The Instigator
griffinisright
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
Kasrahalteth
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points

Guns kill people!

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,879 times Debate No: 2072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (23)

 

griffinisright

Con

Usually when I think of gun control I think of good target practise. You know never missing your target because you have good "control" over your fire arm. However many liberal democrats these days mean something completely different when they say, "gun control". It has been said by many of the left minded individuals of this country that, "Guns kill people." Now I realise that not all left wingers feel this way but a large percentage of the true liberals in this country do. They believe that banning guns will suddenly make people be nice to each other. That crimes will go down and that murder and suicide rates will plummet. When I hear these arguments the first thing that comes to my mind is "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

No I am not necessarily talking about Bill Clinton. Ha-ha. What I am talking about is lies or propaganda that the anti gun left wants you to believe to get you to vote for them, to get you to vote anti-gun. I on the otherhand strongly believe that Guns do NOT kill people and banning things has never worked in this country and it never will! That goes for guns too. Banning Guns will not solve anything and it certainly will not stop PEOPLE from killing people. Which is what I believe the true problem is.

In this debate I would like to go head to head with any liberal or moderate conservative who believes that guns kill people so I can prove to them and my readers that their argument is very flaw full and pointless.
Kasrahalteth

Pro

Frithaes. I suppose my goal here is to prove that my argument is not as "flaw full and pointless" as you suggest. Shall I?

And for the record, guns /do/ kill people. They don't necessarily have to be shot by someone to do so. They can misfire or be dropped or some other such thing. But exploding aerosol cans kill people too, so by that logic we should start banning hairspray.

But that's rather beside the point because I assume the argument is about gun control and not whether or not guns kill people. Although by the way you're talking, I really can't be sure.

So, to start, nobody wants to completely ban guns. There may be a few wing nuts out there that want to make it illegal to own any sort of gun, but the vast majority of people that want gun bans only want to ban handguns and prevent civilians from owning automatic or semi-automatic guns. Your precious hunting rifles and such are safe. The main point is to get rid of guns that kill people. Handguns are small and easy to hide. It's pretty easy for someone to carry a concealed handgun, corner you in a dark alley and rob you. It's much harder to do so with a hunting rifle. Handguns are designed to kill people at a fairly close range. As for the automatic and semi-automatic guns, there is absolutely no good reason for anyone to own a gun designed for war. Those guns are not made to hunt deer, they're not made for target practice, they are made solely for murder. There is therefore no logical reason why a civilian should need one.

So the point isn't to ruin your target practice and hunting, it's just to take guns specifically designed to kill people (i.e. handguns and automatic/semi-automatic weapons) away from civilians.

And you're probably going to argue that we need handguns to defend ourselves against other people with guns. But the goal here is to totally eliminate these types of guns. All guns owned by the thugs and robbers you imagine are out to get you were bought or stolen. They didn't materialize out of thin air. So if you ban gun sales, and collect civilians' guns, for a while, admittedly, the criminals will have guns while civilians do not. But after a relatively short amount of time, they will be caught by the police and their guns will be destroyed, or they will run out of ammunition or some other such thing. And since there will be a finite number of guns and ammunition left, they'll eventually run out. And if the criminals don't have guns, everyone's a whole lot safer.

And no one believes that without guns people will be nicer and that murder and suicide rates will plummet. But it will make it much harder to commit murder. It's a whole lot easier to threaten someone with a gun than it is with a knife. Other weapons are a lot less dangerous, so it would certainly cut down on crime rate. If someone's after you with a knife, all you have to do is run. And the police will still have guns. How long would a stand-off last if one party has a handgun and the other has a knife?

And for that matter, you can still keep your hunting rifles anyway, so while you probably wouldn't ride in around in your car with one, you're certainly able to defend yourself at home. Everyone knows what the clicking sound a rifle makes means. The sound alone would cause potential burglars to scatter. So all in all, you're still pretty safe.

And suicide rates will probably drop off somewhat, even if suicide attempts probably will not. If someone has a gun, there's no time for second thoughts. You pull the trigger and you're dead. The vast majority of people who commit suicide by gun are teenaged boys, who are incredibly impulsive to begin with. They often don't think things through. Other ways to commit suicide, leave much more time for the victim to give up or be found by someone. A lot of kids that kill themselves don't really want to die, they're just desperate. Given more time they may attempt suicide and then realize their heart's not in it.

