The Instigator
Fightingrebel
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nyx999
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun rights

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 32783
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Fightingrebel

Con

I argue the point that gun laws should not be restricting. Our president is practically forcing us into disarmament like Herbert Hoover. I believe that even through the current restrictions, everyone is going out in protest and buying guns just to show that President Obama cannot supress their second amendment gun rights. That law clearly states that everyone has a right to bear arms, either in defense or in service to one's country.
Nyx999

Pro

Hmm... Hi, I'm Nyx, and I will be arguing this debate with you. :) Since you didn't really specify the BOP or the format of the debate, I'm just going to play it by ear. So, first off, I would like to point out that I'm pretty sure that this sentence is weirdly formatted "I argue the point that gun laws should not be restricting". Restricting what? And the purpose of gun laws is to be restricting, that's the whole idea of gun laws. You could say, I think that we should do away with restricting gun laws, or you can say we should do away with gun laws since they are restricting our freedom. Just pointing that out... :). And also, I would like to challenge you on how you said "Our president is practically forcing us into disarmament like Herbert Hoover." Hoover was a fan of gun laws? I didn't think he was that kind of guy since Hoover was republican. I concede that the second amendment clearly states that we have the right to bear arms, but the times have changed. Amendments are repealed. Look at the eighteenth amendment, the prohibition of alcohol. That was a terrible idea, and so we repealed it. Con, times have changed, and now in this day and age, there are a lot of crazies out there, crazies who, in their insanity, could kill someone, or a lot of people with the pull of a trigger. Just a simple finger twitch, and boom, someone's dead. A gun ban, or more restrictive gun laws, could limit the number of guns in circulation, therefore making it harder for someone to obtain a gun, and maybe saving lives.
Debate Round No. 1
Fightingrebel

Con

That is in fact my very point. And yes, Hoover was a fan of gun laws. Before Franklin was elected to replace Hoover as president and fix the damage that Hoover had done, Hoover had adopted(more like put in place) restrictions on gun usage. Hence disarmament. Times are changing? What, may I ask, is your theory on how the US and its' citizens will react when Obama takes away all of our guns? Many people will be unhappy. Several already are. Facts and accounts have shown, that gun restrictions are already having an impact on our society. These restrictions have, indeed, led to a higher rate of robberies than before these gun laws. The murder rate too, has increased. What do you think will happen if the only protection that anyone is allowed to have and use in their own home is just suddenly stripped away?
Nyx999

Pro

Nyx999 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Fightingrebel

Con

Are you admitting that I won, or have you just been unable to comment further?
Nyx999

Pro

I am terribly sorry, I was just very busy and I always forget to keep up with my debates! Again, I am sorry, I know how annoying forfeits can be.
Okay, now. I don't know where you are getting that Hoover was a fan of gun laws, could you please give me a source? Oh right, this is the last say... Could you please put it in the comment section? Attention voters: Please look in the comment section for my opponent's source. :) And I assume by franklin you mean FDR since you could mean President Franklin Pierce, or Benjamin Franklin. (He was never a president, it's just a lot of people seem to think he is, I have absolutely no idea why.) So where's your source. And actually, Franklin Roosevelt is actually called the father of gun control, http://www.newrepublic.com... there's my source. I believe that you are mistaken. And just because people will be unhappy is no reason not to save lives (by the way, I believe more than several people are already unhappy) And ban doesn't mean no guns at all. For example, what about keeping guns in banks and other places that are targets for stealing. A bank isn't a citizen, it will be kept safe and it won't leave the bank. That's really just a suggestion, I'm sure someone will say, "Well one of the tellers could go bad and use the gun to take control of the bank" and so that wouldn't exactly work that well, but my point is that a gun laws don't necessarily mean no guns at all, and a ban on guns worded correctly doesn't necessarily mean no guns at all. During the prohibition, I'm sure they had rubbing alcohol, and a ban could just mean banning all citizens from having guns.
Also, it's been proven that there is a direct correlation with guns and homicides. More guns=more homicides. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... And higher avilibality to guns= more homicides. Ergo, if we restrict the availability to guns (i.e. gun laws, gun ban) there will be less homicides. And gun ownership in america is the highest in the world. I mean geez, it wouldn't hurt to scale down, even a little.
People say that if everyone had a gun, we could just shoot a mass murderer down before he kills anyone. Wrong. An armed civilian saving everybody has only happened once in the last thirty years. (It only happens in 1.6 percent of all mass shootings since 1980) That's TINY. Everyone having a gun obviously doesn't save anybody, why can't we just limit the amount of guns in circulation (i.e. gun control laws or gun ban) and try it, since a lot of studies are backing us up on this. http://listverse.com... (number 2)
I think I'm done here, fightingrebel (by the way, LOVE the name. :) ) I thank you for this debate, I hope people will vote on it, my last debate I was VERY proud of except nobody voted! I was so annoyed. And remember, could you please give me your source on the Hoover thing?
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
Thank your for your fact that Hoover was a fan of disarmment, that was very enlightening, but of course, since Hoover and FDR aren't complete oppisites, I guess it IS possible for them both to be a fan of stricter gun laws. Obama isn't pushing for a complete ban on guns, just stricter gun control laws. I'm pretty sure that Obama would like a gun ban, but that just isn't realistic since there are so many Americans who oppose it. It's not good politics to push for something that will never go through. Fightingrebel, I believe almost all authoritative power SHOULD be in the police force, because among citizens, who is truly to say who is right and who is wrong. It's the reason I think that we should never have meddled in the middle east, and how that wasn't our job, that was the UN's job. (I must admit though, the UN does almost nothing.) I think that we have no right to impose our ways upon another country, and it was wrong for us to go to war against a country because of a violent rebel group that just happened to be centered there. It would be okay if we had more countries to stand behind us so it wasn't just our word against theirs, it wouldn't just be our ideals against theirs, but it would be the world's ideals against theirs. (And I know, some countries were sort of involved, but not with the intensity with which we were involved.) I have to say, I am really annoyed that nobody voted for our debate. I was excited about this one.
Posted by Fightingrebel 3 years ago
Fightingrebel
Nyx999, i have found the information that you have requested at http://www.presidentprofiles.com... and i hope that this will prove toy you that yes, Hoover was in fact a fan of disarmament, seeing as he spread it internationally. http://millercenter.org... will also provide facts on that very issue. As for FDR being named as the father of it, yes, he too supported it, but did it last, no, it didn't. And that is exactly what Obama is doing now. Trying to force us into complete elimination of guns, leaving us w/out a type of self-defense, leaving all authoritative power to the police force. What have you to say to that? Plz tell me, im eager to be enlightened. thank you for your time and im glad you approve of my name.
Posted by OhMyPancake 3 years ago
OhMyPancake
If you clarify what Pro is arguing for I would be inclined to accept the debate. Right now the topic is Gun Rights and the description wasn't really clear. What exactly are you against and what would Pro be arguing for?
No votes have been placed for this debate.