The Instigator
TheLibertarian76
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
LiberalLogic101
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
LiberalLogic101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 58538
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

TheLibertarian76

Con

I challenge you too a debate on gun control. I'll start

I am absolutely for the the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. It is designated in the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights, which the founding fathers specifically made it clear that even if the majority thinks so, the bill of rights or the constitution shall never be repealed.
If someone breaks into your house and is planning to kill your family with a gun, you use your gun first! You don't call 911 and wait before it's to late! And people say, well if guns were illegal, nobody would get them. That's not true. People could easily smuggle guns across the border or get them from the black market.
Also a friend of mine lives in the small town of Garberville, which is un-incorporated, which means since it's not incorporated, all of its tax dollars got to eureka, not to fund Garberville, but to fund Eureka! The only way Garberville can survive is through donations. Oh did I mention since it's not incorporated, they don't have a police department? So the only way they can defend themselves is having guns themselves! Do you want to take away guns from those people!
Also, the FBI out out a chart that showed that in over 95% of violent crime, pistols, knives, and body parts (ex: handS) were used, not shotguns or bolt-action rifles, or ar-15s! If anything were going to be outlawed, it probably should be handguns! (I dont want too)
It is an absurd notion that guns should be illegal or that there should be a lot of gun control.

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment
LiberalLogic101

Pro

I accept.

I am a neutral proponent of the second amendment, which I think should exist, but too solidly gaurantees the right to something so deadly. Also, that is incorrect. Technically, the Bill of Rights is no different than any other amendment, and can be repealed or changed. The Constitution, through amendments, can also be changed.

If guns were illegal, it would not exactly help the market. I won't say no one would get them (they would) but it would slow down the market. Although I am not a proponent of that either.

I would disagree. It is my opinion that guns should have regulations that are reasonable for the amount of force they are yielding, and that unreasonable weapons (AK-47s) should have strict regulations, if not bans.
Debate Round No. 1
TheLibertarian76

Con

Ok, I actually did some research and your right, I got the consititution and the bill of rights mixed up. My bad.
But look at this story

http://newyork.cbslocal.com...

There were 20 plus Gang members outside his house. Do you expect him to defend his house from all of them using a handgun? Of course not! And what if this happned in Garberville where they have no police station, or other unincorporated towns. What if it happned on a ranch miles away from a police station in Texas? And I also think it's ridiculous he was arrested for firing into the grass. And as I point out again, the FBI out out a chart saying the majority of violent crimes/assault were committed with, handguns, knives, or limbs.


http://www.fbi.gov...


Also may I remind you how many people supporting gun control are corrupt? One of my california senators, Liland Yee, was caught gun trafficking, and may I remind you that he was extremely pro gun control? And if you don't believe me

http://www.mercurynews.com...

http://www.cnn.com...

Gun control only disarms and harms civilians.
LiberalLogic101

Pro

I do not expect that. I think that is quite an isolated incident, to be honest. The issue is, under foreseeable circumstances (several people with guns attacking you, or less) do you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? Not particularly. With your last statement, you sort of refuted your own point. The vast majority of crimes are not comitted in that style, and those that are are usually criminal on criminal, where they would have illegally obtained whatever they need to defend themselves. A law abiding citizen merely fixing to defend his family and himself from a few burglers would need no more than a pistol.


I do not deny the corruption of many gun control advocates. However, I will turn the tables on you.

Michele Bachmann.
Paul Broun.
Vern Buchanan.
Scott DesJarlais.
Michael Grimm.
Mitch McConnell.
Hal Rogers.
David Valadao.
Don Young.

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org...


According to the Harvard School of Public Health, across nearly all walks of life, more guns = more homicides.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Right now, we are at a profound low of people in the U.S. who have guns in their home. 49% of people think gun control laws need to be more strict, while 37% advocate no change, and only 13% think they should be less strict.

http://www.gallup.com...