That's a huge plus to gun control, by the way. Getting guns away from impulsive teenaged boys. There can't be school shootings without guns. And there have been cases where kids as young as eleven have found guns and shot their classmates. Not having guns around would prevent repeats of things like the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, as well as a lot of accidental gun deaths where kids that were goofing off with a parent's gun accidentally shot themselves or someone else.

So all in all, gun control's a pretty good thing.
Debate Round No. 1
griffinisright

Con

This debate is supposed to be about weather or not Guns kill people. I did bring up gun control however because I feel as though it is very relevant seems most people who believe guns kill people believe they should be banned for this reason.
"They don't have to be shot by someone. They can misfire or be dropped." With that logic that would mean that bullets kill people not guns! After all if there was no bullet in the gun that was dropped or misfired it would have never killed anyone. Honestly though accidents happen and not just with guns. But if you want to ban things like that ware an accident can cause a life that say goodbye to the auto industry, say goodbye to the airlines, say goodbye to construction work and most sports! My point is you can not get rid of something because someone can accidentally get hurt or worse killed. That's just part of life.

"nobody wants to completely ban guns" WRONG! There are many people who want all guns banned all handguns, shot guns, etc. Mainly the PETA animal rights groupies. But there are other extremists too. Hand guns can be very necessary for some people to own. For instance someone who hunts who only has one arm can not be expected to shoot a rifle accurately or safely nor should they be denied the ability to hunt. Not to mention that HAND guns can be very HANDy when it comes to self defense because as you said they are small and easy to hide. I know you said if guns were banned you wouldn't need a gun for self defense and I will go into that more later. As far as automatic and semi-automatic guns it is true they are not designed for killing deer. But deer are not the only big game animals that people hunt. There are many bigger animals such as elk, moose, bare, wolves and other wild animals that can and will fight back. They are not made for the sole purpose of killing people, nor are they used primarily for such. So not always is your statement of "There is therefore no logical reason why a civilian should need one" true. Not to mention some individuals wish to have them as a collector's item. Maybe you and I might think that is ridiculous but that doesn't mean it should be law that they can't.

"if the criminals don't have guns, every one's a whole lot safer." This is true however there is no possible way to ban guns from just criminals. So as you have suggested we would have to take everyone's guns away. The logic you are missing is the fact that they are CRIMINALS! Which would imply that they are breaking the law, so if they are breaking the law already, what makes you think they are going to turn in all their guns because it is "illegal"? Or what is to stop them from importing or exporting guns from other places? Nothing will stop them because at the end of the day they are going to do what they want to regardless of weather it is illegal or not! That's why we refer to them as criminals. Thus leaving all of us, law abiding innocent people unarmed when a criminal attacks us. Believe me criminals are not all stupid many can make handguns for themselves. I know a guy who teaches a class on how to make a gun from scratch all you need is a tree and some steel. Now I know this guy and I can vogue that he wouldn't hurt a fly. But who is to say that a criminal can not get their hands on this information if it is already out to the public?

"But it will make it much harder to commit murder." It will not make it any harder for a criminal to commit murder. In fact it very well could make it easier. Again criminals will still have access to guns weather they are illegal or not. But now all of the innocent people are unarmed and defenseless when staring down the barrel of a gun. Making the murder rates go up if anything.

"Not having guns around would prevent repeats of things like the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings" Again this is false. I am a kid who comes from a school ware there was a school shooting that took two lives. A kid brought a gun to school shot the principal to death (who was a friend of mine) and they took his own life. One of the only things that will drop school shootings is when parents who own guns take the RESPONSIBILITY upon themselves to lock up their guns and keep them in a safe place away from their children. Not to mention staying active in their kids lives and teaching them the difference between right and wrong.

Now back to the topic of mine, "Guns don't kill people" The other day I saw a bumper sticker that read "Yeah guns kill people, just like the spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat." I had to laugh but the statement couldn't have been any more accurate! Rosie is a BIG lady and although I am sure she used a spoon to help herself get the way she is. The spoon did not MAKE her fat; neither did the fork, knife, cheese cake, pizza, or jumbolia that she shoveled down the open hatch. The thing that made her fat was her desire to eat more. In other words Rosie had a CHOICE! Sure all of these things may have played an active role in her obesity but if she didn't have all of these things she would have still found a way to get to this glutinous state she is in without them. Because Rosie has made a choice to eat an abundance of food and it doesn't matter if you take the spoon away from her she will find chopsticks and master the art of using them. If not chopsticks she will find another way, if she really wants it that bad she will get it and believe me she will!

