The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Private Citizens should be armed in public

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,831 times Debate No: 28358
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (5)




1. Introduction-
Through the course of this debate I will offer several arguments to warrant a vote for the Pro, I encourage voters to examine them and weigh them under a standard of comparative advantage against con's arguments. At the end of the debate, the vote should go to the debater whose arguments are comparatively better than their opponent's.

2. Definitions-
a. A "Private Citizen" will refer to any American above the age of 17, who has not been convicted of a felony charge.
b. "Should" will mean 'a good idea'.
c. "Armed" will refer to possession of a registered firearm.
d. "Public" will refer to the any area which is open to any person to attend and inhabit.

3. Framework-
a. Votes should be based solely on the things expressed in the debate section, no-where else. This includes prior debates and the comments section.
b. Since there is an infinite amount of ground that could be covered on this subject, only things explicitly written in the round are grounds of debate.
c. The scope of this debate is the United States

4. Second Amendment Rights-
a. The right to bear arms is a fundamental liberty given in the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution[1]. therefore, arguments of legality are not legitimate. Instead this debate is one of whether or not it is a good idea for private citizens to be armed when entering public spheres.
b. When citizens fail to practice their rights, they weaken its inherency and it loses power. We see that this is the case with the right to vote[2], and a similar link must be made with the right to bear arms. when we fail to uphold this right, we lose sight of its importance.
c. We cannot limit our rights based on fear. We see a call for stronger gun control in the public opinion due to the shootings which have received so much media attention as of late, but let us not forget that those are sensational stories and far from the norm[3]. that's the reason they"ve received so much media attention in the first place, because this doesn"t happen every day; to assume as such and limit rights will only take use to the place that implementing the TSA after 9-11 did; a culture of fear which violates rights.

5. Security-
a. Homes with guns are safer than those without guns. Or at least they have a greater sense of community and make residents feel safer as Dr. Hemenway argued[4]. Hemenway"s study showed that more than half of gun owners cite protection as a reason for owning a fire-arm in the first place. Furthermore, that impact extends beyond their home and into the community. Families who own guns increase community safety by deterring criminals from committing crimes.
b. Attendance of gun-safety classes is on the rise, and has only picked up steam since the recent shooting in Colorado and Wisconsin [5]. Referring to the prior argument of sensationalism, Patrick Egan, assistant professor of politics at New York University made a point to say that gun violence has been at an all-time time low for the past 40 years. Aside for those latching onto the sensationalism, most analysts agree that the solution is not to limit the rights of gun owners, but to increase education on gun safety.

6. Legality in the status quo-
a. Despite the school shootings in Wisconsin, they became the 49th state to legalize owning a concealed handgun in November, making Illinois the only state to forbid the practice[5]. This argument can even be seen as an extension of my second amendment argument on how not practicing rights leads to a weakening of their legitimacy. Carrying a weapon is a right for American citizens, and must not be retracted based on principles of fear.

7. Underview-
a. I look forward to a good debate, and hope all voters enjoy reading it.
b. As it stands the Pro has fulfilled their burden, I remind voters to make their decision based on this debate"s content and not on personal opinions.


I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this important topic.

People kill people

When you allow private citizens to be armed in public, you allow both people who may want to kill others to walk around town with guns, as well as those who may not. The problem is that if those people who want to kill others shoot somebody, the person being shot does not have time to react. Even if they could, the fact that they don't want to kill others makes the gun really pointless. In the hands of somebody nice, guns are not really all that problematic, while in the hands of somebody bad they have the power to inflict a lot of terrible damage really quickly.

So why would you be carrying a gun if you didn't intend to kill people, in public? Presumably to scare attackers off. But why would attackers be scared if they know you couldn't react and probably wouldn't use it even if you could? It so happens that there is a much better way of scaring attackers off, and that's making guns illegal in public. That way if somebody is carrying a gun in public, you know they're either an attacker or a police officer. When the fact that all the responsible law-abiding people aren't carrying guns, the bad guys are easy to spot.

Guns are pretty scary

There's nothing more freaky than having a gun pointed at you. You know in that instant your life is hanging on a trigger, even if it really isn't and you have nothing to worry about. My point is that average citizens of America should have the right to go to town and not feel unsafe or unsettled by the fact that everyone else has the ability to kill them in an instant.

