The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
missmozart
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Gun rights in general

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 3 votes the winner is...
missmozart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 92724
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

Since I don't know much about gun laws in any country, I would be debating about gun rights in general. I think it is good to have a gun, as not only it will help in self-defense, but we can save it for terrible days such as revolutions and all-out war.
missmozart

Con

I accept. I ask my opponent to define what he means by gun rights "in general".

R2: arguments
R3: rebuttal and conclusion

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

We will debating about the idea that civilians should be given to right to have licensed guns.
I am pro gun rights as they help in self-defense, arm non-government security officials and help in crises such as revolutions and war.
Self-defense
Guns can be used for self-defense. Suppose if a robber enters your house and asks for the cash, you can open the drawer you have your gun in and shooting his hand with the weapon while calling the police. On the other hand, without guns it is risky to use sticks and knives, as we are prone to damage ourselves and our attack would be slower and less damaging.
Non-government security
One example would be plainclothes bodyguards. A high-profile target such as a politician or a journalist could have a normal person become a bodyguard with a licensed gun, and as there will be no records of the bodyguard it will be harder to estimate the strength of the security around the target.
Crises
One thing about guns is that we can use it for target practice. Suppose if I get a licensed gun and then weekly practice shooting, I would be good at it and can apply for law enforcement agencies or keep it for a difficult time. If we have a revolution happening, and the police fires at a crowd of protestors that includes you, you could easily fire back. Or in the situation of all-out war, you would be a better soldier than other ordinary citizens. Even if you are not a good shot, you would at least know how to reload and hold a gun, or know the gun recoil and therefore keep a firm grip.
missmozart

Con

Thank you Pro.

Round 2 is arguments only so I will rebut all your points in the next round. With that being said, I now begin my main arguments.

First of all, guns are the main source of crime in a country and they are also highly dangerous. Think about it, there is not much constructive use for a gun- it is used mainly to kill, whether it's homicide or hunting. In 2010, 67.5% of all murders were committed using firearms [1] and out of all the crimes that occur in the United States each year, 4% involve guns [2]. The USA is ranked 3rd out of 45 developed nations in regards to the incidence of homicides committed with a firearm [3] and compared to the UK which has one of the lowest rates of gun crimes the world [4], it is not surprising that there is a strict ban on firearms there.

Secondly, guns are a dangerous reality in the lives of children (as well as adults). In homes that contain guns, despite the continuous educational efforts, 33% of these guns are still kept loaded, unlocked and potentially accessible to children [5]. A recent study shows that if a gun is stored in a home, the risk of homicide increases by three times and the risk of suicide increases up to five times. Guns also are 43 times as likely to be used to kill a family member or someone known to a family than to kill a stranger. Over 5% of young students indicated that they carried a gun in the past month, and it is estimated that approximately one million children bring guns to school each year [5]. Children do not understand the seriousness of guns and at a young age like that, accidents can often occur. Therefore, people must remove guns from their homes so that not only them but their children, can be safe.

Thirdly, guns are not a good form of defence. As Scott Martelle says, "the notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime" [6]. I have already proven that crimes are much more likely to occur in countries that are pro-guns. Let's say for example that somebody breaks into your house and you take out a gun in 'self-defence' and shoot. Why did you take out a gun in the first place? It's because guns are legal and since most people possess one, the person must have carried a gun, therefore making you afraid and shoot him/her. If guns are banned, crimes will decrease dramatically and even if someone breaks into your house or other, there will be a much less likely chance that they will be carrying the weapon that can kill people INSTANTANEOUSLY. If you killed someone and that someone only wanted to steal some jewellery and money, who committed the more serious crime?

In conclusion, guns are dangerous, encourage crime and are not a good method of self-defence. We are safer and better off without guns.

Thank you for reading and I beg you to propose.

Citations:
[1] https://www.quora.com...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.unodc.org...
[5] http://www.aacap.org...
[6] http://www.latimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

Con hasn;t rebutted my point about guns being useful in crises such as war and revolutions, and about unofficial security agencies.
Crimes
"In 2010, 67.5% of all murders were committed using firearms [1] and out of all the crimes that occur in the United States each year, 4% involve guns"
Weren't firearms and guns one and the same thing? If not, then its only 4 percent, and furthermore, if guns are banned, other means of murder are always there. Without guns, it will open up the imagination of the murder and would lead to innovative and harder to trace methods of killing, such as overdose of medicines or poison. Criminals may try to make the death look accidental or self-inflicted, but with a gun, they won't start thinking so creatively.
Furthermore, banning guns would result in the development of an illegal guns market funded not only by criminals, but also innocent but safety-paranoid patriotic citizens.Capturing them would feel wrong to every police officer who is governed by principle and morals.

