The Instigator
tmar19652
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Legitimate reasons to own guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 10 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,713 times Debate No: 29252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (10)

 

tmar19652

Pro

I feel that there are legitimate reasons for a us citizen (not military or police) to own a gun.

No semantics
No trolling
Con will argue that there are no legitimate reasons for a us citizen to own a gun.
DakotaKrafick

Con

I accept. A gun's primary function is to inflict injury and/or death upon another living creature. As such, I believe it should be illegal for citizens to own them, but I will save my arguments for the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
tmar19652

Pro


Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate, and I will begin by defining the term legitimate.


Legitimate: Being in compliance with the law; lawful; Based on logical reasoning; reasonable (1)


In my opinion, there are several legitimate reasons to own a gun. Some of these reasons include hunting, target shooting, home-defense, and as an investment. (2,3)



Hunting: Hunting is a legal sport (as long as you comply with state regulations). Hunting can be done for vermin control, sport, subsistence or simply as a hobby. Other weapons can be used for hunting; however the gun is both the most accurate, and the longest range weapon available for hunting. There are also animals that cannot be brought down with a bow-and arrow, such as the polar bear, or bison. Now, because hunting is a legal sport, and a gun is the best weapon for the job, it is therefore a legitimate reason to own a gun. (4)


Target Shooting: Target shooting is another legal sport that can be done for fun, or practice for other pastimes such as hunting. Once again, other weapons such as air guns can be used, but not for distances exceeding 100-150 meters. Now, because target shooting is a legal sport, and a gun is the best weapon for the job, it is therefore a legitimate reason to own a gun. (5)


Investment: With firearms, collectors are drawn to more than just a piece itself; they are paying for history. Pieces with relevance and context command the most money. Wartime relics are among the most valuable firearms, according to Dennis Lowe, the director of militaria for Heritage Auction Galleries. "I've never seen firearms do anything but increase in value," he says. "Those increases are sometimes not as fast in one period as they are in another, but certainly they never go down. If you began collecting this stuff 30 years ago, unless you had gotten into an IPO of something like Apple (AAPL), you couldn't have put your money in a better place”. Therefore, since investing is legal and guns are a consistently profitable facet of investing, owning a gun as an investment is a legitimate reason to own a gun. (6)


Home Defense: While there are several facets of self-defense, home defense is by far the best of those reasons to own a gun. The shotgun is by far the best home defense weapon. Knives and batons require close-quarters combat, endangering the defender, and a bow-and arrow is simply not practical in a hallway. Since home defense against a felon is legal, and a shotgun is the best weapon for the Job, home defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun. (7,8)



In accordance with the resolution, I have shown that there are legitimate reasons to own a gun in the United States. Also in accordance with the resolution, con must show that there are absolutely no legitimate reasons to own a gun.





Sources:



  1. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

  2. 2. http://hunting.about.com...

  3. 3. http://www.yaliberty.org...

  4. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  5. 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  6. 6. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com...

  7. 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  8. 8. http://www.humanevents.com...

DakotaKrafick

Con

Thank you for your response, tmar. I feel, to avoid arguing what is instead of what should be, the word "legitimate" should be defined solely as "able to be justified with evidence or reason" (not "in compliance with the law"). In this sense, we shall be debating whether or not private ownership of guns should be legal, not whether they are or aren't (especially since you didn't specify which state or nation's legistlation we'd be using as a reference).

So without, further ado, my arguments/rebuttals:

I believe any nation's decision to allow private ownership of guns is something that could only jeopordize the overall safety of that nation. This is because guns are nothing more than tools of violence and as such only increase the liklihood of danger when present.

Due to the U.S.'s high rate of gun ownership and legislation which allows its citizens to not only use them openly as self-defense in their homes, but even go outside in public areas with them concealed in their backpockets, their gun-related crime rate and deathtoll are through the roof compared to countries such as Japan and Sweden (where private gun ownership and usage is permitted only for the sport of hunting).

Hunting

If hunting were still a necessity in this day and age, I'd actually be inclined to agree on this point. But seeing how it isn't, I'm not. Nowadays, hunting is nothing more than a sport, even if the entirity of the animal is used for some purpose post-death (meat to make stew, hide to make clothes, etc.).

In Japan, the only type of gun a civilian can own is a shotgun and only for the purpose of hunting. Because of this, their gun crime rate is very, very low, but not perfect. On occasion, someone will use their shotgun to murder, so I must say the banning of hunting would only improve the society's safety and well-being even more.

If you're hungry, go to Wal-Mart. If you're just sadistic and like shooting creatures, hop on Call of Duty. It's not worth the risk of allowing citizens to own hunting rifles (or pistols or shotguns) when the owners could use them against their fellow humans.