Let's talk about the outcomes here. People have to live in fear - they don't have the choice, as everyone has to go into a public space sometimes. Worse still, the alternative is that people become desensitized to guns and ignore the threat until it is too late. It's good that guns are scary, because they can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Since guns have this power to make people feel unsafe, then that's good grounds to ban them unless there is some real advantage to their prevalence.

Slippery slope of ownership

If everyone else has a gun except for you, the best psychological defense you have is to buy yourself a gun. This is because guns are the object that are causing your emotional distress - if you feel you have a weapon too, then you feel that you can control the outcome a lot more if things do go bad. Of course, this isn't really the case. Holding a gun is incredibly unlikely to stop a bullet if one is fired at you. So the harm is that you create this big cycle where everyone feels they need a gun - even people who might normally not feel inclined to have a gun, or who might personally feel (perhaps because they know they are prone to getting a little violent) that they should not own a gun. And thus, simply making it legal to carry guns in public increases gun ownership rates.

2nd Amendment

Just because it states in your constitution that you're allowed to bear arms does not mean it's a good idea. If your constitution were to explicitly state "All Americans have the right to jump to their deaths in the Grand Canyon", it wouldn't make that a good idea either. If it did say that my opponent would make the same arguments - "jumping to your death in the Grand Canyon loses inherency and power when nobody's doing it!" - "we must not be limited by our fear of dying and exercise this right!"

This debate is not about whether you should have guns in private (which would include your house or wherever your family lives) but rather in public, making this study irrelevant. My opponent also notes many people know how to operate guns safely. Knowing how to operate them safely and actually using them safely are, however, two different things.

Current Legality
I have absolutely no idea how this extends my opponent's 2nd Amendment argument. It's exactly the same, because the other laws are all based on the 2nd amendment.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Introduction-
a. I want to start by thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and for making such swift response!
b. In this round I will do the following: I will first give a summary of the issues of debate thus far, I will refute my opponent's arguments and finally I will defend the attacks my opponent made against my case.

2. Summary of the debate thus far
a. Silence is compliance; My opponent has accepted my framework and definitions, thus they are no longer issues of debate.
b. Pro's current arguments are as follows: Second amendment rights, Security and Legality
c. Con's current arguments are as follows: People kill people, guns are pretty scary and Slippery Slope of Ownership.

3. Refutations-
a. People kill people
i. Social contract theory will be in place regardless of whether or not you look at the world of the affirmative or the world of the negative[6]. Keeping this in mind, we understand that people are not going to randomly start killing others just because guns are now legal.
ii. This argument makes the assumption that people are just out to kill one another; if you accept this premise then it will happen either way. This isn't a unique argument, and accordingly is a reason to vote Con.
iii. Understanding that this argument is fundamentally flawed, we also understand that it's an appeal to fear[7]; a rejection of something because of a fear of what may happen. You must reject arguments which appeal to fear as they are emotional arguments without a true logical or empirical warrant.

b. Guns are pretty scary
i. This is an appeal to fear[7], plain and simple. Reject these emotional arguments.
ii. Extend across my legality argument, in all but one state it is legal to carry a concealed handgun[5]; if you want to accept this argument, Con must defend that this fear exists in the status quo and is still a voting issue for Con.

c. Slippery Slope of ownership
i. Employing a slippery slope argument can be seen in basically every argumentative circle as a logical fallacy[8]. This is when one takes a logical syllogism that has no real warrant to it an posits it as a sincere argument. At the point there is no warrant aside from the claim, it's a fallacy.
ii. I really wish I had more say here, but without a real warrant to refute I'm just going to keep saying the same thing.

4. Refutations-
a. Second amendment rights
i. This argument served two purposes -- first, to preempt arguments of legality and second, to establish an urgency of protection of rights. The preempted purpose wasn't an issue this can be stricken from the flow, however the second argument of protecting rights is still an issue to vote on.
ii. The argument of affirming rights by continuing to practice them wasn't refuted, but attacked with the logical fallacy Reductio ad Absurdum[9]. My opponent disregards my argument by comparing it to jumping off a cliff, but jumping off a cliff isn't a constitutional right that is an issue of debate here. The right to bear arms is.

b. Security
i. The attack here is an issue of my opponent rejecting my argument entirely under the warrant that it's irrelevant. Con claimed that my cross-application impact isn't a legitimate because the study wasn't conducted with concealed handguns; however this isn't the case as the study showed that when homes have guns the security they experience extends into their community as a deterrent for crime to happen[4].
ii. The link here is perfectly acceptable and shouldn't be rejected.

c. Legality in the status quo
i. Not understanding my argument isn't a sound refutation, there is not attack.
ii. Extend the refutations on my second amendment argument.