Banning is nothing more than a cover for the fact that the secular mind cannot find solutions to society's problems and doesn't know what to do about it. I find this so pathetically simplistic that it is nearly laughable! Banning has never worked in this country AND IT NEVER WILL! We banned liquor in this country once. You couldn't find a drink in the Roaring twenties could ya? Um... WRONG!! Just ask Al Capone! They called them the Roaring Twenties for a reason. They were out of control, drinking was a HUGE problem even after the government banned it. If you are wondering why this is, It is because if someone really wants a drink they aren't going to let a simple "Ban" get in their way. They will go to any extent necessary to get what they want! Let's think about that logic for a minuet. If Banning works as well as you think it does. I say why stop there. Let's not just ban guns, why don't we just ban CRIME! I mean honestly do you think if we ban guns of crime in this country criminals (who are already intending on breaking the law by the way) are just going to say, "Aw, rats! I was going to shoot that guy, but apparently it's "illegal" now..." I DON'T THINK SO!!! If they really want to kill someone they will not let a ban get in their way! Even if you take away their gun they will find a noose, a knife, a bow and arrow or their filthy bare hands for crying out loud and strangle or beat their UNARMED victim to death! (I made sure to emphasis unarmed in that last sentence because if guns don't exist that means not even the innocent victim can have one!)
In taking all of this into account I have come to the conclusion that guns don't kill people… bullets kill people! Ha-ha, no but really all joking aside let's break this down piece by piece. If there is a bullet in the chamber, someone must have put it there! If someone put it there, he had to have done it on purpose! If he did it on purpose that would imply that he made a choice! If he made a choice, that is because he has reason! If he has a reason, that would mean he's autonomous. If he is autonomous, it means he has the ability to choose between right and wrong! If he can and does point the gun at someone and pull the trigger, it means he meant it! If he meant it that means that it is his fault. There fore the gun is not to blame, the bullet is not to blame, and the NR frick'n A is not to blame! The only noun in this equation that is responsible for the death of another human being is the HUMAN HIMSELF! Guns do NOT kill people. PEOPLE kill PEOPLE! Period.
Kasrahalteth

Pro

"This debate is supposed to be about weather or not Guns kill people. I did bring up gun control however because I feel as though it is very relevant…"

Excuse me, but your entire opening statement is about gun control, and I'm going to try to slog through the stupidity of whether or not guns kill people and treat it as such.

But I'll address your point anyway. Many gun deaths were crimes of passion between people who knew each other. If neither party had a gun, no one would be killed, because the only reason it escalated was because both parties were angry, and in the impulsivity brought on by anger, one shot the other. Guns are incredibly dangerous for exactly this reason. Not nearly as many people are going to kill someone in a fight with other weapons because fights are far more personal. There's no way to keep your distance with a anything else and it forces you to fully comprehend what you're doing, in a way that guns don't. So if nothing else, by dehumanizing victims, guns allow the kind of escalation that ends in murder.

To continue, you've argued that guns don't kill people, bullets do. But there's no way a bullet can kill without a gun. If you shoot a bullet with a slingshot, you're not going to do any harm. If you throw a bullet off a building, it will quickly reach its terminal velocity, which will be just about enough to give your victim a nasty bruise. The only way to kill someone with a bullet, save through lead poisoning, is to accelerate it to a speed much faster than its terminal velocity by somehow propelling it through a barrel. And if you do such a thing, you've built a gun. Even if bullets do kill people, they can't without guns, and therefore guns kill people.

And there have been many cases where guns have exploded and victims have been killed by shrapnel, so guns can kill people without bullets.

You can also beat someone with a gun. And if you're going to argue anything heavy can be used to beat people to death, I'm going to point out that brass knuckles are designed for this reason and are illegal in most states as a result. As I think I've pointed out, guns are insanely dangerous in plenty of other ways as well.

" ‘nobody wants to completely ban guns' WRONG! There are many people who want all guns banned all handguns, shot guns, etc. Mainly the PETA animal rights groupies. But there are other extremists too."

Ahem. Let me quote my passage in its entirety, shall I?

"So, to start, nobody wants to completely ban guns. There may be a few wing nuts out there that want to make it illegal to own any sort of gun..."

PETA funds FBI-certified domestic terrorist groups. I think they fall squarely under the category of ‘wing nuts'. You used the word extremists yourself to describe people that want to totally ban guns. There is no way this will happen, because extremists, by definition, are minorities and therefore have little control over the vote. This argument is about the banning of handguns and automatic/semiautomatic weapons.

