn't be so concerned with the guns as we should with the perpetrator. Using your logic, we wouldn't be so concerned with the murderers as we would with the people selling the guns. So there you go, you just answered your own question.

You have made many references about how we "need" guns for self defense, but you have never addressed the millions of Americans who are quite safe and do not own a gun. You might want to look in to that. Good luck, my friend.
Danielle

Con

To ensure that my rebuttal is accurate and cohesive, I'll break up each argument and rebuttal into numerical bullets. So without further adieu...

1. Pro condedes to the necessary gun use for hunting purposes and the military. However, Pro disagrees that citizens should arm themselves for protection. As I pointed out in the last round, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year. I also pointed out that 56 percent of felons agreed that a criminal would not seek to mess with a victim that they knew was armed. Further, I noted that when handguns were banned, the national homicide rate tripled. All of these facts were cited and sourced. So, just because Pro and others haven't used guns for protection doesn't mean that other people don't or shouldn't. Therefore I have successfully pointed out via three sources why guns are a good source of protection, so this point fails.

2. Pro insists that having a gun won't help keep rulers honest, because people with guns realistically couldn't get anywhere near a man like the President. Haha - tell that to JFK. In all seriousness, I think I should convey the reality that the United States Constition grants its citizens the right to bear arms to avoid any kind of radical take-over from the government. The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

At the Constitional Convention, James Madison said, "The greatest danger to liberty is from standing armies." In this regard, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and prior to the ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions secured the right to keep and bear arms. For example, Section 14 of the Declaration of Rights to Vermont's Constitution adopted in 1777 provides that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms, as standing armies are dangerous to liberty" [1]. In other words, this clause prevents a situation in which a citizen could not protect themself from the U.S. government (army or law enforcement) in a situation where a tyrannical or oppressive movement would ensue.

Now, if Pro's argument would be the idea that this could never happen in our society, we'll refer back to the last round when I provided the example of Japanese Americans during WWII being stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Because this course of action is so unjust and commits a plethora of violations against constitutional rights, our government's founding documents would imply that these citizens had the right and perhaps the responsibility to fight back; supposing they were armed and could present a viable defense, it is reasonable to assume that this type of blatant infrginement of liberty would not have occurred. And even if it was inevitable in THAT particular situation, the point is that American freedom is a privilege that may not be as safe as we all assume. It's important to have the right to arm one's self for any reason if they so choose.

2. In response to the idea that the 2nd amendment makes other civil liberties we enjoy possible, Pro suggests that this is a point with absolutely no evidence to support it. To clarify what I meant, if not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government. Therefore, their rights would exist only at their government's discretion.

3. Next Pro talks about hunting for a bit and says once again that owning a gun for hunting is fine, but the only reason one should own a gun specifically to kill people would be if you are part of the military or law enforcement. This is what is called the "begging the question" fallacy, as here you'll see that Pro is making no real point to back up the resolution but rather just reiterating his opinion. I obviously I disagree with this statement. As I've said throughot the debate, I believe that the second amendment (the right to bear arms) is important for citizens to have the option to protect themselves from harm or the government itself.

4. Pro then says in regard to Hasan that even though the INDIVIDUAL was responsible for the crime and not the gun itself, that removing guns is a viable option so we can get rid of the means in which people kill. This to me makes no sense, as Hasan was part of the military and as such had access to guns. Of course he bought the alleged weapon from a gun store; however, you'll notice that this point directly correlates to one of my other points. I argued that even if these guns weren't for sale legally in a gun store that they would still be able to be purchased on the black market. As such, you'll never really be able to get rid of guns just as we haven't been able to get rid of things like marijuana. Like drugs, guns have a demand in the market meaning people will inevitably be selling them. As I've said, it's better to sell them legally where shop owners can perform legal and extensive background checks rather than leaving the gun dealing to crooks on the street.

5. Regarding the idea that I see murder as a necessary evil, yes, I do, in cases of self defense. Also, without getting too off topic, extensive sociological courses (and perhaps philosophy and criminal justice ones as well) will reveal that crime is in fact a necessary part of society; it helps society reestablish its values. Perhaps this logic won't make sense to Pro and I don't really have the time or inclination to explain it; however, I can assure you that this is a reality established in various contexts in an educational situation. For those who are interested, more on the subject can be found here [2] [3].

