The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
DylanFromSC
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 11 votes the winner is...
DylanFromSC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,597 times Debate No: 11169
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (11)

 

abard124

Pro

You might be asking, am I going to start a gun control debate every time there is a horrible massacre? Maybe so. Because every time I see reports of mass murders and massacres, we all pretend to feel bad about it and we all pretend that we think mass murders are horrible things, but then we go on with our lives and don't do anything at all to prevent more mass murders. Is that not the definition of insanity?

Today, in Alabama, a faculty member opened fire and killed at least 3 people because she was denied tenure. What has the world come to, when being denied tenure will cause you to shoot someone? So, if you can't even deny someone tenure without the possibility of being shot, we need to make changes. Right now, we're selling people guns that are specifically manufactured to kill people. That needs to stop. I can't believe that the red flag has been thrown out so many times, yet we still ignore it. GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

I am looking forward to someone accepting this debate!
DylanFromSC

Con

First, I would like to thank abard124 for debating with me once again.

Second, since you didn't actually state your arguments, I suppose I will just take what are to be understood arguments from your case and negate them.

1 - "we all pretend to feel bad about it and we all pretend that we think mass murders are horrible things"
I don't think anybody "pretends" to feel bad about these things, or "pretends" that they think mass murders are horrible things. And if anybody does, certainly not ALL of us would agree.

2 - "So, if you can't even deny someone tenure without the possibility of being shot, we need to make changes."
Many people have been denied tenure without shooting anybody. According to your statement, we only need to make changes if every time somebody is denied tenure, and many people have been denied tenure without being shot. Therefore, we need to make no changes.

3 - "GUNS KILL PEOPLE."
The popular statement, guns kill people. Obviously, people kill people. If a gun was sitting all by itself on the counter, would it have the ability to kill anybody?
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you for responding!

"I don't think anybody "pretends" to feel bad about these things, or "pretends" that they think mass murders are horrible things. And if anybody does, certainly not ALL of us would agree."
I know that we all genuinely feel bad. I'm not denying that. I was just exaggerating the point that we're letting these things happen, but we're not doing anything to fix it. According to Einstein, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So we're sitting here and seeing all these massacres, and not doing anything to prevent them from happening again. This is insanity.

"Many people have been denied tenure without shooting anybody. According to your statement, we only need to make changes if every time somebody is denied tenure, and many people have been denied tenure without being shot. Therefore, we need to make no changes."
Tell that to the parents of the people shot in Alabama, and Ft. Hood, and Columbine, and VA Tech. I know that not everyone will do that, but my point is that it can happen. Because this woman was denied tenure, 3 people died. So, my argument is valid. I wasn't trying to say that you WOULD be shot if you denied someone tenure, I was trying to illustrate that it can and does happen.

"The popular statement, guns kill people. Obviously, people kill people. If a gun was sitting all by itself on the counter, would it have the ability to kill anybody?"
Gah! I have heard that argument from every single person I've debated gun control with. The truth is, it's technically true, but it's a logical fallacy. See, people kill people with guns. Not to say that guns are the only way to kill someone, it would be foolish to say that, but they're the easiest and quickest way to kill a lot of people with something that you can legally own. People kill people with guns. You don't hear about mass stabbings. You don't hear about mass disembowelings. Almost all mass murders are shootings. People kill people with guns. And the "people kill people" argument really begs the question: if you don't trust people (which you shouldn't, if they kill people), then why would you give them guns to kill people with? People kill people with guns. People would kill people with bombs too, but those are illegal. Guns and bombs are really the only things that can be used for mass murder, and bombs are illegal for the general population. But we can all carry guns around, and in some states we can even hide them in our pocket, pop it out whenever we want, and shoot 12 people. That's crazy. People kill people with guns. It really doesn't make any sense that we want people to be carrying around these things that can kill a person at the pull of a trigger. And, just in case I haven't made myself clear enough, I just want to say that people kill people with guns.