Hunting with a handgun is toted as being extremely difficult, mainly because handguns are meant for shooting people at short range, not hunting. But if you can find a single case where a one-armed person has still been able to hunt because he used a handgun, by all means, show me.

Automatic and semi-automatic guns aren't exactly designed to kill bear either. Ultimately, even if they were adapted to something like hunting, they were originally built for war. And nearly any gun can stop an animal that "can and will fight back", You don't need to pepper the entire landscape with an AK-47 in order to get your bear.

And I'm sure that many people want to collect other instruments of war, say, live grenades, as well but that's illegal. If there's a law saying that people can't own some instruments of war, what makes equally dangerous guns any different?

Again, I think I mentioned that criminals can't be expected to turn in their guns. But if there are no guns in the country to buy or steal, they will run out after a year or two.

In the US, there are 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Canada has much stricter gun laws. While hunting firearms are not restricted (although you do need to own a gun permit, obviously) handguns are. And automatic guns are completely prohibited. How many gun deaths are there in Canada? 4.31 per 100,000. Can you imagine? Very few civilians in Canada own the handguns they need to defend themselves from those horrible criminals. By your logic, their gun death rates should be much higher. Canada also has much lower crime rates than us, so not nearly as many people are getting robbed with guns. Why is this happening? Because there are a lot less guns in Canada.

http://www.guncite.com...

As for illegally importing guns, I would like to point out Canada again. They have good border security. And whaddyaknow, they don't have many guns illegally imported into the country! Guns are made of metal. So just put airport luggage through a metal detector and people are going to find and confiscate them. We'd also have to beef up border security but there are plenty of other good reasons (drug trafficking, illegal immigration) to do that without bringing gun control into it.

"Nothing will stop them because at the end of the day they are going to do what they want to regardless of weather it is illegal or not!"

"Thus leaving all of us, law abiding innocent people unarmed when a criminal attacks us."

"Believe me criminals are not all stupid many can make handguns for themselves."

Paranoid, much? The world is not full of scary criminals out to get you. That's just fear mongering. Let's look at things separately, shall we?

If nothing will ever stop criminals, why stop at gun control? Why not stop enforcing all laws? After all, nothing will stop them from killing our families and using our children to traffic drugs, right?

And when was the last time you were attacked by someone with a gun? The chances of encountering that situation are next to zero, and they'll be even less with proper gun control.

And here's the clincher. If criminals can make their own handguns, why don't they? There have been literally thousands of criminal cases where guns have been traced to their owners through serial codes. Wouldn't it make more sense to make your own, totally unregistered, gun? Most people and nearly all criminals don't have access to the materials and machinery they'd need to make a handgun. I work with metals in robotics and I can tell you a handgun would be incredibly difficult to make, even with access to an entire machine shop. I have a lot of respect for your friend.

"It will not make it any harder for a criminal to commit murder."
Again, no guns, harder to commit murder. See above.

I'm very sorry to hear about the shooting in your school, but I'm going to have to disagree about parents locking away their guns. Simple enough. Kids get into things. Hiding guns away is fine and good, but it's ideal if their parents don't own them. I don't see why you think that keeping guns around is somehow safer.

Yeah, I'm going to ignore the Rosie O'Donnell thing because it's pointless and I don't have space. I already proved that guns kill people, although I'm sure the occasional spoon does too.

And we successively ban things here all the time. It's just a matter of good border control, which I daresay we didn't have in the 20's.

And we already ‘ban' crime. That's why you go to prison for it. And that's just the point, "if they really want to kill someone" most people don't. Again, it's easy to kill someone with a gun, much harder with something else. Not just physically so. Emotionally, it's much more difficult to kill someone any other way. Criminals are people, too. Most are just desperate. Guns just plain help you distance yourself from a victim.
Debate Round No. 2
griffinisright

Con

"Your entire opening statement is about gun control."
Ok so here are some lines from my opening statement (which was only 2short paragraphs anyway)
"It has been said by... that, "Guns kill people…"
"I... strongly believe that Guns do NOT kill people… Banning Guns will not solve anything and it certainly will not stop PEOPLE from killing people. Which is what I believe the true problem is… In this debate I…who believes that guns kill people so I…"

I did talk about how I do not believe guns kill people. Obviously I was not going to use all of my thunder in my opener. I am not going to throw out solid facts until at least the second or third round that is just my style sorry if you feel misled or tricked. You probably wouldn't have accepted the debate had I given you all my facts in round one. You would have been overwhelmed! Not to mention it is a poor debating technique.