5. Underview-
For the most part logical fallacies don't occur by malicious nature, but by oversight and omission - Reduction ad Absurdum however is an unacceptable tactic and should not be accepted. Please let con know this through your conduct voter.


I thank my opponent for continuing his contentions, although I am disappointed at his claim of poor conduct. That's an attack on me and not my argument. I'd prefer if we stuck to the issues of the debate, which as it so happens was explicitly a part of my opponent's own framework.

People kill people

I will broadly agree (even though there are good studies showing the contrary) that just because people have guns they do not become more or less violent. That's not my point though. My point is that people with guns are more lethal, their victims less able to run away or fight back.

The refutation that people will still attack each other either way, however, ignores my previous analysis that it's much easier (and safer) to catch attackers before they commit their crimes by preventing them from carrying a gun in public. They might still want to kill people, but then they'll be stopped by a police officer or even just random citizens because they'd be carrying a gun in public to do so. I'm the only side in this debate with a tenable model for stopping this gun violence, and that makes this a unique argument.

I'll deal with "appealing to fear" in my next point, even though the death of people is more than just an emotional harm. Not everything pro may be afraid of is an appeal to fear either. When people die, the society and community loses a valued member, with all the benefits that this member provides - that's empirically bad. My opponent himself admitted that there are people out there who want to kill people when he said that such people are the exception not the norm, presupposing that such people must exist. This is why so few people die in countries like Japan from gun violence (

Guns are pretty scary

If I had said "I hate guns WAA WAA WAA!" that would be an emotional argument fallacy. But when fear creates real, tangible harms to society - when it acts as a mechanism and not an outcome - then that's different. What my opponent doesn't get about the appeal to fear fallacy is that you actually need to be appealing to fear - I'm appealing to serious harms that so happen to be caused by fear. Harms like ignoring threats and wasted investment into public spaces because everyone is scared of going there. Just because something is emotional doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical.

This fear does exist in the status quo, which is what I've been logically proving throughout this round and the last. The reason why this debate is even an issue is that US citizens fear guns so much they're owning them less and less (

Slippery slope of ownership

My opponent claims I provided no warrant. Hello!? Psychological defenses? Really big harm of pressuring would-be criminals into buying guns? I'll bet my opponent took one look at my label and thought "logical fallacy!" without even reading my point.

2nd Amendment

Aside from the fact my opponent's own source notes a reductio argument isn't necessarily fallacious, he still hasn't proven why putting something into the second amendment or any other law of your country as a right makes it a good idea. The point of my awesome analogy was to illustrate the missing causal link. So yes, I accept the right loses inherency and power (for example) but no, I don't accept this is a bad thing if it means lives can be saved in the process.


The only difference in security found in the article my opponent links is perceived difference, not a real difference - people gain a false sense of security. I agree, as I proved this logically as part of my slippery slope of ownership point. I'm not sure that this makes it a good idea, and in fact I think it makes it a bad one. But moreover, even if I accept that "public spaces are safer if there are more weapons in private spaces" it does not follow that "public spaces are safer if there are more weapons in public spaces".


Pro still does not prove how this is different from his 2nd Amendment point.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Introduction-
a. There are lots of drops, and unwarranted refutations from Con. I will point them out through-out my refutations.
b. I stand by the conduct argument for the Reductio ad Aburdum fallacy. Even if my opponent can justify abusive logic (which he hasn't) it is still an unacceptable tactic which violates educational discourse.

