The Instigator
SeniorIntelligentDebator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Resolved: Guns should be prohibited.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,738 times Debate No: 27604
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

Gun rights should be prohibited. Even for self defense, and even for hunting purposes. The object manipulates our minds and makes us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do. If guns weren't allowed, then our society would be a lot more peaceful, and no gunshots would be heard in the middle of the night, or in the middle of the day.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I thank my opponent for the challenge and I hope this turns out to be a productive debate.

First i'll start with definitions: Guns - A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.

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

Prohibited- being banned.

Now, I will start bt rebutteling my opponent's case and then lay out mine.

Rebuttel

My opponent makes a bunch of absurd statements and has not even sourced his case.I will quote the famous philosopher, writer, and debater Chistopher Hitchens for this one: "Whatever is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". So, I will simply ignore it in my rebuttel and refute it with the case of my own that I am about to present.



Contention 1: More Guns, Less Crime

I'll begin with a few facts on the paterns of between gun ownership per capita in other countries and crime rates of those countries.
(A) Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime, especially violent crime, has risen. However, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Britan has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest over all crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britan had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United states (446 vs. 2034 pre 100,000 population).

(B) In Australia: Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%
The really sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation:
• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

(C) In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).

Now, with these facts presented, I pose a question to my opponent and the people who are readind this. If you were a criminal, who would you rob? Would rob a man who was unarmed and defenseless or the man who was armed with a firearm?Now, bare in mind you being a criminal, you have already purchased a assault weapon and a handgun from the black market. Obviously, from the mindset of a criminal you would pick the defenseless man. This ladies and gentlemen is why gun control and bans are flawed. The politicians who make these laws ignore the fact that the only people who would follow the law would be the people who obey the law is the law-abiding citizens while the criminals would either keep their weapons in hiding or purchase them off of a the black market. Thus, increasing crime because you disarm the people who follow the law and leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals.

Source: http://www.gunfacts.info...

Contention 2: The Defense of Liberty From Its Enemies Both Foreign and Domestic

There is not question about it that when out founding fathers wrote up the 2nd Amendment that it was for more then just defending again criminals or going hunting (even though these were in their reasoning too in some cases), it ment as a safe gaurd against oppressive government and so that the people themselves could be a strong defense against a foreign occupation as we saw in both Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The people had arms they didn't go to the government and ask for them, they already had them and we were able to fend against the strongest empire in the world at that time. In history all mass killings/murders/genocides were committed shortly after the people were disarmed. Zelman and Stevens, in their book "Death by "Gun Control"" report that in the 20th century, 89.8 MILLION individuals were murdered by their governments after being forced to disarm.

Obviously, we should not allow the state to have the guns while "We the people" are defenseless. The only way to make sure everyone is protected from either criminals in the White House or in the country side/cities, firearms ownership must not be banned or it would be the undoing of this country and the liberties we all hold dear.

Sources: http://jpfo.org...

I will now await my opponent's response.

Thank You!
Debate Round No. 1
SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

My opponent seems to believe my statements are "absurd" and lacking source, yet he fails to realize the very strength of opinions.

Contention 1: Less Guns, Less Crime

My opponent seems to believe that past occurrences will dictate the future, yet he has failed to adhere to our country's rates and what they've dictated.

For example, the shooting of Trayvon Martin took place because of higher and more stringent gun control, and the aftermath of that crime took hold of the nation as a whole and some outside residents in different countries because of the nature of racism and the destructive affects of free and unfiltered usage of guns.

Even though UK and Australia and Canada have been proven by my opponent to be major proponents of less gun control, that doesn't mean our country can go with the same mindset as well. Just because something works for one person, doesn't mean it'll benefit another. Meaning, just because something works in other countries, and just because it's been proven to work perfectly fine and rather beneficial in other jurisdictions, doesn't mean it'll be beneficial for others, such as the US.

