The Instigator
frostyclaw
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
EdgeOfTheInfinite
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Guns ownership should be illegal

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 1 vote the winner is...
frostyclaw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 87077
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

frostyclaw

Con

First round is for acceptance. Second round is dedicated to presenting arguments, and the last round is to conclude and rebut.
EdgeOfTheInfinite

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
frostyclaw

Con

Definitions

A firearm is defined by the Oxford dictionary as - a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise

Arguments

1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"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."

The second amendment explicitly gives citizens the right to bear arms in order to create a well regulated state militia for the sake of a free state. The reasons for such an amendment is to protect the United States from totalitarianism. History proves that the first step in fascist take in creating a docile population is to disarm said population. By providing states a militia, Americans are protected from such tyranny. Private firearm ownership allows Americans, and would allow the global population, to defend themselves from totalitarianism.

2. Private firearm ownership allows people to defend themselves better.

This should be fairly obvious. An armed person is able to better defend themselves than a person without a firearm.

3. Gun control does not decrease gun violence.

On the contrary, lack of gun ownership show a correlation to increased gun murders. In 2010, the district of Columbia was rated the highest for gun violence. And it had a gun ownership rate of just three percent. In the same year, Wyoming ranked the lowest in gun violence, and it had a gun ownership rate of 59 percent. But these may just be isolated cases. All other states did not show a strong correlation between gun violence and gun ownership, rather gun violence seems to be a result of a multitude of factors such as property and poor education.

4. It would be impossible to ban gun ownership.

The materials for making a gun and ammunition could be brought at your local home depot for only twenty bucks. Every person has the materials to do so. There are also an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Confiscating them all would be impossible.

I await my opponents arguements.
EdgeOfTheInfinite

Pro

Rebuttals
"The second amendment explicitly gives citizens the right to bear arms in order to create a well regulated state militia for the sake of a free state."

Well regulated? That's funny. The gun crime rate in America in 2014 was 10.54[1]. Yes it's not the highest in the world but compared to the United Kingdom which according to the Library of Congress "some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world."[2] it is insanely high with it's gun death rate being only 0.23.[3]

"The reasons for such an amendment is to protect the United States from totalitarianism."

Passing a law for the safety of the citizens is not totalitarianism. Just like banning murder. People thinking the government is in complete control because they do something to keep them alive is like a child complaining to their mother why they can't go to a party past 12. They aren't being a dictator they're keeping us from wiping each other out.

"An armed person is able to better defend themselves than a person without a firearm."

That's the problem they wouldn't need to defend themselves as often if gun ownership was illegal. 1,603 people a year die from accidental gun shootings[4]. This could be hunting accidents, gun cleaning malfunctions or someone hearing a bump in the night and reaching for their glock.

"Gun control does not decrease gun violence."

It depends on where you look. There will always be gun violence but the illegalization of gun ownership will help decrease it as a whole. Brazil has the highest gun death rate in the world with a rate of 19.42[5]. Their gun laws are fairly lenient[6]. While as I stated earlier the United Kingdom has some f the strictest laws and their gun crime is fairly low.

"It would be impossible to ban gun ownership."

Here I'm stating they should be not that they're going to be.

Arguments
1.Accidental Gun Deaths
Yes anyone can trip down the stairs and break their neck or drop a knife and get stabbed but nothing is as avoidable as gun misfires. If a child finds his dads gun in a shoe box in the closet and shoots his sister that could have been avoided by not having the gun at all. If the same thing happens with a knife well there's nothing you can do. You need knives for cooking but you don't need guns. 626 children are harmed by guns each year the number is even higher with teens[4]. All of this could've been avoided if you simply never had the guns in the first place.

2.Easier to get guns
Let's say two teenagers wanted to murder their ex-girlfriends out of anger. If all they have to do is go into their dad's sock drawer and find the gun then out of adrenaline and anger they might actually do it. If they had to go into the dark web or some shady gang's headquarters they will be discouraged to do it. I'm not saying it will stop all gun crime but if it is extremely difficult to find guns then unless you're a mass murder or a gang it will discourage and prevent a lot of mass shootings like in malls, movie theaters and schools.

3.Protection
People are carrying guns around and it's dangerous. It's so easy for a gun to misfire if someone forgets to put on the safety and those can malfunction as well. Kids are bringing guns to school almost daily[7]. They bring it for protection or from dares. If someone is bullying them and because of the idiocy of children they may bring the gun to school to show the bully who's boss. Obviously these have very serious consequences. Someone can get shot or the kid can get expelled and do jail time for it. All of which could be avoided if gun ownership was illegal.