Target Shooting

This point is little different than the hunting one, just this one is even easier to refute. Yes, target shooting may be fun (and some may find hunting fun), but that outlet of entertainment can and should be sacraficed for the purpose of protecting citizens' safties, the lives of whom should supercede the enjoyment one can get out of punching a hole in a paper target or wild animal.

In the case of target shooting, however, a lesser form of it can still be permitted with the use of airsoft or paintball guns.

Investment

Many countries allow its civilians to collect any number of war paraphernalia, including guns and tanks (though non-functional). However, it's my belief that there should be a limit to what a civilian can own. Tanks, atomic bombs, and guns fall on the other side of this limit, despite how much historical value they may have. And no, I don't care how much money one can make by investing in such things. Human life ought to be valued more than whatever profit there is to be made.

I'm all for the private ownership of a thing that looks like a gun but cannot possibly fire a bullet for the sake of collecting, but not of a gun itself.

Home Defense

This is, apparantly, "by far the best of reasons to own a gun" according to my opponent. I must disagree completely. Hunting was the best argument so far, as unconvincing as even that was.

Anyway, my rebuttals to this are threefold:

1) There are plenty of other things one can use to protect their own home; mace; tasers; an alarm system (who would continue rummaging through drawers for jewelery when there is a siren going off in their ears?).

2) If the one trying to rob your home has a gun, then there is little chance you could get to your own in time to use it as a defense. If one is using proper gun safety, it will be locked away somewhere and, one way or another, unable to fire immedeatly (either the trigger is locked, the gun is not loaded, etc.). If, however, one is the type to constantly have his/her gun on person at all times, loaded and ready to fire, then he/she is paranoid enough to ought to be denied a gun.

3) If the one trying to rob your home does not have a gun, then there is no need for you to have one either. Most robberies occur for the purpose of taking your electronics or other valuables, not to inflict harm upon the homeowner. And you shouldn't be allowed to open fire on a person for trying to take your TV unless the damage avoided is greater than the damage dealt (which, in that case, it certainly wouldn't be).

Closing remarks

Essentially, the debate on private gun ownership comes down to the question of what should we, as a society, prioritize above our own safety? Entertainment? Sentimental value? The freedom to own a gun itself? It's my belief that none of those things are even worth considering they may have more value than human life.

Over to you, tmar.
Debate Round No. 2
tmar19652

Pro

“If hunting were still a necessity in this day and age, I'd actually be inclined to agree on this point. But seeing how it isn't, I'm not. Nowadays, hunting is nothing more than a sport, even if the entirity of the animal is used for some purpose post-death (meat to make stew, hide to make clothes, etc.).”



  • Hunting, in some parts of the country, is still a necessity in this day in age. There is still a small subset of subsistence hunters/farmers that live in areas such as Alaska and Montana. To take guns away from these people would force them to abandon their humble way of life (1,2,3).

  • This also brings up yet another legitimate reason to own a gun. If you live in states where bear populations are large and or dense, you could own a handgun for protection if you are outside, and attacked by a bear.


“In Japan, the only type of gun a civilian can own is a shotgun and only for the purpose of hunting. Because of this, their gun crime rate is very, very low, but not perfect. On occasion, someone will use their shotgun to murder, so I must say the banning of hunting would only improve the society's safety and well-being even more.”



  • Switzerland Is armed to the teeth (4), but they have virtually no gun crime (5). This argument can be skewed either way. In addition, people are on-occasion murdered with forks, according to your argument we should ban those too, despite their utility (6).


“If you're hungry, go to Wal-Mart. If you're just sadistic and like shooting creatures, hop on Call of Duty. It's not worth the risk of allowing citizens to own hunting rifles (or pistols or shotguns) when the owners could use them against their fellow humans.”



  • Would you like to prove that hunting is sadistic? Hunting is still a valid sport, and you are simply making an appeal to pathos in an effort to sway voters.


“This point is little different than the hunting one, just this one is even easier to refute. Yes, target shooting may be fun (and some may find hunting fun), but that outlet of entertainment can and should be sacraficed for the purpose of protecting citizens' safties, the lives of whom should supercede the enjoyment one can get out of punching a hole in a paper target or wild animal.”



  • According to this argument, little league baseball should be banned because bats can be used to murder people. Target shooting is a valid reason to own a gun, as it is both a legal sport, and it is reasonable, both from a practicing for self defense standpoint, and from the simply for fun standpoint.


“I'm all for the private ownership of a thing that looks like a gun but cannot possibly fire a bullet for the sake of collecting, but not of a gun itself.”



  • How many murders have you heard of that were committed with American War era-rifles? Or how about that civil war rifle shooting spree? Rifles that are valuable enough to actually be an investment are usually antique rifles that are now simply pieces of history that pose no more danger to someone that a modern BB gun.


“There are plenty of other things one can use to protect their own home; mace; tasers; an alarm system (who would continue rummaging through drawers for jewelery when there is a siren going off in their ears?).”



