The Instigator
snoboard1699
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Daddy_Warbux
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,291 times Debate No: 3310
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (11)

 

snoboard1699

Con

"Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership," said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry.

Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost � of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns.

Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition.

Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease.

Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, "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." This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned.

Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned.

In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
Daddy_Warbux

Pro

I will use this argument to rebut my opponent's points, and, in doing so, highlight my own. I will also argue on the assumption that the Topic of Debate is that no one SHOULD have the right to own guns except for members of the police and military. Obviously, the second amendment can be taken as evidence for the fact that everyone does have this right.

1)"Our first reason is protection and defense." The next line of this section is "Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home." However, this constitutional right is used as its own argument; it cannot be both evidence for an argument and an argument itself (as evidence, it must be fact, and as an argument, it must be opinion/theory). But this is not the only problem with this argument; the facts simply do not add up:

"Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection." 1-Where is this poll? Without a link of some sort, we cannot assume that such a poll truly exists. 2-More importantly, of COURSE gun owners will say that it is for protection (or hunting). That a) does not mean that they were telling the truth and b) does not mean that it ACTUALLY protects them. They just think it does/will.

"As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem." And the rest...are criminals?

"According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year." This means nothing, simply because it comes from the NRA. If Target says that 2 to 2.5 million of its products are of better quality than similar items at Wal-Mart, would you believe them?

2)Hunting is no reason to keep guns legal. Why do we want to encourage killing for enjoyment? Also, people hunted in the Ice Age out of necessity. My opponent even states that "Hunting was how the Native Americans survived." They needed to kill the animals. It was not for sport; they considered animals to be their brothers and tried to use every single part of the dead animal so as not to waste any life. All of this aside, Native Americans and people of the Ice Age did not even use guns to hunt.

"Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition." Just because something is a tradition does not make it right. The United States had a tradition of segragation until the Civil Rights Movement. So Jim Crowe Laws should have remained legal?

3)"banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun" How does a challenge for the government mean that crime would not be stopped?

"If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used." Which would make mass murders next to impossible. A person can only hold so many knives at once, and they need to be in close range. If they throw them they 1) have to know how to do it in a manner such that the tip of the blade, not the side or handle, hits the target and 2) will run out. And how many school massacres would happen? Any? It doesn't seem to feasible for a student to lug an axe into school so that they can maybe hack one student up (but is murder ever really feasible?) before being seen and stopped. This statement ("If guns were banned...other weapons would be used") also undermines the argument that guns are used mainly for protection.
Allow me to explain:

1)Assume that 71% of adults that own handguns really do own them for protection.

2)This means that hunting, target shooting and crime make up the other 29%; crime can only be a small part of this (according the my opponent's argument).

3)Now the few crimes that are committed will be committed with less lethal weapons, meaning fewer homicides. As stated above, bladed weapons work only in close range and can kill very few people in one instant.

It also contradicts another vital part of my opponent's argument: the fact that guns prevent deaths. Why couldn't other weapons, in the "right" hands, do the same?

4)"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." A well-regulated militia. Not "for the purposes of sport and hunting," not for "personal protection and safety." For a "well-regulated militia." Citizen soldiers. Is this amendment not saying that the purpose of owning a firearm is to protect one's state from an oppressive government (domestic or foreign)? In other words, people can carry guns to protect themselves from potentially violent governments. The only problem with this is that today, the governemnt has so much more "firepower" on its side than it did at the time of the Constitution. No militia could stand up to a powerful government army of today. This argument goes to support the broader rebuttal of "These laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country." Slavery existed in America for centuries. That does not mean it was good. The length of a law (or anything) does not prove its value.

5)To rebut the employment of the gun industry, I must once again refer to slavery. I'm sure many slave traders lost their jobs when slavery was made illegal. Everyone in the slave industry was affected. And the country still moved on. In fact, all the former slaves needed jobs as well. And the economy did not collapse.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
snoboard1699

Con

snoboard1699 forfeited this round.
Daddy_Warbux

Pro

My opponent has closed her account, so I will not be posting an argument in round three. That would be an opinionated rant, not a debate. Instead, I will give a simple closing argument in this round. It would very likely be different if this debate had continued as planned, but based on what has been said to this point, this is the best possible conclusion (without me adding unanswerable, undefendable points).

Based on the points made by my opponent (which are the only ones we can take into account at this point), there is no good reason for people outside of the police or military to own guns, or at least no reason that is not a contradiction on some level.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
snoboard1699

Con

snoboard1699 forfeited this round.
Daddy_Warbux

Pro

Please vote on arguments, not on how you personlly feel about the issue being debated (albeit for one round).

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
*But I'm getting off topic.* Not "But I'm getting."
Posted by Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
Duco-I believe the ad hominem you are referring to is abot the NRA. But ad hominem typically refers to attacking the person. I tried to show their bias and therefore show why it would be illogical to believe what they have to say about this particular subject; I'm not trying to avoid responding to it in general (as a true ad hominem would do), but I wanted to point out that the statistic may not be true. I tried to argue with facts, so questionable facts are just as useful as opinions. A fact from the NRA on gun ought to be questioned because of their vested interest. But I'm getting.

Also, if that is a fallacy, then so is another part of my argument. But you didn't seem so keen as to point it out.

And who is "Your comment only applies a few hundred years ago" directed to?
Posted by Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
The likelihood is not being debated, sadolite; I know it will most likely never happen. I sincerely hope you did not vote based on that kind of thinking.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Your comment only applies a few hundred years ago.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
I don't understand why people debate things that will never be changed. As if the U.S. govt is going to take guns away from law abiding citizens, it will never happen.
Posted by Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
In response to Mangani, the reason I did not move further into my own arguments was because I thought it would be unfair to do so without my opponent being able to respond, and thus drew my Round 2 conclusion only based on what had been said up to that point (which, for me, was not much). I apologize for not making that clear enough in Round 2.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to be used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense."

From: Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
I voted con because her arguments are the only ones that make sense to me. Though "Pro" tried to rebut her arguments- and did so eloquently- he did not present arguments that support the statement "No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military". If "pro" has the burden of proof, he faile miserably.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Spot the ad hominem Daddy Warbux used in his first argument and you get a cookie!
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 9 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
Daddy Warbux, if your opponent fails to show up, I'll happily debate you on the issue of gun control.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by claytone 9 years ago
claytone
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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 
Vote Placed by qwarkinator 9 years ago
qwarkinator
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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 
Vote Placed by josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by rubbersoul 9 years ago
rubbersoul
snoboard1699Daddy_WarbuxTied
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