6. Going back a little bit, in response to my statistic that 56 percent of felons said they wouldn't attack those they knew were armed, Pro replies, "I assume that most of us have arms and legs. the first thing you do is run away. If you can't run away, you kick them." Hmm. While I admire Pro's bravery, let's face it - we're most likely not going to kick a thief if we're being mugged, our house gets broken into, we're being held up somewhere, etc. The most popular reaction is to give into the perpetrator's demands. So, if the perp knew that the victim was armed, they most likely wouldn't bother them in the first place. Not to mention that this isn't even a debatable issue; the stats and facts are already in my favor on this point.

7. Regarding the paragraph beginning with, "You know, you're right. Speaking of which, I'm still trying to figure out what happened to that armored tank I ordered 2 months ago..." I'll just say that I have no idea what Pro is talking about. Obviously his sarcastic humor failed lol - either that or he just didn't make a cohesive argument here. I'd like for Pro to explain explicitly what he meant in this paragraph...?

8. Also, when I pointed out the freedoms being taken away from the government (i.e. free press), my point was once again to show how governments can be tyrannical and why it's not far fetched or should be considered naively out of the question that a government can't or wouldn't attempt to oppress citizens in some way.

9. I stand by my argument regarding people's right to make and sell gun products. We live in a free society; selling those things does not violate anyone elses rights and thus should be legal.

10. Guns being sold on the black market is illegal. The people involved in this activity are criminals who don't pay taxes and commit a plethora of other crimes, often related to violence and gang or mob activity. I'm out of characters, but highly doubt I need to expand on this point further anyway.

[1] http://members.iimetro.com.au...
[2] http://www.timothyjpmason.com...
[3] http://www.usm.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

Thank you for responding, and I apologize for taking so long on my response.

1. Think about this. Every single person is a potential criminal. I don't understand how people think it's okay to sell guns to potential criminals under the potentially false pretense of it being for self defense. In regards to the homicide rate tripling in DC, they did not say anything about how fast the crime rate in DC changes anyway, but I would be inclined to think that it would be higher anyway. But either way, your "fact-based" article had some bad facts in it. It cited Colin Loftin as finding that the gun laws didn't work. Well, here is what Dr. Loftin really found, "In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns.[1]" I'm not quite sure how your article got the facts that it did, but one thing is clear: that source is not to be trusted.

2. Please don't condone illegal behavior. We have had four presidents assassinated. The most recent, as you pointed out, was John F. Kennedy, who was killed 47 years ago today. His assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, would have been brought to justice until he was shot by Jack Ruby, who was, in turn, given the death penalty, which was overturned, and then he died himself. It really seems like a great reason for guns to be illegal, my friend. You're not helping your cause. It is illegal to shoot the president. John Wilkes Booth was killed by union soldiers. Charles Guiteau was hanged. Leon Czolgosz sat in the electric chair. You don't assassinate the president, or anyone else. In regards to the second amendment, in the 18th century, the generally accepted definition for "bear arms" was to have a militia. Even if you didn't get that, they tried to make it even more clear by saying "A well regulated militia..." And by people, it means collectively. It's not talking about how you should be able to have guns so you can shoot the president. That's loony.
You referenced the Japanese concentration camps. While that was horrible, I could not think of a worse thing to do than to shoot your captors. Because you already have no rights, you're basically screwed once you break the law.

2 (pt. 2). As I said, you don't shoot government officials. It's a horrible idea, considering the government is the party that would be arresting you.

3. Look, I would rather be shot than shoot someone, but I would really rather do neither. That would be a whole lot easier if we didn't have guns legal.

4. But Hasan bought his gun from a civilian gun store, and that's the point I'm getting at. Anybody could do it, and Hasan just happened to be part of the military. In regard to the point about the black market, unfortunately that will never go away. But, just as we try and crack down on drug dealers (no pun intended), we could crack down on gun sellers, and hopefully get the black market to a minimum.

5. Well, I would rather be optimistic and say that we should try and reduce crime instead of saying that we should just let it be.

6. Maybe so, but I would rather nobody gets shot during the altercation. As you said, 56% of felons wouldn't mess with someone who was armed. That means 44% would. As I said, I don't want anyone shot. Ideally, they would temporarily incapacitate the perpetrator. If not, you give in and then call the police once they leave.

7. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. What I meant was that it would be absolutely ridiculous if we had access to the same protection that the military had, as you said we should. We would have armored tanks and machine guns and other crazy things. It would be utter chaos if we could do that.

8. I'm not saying that the government can't be oppressive. You're putting an awful lot of attention to that fact. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't shoot government officials. Big difference. Even in Nazi Germany, you would be in hot water if you shot Hitler unless you were a member of the allied forces. And the next in command wasn't much better, so not much would change anyhow.

9. And I stand by may argument that they shouldn't. It does violate other people's rights, because I have the right to not be shot. That goes under the 3 unalienable, natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

10. So we arrest them.

While you make some very good points, you are still missing the biggest one. If you put a child in a room with a bih red button and tell him not to push it, he probably will. While it is true that guns can be used for self defense, they are really just a big red button. They can kill people at the pull of a trigger. We don't want to give 350 million people easy access to a big red button, because it is virtually impossible that nobody would press it. Nidal Hasan pressed the red button 13 times. We don't want all of our citizens to be able to be Nidal Hasan. If you really need to shoot someone, join the army. And don't shoot government officials, as my opponent suggested, because that is a really awful idea.

I would like to thank my opponent for her excellent arguments. I am looking forward to her next argument. However, I still believe that pro is the way to go.

[1] http://content.nejm.org...
Danielle

Con

1. In the last round, I made the point that studies reveal felons have admitted that knowing a victim owned a gun would have severely hindered their committed crimes by at least 56 percent. Pro said that my article was faulty; however, I never intended to cite a specific article - I specifically pointed out a fact (the one I've mentioned) which Pro has not and did not refute. Then Pro went on to say that we should treat all people as if they are potential criminals by limiting their access to guns. By that logic, we wouldn't let people access things like vehicles or knives either. There are plenty ways you can hurt or kill others; it is unrealistic to assume that we could prevent murder from happening. Moreover, people are born into a free country as free people with the right to own a firearm. The government as an entity has no right or obligation to restrict that right from law abiding citizens. Plus, our very own constitution established and reaffirms this right. Pro didn't touch any of these points.

2. In the last round, I pointed out that our second amendment grants us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from any type of radical government tyranny. Pro's response was, "Please don't condone illegal behavior. We've had 4 presidents assassinated." Clearly this is a complete straw man and manipulation of my argument; nowhere did I ever say that we should assassinate anybody. I pointed out examples of where the government acted tyrannical to the point of taking away rights right here on American soil. This was proof that government tyranny is still possible. With that in mind, the citizens should have a right to arm themselves in case that their livelihoods are ever in jeopardy.

Pro agrees with me that the right to bear arms was intended to apply to a citizen formed militia, but what Pro doesn't understand is that this point still applies today. We still might need to form a militia someday, we should be able to form a militia if necessary, and or ability to form a militia will make officials think twice about screwing with our rights. As I said in the last round, if not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government. Therefore, their rights would exist only at their government's discretion.

3. Pro says, "I would rather be shot than shoot someone, but I would really rather do neither. That would be a whole lot easier if we didn't have guns legal." I seriously fail to see how this establishes anything. Pro made no point here.

4. Yes, Hasan bought a gun from a gun store. This still wouldn't eliminate the issue of the black market (including gangs, violence, etc.) which Pro concedes. However, I've said that gun stores are responsible because they implement various background checks, and they register every gun owner as part of a system. That makes it easier to catch and find criminals in the instance where a gun has been used.

5. My 5th point commented that sometimes shooting someone was morally justified, i.e. in self defense. Pro responded with, "Well, I would rather be optimistic and say that we should try and reduce crime instead of saying that we should just let it be." Once again, this rebuttal is off topic and doesn't argue my point at all. Again, in the last round I discussed necessary crime.

6. In the last round, I mentioned that it is kind of unrealistic to expect to be able to defend yourself from an intruder with a gun if you don't also have a gun. Pro implied that people could always run away. That's silly. So then in R3, he said, "As I said, I don't want anyone shot. Ideally, they would temporarily incapacitate the perpetrator. If not, you give in and then call the police once they leave." So I guess Pro and I agree - we don't want anyone shot. However, if having a gun will minimalize crime and therefore the probability that someone will get shot (since statistics show that gun ownership deters crime), then I'm all about protecting one's self.