I like how you never addressed my formula for why guns DON'T kill people and of course you will not go into the Rosie O'Donnell thing! Could it be that you realize I am correct? Humm… Those were the two main points I made to prove that "guns don't kill people" Which happens to be the main topic of debate! So if you want to win this debate i suggest you disprove those key elements.

I brought up the concept of bullets kill people mainly out of sarcasm and satire, however interestingly enough you are wrong in saying, ‘bullets can't kill without a gun.' And you said something about "shrapnel" Well I have a newsflash for you shrapnel is shell fragments, tiny metal balls and parts of the bullet head that explodes when the bullet hits its target. It is NOT from a gun itself! If you go buy a new gun and pull the trigger without ever putting anything in it, IT WILL NEVER FIRE!! Bullets have explosives inside its shell. When you pull the trigger and the hammer on the gun hits the primer (center point of the back of the bullet) thus causing an explosion and propelling the head of the bullet out of the gun. Don't EVER try to tell a hunter how a gun or bullet works when you know little to nothing about the mechanics of a gun. Believe me if you throw bullets into a fire or throw them off a tall enough building they will explode! "Even if bullets do kill people, they can't without guns... guns kill people." Again WRONG!

"You can beat someone with a gun." Same formula applies that I used in round two. A PERSON has to make a CHOISE to pick it up and beat someone to death, which means the PERSON BEAT SOMEONE TO DEATH NOT THE GUN!

You obviously do not hunt and you live a very sheltered life. There are hundreds of people who have one arm and hunt with a hand gun. Go buy a copy or two of "Hunters Handbook" or subscribe to any hunting mag. I am sure you will find more than one story.

"Automatic and semi-automatic guns aren't designed to kill bear either." WRONG.
Fact: Hunting shotguns and rifles are categorized as Semi-Automatic guns. Semi-Automatic guns are self-loading guns that fire once at every pull of the trigger.

You said if criminals can make guns then why don't they? Because they don't have to they can get guns if they need them. All I am saying is the technology is out there and if guns ever become completely illegal to own in this country they CAN make them. Saying they couldn't is like saying people can't grow marijuana in this country. Sure it is illegal but it comes from some ware. Also guns do not have to be made out of metal. There are thousands of guns that are made of plastic and rubber that are just as lethal as any other gun sand no metal detector will catch them. "And we already ‘ban' crime." Funny this is true yet crime still happens! What makes you think a ban on guns will work any better? "The world is not full of scary criminals out to get you" What kind of sheltered life do you live? Have you ever watched the news? If you are right and the world is not full of scary criminals out to get you. Then why would we need gun laws? If we are all kind, sane people or at least the most of us are as you suggest we wouldn't need them.

Look my friend I respect the fact that you have good intentions of lowering crime and murder rates but your claim that, gun control laws eliminate guns and prevent crimes is 100% FALSE! The fact or TRUTH of the matter is, violent crime has increased in areas ware gun control laws have been put in place, making it more likely that law-abiding citizens (such as me) have been unable to defend themselves from armed criminals. Don't believe me here is a few examples out of the dozens I have found in regards to this topic.
In 1987 Washington DC banned handgun sails. What did it do? I am glad you asked because it led to the murder rate tippling in the early 1990's and as it turns out hand guns were used in most of the crimes. Don't you wish this was one rare occasion? Its not!

Since 1975, California's annual murder rate has averaged 32% higher than the rest of the country even though the state has increased its waiting period on private and retail sails of hand guns from 5 to 50 days. They also outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989 and subjected rifles and shotguns to waiting periods in the year 1990. Just wait there is more...
Maryland officials imposed a gun purchase limit and waiting period, restricted "assault weapons" and regulated private transfers of firearms between family members. The result? During the last decade, Maryland murder rate has been about 44% higher than the rest of the country! Not to mention the wonderful state of Maryland has the highest robbery rate among any state IN THE COUNTRY!