My opponent also seems to believe that we are living back in 2000, when Y2K was still hip and trendy, and when movies like "White Chicks" didn't even come out, and when artists such as Whitney Houston were still alive, and Britney Spears were still civilized. Comparing statistical observations and representations from 2000 and correlating them with life in 2012 is unjustifiable. A lot of things -- including social maturation -- have occurred since then.

I am not a criminal. I will never be a criminal. That is because I have a firm handle on logic. However, just becuase I am not a criminal now, doesn't mean I don't have the POTENTIAL to be if I am given control of a gun. After all, that is the very nature of humanity and psychology: people can be all kind and mature without power; but, as soon as they are given that previously formidable power and strength, they go all ballistic and become psychopaths. Read a psychology book. It'll instruct you on that type of psychological knowledge.

Not all criminals choose defenseless men. Some are adventurous and want a challenge; others, are what you generalized, however those types of criminals are unfortunately sparse.

My opponent's final contention is one of his most atrocious and rather confusing. He claims that "politicians who make these laws ignore the fact that the only people who would follow the law would be the people who obey the law is the law-abiding citizens while the criminals would either keep their weapons in hiding or purchase them off of a black market," which is both psychologically and logically incorrect. Like I have mentioned before with inflated proficience, just because someone is kind and psychologically developed before being given usage of a gun, doesn't mean they can remain such when granted usage of a gun. My opponent's quip, which is "Thus, increasing crime because you disarm the people who follow the law and leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals," is logically incorrect. Society isn't built on dominance. That is cynicism in its supremest of forms.

Contention 2: Our Second Amendment

Our Second Amendment, which is "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."(1), does not grant us the right to bear arms. Back in the day, before internet and before celebrity drama made the headlines daily, and before presidents like Ronald Reagan were elected and presidents like Bill Clinton reigned, our government was unjust. They did not treat their citizens right. They taxed them one heck of a tax -- and without representation. So, yes, back then, they needed some type of defense. However, I would like to ask my readers -- and my opponent -- if our government, compared to when our country was first conceived, is unjust, and if we really need guns, other than to act all arrogant.

I will now await my opponent's response, as well.

Sources:

1- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

I would like to point out that my opponent has not provided any evidence to substanciate his claims that society would be a lot peaceful and it manipulating people's minds. So his words are rather empty. His case is bearly worth looking at so I will just defend my case and show why he utterly fails in trying to refute my contentions.


Defense 1

My opponent states that I should use our own countries rates and I will be happy to ablige him and any of the voters that share this thought, but first I would like to make clear that his statement that crime in other countries and the methods used to stop it or keep it low can not be used as data for our country is absurd. Crime is ruted in the same things no matter what country we are in (violent crime at least). Criminals attack for passion, greed, insanity, etc. A gunman will kill over here to rob someone or because they are mentally ill the same as anyother country (including the ones that I listed). So the people reading should reject this absurdity and look at violent crime in the same light no matter what country it is in. Furthermore, I will also object to his assertion about using years such as 12 years ago in 2000 because 'times change', after all, we have had gun rights since our nations very founding and violent crime and the reason for which people commit it is has always existed. For example: that is like me saying that I can't say that National Socialism is bad because most of my evidence that shows this is from the 20th centery. Another example being that he would have to object to me saying that slavery shouldn't be legal because most of my facts stating that it would be bad is from well...since the beginning of civilization. His claim is completely absurd.

Now as for the statistics in our own country, the U.S.

1. First of all I will use our latest mass shooting as an example of why gun control only hurts the people who obey the laws. In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to carry concealed weapons and it is illegal to discharge firearms in public (unless it is the police) [1]. These laws didn't stop the massacre from happening, and they didn't even decrease the chances of the event from happening. No, they only helped the gunman! Can you imagine how many people would have surived or came out unscaved if conceal-carry was legal in that town? A lot of people could have made it out of there with their health, heck, the shooting might have not even have happend in the first place since not shooter would want to fire at a crowd of potential gun carriers!

2. Within months of striking down Chicago's gun control laws, the violent crime rates plomitted and the murder rate fell 14%. Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12% [2].