Most massacres utilize legal weapons. In other words, making weapons harder to obtain, even not insanely so, would lower the number of massacres. Also, many use assault rifles. Making those illegal/harder to access would also drop death tolls.

http://www.motherjones.com...





Debate Round No. 2
TheLibertarian76

Con

First of all, you think I like any of those people? Michelle Bachman is an idiot warmonger, not to mention that she thinks any Muslim or gay is the end of the world! My name isn't, the conservative76 it's thelibertian76! I am not a conservative! I am a libertarian! If you looked at my title you probably would've known I would not like most or any of those people on the list! Do you not know what libertarian means, or are you just high?

Also, it wasn't a few burglers! It's was over 20 thugs who were likely armed! You think if I had a pistol, I would be able to defend my family from over 20 armed thugs? That's ridiculous! My grandfather was a veteran of ww2 and he would know that you can't take 20 people with guns out with just a pistol!

And if that FBI chart didint do it for you, here's another one

http://www.fbi.gov...

Do you see how insanely low the number of auto rifles/rifles and shotguns! More of it used their limbs, handguns, or unknown weaponry!

And think about major cities like, oh I don't know, CHICAGO! Which actually has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and look at how violent that city is! People don't call it chiraq for no reason! The Long Island scenario could likely happen in Chicago, or cities like, Detroit, SF, New York, New wark, philidaplhia, Boston, and lots of other major cities!
LiberalLogic101

Pro

No, no I really don't. I don't know how anyone likes them. I am just pointing out that the other side of the gun control debate is a contrived moron fest as well. I know what a Libertarian is; my dad is a Libertarian. I personally think he's a bit politically, shall we say... "interesting". Also, forgive me for assuming you are more Conservative than Liberal, as most Libertarians are.

Titles can be misleading anyway. My title is a sort of mock on the website liberallogic101.com - it's a moronic right wing website that, even for a far right organization, leads the pack in stupidity and worshipping... Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, John Boehner.

I am not high. I am crazy enough sober.

I am aware. I am merely pointing out that that is a bit of an isolated incident. As you point out repeatedly, the vast majority of crimes that people are protecting themselves against consist of fists, knives, hand guns, and very few people. An AK-47 to defend against these crimes seems, at best, confusing.

Chicago is an example to the contrary of my argument.

According to gunpolicy.org, the U.S., which has some of the highest gun death rates in the country, is "permissive" about gun regulations.

These countries all have very, very good track records about gun death :

The UK (restrictive gun laws).
Australia (restrictive gun laws).
Belgium (restrictive gun laws).
Canada (restrictive gun laws).
Czech Rebpulic (restrictive gun laws).

And those are JUST the C's.

Debate Round No. 3
TheLibertarian76

Con

May I point out that most libertarians, are not conservative. It's split about 50 to 50 I'm fact my mom is a libertarian who is more liberal. I actually consider myself a center to center-right libertarian, although I can have a good time mocking some neo-conservatives and conservatives.

Also, what if it was 20 people, with pistols! Can you take them all out with one pistol? I don't think so. Your apparently saying if 20 people ambushed someone, the guy could take them all out with a pistol. That's just, it dosent make any sense.

Also in Czech Republic, although being over-strict about guns, having low crime rates could also come from civilians being able to have OPEN CARRY (people can carry guns with them in public) and also what contributes to low crime rates is they have some of the best police force in Europe. So low crime dosent just come from gun control, in fact, it comes mainly form other things.

Also in Canada, it is actually relatively to acquire a rifle or shotgun.
Also here's a story bout your role model, Belgium. And read the entire thing
http://bearingarms.com...
LiberalLogic101

Pro

This is a bit off topic...

Most burglars work alone or in pairs, not groups of 20.

http://foothillshomesblog.com...;

Gang rape is fairly uncommon; only 16% of rapists are gang rapists according to Robin Williams University.