[1]http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[2]http://www.loc.gov...
[3]http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[4]http://www.gunviolencearchive.org...
[5]http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[6]http://www.loc.gov...
[7]http://www.thetrace.org...
Debate Round No. 2
frostyclaw

Con

First I would like to criticize my opponent for rebutting at the second round. I explicitly stated at the beginning of the debate that the debate format is as follows: (Round 1)acceptance, (Round 2) arguments, (3) rebuttals and conclusion. I will let the voters decide how such misconduct is to be penalized.

Rebuttals

1. "Well Regulated"

My opponent claims that our state militia is not well-regulated. This claim is unfortunately irrelevant, even a bit asinine because the US does not have state militias. Hence, I declare that this out of the blue rebuttal be ignored.

2. "Totalitarianism"

I never claimed that making guns illegal is totalitarianism. It's at best authoritarianism. I only claimed that arming the citizens allows the prevention of a docile populous, which is the reason why the Nazi's wanted to disarm the Germans. Gun ownership prevents such fascism from advancing to dangerous levels. To say that "banning murder" is good in the way that "banning guns" is good because such laws keep us from "wiping each other out" clearly shows my opponents fear of guns. My opponents irrational gear of guns. It logically follows from his statement that "they're keeping us from wiping each other out" by "passing a law for the safety of the citizens" that normal, sane, and good people suddenly go on shooting sprees when they are handed a gun. If my audience or opponent can not see the irrational fear in this sentiment, then I don't know what to tell you. Guns do not kill, people kill. Learn to trust others.

3. "Self-defense"

My opponent claims that we "wouldn't have to defend themselves as often if gun ownership was illegal". Again, my opponent equates guns with violence. And again, I will not stand for this. I can easily debunk this by saying that criminals don't follow laws, and so therefore gun control only disarms law abiding citizens. But I'm as they call it pissed. Stop associating guns with death. Stop this ridiculous stereotype. You never grew up with guns so you were never taught gun safety and you were never taught how to shoot a gun. Stop acting like guns cause death when never probably even held a gun.

4. "Correlation between gun ownership and gun violence"

The problem with trying to argue with correlations, as I have tried to express in round one, is that correlations only account for one variable. Gun violence is a reflection not only how strict gun control is, but also education, poverty and etc.

5. "Process of confiscating all guns"

My opponent claims that gun ownership should be illegal. Notice that he does not address my point, which was that guns could be made with the know-how and the resources to make a gun could be easily brought. I would like this point addressed the next round.

6. "Accidental gun deaths"

My opponent claims that guns cause accidents. To this I say, everything causes accidents. And to say that guns are unnecessary is to ignore the fact that police officers and the marines use them every single day to defend the country. Why can't a citizen use a gun? Gun safety and usage is not rocket science. You point it at something that you think is dangerous and if it acts up you pull the trigger. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. The only differences with a trained person like me is that I have better aim and I can draw my gun much quicker. We need guns to protect us because criminals will use guns to harm us.

7. "Easier to get guns"

Is it possible that you don't know anything about guns? Because from this argument you just showed me that you know absolute nothing about firearms. This is my opponent people. First of all, guns don't cause death. People use guns to murder. Banning guns isn't going to make people more moral. And guns can be made. I can make a gadget that fires nails if given an hour in a tool shed. Hell yeah its easy to get guns when you can make them. The people that use guns to kill other people for the hell of it are going to get guns one way or the other. Confiscating guns only disarms the people, which leaves us defenseless against shooters. Do you know why mass shooters kill themselves when the police come? Because they don't want to fight. They are cowards, so they only kill when they are in the perfect position to do so. Don't give them that environment, keep guns ownership legal.

8. "Protection"

It's so easy for a gun to misfire but you're okay with police officers carrying guns. You're okay with armed police officers but you're not okay with armed normal people. Nice trust there buddy. You know that people are taught gun safety right?

Conclusion

I started this debate to try to prove that gun owners aren't inbred rednecks. And that guns are a liberty that protects us from criminals, and that criminals kill, not guns. I hope that people will get over their fear of the unknown, and try to understand how a gun works before they say that guns only cause death. More importantly, I hope that people can see that guns are used to protect us everyday.

May the better debater win.
EdgeOfTheInfinite

Pro

"1. "Well Regulated""
Looks like I was mistaken. I thought you were talking about guns in America in general.

"Irrational gear of guns."
I'm not afraid of guns. I'm all for guns. In the states mind you not here in Canada. I only accepted this debate because I wanted to strengthen my debating skills in things I do not believe in.

"good people suddenly go on shooting sprees when they are handed a gun."
Never said that. My argument is more about defense. The accidental firings that is so common. The kids playing with guns and blowing their sister's head off. That is what I'm talking about.