The signing of the national federal gun control act in 1968 which imposed huge restrictions on firearms nationwide did little to reduce crime. In fact you might go as far as to say it did NOTHING, to reduce crime the national murder rate was almost 50% higher that before the law went into effect five years after it was in place and 75% higher over the next 5 years and 81% higher during five years after that. Man how about that gun control?!
Here is another interesting fact for you to sleep on; most countries that have banned firearms have higher crime rates than in the U.S.
Australia and England (just two of the many examples) have already banned personal ownership of guns. But it hasn't made their country any safer. In Australia violent crimes is up in every category. From 1997-1999, murder rose 6.5 percent and attempted murder 12.5 percent. Increases in assaults, kidnappings and armed robberies also increased after their wonderful banning of guns.

England ranks SECOND (that's 2nd) among industrialized nations in violent crime! Between April and September of 2000.state crime in London rose 32% over the same period in 1999. You might want to read that again!
Seems to me your precious gun control is nothing more that a flop that fails to address the real problem, which is a lack of PERSONAL RESPONCIBUILITY! Gun control doesn't improve anything; all of your claims are lies. Crime goes up ware there are gun bans NOT down! Fun fact of the day: Although it is true Canada has less crime than the U.S. they also have less people and since their strict gun control laws have gone into effect their crime has gone up not down. Not only is it a failure but it goes against the second amendment of our Constitution!(The right to bear arms.) Gun control is a very, very, very bad idea!!

And incase you were wondering ware I got my sources, they came from a number of places...
Richard Poe, "the seven myths of gun control", Richard E. Gardiner, "The 5th circuit court gets it right, law enforcement alliance of America, Sept, 2005", Rifle Association, "Fables, myths & other Tall Tails about Gun Laws, Crime and Constitutional Rights: Fable II, Sept 2005"
Guns don't kill people. In fact as my evidence so clearly straits if anything Guns save peoples lives!Ha-ha

It was good debating you, Kasrahalteth good luck in your future debates!
Kasrahalteth

Pro

Of course I didn't go into the Rosie O'Donnell thing. It's irrelevant and as it was I was only 89 characters below the website's character limit. But if you really want me to address that point, here goes: Just because you have to make a conscious decision to use a gun doesn't make having them okay. In simplest terms, they're far too dangerous for the average citizen. No one should have the power to kill someone from a distance. Other potential murder weapons are illegal, guns are even worse than those because they allow the shooter to totally dehumanize the victim. Again, there are no second thoughts with guns. It's both physically and emotionally harder to kill people in other ways and therefore it is a lot harder to commit those sorts of crimes as a result. Making it harder to commit crimes is certainly a valid reason to ban things.

And I didn't have the space for your formula, but I addressed it at the beginning of my argument. Apparently I have to address everything in the correct order for it to count. Since your formula is just an inane restatement of the Rosie O'Donnell argument, just read and understand the above.

Shrapnel is fragments created by any explosion, not just bullets. So, newsflash, I wasn't referring to bullet shrapnel, I was referring to the barrel of the gun exploding. So, yes, shrapnel is in fact from the gun itself.

And no. Bullets will not explode when thrown off a tall enough building. Don't ever try to tell a physics nerd how gravity works. Since you didn't seem to get ‘terminal velocity' the first time, I'll explain: You stand on your tall building. You throw your bullet. Theoretically, it would accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s until it hits the ground. At which point it would explode. But funny thing about Earth, it has an atmosphere. Which creates friction. And pretty quickly, the friction equals the speed at which the bullet accelerates and it stops accelerating. Therefore, as long as there's enough distance between the building and the ground for the bullet to reach its terminal velocity, the height of the building doesn't matter. The bullet will always fall at the same, nonlethal speed.

"A PERSON has to make a CHOISE to pick it up and beat someone to death, which means the PERSON BEAT SOMEONE TO DEATH NOT THE GUN!"

Same logic I used in round two. We've already set a legal precedent. Brass knuckles are illegal, because they are used as weapons. Knives are also illegal. Guns are even more dangerous than brass knuckles or knives, and used for the same purposes, and therefore also legally need to be outlawed.

"There are hundreds of people who have one arm and hunt with a hand gun."

If there were really hundreds you would have been able to bother yourself with finding a verifiable case where someone has. Since you didn't, I can surmise you can't find a source and you're trying to hide the fact that you made a mistake.

Again, hundreds of thousands of criminals are traced by identifying qualities of their guns. (serial numbers, ballistic fingerprints, etc.) If it was so easy to make your own guns there would be a booming black market for untraceable firearms. Obviously, there isn't. Because it's just short of impossible to make your own guns.