Self-defense
Con argued that I would kill a thief without reason. I argue that I said I will shoot for his weapons hand and make sure the aim is to disarm him rather than kill him. Moreover, gun wounds can be survived if not aimed for vital areas. The problem of self-defense killings can easily be solved by some instructions and training by the police during the application for a gun license.

Children accessing guns
Once again, police must instruct the gun license holder to not pass on the weapon to anyone else's possession. Moreover, any decent parent would instruct their child to keep away from guns, and lock the drawer which has it, or have the safety on. The police can instruct license holders to not keep their gun in a place reachable by children, and certainly not to keep it loaded all the time. Moreover, a law must be made that the gun can only be kept in possession of the license holder, and if found loaded/accompanied with bullets in the hand of any relative or any other person, the person shall be arrested.
Risk of homicide and suicide
Mere conjectures. I have a battle sword and shield at home, doesn't mean I am at risk of using it for terrible things. My friend has a rifle, but he barely does target practice with the rusty old thing. It depends upon person to person, whether they can handle a gun or not. Police can conduct a psychological, background and criminal records check before assigning a gun to a person. Moreover, your statistics do not mention whether they have counted policemen, army men and terrorists in their percentage. We are talking about normal civilians here.

Con hasn't managed to rebut any of my arguments, and his arguments are subject only to the US. Many other countries such as India allow people to have licensed guns, no one talks about that, now do they? As this is round 3 and I can't rebut the new arguments con may post in this round, please vote for pro.
missmozart

Con

Okay, first of all, could you please actually READ the debate CLEARLY and THOROUGHLY before you make any 'random' assumptions.

I did not rebut any of your points because we agreed that Round 2 was for ARGUMENTS only (apologies, I cannot italicise). So I would like to ask everybody to ignore Pro's incorrect statement which would have been easily avoided if he wrote and worked with a little more caution and awareness.

As we agreed, the final round is for rebuttal and conclusion so Pro does not need to worry himself that I have neglected that promise.

With that being cleared, let's begin.

*******

Rebuttals:

1. Con says that "if a robber enters your house and asks for cash, you can open the drawer you have your gun in and shoot his hand while calling the police".

Realistically speaking, if a "robber" tried to enter your house, their primary purpose is to 'rob'. So, they would try to steal when there is nobody in the house. Therefore, when "robbers" see the owner of the house, they will try to escape. So if you "shoot" the "robber" in the hand, how does that make the situation any better really? A normal robber wouldn't try to inflict harm on the owners of the family if their main aim was to steal things. I don't need any sources or statistics to back up my point because I am confident that everybody here would agree with me. In fact, I think "shooting the robber in the hand" is a very IMMATURE suggestion to be honest. But I forgive the opponent because he is only fourteen- a year younger than me.

2. "A high-profile target such as a politician (...) could have (...) a bodyguard with a licensed gun"

I completely agree with this statement but I am afraid that Pro has negated the resolution. The motion of this debate is for gun rights "in general" and as you kindly pointed out, that means normal people. I don't think a professional bodyguard classifies as the 'general majority'.

3. "If we have a revolution happening, and the police fires at a crowd of protestors that includes you, you could easily fight back".

Again, I think that this is clearly, a very unrealistic suggestion. It is illegal for the police to fire at a peaceful crowd [1] unless a crowd is a complete danger to society.

4. ""In 2010, 67.5% of all murders were committed using firearms and out of all the crimes that occur in the United States each year, 4% involve guns" Weren't fire arms and guns one and the same thing? If not, then it's only 4%..."

PLEASE 'READ' THE STATEMENT!! It says that 67.5% of MURDERS (which means killing people) are committed using guns and 4% of CRIMES involve guns. A crime refers to any criminal act.

5."Moreover, any decent parent would instruct their child to keep away from guns"

Unfortunately, based on my research (link in Round 2), I have already PROVEN that that is indeed not the case. Please read it again.

6.You said that if guns were banned, they would still be in fact be sold illegally. That is true. But let's say that drugs were made legal. Do you think that there would be more drug addicts if drugs were allowed or if it were not allowed despite the illegal selling of them? Yes, I thought so.

