The Instigator
Angelo
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Gun rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 8 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,053 times Debate No: 20294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (8)

 

Angelo

Con

I challenge you , my grandson, to a debate. first round no arguments.
16kadams

Pro

debating my grandpa sounds fun. go.
Debate Round No. 1
Angelo

Con

We need to ban guns as guns kill people. They are a weapon:

A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

As it kills it is a weapon. having gun control would lower crime. Weapons should be controlled to lower crime. More guns less crime makes no sense because letting people have guns = more likely people die from guns. Having no to little gun laws is illogical.

This will be copied from a source:

The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person.
Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.)
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp...

I have won.
16kadams

Pro

"We need to ban guns as guns kill people. They are a weapon"

So are knifes, you wanna ban knives? Cars cna be used as weapns an kill people all of the time, do you wanna ban cars? This arguemnt is a fallacy.

"it kills it is a weapon. having gun control would lower crime. Weapons should be controlled to lower crime. More guns less crime makes no sense because letting people have guns = more likely people die from guns."

Let's use more guns less crime stats:

The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. [1]

This is funny. After these gun control laws ended crime dropped. So this proves gun control doesn't lower crime, it proves more guns less crime.

The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. [2]


gun sales rose, crime stopped. More guns less crime.

"Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms."

That is true, but banning/controling guns usually increases gun crimes:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. [3]

LOL these laws raised gun violence. So basically the problems you say guns lave are cured with guns.

C1: it is my consitutional rights

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. [4]

directly from source.

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.

I needed exact wording from [5]

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. [6]

c/p from source.

C2: more guns less crime

Point in refutations.

Well I have no reason to continue. Vote pro

http://www.nraila.org... [1]
http://www.nraila.org... [2]
http://www.justfacts.com... [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]
http://www.law.cornell.edu... [5]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... [6]
Debate Round No. 2
Angelo

Con

You make good points, but it makes no logical sense.

http://www.google.com...

controlling a huge problem=probably better results. Also look at Tuscon! murder with a gun! Right there i have won.
16kadams

Pro

Not to be rude, but facts are facts. First let's show gun control does not work:

Western Europe, in fact, has always had very low homicide rates as compared to the U.S. This is not something caused by strict anti-gun laws, because this low homicide rate existed before such laws were adopted, and the low rate occurs also in Switzerland and Austria which have no such strict anti-gun laws. [1]

directly from source.

Basically saying that the anti-gun laws there are regional, not law related.

Nor, finally, have these anti-gun laws stopped suicide [1]
So basically relating to the point that gun laws wouldn't stop suicide as there are many ways to do it.

It wasn't supposed to happen in England, with all its very strict gun control laws. And yet last week Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others. A headline in The Times of London read: "Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy." [2]

C/P from source.

So a country with severe gun laws still has guns, this proves guns ARE available even with these laws.

Western Europe, where most countries have much tougher gun laws, has experienced many of the worst multiple victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple victim public shootings in Europe occurred where guns are banned. [2]

This really made me say "whoa!!!" all of their multiple homicide shootings happened after the gun ban. Also above c/p from source.

"Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. " [3]

putting quotes is easier then saying c/p every time.

"States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly." [3]

an example of more guns crime.

I see no need to keep going, with little effort I have proven my point. Vote pro. more guns less crime, gun control dos not work, it is my right to own a gun etc. Remember vote for me/

sources:

http://www.nraila.org... [1]
http://www.foxnews.com... [2]
http://www.kc3.com... [3]
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
yep
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
:O! You two are related!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
@royals RFD

you insulted my grandpa
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
in societies like that their crime rates are low *cough* Switzerland *cough*
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Well, yeah. We can't just hand them out to any random dude that asks for one, now can we?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
to ober

he is for them but favors some gun control
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Lol. Well, he did better than a lot of noobs on this site.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
lol, ps he is a noob.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Aw, family on family debating. :)
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Angelo16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made few well developed arguments and failed to refute Pro's points throughout.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Angelo16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Sympathy vote for Angelo.
Vote Placed by Kethen 4 years ago
Kethen
Angelo16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Obviously
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Angelo16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments, and Con didn't even try to refute them.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
Angelo16kadamsTied
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: This debate was not even close. Why can the liberals on this site not do anything properly? It just makes us look atrocious and permits jimtimmy to call us mentally incompetent. Grudgingly giving the win to Pro.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
Angelo16kadamsTied
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: Far better arguments and sources to support them.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Angelo16kadamsTied
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: You know, for some reason, I didn't get the idea that 16adams grandpa is against gun rights..... Still, was somewhat entertaining. You got a cool granpa 16adams. :)
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
Angelo16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pretty much dropped everything in R3, and his case just wasnt fledged out enough. Pro also had several more sources.