3. A rescent Harvard study concluded that banning firearms increased both homicides and suicides whereever they were found [3].

I will provide more facts in my next round if need be, but I am going to leave it at these and the ones I presented earlier.

And then my opponent makes an unproven/unsourced assertion about the potential of all people to become criminals. Again, completely absurd, one can kill with anything, not just a gun. One can kill with knives, rat poison, bleach, hammers, crowbars, etc! In order for my opponent to stay consistant he must be for banning these items as well and I doubt he does. Guns act as a deterant, if everyone has one then no one is going to risk getting shot themselves (the sources given prove this).


Defense 2

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington



Our government is most certainly currupt. I have no idea what garbage my oppoent has been reading but, in the last few decades their has been a constant assault on our liberties. Wilson made it illegal to convince people to not join the military durring WW1 (a unjust war), there has been a all out assault on women's rights, their has been an all out assault on our own self-ownership rights as stated by the Constitution (drug war), we have a President that authorized a war without congresses approval, we have the state telling thousands of couples they can't get married (Same-Sex Marriage bans), the government passed the Patriot Act which guts our rights to freedom of privacy, and it enacted the NDAA which gave the President the authority to indefinately detain people for whatever reason without a trial [4] [5]. My opponent's fails, and my contention still stands.

Sources

[1]http://cnsnews.com...
[2]http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...
[3] Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694)
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

And I thank my opponent for his response.

My opinions are to substantiated. They are based off of my past experiences with society since the legalization of guns. My refutations have not failed to prove my contentions.

My opponent still contends that guns aid a society when I have proven otherwise. Criminals can"t commit as much crimes without the usage of guns or other weapons, so why would self defense be necessary? We have not had gun rights since our nation was founded and we should not have them now. As I have explicitly stated before, our second amendment was originally inserted so citizens can protect themselves against unjust governing forces. However, nowadays, there is no reason for gun usage to be allowed. We don"t have an unjust force governing us. Our government is a Democratic Republic. What reason would we have to own guns if there is noone to defend ourselves against?

My opponent is again formulating generalizations and stereotypes based on past occurrences. Not all criminals would shoot at a band of unarmed citizens. The mind of a criminal is complex and mysterious. However, one thing that is not mysterious is the fact that all criminals want a challenge. That is, after all, basic psychology.

But, to a criminal, it is easier to kill with an automated weapon instead of a slow killer. My opponent has again made generalizations " except, this time, it was about me. He assumes I am not against the banning of knives. I am against banning of knives " but to an extent. It"s just like a concealed weapon. It should be disallowed, just like guns are, because higher crimes happen when people are given more and more opportunities to commit a crime.

George Mason, who you quoted as saying "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people" To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to ensalve them," is incorrect in assuming two things " that banning guns is enslavement, and that the militia is the population of a country. Slavery was banned long ago. But people keep bringing up the prospect of the atrocity appearing in different, scarier, often more terrifying forms. Mason is not an exception to this group of people. He claims that banning guns is akin to bossiness. It is not. It is ensuring the safety of a nation by way of prohibition. There is nothing wrong with doing so. The militia is not the population of a government. It is our military, our government, and any other governmental forces, such as municipalities, not the population of a country, and not ourselves. Back then, about the time of the Revolutionary War, we were governed by opposing, unjust forces, and we needed a way to defend ourselves, so we created the Second Amendment, which, in its vaguity, allowed for the permission of guns, but only to protect ourselves against our unjust government. At the time, we had an unjust government, now we do not. So there is no need to own a gun.

You have inserted George Washington"s quote. It inadvertently proved yourself wrong. He denoted the allowance of guns under the presumption that it"d be used to defend ourselves against unjust, opposing governmental forces.

My opponent is using ubiquity to claim that the government is unjust. Please do not fall for his ubiquity. Compared to when our government was first created, we have it much better.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

My opponent still makes claims without warrants, and has based his case on everything but facts.