2. Refutations-
a. People Kill people
i. My opponent makes no mention of my status quo argument, on how concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois; accordingly I still win this point as I show the horrible impacts Con asserts could happen, can already happen in the status quo, but don't.
ii. Read the article my opponent links, you'll see there are some crucial flaws with his logic here. By his own admission it is very difficult, if not impossible to own a gun in Japan; in the U.S. this isn't the case. If you compare Japan's death rate because of guns to America's then it would of course seem like his argument is true, and having access to gun makes people blood thirsty; but that's just not the case. Japan's society is very different from America's[10], Japan's #1 cause of death is stroke, but that doesn't mean American handles stroke better, it means Japan's problems are different.

b. Guns are pretty scary
i. Concealed handguns are legal in all but one state in the United States[5]. If the negative impacts my opponent proposes would happen with affirmation really would happen, then we would already see these impacts in the status quo; the fact that we don't makes this an appeal to fear, not an argument considering the consequences.
ii. The gallup survey my opponent uses isn't good evidence as the survey is voluntary response[11]. It isn't an accurate representation of the American public as anyone who has taken an intro stats course will tell you[12].
iii. What this means is that there is not warrant here which asks you to consider the consequences, it's an argument which claims 'bad things may happen so let's play it safe'.

c. Slippery Slope of ownership
i. I maintain that this is a logical fallacy. My opponent's deduction consisted entirely of claims which had no warrant to back them up. If the argument were simply a logical syllogism[13] that would be different as I could refute that, but none of my opponent's minor premises had any warrants to them which would posit them as a legitimate argument.

3. Refutations
a. Second Amendment rights
i. My opponent's initial argument doesn't refute the importance of maintaining constitutional rights, instead he compares defending one's right to jumping into the Grand Canyon just-because-you-can. The fact is, whether or not my opponent places any merit in the US constitution or not, it's a right guaranteed to US citizens for protection and defense, jumping into the Grand Canyon is not.
ii. Because we see there is a purpose behind the second amendment (unlike jumping into the Grand Canyon), simply comparing it to jumping off a cliff is Reductio ad Absurdum; this is an unacceptable tactic as I have to spend time explaining debate decorum instead of actually debating.

b. Security
i. Perceived security isn't a false security whatsoever; if it makes a family feel safe it's a benefit.
ii. My opponent doesn't respond to the point of guns making the community safer by deterring crime.

c. Legality
i. There's still. No. Argument. Here. Simply saying my opponent doesn't get the link doesn't mean that the link isn't there; this is a drop two times over.
ii. I've extended the fact that concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois I don't even know how many times now; that argument comes from this point and was meant to preempt any appeals to fear (such as my opponent's first two contentions). This is a huge impact and it's just been brushed off.

a. The Conduct argument stands.
b. My opponent has made a lot of drops.


In this round pro has done little more than intensify his personal attacks on me, rather than improve his argument. In fact this debate is really very simple.

People Kill people
Three times in his case, pro falls back on his argument of "well if all your flawless logic is true, how come I'm not seeing it in the status quo?" Let me deal with it once and for all now. These things ARE happening under the status quo. I provided a chart last round to show people fear guns more. BTW, even a biased sample can prove a trend if the sample size is significant because sampling bias does not affect internal validity, only external. Pro also agreeds guns are lethal. The evidence is there.

Aside from this pro does nothing to refute around three paragraphs of analysis. In particular, he does not refute my claim that it's better to catch killers before they shoot their victims,. He does refute my Japan analogy in detail. The point is that if there are fewer guns in public spaces, there is less gun violence in public spaces, legitimising fear of guns. Not only is this empirically true, it's also not culturally dependant because there's no subjective factor - either attackers have guns or they don't.

Guns are pretty scary
What pro doesn't get is that it's actually a matter of 'bad things may happen, so let's be prepared in case they do (see previous point), and let's save people from having the confront the risk, or worse still, failing to confront it (this point)'. Even so, I fail to see the harm in "playing it safe". This is tantamount to an admission by pro that private citizens would be safer in public under my model.

Slippery slope of ownership
Here's the argument as a logical syllogism:

1- All people generally react to seeing psychological distresses by seeking to control them (ie buy their own gun)
2- Some people should not own guns
3- Therefore, some people who should not own guns will seek to control them if guns are seen (ie in public)

Perhaps pro will finally rebut it.

Pro had the clear burden of proof in this debate. He raised two arguments, and then restated his first one and called it a third point. Apparently he thinks it's my burden to show how this point is different from his first one - in fact, my claim has always been that it isn't different, and if pro wants to tell you otherwise, then HE needs to tell you how. Not only that, but he also needs to rebut my analysis for why it isn't different from round two. He has failed to do so - it is him that has dropped this argument, not me.