Before you post your next argument, I'd just like for you to think about this. What if someone you know was in Alabama, or Ft. Hood, or VA Tech, or Columbine. If the shooter didn't have a gun, their life would have been saved. I know it would be the shooter's fault, but they can't do it (at least with nearly the effectiveness) without a gun. You know, one thing I often consider is this (and you may or may not of heard this before): People kill people with guns.

I'm eagerly awaiting your response!
DylanFromSC

Con

Thank you for your quick response.

1 - You made no case to disprove my argument. You only brought up an Einstein definition about insanity. Most people would use this insanity definition.
*Insanity - the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind. [1]
*Insane - not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged. [2]
And you it is completely illogical to state that every person who knows of one of these crimes is mentally deranged.

2 - "I know that not everyone will do that, but my point is that it can happen."
Not everybody that flies on a airplane will die, but people that fly on airplanes do, on occasion, die. And many people may die at once. Should we ban all forms of air flight?

3 - "The truth is, it's technically true, but it's a logical fallacy."
You agree that guns kill people rather than people killing people.

4 - "If the shooter didn't have a gun, their life would have been saved."
First, you don't know this. Pipe bombs, moltov cocktails, etc. are very simple to make.
Second, they could've walked outside, tried to cross the road, and got hit by a bus for all you know.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

Thank you for YOUR quick response!

"And you it is completely illogical to state that every person who knows of one of these crimes is mentally deranged."
Well, I was going off the Einstein quote, but I think my point still stands. If you would rather substitute the word stupid, crazy, nonsensical, idiotic, backwards, silly, or anything else, please go ahead. I provided the Einstein definition, though, so I feel that my use was justified. But we don't need to bicker and argue about whether or not my word choice was justified. My point still stands that it's absolutely crazy to let these shootings happen and not do anything to prevent them in the future. You did nothing to refute that claim.

"Not everybody that flies on a airplane will die, but people that fly on airplanes do, on occasion, die. And many people may die at once. Should we ban all forms of air flight?"
People die in car crashes as well. But a shooter is on a completely different plane (no pun intended) than a pilot. The shooter is intentionally pulling the trigger to intentionally kill their victim. Taking a plane or riding in a car is a (very low, but nonetheless existent) calculated risk ("They bought the tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, let 'em crash!"). You should not have to calculate the risk of denying someone tenure. That's crazy. Furthermore, banning air travel would do much more harm than good. Controlling the sale of guns would prevent so many unnecessary deaths, but unfortunately the people who enjoy shooting paper targets might be out of luck. It's really not a comparable situation at all. Now, while we're on the topic of planes, I'd like to bring a few things up. Guns are not allowed to be carried on to planes. Then things like 9/11 happen. The most common way to die on planes is when people bring guns or bombs on the plane. That's why we try and keep them off planes. We try and keep bombs off the street as well, but we let people run around with guns, and we can't punish them until people are already hurt or dead. That is ridiculous. Now, they also don't let me bring my water bottle on airplanes, but we're just not going to go there. But I think it would be crazy to let people bring guns on planes, and I think it's crazy that we let people carry them on the streets.

"You agree that guns kill people rather than people killing people."
First of all, I will excuse your misstatement. The reason that I am excusing your misstatement is that I gave a huge argument there, and you responded to none of it. Trust me, the misstatement is the least of your worries. Yes, I agree with the words that people kill people. But as I said many many times in my last argument, people kill people WITH GUNS. I find it incredibly humorous that you did not even attempt to respond to that. Since you claim that I agree that people kill people and then gave no further argument, then can I assume that you agree that people kill people with guns? So yes, your argument that people kill people is still there, but I have shown that does not support your cause and in face supports mine, and you have done nothing to rebut that. So basically, I just spent a really long time writing a really detailed an in-depth explanation basically saying that my point still stands.

"First, you don't know this. Pipe bombs, moltov cocktails, etc. are very simple to make."
I did know that, in fact. I never said people didn't make them, I just said that you would get arrested if the police found you with one.

"Second, they could've walked outside, tried to cross the road, and got hit by a bus for all you know."
Seriously? You and I both know that that claim was incredibly far-fetched. Yes, they could technically get hit by a bus on the way home. But they also could have (and would have had a much higher chance) of not getting hit by a bus. But they didn't get the opportunity to not get hit by a bus, because they were shot.

