The Instigator
whysoliberal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FalseReality
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Guns should be banned in the united states.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
FalseReality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 27,903 times Debate No: 6988
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

whysoliberal

Con

1. Guns are necessary for the safety of a home to protect yourself and your property. 2. Guns serve as a weapon for self defense when ever the police fail to provide the services of protection to the general public. 3. Guns should not be banned because criminals will now be the only ones who have the guns, holding the general public's safety in danger. 4. Guns should not be banned in case of government opressing the citizens.
I am pro gun.
FalseReality

Pro

I affirm that guns should be banned in the United States. I this hold this position on the grounds that all weapons are enemies, even to their owners. Guns don't know sides, their only duty is to kill. That is, and has always been, the primary goal of any weapon, and to say otherwise is folly. Your definition of 'defense' is to kill. The power behind the gun is that it has the capability to kill. However, what few gun supporters recognize, or attempt to omit, is that guns kill (Can't wait for the rebuttal on this sentence). Having said this, I will proceed to your four contentions.

1) Protection for your home: This is a seemingly logical point. Use a gun to keep your house safe yeah? The only problem is that guns are mostly just able to be used as a scare tactic for criminals, rather than being any good for actual defense. A home is close quartered, with many obstacles standing in the way of you and your target. In most cases, physical combat would be better for home defense, because it will actually damage your opponent, rather than wasting bullets. Not to mention that keeping a gun in the house is dangerous, even without a firefight for your homes safety. A study [http://www.consumeraffairs.com...] showed that the presence of a gun drastically increased the number of children who died within the household (253 in high gun states, 15 in low gun states accidentally. 153 high gun states, 22 low gun states suicide). But then you say "Lock up the gun, and put it in a safe place in the house" right? Well, in that case, what is the use of having the gun at all? The burglar isn't gunna stand there and wait for you to say "hey, lemme unlock the combination on this box so I can pull out a gun and shoot you". Rather, their just gunna go after you. It'd be much better to learn physical self defense, like a karate form, because your body will always be there to defend your house, while the gun only causes more problems than it solves.

2) Self Defense: Again, I restate to take self-defense lessons. Guns are illegal to carry in some places, your body is not, and therefore, it will always legally be ready. However, there are many effective, if not more so, defense methods than just killing. Tazers [] (This video also shows how easy a gun is to be disarmed, another point for PD) or Bear mace [] would do just fine. The tazer would completely render your opponent harmless, while the bear mace would surprise, confused, and cause temporary lose of sight long enough to KO him by your own means. Both would defend you and the public, and neither would cause death, just pain, all that's needed until the proper authorities can come.

3) Criminals: Yes, if guns were banned, criminals would have a bit more power. But when has that stopped them in the past. Some people are authorized to carry guns, and criminals know that, yet the still rob banks, convenience stores, houses, and people on a day-to-day basis. It has not deterred them so far, so it is safe to assume that they would continue like always if no one had them. But this would make it easier for law enforcement as well. Now, they know that if anyone is carrying a gun, they are breaking the law, and can act appropriately to see justice is served, preferably by arresting the offender.

4) Government: This is the only moderately logical defense. However, it still has it's flaws. First off, the government has stockpiles of advanced weapons technology, something I am sure as a gun enthusiast you know full well. A couple thousand hunting rifles and pistols would stand no chance against a full-fledged military operation. Second, there would be no reason for a rebellion as long as we keep our government in line by the system of checks and balances. True, I agree that our government is getting more corrupt with corporate, foreign, and personal lobbying. Nevertheless, a government, especially the US, would not be daunted by a citizen uprising, unless there was a nearly 100% participation rate by the countries people. Therefore, in either case, we should work on cleaning up our politics first, rather than preparing for a full-scale civil war. If the government gets to that point were it has to be overthrown, it will be, they have a habit of doing that.

So, to conclude this first argument, guns are BAD. They are for killing, not creation. No matter what light you try to put it in, there is no reason to continue to fight evil with more evil. There is always another solution, which, while it might seem harder and slower, ultimately is more just, rewarding, and stronger than simple primitive destruction. The more steps that are taken to better society, rather than reinforce it with outdated ignorance, the less we will need those self-destructive methods. Guns need to be abolished, and peace promoted.

Your move
Debate Round No. 1
whysoliberal

Con

Rebuttal.

1. "guns are mostly just able to be used as a scare tactic for criminals, rather than being any good for actual defense."

A pencil is nothing more than just a writing utensil, but it is not going to make you fail your test right? It is all in the hands of the individual whether or not to use the gun for protection or becoming a predator. Criminals will get the guns through any other means; and now the citizen is left with less power. Yes you can try to make the arguement about tazers or self defense lessons, but the fact is that a criminal now has more power than the citizen, and the citizen should be accessible to equal power as the criminals regarding weapons matching. If a criminal can have a 9mm then a citizen should too.