And the marijuana example is totally moot. Y'know what you need to grow marijuana? Light and water. Making guns involves years of practice and a full metals shop. And that shop has to be either owned by a legitimate company and used illegally, would be next to impossible, or it has to be run by a private individual. In the metalshop I use for robotics, of the machines weigh a little more than the average car. It would take a crane just to move them, which would look more than a little suspicious. Not to mention the fact that everything there costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. If your criminal could afford that, he wouldn't be robbing people.

Regardless of what's it's made of, a gun will show up on a luggage x-ray. Metal guns will look bright white, which is a bit easier to see, but a plastic gun will be just as easy to find with a trained eye.

"‘And we already ‘ban' crime.' Funny this is true yet crime still happens! What makes you think a ban on guns will work any better?"

Total fallacy. By your logic, we should remove all laws against crime, because, hey, it'll just happen anyway. You can't ignore a problem just because the solution actually takes some enforcement.

"What kind of sheltered life do you live? Have you ever watched the news?…If we are all kind, sane people or at least the most of us are as you suggest we wouldn't need them."

Wow. I mean… wow. You just suggested that the news accurately reports gun deaths and implied that the majority of the population are not kind, sane, people in one fell swoop. I mean, you just proved my point. You're totally paranoid if you think the majority of the population is made up of criminals who are all out to rob you at gunpoint. And as for the news, at the end of the day, news just needs to keep its ratings up. Keeping people scared keeps people watching. In reality, armed robberies are way down. They've been going down for the last five years.

Here, I'll prove it. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

By the way, only roughly 43% of those robberies were at gunpoint. That's what you're focusing on, after all, you're afraid of being robbed by criminals at gunpoint. You're pretty darn safe, actually. In fact, your chances of being robbed at gunpoint in 2005 were about 0.001118%. Scary.

And your statistics are actually pretty easy to refute. Let's start with Washington. All I have to do is go further into the future. Let's see where things stand now, shall we?
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

As you can see, homicides are way down. They peaked after the gun ban, as expected because there's going to be a period of adjustment, but now they're lower than they've ever been. Thanks for bringing that up, by the way, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

And crime rates in California went up, because, in short, there were more people there. Total crimes may be up, but crime rates per capita are way down. Saying crime rates have gone up is like saying that crime among ten people is less than among a thousand. Crime rates per capita are down by about half since 1990.
http://www.disastercenter.com...

Here are Maryland's crime rates:
http://dls.state.md.us...

Admittedly, Britain and Australia's crime rates are up, but that has nothing to do with gun laws, it's their lack of enforcement. Look at their conviction rates, they're very low. People there just plain aren't afraid of the consequences of their crimes. In a situation where many people can literally get away with murder, they will. Not to mention the fact that the enforcing gun bans are probably pretty low on Britain and Australia's respective lists of priorities because of this. A ban that isn't enforced is comparable to not having one at all.

And in Australia guns are only used in 23% of armed robberies, as opposed to 43% in the US, so guns aren't exactly the problem there anyway.

Your ‘personal responsibility' already exists. Why else do you go to prison for killing someone? The real problem is the wide availability of guns. And in response to your calling my claims lies, yours are dead wrong. And uh, here's another fun fact. Canada's crime rates are lower than ours per capita. As in, if you scale crime rates to population, Canada's are far lower than ours. Here's a lovely little comparison.
http://www.statcan.ca...

The second amendment of our constitution was added so that, if necessary, citizens could form an army. We obviously already have one. The amendment is moot at this point anyway.

Nice debating with you.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Guns don't kill, people with moustaches do!
Posted by Kasrahalteth 9 years ago
Kasrahalteth
No worries. If I took being insulted on the interwebs seriously I'd be in some trouble by now. And I'd say my information was more in response to the personal attacks than to the debate. But you're right, no one should be paying attention to this drivel anyway.

And I enjoyed my half of the debate as well.

And sorry if I came across as a little rude or anything. I tend to mirror the manner of speaking of the people I'm talking to. :D

And by all means, you won by a mile already (even though I may not agree with the voting) so I think you can pick apart my last response all you want without fear of swaying the voting. I've always thought these debates should have an 'add an extra round' function anyway.
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Kasrahalteth, I understand. It is not right for people to personally attack you this site is supposed to be a friendly and fun debate of ideas, facts and opinions. Not some personal criticize page. What I said in my comment was "Comments should not be taken into consideration when voting on this debate" I don't care if you make comments that's fine, but you were giving links and information that is supposed to be in the debate itself. Not the comment section. I could go on and on about flaws I see in your last round but that's not fair so I will not. It truly was fun debating you. Sorry people are being dumb and insulting you try not to take it too personally.
Posted by Kasrahalteth 9 years ago
Kasrahalteth
Griffin, first of all, if I'm getting personally attacked, you should only expect me to respond.