2nd Amendment
Pro's argument is this: if there is a right, and a purpose behind that right, it's always a good idea to exercise that right. Naturally this depends on the purpose. If the purpose of the hypothetical Grand Canyon law is mass suicide, that wouldn't make it a good idea. If pro could prove that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea, then perhaps the reason why it is a good idea might be a strong reason to be armed in public - but in and of themselves, rights and good ideas are different things. Having a right to an abortion does not mean everyone should have one, for example.

He's dropped his sub-point about people knowing how to operate guns after I proved it was a strawman. His entire point now rests on a single study that did not, contrary to pro's misrepresentation, show any link between being armed in public and reduced crime rates, as the whole study was concerned with private gun ownership. He can't keep claiming I didn't respond when I've been trying to get across to him that his premise does not hold since round two. The other aspect of this argument based on the study - that families feel more secure if they have guns (also not relevant to public spaces by the way) - pro claims to be emotionally beneficial. He has not given any reasons why it isn't a false sense of security, and thus his entire case is a mere assertion. I've also already shown in my points why this is a harm, not a benefit.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3


1. Introduction-
a. I want to thank my opponent for this debate, and I hope all those reading it have enjoyed it as well.
b. The Reductio ad Absurdum still stands as a conduct voter, and calling this out is not an attack on Con's person; it is a critique of his conduct. If calling out poor conduct wasn't acceptable than it wouldn't be a voting issue on the ballots.

2. Rebuttals-
a. People kill people-
i. It needs to be clarified that con never addresses that concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois. The irrational fear Con posits does not exist in the status quo, the only exception would be sensationalism resulting from the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin.
ii. The chart provided is skewed evidence. It only reflects the beliefs of Gallup's users who took the time to fill out a survey. The voters may not even be American! If this evidence is good, then asking a friend their opinion and using it as evidence fine too; we know that isn't true, don't accept the Gallup poll either.

b. Guns are pretty scary
i. When you negate a proposition on the grounds that something bad may happen, but have no real evidence that it will happen, you're appealing to fear. Not being wary of the consequences. I could just as easily assert that something bad may happen if you're not carrying a gun; you may get raped by some-one who weighs 200 pounds more than you and have no means to protect yourself.
ii. If you accept the rape argument, I nullify all of Con's impacts. If not, than all of Con's hypothetical arguments are out the window as well.

c Slippery slope fallacy
i. The major premise is an assumption, the minor premise is irrelevant as ownership is guaranteed to all 18 year old American citizens who are not felons and the conclusion Isn't the case as I show several times that owning a concealed handgun is already legal in the status quo.
ii. Even in this format, this point is a slippery slope fallacy. There isn't any clause within the minor premise to legitimize the argument, it's just refers to what could happen.

3. Rebuttals-
a. Second Amendment Rights
i. This attack is Reductio ad Absurdum, and here's why; Con could have easily argued that one does not need to carry a gun in public, but instead chocked my argument up to absurdity by comparing it to jumping off a cliff. Maintaining the constitutional right to bear arms is important, and to reject that premise without warrant is completely abusive.
ii. The argument that when one doesn't practice their rights, they illegitimatize them still stands. As I've said prior there is a push for stronger gun control which naturally follows tragedies like the shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin. We can't give ground on our rights based on this sensationalist fear, and practicing the right to carry a weapon is a fantastic way to maintain them.

b. Security
i. I never dropped my argument on gun operation, an initial tenet of this argument in round one was the fact that gun safety classes are at an all time high.
ii. Follow the initial link, read the article and you will see the author explicitly writes on gun ownership deterring crime and making communities safer. My opponent cannot put further burden on me to prove something I've already proven, especially since they never even made this argument until their previous speech.

c. Legality
i. If failing to attack my argument (and accordingly the concealed handgun evidence) by claiming it was redundant is legitimate, then there's not much I can say here is there. I hope the voters will use their common sense to understand this is not a legitimate refutation and vote pro. This second amendment argument served to focus on the urgency of maintaining and practicing rights, while this one served to preempt the kinds of arguments my opponent makes in his 'guns are pretty scary' argument.

5. Conclusions-
a. Overall I ask for a Pro ballot for the following reasons: Backing, Consistency and Conduct. Please vote Pro!


