The Instigator
Ronhawk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whatledge
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Guns

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
whatledge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 42578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Ronhawk

Con

It's simple, guns are stupid and have no place in society
whatledge

Pro

I accept the position of Con and look forward to a substantive argument as to why Guns should be banned from society.

I will offer my own arguments and refutations in round 2.

Good luck and may this be a fruitful debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ronhawk

Con

Some topics need deep thought, this is not one of those. My point is simple, there is no reason one needs to own a gun. 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. 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.
whatledge

Pro

"Some topics need deep thought, this is not one of those."

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.

Conclusion:

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Ronhawk

Con

Ronhawk forfeited this round.
whatledge

Pro

As there are no further arguments,

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
Ronhawk = destroyed.
Posted by Bendurisgrate 2 years ago
Bendurisgrate
Wonder who's more prepared
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
KingDebater
RonhawkwhatledgeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and so didn't respond to Pro's arguments.