As I have mentioned more than a few times, people kill people with guns. It's so easy to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with a gun. Guns can shoot really far. They are by far the most dangerous weapon that we can own. People kill people with guns, so why should we trust people with a gun if we know that people will die? Yes, I know that not everyone with a gun will kill people, but some will. Whether they are distressed students, or distressed military doctors, or distressed professors, or anyone else, people are dying at their hands. This is unacceptable. Our government has the obligation to promote the general welfare. That is why it is illegal to murder. Unfortunately, murder is only illegal after people are dead. We want to prevent the deaths in the first place. That is why we need gun control.

I would like to thank my opponent for a fascinating and fast-paced debate. He has debated very well. Thank you, and vote PRO.
DylanFromSC

Con

1 - "My point still stands that it's absolutely crazy to let these shootings happen and not do anything to prevent them in the future. You did nothing to refute that claim."
But my point is that you did nothing to refute MY claim. An Einstein definition does no just to my claim, "I don't think anybody "pretends" to feel bad about these things, or "pretends" that they think mass murders are horrible things. And if anybody does, certainly not ALL of us would agree."

2 - "The shooter is intentionally pulling the trigger to intentionally kill their victim."
People boarding planes take into account the risk of a terrorist being aboard. Therefore, often when a plane crashes, the victims are intentionally being killed. There is a minimal difference.

3 - "The most common way to die on planes is when people bring guns or bombs on the plane."
That may be, but the guns are not usually used to kill anybody, and often times, the bomb(s) is/aren't either.

4 - "First of all, I will excuse your misstatement. The reason that I am excusing your misstatement is that I gave a huge argument there, and you responded to none of it. Trust me, the misstatement is the least of your worries. Yes, I agree with the words that people kill people. But as I said many many times in my last argument, people kill people WITH GUNS. I find it incredibly humorous that you did not even attempt to respond to that. Since you claim that I agree that people kill people and then gave no further argument, then can I assume that you agree that people kill people with guns? So yes, your argument that people kill people is still there, but I have shown that does not support your cause and in face supports mine, and you have done nothing to rebut that. So basically, I just spent a really long time writing a really detailed an in-depth explanation basically saying that my point still stands."
Your statement is completely invalid because you made no case against MY point. If you agree that people kill people, then nothing else should matter. Guns do not kill people.

HOWEVER, if you are looking for a response to "people kill people with guns", here it is..
People MAY kill people with guns, but people would kill people with knives, people would kill people with fists, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Period. And guns do not change that.

5 - "Seriously? You and I both know that that claim was incredibly far-fetched. Yes, they could technically get hit by a bus on the way home. But they also could have (and would have had a much higher chance) of not getting hit by a bus. But they didn't get the opportunity to not get hit by a bus, because they were shot."
Saying that they may get shot that day could be considered far-fetched. The chances of them getting shot at work that day are little to none. Millions of people attend work EVERY DAY, and out of that, how many deaths are caused by a gun?

AS I HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE, people kill people. Period. With or without a gun. When you take a person's right to bear arms away, you leave only the criminals owning guns. People WILL find a way to kill somebody if they want, whether or not they have a gun. People would kill people with knives, fists, feet, etc. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO KILL PEOPLE. And if we ban guns, next time that happens, nobody is going to have ANY chance to prevent it.