I thank my opponent for a fun debate. Here's some quick reasons why I won each point.

People kill people
I did attack the status quo point, in every round. People are killing people, and pro agreed. He can write it off as sensationalist, but it's still something to rationally fear, because nobody in this debate likes death. Pro claims my chart is skewed because the Gallup polls surveyed non-Americans - this is a lie. The Gallup poll is of American adults. Furthermore, you'll note that there's not just the Gallup poll, but two GSS polls that my opponent could not respond to. He never responded to my point about a skewed sample only being invalid externally and not internally either.

Guns are pretty scary
I would rather have a huge person attempt to rape me without a gun than with one, and it's not only for fear of my safety. It's for the fear of the gun. My safety will be compromised either way in that situation - if the rapist saw I had a gun, they'd shoot me first so there'd be no evidence - although if this is indeed a public place where I'm being raped, then the police will catch the gun-wielding rapist for having a gun before their rape. I'm appealing not to fear but to the bad outcomes of it, and pro never told you why those outcomes won't happen.

Slippery slope of ownership
The major premise is an assumption - that's inherent in the definition of "premise" - but I justified it in round one with another argument my opponent never responded to.
The minor premise is not irrelevant as the debate is about not what people should be allowed to do, but what is a good idea for them to do. I'm not advocating banning guns in public in this debate.
The conclusion is happening, as I've said often enough before.
It's not fallacious as the outcome is certain, but even if it was uncertain that doesn't mean it's fallacious. It's the same reason why people buy guns despite the fact they may never be attacked.

Second Amendment Rights
I said right at the start that not everything that is a right is a good idea. My examples may have been a bit extreme, but they serve to illustrate that what the law says you are allowed to do isn't necessarily always what you should do. My opponent never told you why this refutation wasn't true, which he had to do because the causal link was missing from his case. My opponent made the claim that "Maintaining the constitutional right to bear arms is important", so he needs to prove it, not me - furthermore, I explained why this maintenance is a bad idea even if it was important.

My opponent still fails to respond to my argument that gun safety classes are irrelevant. While the study he uses does say gun ownership deters crime etc, if you buy the article and read beyond the first page you'll find that it's quite explicitly talking about private arms, not arms in public. Pro makes no further responses to my false sense of security point.

Apparently my opponent is now claiming this argument is entirely pre-emptive - thus, it is a rebuttal point and not an argument. Pro never managed to distinguish or even properly define what made this argument unique.

Even if it were true my argument were really bad, that does not qualify it as abusive. My opponent never showed you how this was relevant to the debate. We're here to debate - come up with stronger arguments, not stronger insults. It does nothing to undermine any of my arguments or bolster my opponents - were this not ad hominum, it would be a strawman.

On a serious note
I want to end by expressing my heartfelt condolences to all the families and friends of the victims of the tragic shootings we've been discussing. It pains me to think about this debate in all but the most abstract of terms, but the outcomes here have unspeakably dire (and tragic) consequences.

Regardless of who wins this debate, I hope I have been able to spur some discussion on the issue. Now is the time to look at our views honestly, because something is wrong here. Let's change that.
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gunsmoke 3 years ago
interesting debate: The first thing is to uphold the 2nd amendment. In the UK over the years we have lost that right.

Under the king James II around 1670-80 people who where Protestant where not allowed to hold guns. After 1688 with the Bill of Rights 1688 that right the have arms was given back to us.

Acticle 7 bill of rights 1688
7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

Over the years this right has been taken away for the people, by stealth.

They first brought in Firearms Laws in 1921 and over the years slowly removed the right to have arms for defence. Today we have no pistols and restriction on all shotguns and firearms.

In the UK you can only have a gun licence for sport or hunting. However what they have not told the people is that they still have the right to bear arms for defence.

The right has not been remove, only that gun acts have stop you using guns for defence. The police are armed. They can have arms under the Bill of Rights 1688 article 7.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
sorry, really shouldn't have turned into what it did, and any statements made by me up until this point, with the exception of the last two, weren't meant to be contentious or argumentative.

but, when in Rome and such...

peace out.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
No worries, and thank you very much!
Posted by bloodsnhall 3 years ago
I agree and will not respond anymore. I apologize for my lack on concern and wish you the best in future debates.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
I think this comments discussion would be better suited to a debate, forum topic or private message. It just seems a little off-topic to this particular debate by now.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
Nope, because you're once again saying stupid stuff in an attempt to counter something I said which wasn't even said to be argumentative.

