Debate Rounds (3)
I will offer my own arguments and refutations in round 2.
Good luck and may this be a fruitful debate.
I respectfully disagree, as this is a complex issue that delves into human rights, state rights, and self-protection.
"My point is simple, there is no reason one needs to own a gun."
Certainly, we can live without guns, history has proven that. But we can also live without the internet or the computer. The lack of necessity does not equate to uselessness or a reason not to have it.
"There are numerous reasons that one might "want" to own a gun. Hunting? This is the 21st century, does anyone outside of Alaska still need to hunt to feed their family? No."
Actually, there are other countries that still live a "hunter-gatherer" society, so guns are relevant to those people as well, though, admittedly, they could use spears and bow and arrows.
"Would anyone need a gun for self defense, if no guns are possessed by the public? No. There's no threat to Americans way of life whatsoever. So therefore, no guns needed."
This is assuming that making guns illegal would actually prevent guns from being in the hands of a criminal. Not to mention, given the drastic amount of guns owned by the public (nearly every Texan has a gun), this is not really a practical or valid point. Prohibition does not get rid of the demand or the market, which is evident if you look at the failing "war on drugs." Not to mention, guns don't kill people, people kill people. It is already illegal to murder someone, but that does not prevent murder from occurring. Criminalizing guns would only take guns away from law-abiding citizens, while criminals would find a way to get a gun legal or illegal.
Now let's move on to some of my own arguments as to why guns should remain legal.
1] Marksmanship has always been a form of a sport since ancient times, and I believe it is a sport that should not have to suffer as a result of criminals using weapons. Gun shows also are exciting, entertaining, and responsible events that help people relieve stress, while pursuing their hobbies and interests of firearms. So as long as these individuals are using their guns responsibly, there is no justification to take their guns away from them.
2] Should there ever be a government takeover or a dictator uprising, every armed citizen would be able to fight for their freedom and country, which arguably is the whole point of the 2nd amendment. In the case of anarchy, guns would also help protect your family, friends, and assets.
3] In times of war or any domestic situation, guns are going to be the optimal choice in regards to weaponry. Of course, some may prefer missiles, bombs, or other means of combat, but none of them replaces the gun in its practicality.
In short, my opponent must demonstrate how criminalizing guns or otherwise "banning" them would take the guns away from the right hands and keep them away. Certainly, if we were to look at it from a very simplistic position, we could argue that guns are dangerous and kill people, so they should be illegal. But anything can kill anyone, I'm sure many people remembering being told as a child to "stop running with scissors." This, of course, does not mean we should ban scissors but use them responsibly.
I look forward to the next round.
Ronhawk forfeited this round.
I rest my case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and so didn't respond to Pro's arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.