I would like to thank the readers and my opponent for this debate, he debated well as well. VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
I can see why someone would think that lethal force is okay in self-defense. I disagree, but I can see what they're thinking. The thing about guns is that they're so easy, and some people might have an interesting idea of what self-defense is. And if it's at your house, there's no proof.
Posted by tornshoe92 4 years ago
tornshoe92
I think they are ignoring the bit about nonlethal force because it won't necessarily work. For example studies have shown that tazers (while generally effective) can be powered through in fact I watched a military channel show about nonlethal weapons in which a guy was able to regain full control of his body in under a second. So I think the point trying to be made is that sometimes lethal force is the only proof positive way to subdue an attacker.
Posted by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
Are you ignoring what I said about nonlethal force?
Posted by Procrastarian 4 years ago
Procrastarian
It wouldn't burden your conscience that your failure to act directly lead to the deaths of your wife and children? Wouldn't that make it even harder to live with yourself?
Posted by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
I wouldn't defend anybody with lethal force, no, because I am not a murderer. I would not be able to live with the conscience that I have killed somebody. I would be happy to defend people with non-lethal force. They can rot in jail, for all I care, but I'm not going to kill them. I would rather be shot than shoot someone.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
"I don't think it's ever justified to kill someone."

So you won't defend yourself, your family, or your neighbors? The reason that guns are used rather than bean bags is that guns are more effective. I believe your position is grossly immoral.
Posted by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
Drunk idiocy is legal.

And if you want to kick the assailant where it hurts, fine. If you want to attack them with nonlethal force, fine. But outside of war situations and maybe the death penalty (I'm split on that), I don't think it's ever justified to kill someone.
Posted by tornshoe92 4 years ago
tornshoe92
This is just my personal opinion but weeding someone, who would try to kill an average person for no reason, out of the gene pool is alot less wrong than allowing that person to continue to attack others after they've done away with you. I honestly see nothing wrong with using lethal force to protect yourself if your life is in danger. Now that doesn't mean that I support excessive violence such as hurting someone after they've already been incapacitated, I'm simply saying that no matter how sad taking a life is it isn't wrong if it was used to preserve life. As for your scenario the death is caused because the guy who killed the other was a drunk idiot and I've learned from my brief existence on this planet that drunk idiots will find a way to kill others with shootings definitely not being the most common. And I also happen to live in one of those states you mentioned (Texas) and the law specifically states that in order for a shooting to be justified you must be able to prove that you were fearful of loss of life, property, or were in immediate danger.
Posted by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
In second grade, do you remember when they taught you that two wrongs don't make a right? What happened to that? And it is way easier to kill people with guns than knives. To kill someone with a knife, it would take a considerable amount of time to kill one person, and you have to be right next to them. To kill someone with a gun, you can kill a lot of people in a short period of time and you can be sitting on the other side of the room from them. And picture this scenario: You have a friend over for a beer. Since you are insecure or something, you have a concealed gun. So, you and your friend have a beer. Then you decide to have another, and just for fun, a couple more. So you're drunk. Your friend says something that pisses you off, because he's drunk. You're drunk, so you don't think rationally, and you pull out the gun and shoot him. Once they discover the body, you're sober enough to tell the police that he assaulted you with a steak knife (because the table was set beforehand, and you were sitting close enough that he could have stabbed you without getting up). You can tell that to the police, and they would have no evidence against your story. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable scenario, and since you're at your house, there are no other witnesses (and, I believe, in some states it's legal to shoot anyone on your property, but that's just frightening).
Posted by tornshoe92 4 years ago
tornshoe92
Well first of all if a person were to kill somone in their house and claim self-defense having a gun instead of, say a knife, would not really make a difference since the only reason to go into someone's house is A) to actually attack them thereby justifying self-defense or B) because you trust them and either way with modern forensics being what it is I imagine it's not incredibly easy to fake an attack after killing someone (though I admit it's possible and has been done). As for killing in self-defense, while taking someone's life is never fun or a happy thing, if a person is attacking me with the purpose of killing me then he or she decided to risk whatever life they had. Furthermore if a person is attacking to kill and I don't fight back with the full intention of stopping them then I risk losing everything you listed that they might lose. So how is an innocent person dying more justifiable than the death of someone who has intentionally mean to do harm to another?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PainKing 4 years ago
PainKing
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by TheCalmOne 4 years ago
TheCalmOne
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by gbpacker 4 years ago
gbpacker
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by omgshkelbyposton 4 years ago
omgshkelbyposton
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Grape 4 years ago
Grape
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 NotArrogantJustRight 4 years ago
NotArrogantJustRight
abard124DylanFromSCTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00