  • This one is easy to refute. Any hopped-up drug addict could continue to threaten you and your property with a siren blaring in their ear. The Face eater in Miami was only on marijuana, If he came into your house, completely incapable of reason, would you not want a pistol to kill him with, because mace and a taser is not going to stop him (7).


“If the one trying to rob your home has a gun, then there is little chance you could get to your own in time to use it as a defense. If one is using proper gun safety, it will be locked away somewhere and, one way or another, unable to fire immedeatly (either the trigger is locked, the gun is not loaded, etc.). If, however, one is the type to constantly have his/her gun on person at all times, loaded and ready to fire, then he/she is paranoid enough to ought to be denied a gun.”



  • There are several options for gun safes that offer quick retrieval of a firearm in an emergency (8,9). And if the gun is in a locked gun safe, why not keep loaded magazines next to it? Then you can retrieve your gun and kill an intruder, and guarantee your families safety when the gun safe is locked tight.


If the one trying to rob your home does not have a gun, then there is no need for you to have one either. Most robberies occur for the purpose of taking your electronics or other valuables, not to inflict harm upon the homeowner. And you shouldn't be allowed to open fire on a person for trying to take your TV unless the damage avoided is greater than the damage dealt (which, in that case, it certainly wouldn't be).”



  • It is not necessarily the property that is the biggest liability. They are in your house and they could still rape your wife and beat your children. In addition, how do you know they are unarmed? They could have a gun tucked into their waistband, ready to shoot you when you try to stop them unarmed.



In closing, I have proven that there are legitimate reasons to own guns. Con must now prove that there is beyond a doubt, absolutely no reasons to own a gun. Over to you con.




Sources:



  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2012_TV_series)

  2. http://en.wikipedia.org...; (used by Subsistence Hunters)

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org...; (Economy partially depends on hunting)

  4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  5. http://www.snopes.com...

  6. http://www.wdtn.com...

  7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

  8. http://www.factory-express.com...

  9. http://www.overstock.com...

DakotaKrafick

Con

Again, this debate comes down to which we should value more: the lives of the 30,000 people who die via gun-related violence every year [1], or the few who are able to use their gun as valid self-defense (or the entertainment one can get by shooting fake targets, a sport that can easily be done with a BB gun, or other things).


1. Hunting

The existence of subsistence hunters doesn't make hunting a necessity nowadays anymore than the existence of homeless people makes dumpster-diving a necessity. Neither party is obligated to live such a life. I'd much rather subsistence hunters move to, or develop, a more urban community where hunting is as obsolete as it had been for hundreds of years for civilized folk than risk handing them weapons of violence they can use on other human beings if they so please.

"This also brings up yet another legitimate reason to own a gun. If you live in states where bear populations are large and or dense, you could own a handgun for protection if you are outside, and attacked by a bear."

And again, I would rather one or two people be mauled by a bear annually than 30,000 people die via gun usage. Ultimately, the banning of guns will cause more good than harm.

"Switzerland Is armed to the teeth, but they have virtually no gun crime."

Gun laws in Switzerland are unlike anything the common American is probably used to. Instead of a regular standing militia, separate from its citizens, Switzerland requires all able-bodied male citizens when they reach the age of majority to conscript. Therefore, because most of Switzerland's gun ownership is militia-based, which you excluded in the instigation, it is irrelevant to this debate. [2, 3]

"In addition, people are on-occasion murdered with forks, according to your argument we should ban those too, despite their utility."

Yeah, I guess that would make sense, assuming you completely misunderstand my arguments. I don't claim human malice or homicide itself will cease following the banning of guns. What I do claim is that the 30,000 annual deaths will likely decrease significantly. And while forks have a purpose other than inflicting harm (eating), a gun has no other purpose.

2. Target Shooting

"According to this argument, little league baseball should be banned because bats can be used to murder people."

A gun is far, far, far, far, far more dangerous than a baseball bat. To clarify again, I do not advocate the banning of every thing that can conceivably be used to murder, but every thing that's purpose is primarily to injure or murder.

3. Investment

"antique rifles that are now simply pieces of history that pose no more danger to someone that a modern BB gun."

Which is why I made that statement about owning a thing that looks like a gun but could not possibly fire a bullet. If an antique, American revolution gun is too old and deteriorated to fire a bullet, then I wouldn't classify that as a gun for the context of this debate, the significance of which should lie in the question of "Does the harm caused by gun violence outweigh the good, or vise versa" not "Does the harm caused by owning a decrepit, dysfunctional gun outweigh the good, or vise versa".

4. Home Defense

I would rather the Face Eater murder ten people before being caught (or shot by a civilian) than allowing almost every civilian easy access to a murdering tool.

"There are several options for gun safes that offer quick retrieval of a firearm in an emergency."