2. "2) Self Defense: " i attacked this arguement in my first rebuttal with the equal power weapon example

3. "Criminals: Yes, if guns were banned, criminals would have a bit more power." ----So its okay to let the citizen be vulnerable to criminals with fire arms? That is a bit sadistic. ha. Also yeah they will still rob banks because some criminals get off or like the idea of fire arm to fire arm battles with authorities. But that doesn't mean they should be banned...that argument seems to run in circles i believe. But even if they still did attack some one with a gun, that still means that the citizen with the gun has a right to protect his or her property accordingly.

4. Government Rebuttal ---- The fact is the constitution allows for the right to gather a militia and bear arms for protection. Not only for home protection , but for the case of government that is tyrannical...people should have the right to overthrow. Listen to these quotes.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." - Adolf Hitler.

"1 man with a gun can control a hundred without 1. " -Vladmir Lenin

(Do these guys ring any bells of just and orderly?)
If you don't think that it is real, i am sorry to say you are a bit naive.

In Conclusion, guns are only objects. The user is what determines the use of the gun. Hundreds of people have their houses broken in to, or raped or assaulted in their homes. It is their god given RIGHT to protect their homes and their families and not have the fear or anxiety of how long 911 will get the police to arrive.
FalseReality

Pro

1) Sure, the pencil will not fail your test for you, but it was a major component in the failing process. The person with the tool makes the choice, but it is the tool that carries out the action. Getting rid of the tool would, thus, play a major part in no longer causing you to be able to fail the test. Now that were done talking about pencils, guns do the deed, but humans make the choice to kill, but it's the gun that does the killing. Take away the gun, and perhaps all murder won't stop, but a huge, major portion of it will. What you seem to care about it whether the civilian is defended. As I have shown, there are other manners of defense one can take that are less harmful to both the defender and attacker. You may not care about the life of the attacker, and if there were a weapon that only targeted the bad guys then we would not be discussing this now. But that's not the case. The case, that even you admitted (It is all in the hands of the individual whether or not to use the gun for protection or becoming a predator) is that BOTH sides can use the guns. Guns don't choose sides, they just shoot and kill. I noticed you didn't even bother to touch on the 'guns kill children in the home' point, which we can deduce means you concede that guns are dangerous to everyone, and therefore, that they are a hazard to everyone. I'm sure if there was a toxin contaminating the water supply in your neighbor hood that you'd want it irradiated because its a danger to both you and your neighbors. Well, what makes guns any different? Its the kind of ignorant thinking that fire will put out fire that has made guns on both sides of the argument such a problem. However, in my case, I've found the water: non-murderous weapons. They surpass guns because they 1. work just as well with defending your self, family, and home and 2. they don't kill, which includes on innocents. Unless you can find a way that guns surpass BOTH these qualities in full (100%, no exceptions) my non-violent substitutes are better than guns, making guns perfectly acceptable to be banned, as they are now both obsolete and overly dangerous. You need to define power, because as of right now, the only thing it seems you associate with power is death. But because it hasn't been defined, I will associate it with the power of defense, in which case I've shown numerous times that guns don't hold it all, and there are many other, better ways to defend oneself out there.

2) Self defense: As I stated above, and reiterate, my non violent solutions of body self defense, bear mace, and tazers work as well, if not better, than guns at self defense. A criminal can't kill with the gun if he's writhing on the ground with 10,000 volts running through his body, or his eyes burning like their on fire, or if he's just plain knocked out. Both parties have equal opportunity for the 'first shot', meaning the criminal could fire off the gun just as fast as the good guy with a tazer. The only difference is this time, we know who the bad guy is. If the bad guy wins, then it's the same outcome as if both had had guns. But if the defender wins, the criminal is not only in a considerable amount of pain, but will also be subdued by the authorities and be put in jail, where he'll have the pleasure of enduring prisons many 'pleasures'. Power is not just achieved by death, and as I have just pointed out, the blow of a gun does not necessitate the outcome. Guns are not necessary, and in association with how dangerous they are in general, not just to villains but to the innocent, they clearly must be banned.

3) As I have shown above, the fact someone is holding a gun to you does not instantly turn you into a defenseless blob of jelly. There are other options, but this time the real criminal is clearly defined. And how does my argument run in circles? Criminals are going to do it either way, but it does not mean that citizens need to stoop to the same level. Again, after multiple times, there are other ways to defend yourself and your properties, you just have to get passed the absurd idea that guns are all powerful. They are not, and make society worse on all spectrums. But with the banning of guns, the legal people (or 'good ones') will be clearly defined from the bad, making it easier for the cops to weed out the bad. Guns don't necessitate uber-defence, just one kind; all the other ones work just as well if not better, and keep both parties alive for due processing. Beat that.

4) Fallen into your own trap. If your going to bring a founding document into this you best have thought about it before hand. First off, you are thinking about the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which clearly states:

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.