He states that we have not always had the right to keep and bear arms however, the second amendment was written as part of the Constitution's Bill of Rights in 1791 [1]. Even before, then we still had such rights when the English still ruled us [2]. So, I suggest he stops with this "we as a nation haven't always had gun rights" because it is nothing but nonsense. Furthermore, he has apparently hasn't even looked over the list of injustices that our government has already committed against us even though it is democratic, it still doesn't end the threat of a tyrranical government and rights to guns is the the only thing stopping us from being overwelmed by complete tyrrany and the establisment of dictatorship. I would like to encourage my opponent to persue a education in both grammar, history, and logic.

He even disregards the studies conducted that I have given in both our country and abroad. He says that if there is no guns then there wont be no need for protection from criminals however, it isn't that simple. When guns are restricted the same things to it as drugs and when alcohol was prohibited, criminals still aquire them illegally and the law abiding citizens are the ones who are effected because they have no way of defending themselves. We see this in almost every study conducted (especially the ones THAT I ALREADY POSTED), when firearms are restricted, violent crimes increase.

My opponent says criminals don't always attack unarmed citizens, and that is correct but then again those citizens with guns are able to defend themselves and their property.

My opponent ends by giving by committing on my two quotes. I will refute it nonsense invividually.

1. My opponent fails at his first attack on it. By enslavement he was refering to the governmnet doing to us what the Soviet Union did to it's population, and that is making them slaves, taking away their liberty, firearms defend our liberty. And then he says the militia is the governmnet military and this is false. Back when our country was founded we had both an Army and a militia [3]. A militia is a volunteer force that is made up of civilians, while the military is made up of volunteers made up of people loyal to the government. These are far different concepts.

2. And my second quote was the justification for allowing guns. It defended us from unjust government, and anyone who has read a history book knows the first thing unjust governments do right before they enslave their population to its will (takes away the means of defense, guns)...

I will now await my opponent's response.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.historyisfun.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
SeniorIntelligentDebator

Pro

Vote Pro.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

My opponent has forfeited the last round and did not defend his points so I take it that I have refutted his claims and I have defended my own. My contentions still stand, and I would like to thank those who have read this debate. Vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro deserved spelling.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
Butte, Montana November 5, 2007

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two- story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive..
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.

I am in favor of any law that would keep my little 11 year old daughter safe from possible rape, torture and murder. Countless people have been able to protect themselves against criminal home invaders because of gun rights. The 3 states with the lowest crime rates are; New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. Although they are typically democrat they all have concealed carry laws and are pro gun rights.
Posted by yweuiuyywe 4 years ago
yweuiuyywe
Hi buddy :

HOT SELL Product Brand is below: ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====
,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike s h o x shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction
jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach
handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag .
free shipping
New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
New era cap $9
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of Style! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.scnshop.com... ) =====
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Comparing historical murder rates is what scholars do...
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Solution: make nano bugs that search out and devour all guns.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I apologize for the small writing...that really wasn't my fault. It must have been a glitch in the system. :/
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bergeneric63 4 years ago
bergeneric63
SeniorIntelligentDebatorDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didnt include any sources and I believe in the Con viewpoints and even whn I read Pro he made no sence compared to Cons
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
SeniorIntelligentDebatorDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with con here, he still had the better argument. The biggest argument win was simply that prohibiting guns does not remove all guns from society. Perhaps it is the choice between the lesser of two evils, but consider the magnitude between the two evils: The increase in crime rates con mentioned OR the horrible shootings that, yes do happen, but are more rare and usually blown up by the media. You can't get rid of guns, therefore overall it is safer for the non criminal to have them for defense. Unfortunately, the same is true for Nuclear Weapons... you can never destroy at least the knowledge of how to create them, therefore it is safer to have them and try to prohibit their proliferation.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
SeniorIntelligentDebatorDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros statements amounted to unsupported assertions and his rebuttals were little more than unsupported statements to the contrary. Points to Con.
Vote Placed by htennis 4 years ago
htennis
SeniorIntelligentDebatorDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO has BoP but doesn't exercise it. CON