The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
CarlaJMena
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,635 times Debate No: 24158
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Here it is.

8,000 characters

First Round is for acceptance.

No Plagarizing.

Good Luck!
CarlaJMena

Pro

I would sincerely like to debate this topic with you, since there arent alot of people to debate with this about.

Your on!
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I would like to thank my lovely opponent for her acceptance.


Contention 1: 2nd Amendment

The U.S. Constitution states as follows:

"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]

The founding fathers obviously supported gun rights. The 2nd Amendment says it all. They clearly new that if people were going to be able to defend themselves against tyrrany of a future government they were going to have to be armed. After all we did when our war for independance by force of arms. That we had patriots who fought in the army and fought in organized groups called militias.
But to go even further what is this Bill of Rights that this Amendment is located in? Is it merley just a few rights that the governmnet is issueing the people? No! It is a "no fly zone" government. It's the basic restrictions for what the government can do.

Contention 2: Guns Decrease Crime.

Let's take a minute to think like a criminal. Lets we are criminals and we go out trying to find someone to rob, and we come across two different people. One is a gun owner while the other is not. Which would you prefer? The man who is able to defend himself or the man who is defenseless? I am sure the majority of the criminals would agree with me that the best choice would be the one who would put up the least resistance.

The statistics prove this point right. The Daily Caller states that even though gun sells increased in 2010; the gun crimes decreased[2]. Also, the Institute for Legislative Action reported the floowing:

"The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent." [3]

Conclusion

The facts show that guns are good for decreasing crime, and that the government has no right to take gun rights away.

I will now await my opponent's response.

Sources

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://dailycaller.com...
[3]http://www.nraila.org...
CarlaJMena

Pro

It seems like this will be a very long debate.

In 2008, the U.S. had 16,272 murders. 67% committed by firearms. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal victimizations oc- curred in 1993, including 4.4 million violent crimes of rape and sexual as- sault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.*
In 1993, the FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that almost 2 million violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were re- ported to the police by citizens. About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms. Murder was the crime that most frequently in- volved firearms; 70% of the 24,526 murders in 1993 were committed with firearms. 2006, 67% of crimes committed with guns. Most gun uses are used for crimes, not just defense. People can defend themselves with MANY other objects. Without guns, there wouldn't be no assassinations. Like with president Abraham Lincoln. Dont you see most firearm owners are taking advantage of guns?

Sources:
1.http://www.nij.gov...
2.http://www.justfacts.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I thank my opponent for her response.


Rebuttels

My opponent's case hardly even refutes my case. Even though most crimes are committed with guns. This is barely the point. If the people lose there rights to their guns then the only people who would have guns would be the government. Then there would be no way for the people to defend themselves against a government that would seek to take the rest of their rights away. Firearms are very necessary.

Also, even if the majority of all crimes are committed with firearms. A "One size fits all" policy just doesn't cut it. By taking firearms from everyone then your punishing the good respectable people who hold guns and don't commit such acts. Where is the justice in that?

And finally my opponent forgets that there is no constitutional justification for taking away firearms. People have the right to bare arms, and the state has no right to take the rights away.

I will now await my opponent's next response.

Thank You.
CarlaJMena

Pro

My opponent states that 'If the people lose there rights to their guns then the only people who would have guns would be the government. Then there would be no way for the people to defend themselves against a government that would seek to take the rest of their rights away. Firearms are very necessary.' So not true! If the government where the only people o have guns, the percent of crimes committed with guns would drop very rapidly. At least the government can actually control themselves. My opponent seems to act like a gun is the only way of self defense. Also so not true! People who do not know how to use guns can actually accidentally fatally kill someone. With knifes, people know how to use them, for christ sakes you use knifes for eating! And with a gun, one shot your dead. With one knife stab, that is the first warning of 'back away'. Firearms are not always necessary. There is a limit to rights.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I would like to note that my opponent has not said anything so far about the Constitutionality of such a ban.