And I don't see why Jessica should be the offended one here! First of all, you don't /need/ to know anything about how guns work to debate gun control. Secondly, clogging the barrel and shooting is exactly what I meant. I think I mentioned the character limit, as it was my argument was pared down as much as I cared to do.

And I'd say the debate was more about gun control than whether or not guns kill people, but again, maybe I'm just naively hoping that no one would actually would actually start a debate about whether deadly weapons kill people. Then again, I'm on a website where people debate about whether or not hoods are a form of hat. Silly me.
Posted by JOE76SMITH 9 years ago
JOE76SMITH
Look Jessica I am sorry if I offended you by calling pro an idiot. What I was getting at is she doesn't know anything about guns. I meant she is an idiot when it comes to gun facts. I didn't flip flop. I actually didn't read the topic of debate. I just read the debate itself. Never have I believed that guns kill people. That is what this debate is about Con wasn't very clear about that in round one but I think he addressed that a little better in round 2. I actually thought this was a debate over gun control. I am not in support of outlawing all guns. What I was referring to when I said I was undecided was if handguns should be banned. All in all I think this debate was about two topics. but the main topic is what it reads in bold letters at the top of the page. Guns kill people' and that is false as con clearly proved in the last rounds. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by jessica.spangler 9 years ago
jessica.spangler
In regards to, JOE76SMITH. I found it odd that you took such a strong stance in your last comment when just a few days ago you said you were undecided on the topic. Maybe you could clarify your flip flop. I am not disagreeing with you, but your change in stance was pretty abrupt.
PS I don't think calling pro an Idiot was very necessary either.
Posted by JOE76SMITH 9 years ago
JOE76SMITH
Pro is an idiot! The only way a gun barrel can explode is if someone shoots it(with a bullet in it) when it is clogged with dirt or something. What happens is the bullet hits the dirt and explodes into shrapnel which causes the barrel to explode seems it was clogged. This is the same concept Con pointed out in the third round! It is obvious to me that Pro has never shot a gun! And knows nothing about them therefore her argument should not be taken seriously!
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Kasrahalteth is right, about one thing, although she may be wrong about this topic. Comments should not be taken into concidderation when voting on this debate. That goes for Kasrahalteth's comments too. Good debate, Kasrahalteth.
Posted by Kasrahalteth 9 years ago
Kasrahalteth
I'm not eluding anything. If my opponent didn't bring it up, it's off the table. I mean, you're suggesting that I come up with counterarguments against myself and then addressing things that my opponent never brought up with my already limited space. Which would be just a bit stupid, donchathink?

And the amount of guns given out by crooked cops can't come anywhere close to the amount people manage to buy or steal. I mean, that's going to be a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what's going on now. And how do you propose they get guns from the producer? I imagine something like a factory manufacturing automatic firearms would have pretty decent security. Just maybe.

As for John Brown, I think our security's improved just a little since the 1850's.

And that's just the point, with a gun ban, the chances of a burgler breaking into your house with a semiautomatic are next to zero. I mean, they're already next to zero, even without a gun ban.

You blow a infinitesimally threat completely out of proportion and insult people without due cause. I'd argue that you're ignorant, but that would be redundant.
Posted by rojogato19 9 years ago
rojogato19
kasrahalteth: you seem to elude to the fact that by your argument police and the military will have automatic weapons - ever heard of a crooked cop? or there are many other ways for criminals to get them - from the producer, when they are shipped, and so on. and where will they be stored that is so impenetrable from criminals (ever heard of John Brown?)? and when someone is confronted by a burglar with a semiautomatic, should the victim use their rifle as a club if the fire and miss? or here's an idea - there should be a law that states that the criminal must give the victim time to reload after every shot so the criminal wont have an advantage with their semiautomatic...you refuse to recognize the truth and therefore you are ignorant
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FalafelKing 9 years ago
FalafelKing
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 jlholtzapple 9 years ago
jlholtzapple
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 
Vote Placed by nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 silentwitness 9 years ago
silentwitness
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 
Vote Placed by nsvohes 9 years ago
nsvohes
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 
Vote Placed by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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 
Vote Placed by benames75 9 years ago
benames75
griffinisrightKasrahaltethTied
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