Here is the overarching theme of my comments (and, if you go back and look at all of them, I think you will see that this fact is painfully obvious) - EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE.

That's it...nothing hoity and/or toity about any of it. A simple statement based on my personal experience of looking and acting stupid when I was trying to prove some sort of absolute, or acting upon what I believed, at the time, was an absolute truth.

Well, gooooooooooooolly...It's really just that simple.
Posted by bloodsnhall 3 years ago
Contradictory or something like that.LOL
Posted by bloodsnhall 3 years ago
If you can't make your own arguments, it looks like you don't understand the argument. If you don't understand the arguments you, yourself, are presenting, how do you expect any of us to be convinced of your case?

I don't believe you know what your saying and that your losing sight of your original claims.

"I wasn't attempting to mock you, though I didn't need to, since in my attempt to illustrate that there are no absolutes in this world and that all things are relative, you kinda did it to yourself."

"If I kill you to save myself (we're in a shipwreck with only one life jacket between us, and I win in the struggle to obtain it, for example), am I wrong to do so? In that instance, even society says I am not. Relativists have the experience and memory to understand that there are no absolutes, with the exception of fluid dynamics and mathematics."

Is this controdictory Gomer?
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
Neither are poor manners.

Relativism is a physical reality. Time is relative - a watched pot never boils. Also, the closer you are to the poles, the faster or slower time becomes (infinitesimally, due to the constant contraction and expansion of the Earth, but still, there's a difference).

If I kill you to save myself (we're in a shipwreck with only one life jacket between us, and I win in the struggle to obtain it, for example), am I wrong to do so? In that instance, even society says I am not. Relativists have the experience and memory to understand that there are no absolutes, with the exception of fluid dynamics and mathematics.

I think you have me confused with Gomer Pyle or something.
Posted by bloodsnhall 3 years ago
relativism is for people that have never experienced anything and have to Speculate. Prejudice is not a solution to winning debates amoung brilliant thinkers it is a way of segrating yourself from the truth of what's being said.
Philosophize - "Speculate" or theorize about fundamental or serious issues, esp. in a tedious or pompous way.
"Relativistic arguments often begin with plausible, even truistic premises--e.g., that we are culturally and historically situated creatures, that justification cannot go on forever, that we cannot talk without using language or think without using concepts--only to end up with implausible, even inconsistent, conclusions. There is little consensus, however, about how to block the slide from inviting points of departure to uninviting destinations."
I may or may not be typing to people on this site.
Grandiose delusions are not hypothetical.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 3 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: All in all, I think this was a pretty mediocre debate. Both sides lacked in substantial evidence to support their arguments and there were numerous arguments to be made in rebuttal that they both missed. I vote Con because Pro held the burden and failed to substantiate it.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I appreciate Pro's clarification of the debate title. (should = it's a good idea) Pro goes on to present a solid defense for his conclusion. While Con raises viable concerns with Pros idea, his assumption that criminals will just assume that a gun wielding victim is NOT likely to use it was too much of stretch for me. Conduct vote goes to Pro as a result of Cons "Hello?" taunt.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: "Should" is verb and "is a good idea" is a predicate, starting the difficulty of parsing the debate. I think I might have agreed with Pro if I could have figured out what he was contending, but the ragged outline style with odd definitions was too difficult to parse. The burden of making a clear resolution is on Pro. Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct RFD: PRO accused CON falsely of committing fallacies, while committing a non-sequitur, appeal to law, and red herring even in his own first post. Argument RFD: PRO fails to address CON's argument of gun ownership "forcing", instead incorrectly characterizing it as a slippery slope. Further, while CON does not mention it, the proper response to fear of guns, is to buy ARMOR, not a gun. Guns do not defend against bullets, and ARMOR does. This occurred to me after reading CON's argument, so in that way con convinced me of it. Further, CON is correct in noting that more guns does not make more security and likely makes less, even if it makes people FEEL more secure. Sources RFD: PRO's citation of [4] is problematic in that it assumes the reason someone has a gun is sufficient to provide a greater actual sense of safety, or greater safety in general.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
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: Neither side convinced me.