"Guns do not kill, people kill."
Exactly. With guns those people that would have a hard time going on a killing spree from the lack of guns can easily going into a local ammo store and take to Times Square. I volunteer at a mental hospital. One of the people I tend to there which I see as a friend told me on multiply occasions he wanted to murder those around him. The only thing that stopped him were the tools necessary. His family admitted him after hearing this. I live in Canada so it's pretty difficult to get a gun.

"criminals don't follow laws"
I knew I needed to state my point more clearly. I'm not talking about absolutely no one will have guns and everyone will sing "Kumbaya" around a campfire. I'm saying it will be less necessary.

"never probably even held a gun."
Nope have never held a gun but what does that have to do with this argument? I think you're talking your emotions into account and losing sight of the argument.

"but also education"
When there is a mandatory gun safety class in all schools starting from kindergarten then we'll talk.

"My opponent claims that gun ownership should be illegal. Notice that he does not address my point, which was that guns could be made with the know-how and the resources to make a gun could be easily brought. I would like this point addressed the next round."

I said it before and I'll say it again they can't take away all guns. I'm speaking to you here in theory. They should but they won't. They try in other countries people will still get heir hands on guns. You want an answer? Fine. How about we shot all guns up into space along with the nukes and neuralyze the human race so we won't remember what guns are let alone how to build one. You happy now?

"everything causes accidents"
I said that in my previous point. You can trip down the stairs and break your neck or get stabbed while cutting chicken but unlike stairs and knives you don't need guns.

"police officers and the marines use them every single day to defend the country"
Police officer are protecting the people from un toting psychos s we don't need them.

"Gun safety and usage is not rocket science"
To an uneducated 5 year old, yes it is.

"You point it at something that you think is dangerous and if it acts up you pull the trigger. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out."

Never said it had to act out. Have you ever heard of fight, flight or freeze. Well if someone heard a noise downstairs and it was just a child getting a snack they take out the gun they see a of black clothing and bang. Now you have blood on your newly done tile.

"guns don't cause death. People use guns to murder"
Yep you've said that about 10 times already and that comment about me not knowing anything about guns? It really hurt, Charlie. How do you expect me to when there is no education program.

"Banning guns isn't going to make people more moral."
Never said it would. But it would help cut down gun crime. There will still be theft, rape and yes murder. but if you looked at the statistics comparing US and UK gun crime rates you would see something like those differences.

"I can make a gadget that fires nails if given an hour in a tool shed."
As I stated before banning guns isn't stopping crime. I said it in round two. Read my argument man.

"Do you know why mass shooters kill themselves when the police come? Because they don't want to fight. They are cowards, so they only kill when they are in the perfect position to do so. Don't give them that environment, keep guns ownership legal."

So it wouldn't matter whether or not the person shot the gunman in the first place. He would just kill himself in the end. He would still die. Whether from a civilians hands, a cop's or his own. The problem with that is that when a normal person kills someone the eternal trauma it causes is horrible. It breaks that person. Of course death is a terrible thing but as cynical as this may sound eventually most people get over death. The murder of someone leads to one of two things. A realization that they loved it and would like to do it again or a ruined life and an eternal depression ruining the lives of those around them so yeah.

"8. "Protection""
Not mandatory. A police officer is required to take gun safety lessons. It's their job to have a un and use it responsibly. As always there's a case here and there of a crazy guy that gets through but it's to be expected right. The owners of guns on the other hand don't. They go through safety training they pass the test. You are one of a few that cared. Think of it this way. You do a test on Linear equations in grade 9. How much of that do you remember now? if you have a job in the mathematics or something similar of course you remember but if you flip burgers at McDonald's who has the time to remember. This is the difference between an officer and a civilian. One last thing. The chances of a cop's gun misfiring is slimmer than a civilian's. They're less cops out there than civilians first of all. The cops do regular checks to make sure their safety is on but if you're a civilian, who has the time?

Conclusion

In this debate I hope I have successfully proven that gun ownership should be banned. That guns cause more harm than it stops. The reason we need to take away guns is because people don't need another way to kill each other. In a perfect world exempt from the crazies and the psychos I'd be all for guns but humans just aren't ready for them.

Good Luck, I'm rooting for ya.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro violated the rules by presenting rebuttals in round two, therefore conduct goes to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] There is a certain amount of discretion allowed to the voter when awarding conduct, particularly when it comes to potential rule violations. As this interpretation isn't clearly counter-factual and as the R1 posting of Con can be viewed as setting the rules of the debate, it's up to the voter to decide whether or not this is a conduct violation. As such, it is within this voter's discretion to decide whether or not conduct should be awarded in this instance, and not up to moderation to decide whether or not that's reasonable.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
frostyclawEdgeOfTheInfiniteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro violated the rules by presenting rebuttals in round two, therefore conduct goes to Con.