I am not saying a person could take them all out, I am saying in a normal situation for a law abiding citizen, they would not NEED to take out that many people, because there wouldn't BE that many people.

I am aware. I am merely drawing parallels in the same manner you are with Chicago. Chicago has reasons for their terrible track record other than gun control. They have a lot more gangs than most cities in the country, which is a problem that is longstanding, not caused merely by gun control. They also have very lax gun control laws in surrounding counties, and have experienced spikes in violence after loosening laws.

http://thinkprogress.org...

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you said about Canada.

Belgium ALSO has a rank of 34 on a list of the countries with the most guns, next to America's #1, and has around 1/4 the percentage of the population carrying. Not to mention, 20% of the gun death that America has.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheLibertarian76 2 years ago
TheLibertarian76
Are you somehow suggesting I supported the souths attempt to secede?
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Ask the South how their attempt at stopping the government from being tyrannical went
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
The second amendment was written in the time of muskets, where the government had muskets (and not a very great military) and all you needed was more people and more muskets. I mean, we spend more on military than most of the world COMBINED. Do you think any militia you could realistically organize combat attack drones?
Posted by TheLibertarian76 2 years ago
TheLibertarian76
Also the founding fathers made it clear if a tyrannical government ever came into power, the people would be able to fight back. But the government would never do that to you...... Would they? (This statement does not mean I'm I am in favor of just shooting up a bunch of government people. I don't like violence. And if there should be a revolution it should be peaceful)
Posted by TheLibertarian76 2 years ago
TheLibertarian76
Are you too suggesting we give up the very article which we are supposed to govern ourselves by?
Posted by LiberalLogic101 2 years ago
LiberalLogic101
I would agree, Forte.

I have encountered several individuals on the website that I have named my account for, in an ironic sense, who seem to believe that the Constitution establishing these rights means that they are indisputable human rights, and exist for everyone around the globe.

I am absolutely bewildered at this supposed definition of a right.

If you are interested to see the little conservation, here is the webpage :

http://liberallogic101.com...
Posted by Forte 2 years ago
Forte
Forgive me if I am alone in thinking this, but I feel that the constitution should not be held as a definition of right and wrong. I am slightly disturbed by just how many people, well, worship (for lack of a better word) the constitution and founding fathers, and take everything it says as fact. I would much rather see arguments based on critical thinking and reason rather than what a few people from the eighteenth century said it should be like.
Posted by TheLibertarian76 2 years ago
TheLibertarian76
Yes I am fine with that
Posted by LiberalLogic101 2 years ago
LiberalLogic101
I think it's good that we have the second amendment, but I am for gun control. Are you okay with the debate going slightly more in that direction, or would you like me to debate against 2nd amendment & gun control, which I could do? Thanks, Mac.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
TheLibertarian76LiberalLogic101Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It is clear to me that Pro used better logic and arguments. Con didnt seem to understand that the 20 gang members was an isolated incident, or doesnt understand what an isolated incident is.
Vote Placed by SGM_iz_SekC 2 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
TheLibertarian76LiberalLogic101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The bill of rights is more important than any statistic. Self defense (with a gun) will always deter crime. Gun related violence and mass shootings have actually lowered in frequency and intensity over the past few decades, it's just that now we have more surveillance and more (liberal leaning) news coverage. Murder and Violence where a car is used as a weapon happens more than gun violence. Will we ban cars? Obesity kills more people than violence. Will we ban unhealthy foods and overeating? Smoking and alcohol kill more people than guns, will we ban those? The list goes on and on.
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 2 years ago
Rhodesia79
TheLibertarian76LiberalLogic101Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both Con and Pro both had good arguments even if I felt they went a little of topic at times. Both used many reliable sources. Con is not getting the conduct points for being mean to Conservatives. Con proved his argument in the end.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
TheLibertarian76LiberalLogic101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a moron. Con had more grammar issues. Con merely downplayed the destructive role that guns play, with no real (standing) arguments against GC. Pro wins on crime and mass murders.