7. Pro clarifies that we as civilians should not have the same weaponry that the military has. I agree completely, so this is a moot point. I'm not saying that citizens need to be armed with tanks and machine guns. However hand guns are another story.

8. Again, the government shouldn't be oppressive. We shouldn't shoot government officials. All of this we can agree upon. This is another moot point, I guess.

9. In R2 I said, "I stand by my argument regarding people's right to make and sell gun products. We live in a free society; selling those things does not violate anyone elses rights and thus should be legal." Pro responded with, "And I stand by may argument that they shouldn't. It does violate other people's rights, because I have the right to not be shot." Clearly these 2 points are completely irrelevant. Yes, Pro has the right to not be shot as we all have our right to life. However, legalized firearms do NOT infringe upon that right. Only people killing you will be infringing upon that right. Of course if someone did so, they would be penalized. But more than that, if someone killed Pro with ANY means then that right would be violated. Again, you can't criminalize anything that could potentially kill. One owning a gun for their own comfort, safety, protection or entertainment (hunting or range shooting) does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Instead, prohibiting them from this ownership infringes upon THEIR rights to own something; especially something guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the U.S.

10. Pro didn't make a point here either.

CONCLUSION:

Pro is making a hasty mistake in comparing all American citizens to Hasan. We uphold a very important value in this country that implies innocence until proven guilty. In other words, our legal system is dependent on the concept of giving people the benefit of the doubt. By owning a gun, people aren't doing anything inherently wrong. Sure, the gun is a tool by which a crime could be committed; however, we can say that about anything. Should cars or alcohol be illegal because drunk driving was the number 1 cause of death in teens? No, neither of them are illegal. Should the internet be illegal because of how many people do shady things there (like meeting under aged kids and raping them, or looking at child porn)? No. The internet is not illegal. So, we can't criminalize things just because they could potentially be dangerous. I've proven this throughout the debate.

Moreover, I've established how removing legal gun stores (which has benefits such as keeping records of gun owners and doing background checks) would just perpetuate crime in the black market. Statistics show that gun ownership is useful at deterring crime. Keeping all of these facts in mind, it's obvious that you should vote Con and acknowledge our right as law abiding American citizens to own guns to protect ourselves from a plethora of attacks (i.e. even government tyranny). Vote to uphold our constitutional rights, people. And thanks for the debate, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Aned
Where does the black market get its weapons from?

Obviously, from the legal market.

So, if Con is so concerned about getting rid of the black market, Con should consider abrogating the legal market as well.
Posted by Animalwiz 6 years ago
Animalwiz
The Contender is right. I too oppose this debate. I personaly believe the the pro was wrong and should reconsider the issue again.
Posted by john_locke 6 years ago
john_locke
The second amendment states "shall not be infringed" for a reason.
Posted by ErodingEthos 6 years ago
ErodingEthos
abard124- you say that you don't hunt because you would rather eat meat that was killed humanely, but hunting IS humane and natural. If you are a good hunter, you can kill a full grown deer that has lived its full life in its natural environment with a well placed shot that will instantly kill it. How is that in any way less humane than raising animals for the sole purpose of food for humanity?
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Lol @ Rob
Posted by sllewuy 7 years ago
sllewuy
"Pro insists that having a gun won't help keep rulers honest, because people with guns realistically couldn't get anywhere near a man like the President. Haha - tell that to JFK."
I LAUGHED HELLA HARD
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
statistiques? Is that like, a mini-statistic? LOL
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
take away guns, take away freedom/
Posted by kalyse020908 7 years ago
kalyse020908
daniel_t, youre honestly very good at posting as to how you voted,
im sure everyone appreciates it.
The Lwerd supports her facts with multiple sources and statistiques.
Honestly, an amazing debator.
I am giving my 'agree with before the debate' to Pro due to I am for gun control
Other than that, Con produces many arguments (slippery or not at points) and includes references.
Every other catagory goes to Con.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
I would watch out how much you support your arguments with Machiavelli...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jaja 6 years ago
jaja
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
abard124DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 6 years ago
kristoffersayshi
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 6 years ago
LaSalle
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by surfride 7 years ago
surfride
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Atheistassociate 7 years ago
Atheistassociate
abard124DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Crush 7 years ago
Crush
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Vote Placed by LuisMiguelLuna 7 years ago
LuisMiguelLuna
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:42 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
abard124DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07