7. "He (she) hasn't managed to rebut my points and his (her) arguments are only subject to the US"

I have already explained that rebuttals were forbidden in Round 2. My arguments are not just relevant to the US but to every country in the world. Every country should ban guns. I only used the US as a primary example because it is there where people are beginning to question gun banning.

In conclusion, Pro negated the resolution, did not read the debate clearly, forgot the rules and did not provide any sources throughout the debate.

Thank you everyone for reading. Vote Con!

Citations:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheWorldIsComplicated// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate, both sides presented very good arguments. Con had a hard time debunking some of Pro's theories and vice versa.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't explain the decision. The RFD contains no reason why Pro's argument was superior, nor does it contain any specific analysis of either side's arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Udel// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that we should have guns for self defense and target practice, also that guns should be licensed. Con says guns are used for killing and they are very dangerous. She said they kill people, especially kids, and are not good for self defense. She said most time they are used to kill by accident and not to protect. Pro says licensing will prevent killing others by accident but doesn't explain how. Con argues that guns are used to murder and kill people more than they defend people. Pro brings up the gun black market in the last round and Con mostly drops it, but this is basically the only point Con loses. Pro did not respond to Con's statistics on how many people are killed by accident or self defense stats.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is sufficiently explained, examining arguments made by both debaters and explaining, at least partly, how they contributed to the overall debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 5 months ago
Ragnar
Bloody DDO deleting words prior to the character limit... con wasted time focusing on made up agreements, which us voters have seen no evidence of (lack of explicit disagreement, is not the same thing as agreement). Plus some decently witty rebuttals catching how the points were lacking in strength.
Posted by Ragnar 5 months ago
Ragnar
Before my RFD, I wanted to address "If you killed someone and that someone only wanted to steal some jewellery and money, who committed the more serious crime?" Felony Murder Rule, they committed both crimes.

---RFD---
Conduct for final round blitzkrieg (con decided to wait until then to refute anything, so that no defense could be raised; damages the very point of the debate when you intentionally avoid the back and forth), I do acknowledge that con attempted to add a rule into the debate to require that, but such could have been discussed in the comment section prior to accepting to see if it was tolerable. There is also the issue of mild (perhaps accidental?) plagiarism ("Guns also are 43 times as likely to be used to kill a family member or someone known to a family than to kill a stranger." line copy/pasted from source 5, I am not doing a line by line check on the rest...).

Arguments: Pro offered self defense such as quickly and careful shooting the hands of armed robbers (side note: even the best marksmen go for center of mass, movies lie about how easy to hit small appendages are), Non-Government security who have licenses but all records of said licenses are destroyed, and Crises in case of revolution for/against the government (seems to support both sides of it?).

Con makes a decent case on connection between guns and crime, the fact that it's far more likely to harm you or your family members than anyone else, a generic pathos appeal to children (not dismissing it), and they are very over rated for defense.

Pro's case ended up trying to move the goalpost to guns being a privilege tightly controlled by the police, requiring all kinds of training, which may be good ideas but is against the grain of the resolution, and directly counter to some of his own arguments (off the books private security with guns for example)... Even if I discounted con's final round rebuttals, con would still be ahead.

Con's conclusion included wasted time making up
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Amedexyius 5 months ago
Amedexyius
lord_megatronmissmozartTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued primarily that self-defence and the liberty to own guns was for the point of protection. Con had made arguments that went over the rebuttals that Pro provided and continued with more source that created a foundation which Pro lacked. The number one belief of mine that makes Con more worthy of winning is due to her ability to properly create a backing for her arguments and the simple basis quantity and quality of the reasoning she provided against Pro. The final round was the overwhelming of Con's arguments against Pro where each and every individual remark made by Pro were rebutted with strong and backed up points.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 5 months ago
Ragnar
lord_megatronmissmozartTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Udel 5 months ago
Udel
lord_megatronmissmozartTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that we should have guns for self defense and target practice, also that guns should be licensed. Con says guns are used for killing and they are very dangerous. She said they kill people, especially kids, and are not good for self defense. She said most time they are used to kill by accident and not to protect. Pro says licensing will prevent killing others by accident but doesn't explain how. Con argues that guns are used to murder and kill people more than they defend people. Pro brings up the gun black market in the last round and Con mostly drops it, but this is basically the only point Con loses. Pro did not respond to Con's statistics on how many people are killed by accident or self defense stats.