It does not say that just anyone can own a gun, it says a MILITIA. On Constitutional grounds alone, this means that any citizen who is not apart of a local militia yet still owns a gun is committing a FEDERAL FELONY. Therefore, if you only have America in perspective, all citizens not under militia enlistment must surrender their weapons or should be held accountable for crimes against the state. As far as tyranny goes, that's another job for militiamen. That's what the Founding Fathers had in mind incase of a corrupt government, not just a bunch of NRA fanatics with a skewed sense of what true security means, but an organized, trained, and gun-responsible militia, separate from the federal government for individual state protection. Here the entirety of Hitler's quotes, where he isn't scared so much of citizens, but specifically states that there should be no local militia, because organization, not just fire power, is key to a victory in battle:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler

Just letting the Army possess guns would be dumb, but unless these individuals are registered individuals of a State's militia, they have no right to own, possess, or carry a gun.

Guns do not hold all the power. There are plenty of methods that surpass guns in both their safety to innocents and their effectiveness against criminals. You have failed to show why guns are, apparently, the only good source of defense. Its effectiveness against criminals is under no objection, but you must also show how they are 100% safe against 'good guys' as well. On constitutional grounds, guns are banned already to private citizens, and are only supposed to be leased to militiamen. If the government needs to be overthrown, then that will be a job for the Constitutionally endowed members of the militias, not private gun owners. I have given appropriate alternatives to all your queries that make private ownership of guns both obsolete and unlawful. Protection does not come in one form, and the alternatives are all better, thus, fully enabling guns to be banned.
Debate Round No. 2
whysoliberal

Con

whysoliberal forfeited this round.
FalseReality

Pro

I won't say anything new, because my opponent hasn't, but maintain my stance that guns should be banned because they are too unsafe for innocent lives, and there are also defensive non-lethal alternatives.
Debate Round No. 3
whysoliberal

Con

whysoliberal forfeited this round.
FalseReality

Pro

In conclusion:
Guns are not a necessity for defense because there are non-violent, yet powerful, alternatives, such as tazers. These work just as well in defending your self, family, and property as a gun, because there is equal opportunity for attack between both the attacker and you to win. A gun does not necessitate a victory on the defenders part, it just means they have one way of defending themselves. However, this one way can also be used against the owner and his loved ones, especially children who might stumble upon it in its hiding place, making it a household hazard. A tazer would cause temporary pain, but would not kill anyone if it was turned onto a 'good guy'. Because of this major reason, guns should be banned for private use, and the alternatives put into effect immediately.

On Constitutional grounds, private citizens have never been given the rights to own guns. Rather, the amendment lets a militia bare arms. This militia would have loyalty only to the state, city, or town they resided, and it is they how would go on the defensive should the government become corrupt. An unorganized, untrained, ragtag bunch of civilians armed with guns and their NRA cards would stand no chance against the full power of American military might. The militia option is not only the legal way, but also the better way if the government must be over thrown.

These are my opponents' main arguments, both of which I used to determine that no private citizen need or is legally obligated to own a personal firearm. They are dangerous against the owner and his loved ones, and not protected under the constitution, no matter how you try to fudge it up. For these reasons, guns should be banned in the United States.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Turner 1 year ago
Turner
If i was a 220lb intruder i would laugh at anyone trying to beat me up using their hands, now if they had a gun that levels the playing field a bit. also i dont know if anyone has been pepper sprayed in this lobby but i can tell you from personal experience it sucks and if it is sprayed in a closed environment than it effects the whole area. also you can fight through it and some people are imune however no one is bullet proof.
Posted by Mlangley0521 2 years ago
Mlangley0521
So... If it was a "federal offense" for the average joe to own a gun several years ago, does that mean they were required to hunt with sticks and stones for their food? Anyway in respect to your beliefs, If you are ever facing an imminent threat I will be sure not to use my weapons to protect you and your own. Good luck with matching up karate with one or more armed assailants....
Posted by Johnicle 5 years ago
Johnicle
RFD: I will never vote for a debater that has forfeited 2 rounds, unless his opponent forfeited some as well...
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Hellllll yeah! Gimme summa dem ----v

No seriously... that would be bada$$ - it's legal in Indiana to hunt squirrel with any weapon...
Posted by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
http://img301.imageshack.us...

Typical libertarian. notice the pizza boxes because libertarians are too asocial to go out to get their own food.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Check out Britian's gun policy... they have very low gun crime... but it's on the rise...
Posted by Chuckles 5 years ago
Chuckles
i would accept this but i don't have any real arguments except for an innate redneck conviction that people should be able to own guns.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mollyboo522 5 years ago
mollyboo522
whysoliberalFalseRealityTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 5 years ago
Johnicle
whysoliberalFalseRealityTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 5 years ago
InquireTruth
whysoliberalFalseRealityTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04