To have to go into your bedroom or closet and punch in a 4-digit combination to retrieve your firearm is more time-consuming than you and these products' advertisements make it out to be (of course the products' own advertisements would say it's quick). And what if someone knocked on your door, you opened it, and he already has a gun pointed at you?

"how do you know they are unarmed? They could have a gun tucked into their waistband, ready to shoot you when you try to stop them unarmed."

It's a hypothetical situation in which the intruder is assumed to not have a gun.

Sources:
[1] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Haleykate 4 years ago
Haleykate
In the constitution it states nothing about hunting, the purpose of having guns was to defend yourself and control the government
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
Japan's low crime rate isn't due to lack of guns.
http://amblerangel.wordpress.com...
Posted by Krestoff 4 years ago
Krestoff
No points given because neither debater convinced me one way or another, both arguments were full of holes in my opinion and whatever offensive arguments there were, it wasn't responded to well. Also next time, make it four rounds. Allowing Con golden unimpeachable answers without setting rules in the last round is shooting yourself in the foot.
Posted by Turner 4 years ago
Turner
I love on how all of these gun debates the person who apposes guns always says there are other ways to defend their home, like using mace or a taser. however mace when used in a small environment doesn't work so well because it tends to spread everywhere and the user can be contaminated with it as well as the intruder. people can also fight through mace and some are immune (i have personal experience with it) also a taser only has a certain range and the ones that civilians are permitted to carry can only be used when actual contact has been made. i would much rather have a gun to be used as both a psychological and physical deterrent.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Humans are definitely a part of the ecology; and when there are too few other predators, hunting of prey species such as deer becomes mandatory for the health of the ecology. Failure to hunt leads to overpopulation of the prey species, which results in harm to the ecology and eventually, less humane deaths for the prey; when their food is gone, they will starve.
Posted by Parksterthejenkins 4 years ago
Parksterthejenkins
To add in about why hunting IS something that's needed. OVERPOPULATION. That is all.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
@warden please read this
http://healthland.time.com...

So can you really say that weed doesn't hurt anyone?
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
It was claimed in the news that it was marijuana. Perhaps this was true, but if so, the marijuana was adulterated by another substance, likely the aforementioned bath salts, or perhaps another hallucinogen. More likely, there was no marijuana at all.
Posted by Warden474 4 years ago
Warden474
I would just like to point out that when The Instigator mentioned the 'face eater' was only on marijuana. That is 100% wrong, that man was high on bath salts. There is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana recreationally.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
If statistics showed that banning guns, while reducing gun-related deaths as expected, causes murder rates to rise in a manner that more than compensated for the reduced gun deaths, would you still support a gun ban?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krestoff 4 years ago
Krestoff
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's first mistake is to accept very poor debating ground where he has to refute every possible argument allowing voters to just pick one and vote for Pro on that instead of considering if everything was addressed. Con has okay answers for the Hunting and Home Defense arguments but the Target Shooting (inherent fun of guns) and Investment arguments (ancient guns don't kill people) were poorly responded to. Honestly, there's a wealth of information out there that would've swayed this debate either way (e.g. defense efficacy studies and what are the currently trending investment guns [think "scary" guns]) so I'm a little disappointed.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro raised four major points, and given that the argument appeared to be whether there were legitimate reasons to own guns, at least one of them standing ought to give Pro victory. I feel Pro never managed to make a convincing case that the getting rid of guns would cause the significant reduction in deaths he alleged would occur, and that rendered many of his rebuttals somewhat less potent. Sources to Pro because he sourced the hell out of this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided more substance to his arguments, backed up with argument.
Vote Placed by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro listed four different reasons (hunting, target shooting, investment, and home defense) in an attempt to justify the resolution. 1. Hunting: Con. Perhaps due to the fact that hunting is not necessary (Con). 2. Target shooting: Con (see above) 3. Investment: Tie 4. Home Defense: Pro. Apparently, home defense is by far the strongest defense of owning a gun. It will definitely make people feel more secure. It may also deter intruders from committing more sinister crimes. Overall, Pro earned my vote because there is at least one reason for one to own a gun (home defense). The rest (hunting & target shooting & investment) is not an option available to the majority of the population.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter koppime
Vote Placed by koppime 4 years ago
koppime
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to convincingly refute any of Pro's points. In his final statement he said he would rather let people die than defend themselves. That is morally reprehensible.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
tmar19652DakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO was simply more convincing; CON made arguments that there are no legitimate self defense or hunting applications for weapons, however there are still dangerous animals (and some of them shaped like people), as well as animals which have had their natural predators removed from the environment, such that a lack of harvesting them would cause rampant disease. At no point did CON make a convincing argument for pacifism in a world containing dangerous animals. PRO, on the other hand made the argument that self defense by way of weapons use is preferable to allowing carte blanche to evil men.