The Instigator
THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
MadisonMichelle
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

People should know what a gun is before they vote against it.

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...
THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 42076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24

Pro

I don't think it is fair that people get to vote on getting rid of guns when they have no idea what a gun is! It may not be true for some people, but for must it seems like it! If a person's opinion is based off a video game, TV, or a shooting on the news, where does that get us! People need to understand that guns aren't bad, they are actually quite good. Yes, background checks should be tight, but should we take away guns entirely? I don't know a single person who has shot a gun and is against it, sure, there will be people, but it is hard to vote about guns if you hardly know what one is. Seeing a gun in Bass Pro doesn't count, you have to know to comprehend!
MadisonMichelle

Con

I accept. Thank you for a great debate topic. And for an insightful arguement.

So, I'd like to assume my opponent is a hunter, as his name clearly says "thebaskingdeerhunter". So he will be for guns, if his name has a true meaning. His opening line of his arguement states " I don't think its fair that people get to vote on getting rid of guns when they have no idea what a gun is."
I would like to refute this by saying, The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco And Firearms states that 33, 000 Americans were involved in gun related deaths in 2011 alone. So obviously the majority of people know what guns are, since they're publicized on the news, and such. So his arguement there is inherently false. He then says "persons opinion is based on a video game, or tv, or a shooting on the news." Every person has their right to an opinion, first off, and shootings on the news would lead to someone having a negative opinion. Even after six gun massacres in a year alone.
His next statement says "Guns aren't bad, they're actually quite good". Might I ask for what? Killing people? He might say for protection in homes and such. But in a study by the England Journal of medicine and guns, "guns in homes are 43 times morw likely to kill a family member, aquaintance, or friend then to kill an intruder." Guns are not good at all, as my evidence has stated, they are only used for destruction. Destruction in which guns are not worth. Would you rather have to defend yourself with another object? Or have thousands of people dying every year? Banning guns completely will end all gun related deaths, and set an example that we actually care that children, teens, and adults are dying because of guns. Thank you and I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24

Pro

I did not mean to say that people have no idea what a gun is. What I meant by this is, people have only negative opinions because that's all you hear about on the news, bad happenings. I think people should know the good things guns do. Yes, the gun kills and destroys, but it can be used for good. It can be used to protect the innocent, and our armed forces use them every day to protect our freedom. When a man goes out with a knife and kills someone, do we blame the knife, one of the commenters made very good points, why do people blame guns? When a fire gets out of control, do we ban fire because it killed people? No, we normally blame the person who started it, a gun is a tool, and it's use is determined by the carrier. If a person went out with a hammer, would we outlaw hammers? No, we would deem that man crazy, and go on; but not with guns, instead a tool takes the blame for a person's use of it.
MadisonMichelle

Con

Thank you for your insightful arguement.
I would first like to say, that in an arguement I made the previous time, that the pwople in the home with the gun are 43 more times likely to get hurt. And there have been numerous cases where people have been killed. 33, 000 to be exact. In 2011 only. This is way to large of a number of people dieing just by guns. No we do not outlaw knives or hammers because those tools have been deemed essential to everyday life. My opponent ultimately looked toward his commenters opinions, for use of evidence. And I supplied much more evidence. My opponent says that guns take the blame for people who use it. Those men who dI'd the crime are going to end up in jail, and the gun is also to blame. If we didn't have guns we would have less people dieing, and a safer enviornment. In Chicago it costs over 900 dollars to own a gun. Not a lot of people are rich. So Not many people have guns, and people have other ways of protecting themselves. Guns are not the only resort.
Debate Round No. 2
THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24

Pro

You say that knives and hammers are essential for everyday life, well so are guns, nearly 2 million people use guns to provide for their families, what would you tell them if you took their means of food away? Also, if people are getting hurt by owning a gun, that's their fault! You are supposed to know how to use a gun, but it ends up getting yourself hurt. I have a hunters safety permit, they teach you everything you need to know! But once again, people don't necessarily know what or how to use a gun, and they get themselves hurt, which only adds to the negative opinion about guns. Criminals would still find a way to get guns, but law abiding citizens would be helpless! They couldn't defend themselves against the guns that aren't legally bought. If you are a criminal, you can find ways to get guns, but law abiding citizens can't.
MadisonMichelle

Con

MadisonMichelle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24 3 years ago
THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24
Thanks both of you, for making a very good and valid point that a gun is a tool and has no idea the destruction it is causing, only a person can do that.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
@Jacob60rt
Banning fire would leave us dead in the winter
Banning knives would destroy the culinary arts
Banning penises would kill off the human race
Banning guns... well, people just never see the fact that banning guns would leave civilians to the will of the people of the black market
Posted by Jacob60rt 3 years ago
Jacob60rt
In the case of a arson we blame the arsonist
In the case of a stabbing we blame the murder
In the case of a rape we blame the rapier
So why is it when there is a mass shooting we blame the gun?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
THEBASKINGDEERHUNTER24MadisonMichelleTied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has a better use of Syntax and Diction (Spelling and Grammar). Con has shown empirical evidence but no source to back it up + Con forfeited the last round.