My misunderstands. She assumes that the government is a good organization. Sher fails to not that everytime in history when the government is the only people who have guns and the people are left defenseless (note:Knives are not a match for firearms) the people lose all of their other rights and are unable to get them back because they have no guns. We see this in Stalin's Russia and even our own War for Indepenence. In Russia at the time the people were given no gun rights and as a result the people were unable to resist the tyrrany of Stalin and the horrors that occured [1], while if it were not for firearms in the hands of the common farmer America would still be a colony [2].

Conclusion

My opponenent has failed to answer my first contention, and has failed to refute my second. She has also failed to state a case of her own.

1. http://www.thegunzone.com...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
CarlaJMena

Pro

Obviously, the gun is the most dangerous, defensive item. People are not left defenseless as i said, knifes may not match firearms, but they are a lot safer, and a lot harder to kill people than guns. People don't know how to use them. As i stated in my last argument, 'People who do not know how to use guns can actually accidentally fatally kill someone.

With knifes, people know how to use them, for christ sakes you use knifes for eating! And with a gun, one shot your dead. With one knife stab, that is the first warning of 'back away'. They might also get traumatized once they shoot the person. Because there are many christians that carry guns for self defense. And they believe that god will punish them for committing such an act. But knifes are a completely different story.

Let me show a whole list of defensive weapons that are not as dangerous as guns, and can actually be used for underage kids in dangerous situations.

Knifes
Pepper sprays
Tasers
Steel Batons
Mace Pepper
Folding knife
Brass Knuckles
Umbrellas

You wouldn't expect a child walking around with a gun, would you?

Sources:
1.http://budk.com...
2.http://www.selfdefenseweapons.com...
3.http://www.myselfdefensestore.com...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
"guns killed people"
"spoons made me fat"

I saw that on a FB picture once :P
Posted by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
Guns killing people is equivalent to forks making people fat.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
"arent alot of people to debate with this about."

LOL, there are tons. I am against ALL gun control. Most people on this site would debate it, i have debated conceal carry 4 times.

And CON didn't even use the data on gun bans increase crime...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Guns make it easier to kill people as well as to defend yourself...

4,000,000 (or 1 million, depends on the survey) gun usages in defense a year
400,000 gun crimes a year.

Which one prevents more crimes? Guns prevent those crimes. Also 95% of the time just showing the gun prevents the crime, no shots fired. so...
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
"If the government where the only people o have guns, the percent of crimes committed with guns would drop very rapidly. At least the government can actually control themselves."

*20th century awkwardly waddles in*
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Lol

All those weapone listed at the end increase the chance of the victim dying, guns decrease it (especially for women).
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Oh yeah that wouldn't be the under it's control..
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
"If the government where the only people o have guns, the percent of crimes committed with guns would drop very rapidly. At least the government can actually control themselves."

Lol
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
DeathbeforedishonourCarlaJMenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was alot more convincing.
Vote Placed by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
DeathbeforedishonourCarlaJMenaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: in-avoidable?
Vote Placed by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
DeathbeforedishonourCarlaJMenaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: *facepalm*
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
DeathbeforedishonourCarlaJMenaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never attempted to refute Con's argument from the 2nd Amendment, therefore the argument is dropped and Con would have won arguments regardless. Not much of an attempt was made to refute Con's evidence supported case that gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens i.e. those who would actually follow the law. Pro's points that there are less dangerous weapons than guns was also moot in that the resolution deals with banning guns specifically.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
DeathbeforedishonourCarlaJMenaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con began by arguing that guns decrease crime but then dropped and apparently conceded this argument to Pro who argued the opposite. Con then turned to the argument that banning firearms would leave the people defenseless against the government which outweighs Pros case, and Pro was unable to refute it. Also, while I found Cons constitutionality argument invalid (that's why we have amendments) Pro was unable to refute that as well, giving Con a clear victory.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
DeathbeforedishonourCarlaJMenaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was pretty obvious. The con's main case was constitutionality, and how because of it the US couldn't ban guns. Pro never so much as touched on it, so the main hitter here was dropped and won the con the round. Carla, this is on a personal note. You're obviously getting better at debating, however it still needs work. The main thing I wuold suggest working on for now would be structure. Organize your arguments into sections, this is better for your case as it helps the audience relate.