The Instigator
Strikeeagle84015
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
abard124
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Non Hunting Guns should be banned from civilian use

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 4 votes the winner is...
abard124
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,415 times Debate No: 10163
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Strikeeagle84015

Con

I saw you arguing this abard124 and was wondering if I could possibly endear you to have a more extensive debate on the subject and so I would be grateful for your acceptance and out of politeness I will allow you the first argument
abard124

Pro

Thank out for showing interest in my debates, and I would be more than happy to have a more extensive debate than my previous ones.

As you have probably found out, considering the fact that you have read my previous debates, is that my entire platform is as follows: Those guns not manufactured specifically for hunting shall be banned for civilian use. Those guns manufactured for hunting shall be in storage inside cities, and outside of cities shall be visible at all times. In order to purchase a gun, one must go through an extensive background check every year in order to have a license, and if one uses a gun illegally, their license shall be revoked.

Now, as instigator of this debate, you have the liberty to reject my proposition, but I think it's always good to debate specifics rather than general ideas, so I would support my proposition, but as I said, you may reject it if you so choose.

Now, the common arguments I've heard against my proposition are that it limits personal security, it limits personal freedom, and it (somehow) allows the government to be oppressive. It does not limit personal security, because I feel much less secure knowing that anyone at any time could pull out a Five-seveN and shoot 50 people, like what happened at Ft. Hood. If you look at it, I can absolutely see how one would think that it limits personal freedoms, because in the most direct sense, it does. However, if you examine it, I feel more free to do what I want when I know that people won't be able to get their guns to shoot me with. And if someone is pointing a gun at you, frankly, you do what they tell you to do. I know I am ignoring the gun user, but frankly, they're not the ones about to get shot.

I have also heard that people use them for self defense, but I've lived for almost 36 years and counting and I've never so much as held a gun. The same goes for millions of other Americans. So maybe you would prefer to have a gun for self defense, but it is by no means necessary, and it is a huge risk, letting everyone have something manufactured to kill other people. We do not kill people in America, we don't need to have the means to do it.

12 people volunteered their life and wellbeing to serve the country. They knew well that they might not come back alive, but what they did not know is that they were to die at Ft. Hood by a crazy person with a legally purchased gun. Francheska Velez was pregnant at the time. She didn't get to have her baby because we allow crazy people to carry really dangerous guns.

And with that, I will allow my opponent to take the stage.
Debate Round No. 1
Strikeeagle84015

Con

sorry that it took me so long to respond I had some issues come up
thank you for accepting
However i only have 4 minutes left to debate at this particular section of the internet so instead I would like to post my argument right here instead
http://young-con.blogspot.com...
I am sorry I couldn't perform fully on here however I promise not to exceed the rules set down for this particular debate
abard124

Pro

I apologize, but I won't have any more time in the next 20 hours to wait for my opponent's argument. Have a nice day!
Debate Round No. 2
Strikeeagle84015

Con

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
abard124

Pro

abard124 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con made no arguments. It is not legitimate to evade debate rules by making arguments outside of the debate forum.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Why do sources go to con? I gave it to neither of us... You'll notice, Con didn't have any sources either...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Awful debate. PRO wins arguments because he was the only one that had one and because of burden of proof. grammmar goes to PRO because of capitalization. Sources go to CON because PRO had none. Conduct is tied.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
I'm really sorry, but if you don't post your argument by tomorrow, I'll have to go on without. Just a heads up :-)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
Strikeeagle84015abard124Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Strikeeagle84015abard124Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Strikeeagle84015abard124Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Strikeeagle84015abard124Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24