The Instigator
SURVIVAL_QUEEN
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Should people be allowed to own fire arms? (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 3 votes the winner is...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 957 times Debate No: 62399
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

SURVIVAL_QUEEN

Pro

First off, I would like to say thank you to whoever has accepted this debate. I wish you luck and hope you enjoy this debate as much as I will. This debate will have three rounds. The first (this round) is be an introduction stating your position and defining terms which we can agree on to smooth out debate and ensure we are speaking of the same thing, plus any formalities you wish to include. The second will be where we shall make our main points and if we wish ask questions of our opponent's views and statements. The third round will be a rebuttal time and for answering the questions posed by our opponent from the second round.

I hope the voters can look at this debate from both sides and set your personal bias aside and look soul on the essence of this (hopefully) exiting debate! (: I would ask that all voters, commenters and my opponent would be respectful and kind in their comments and word choice. Other than that, I have no specific rules unless my opponent would wish to add some. :)

Here are the terms I wish to define and I hope you (my opponent and voters) can agree with these definitions. I have kept them un biased as they are from the Webster online dictionary and I shall place a link to all the web pages below the definition if you wish to check me. :)

Fire arm- " : a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gun powder"

Gun- " : a weapon that shoots bullets or shells"

Own- " : belonging to one's self or itself"

People- " : humans making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest"

Good luck to my opponent and thank you to ALL voters!
UchihaMadara

Con

This looks fun :D
I accept this debate and all its contingent rules and definition!
Debate Round No. 1
SURVIVAL_QUEEN

Pro

Thank you so much to @UchihaMadara for accepting this debate! I hope it will be fun for both us and the voters! I am also very glad you are happy with the rules, procedures and definitions. I wish you luck and hope this will be beneficial for both of us! I do believe that this debate will be most entertaining and enjoyable! (: On to the debate...

What do YOU (voters and UchihaMadara) believe on the matter of guns and fire arms being owned freely in American households? The point we are debating is Whether or not people should be allowed to own fire arms(/guns). I say Yes, people should be allowed to own fire arms for three reasons: Guns provide protection for people, guns provide a means of public defense, and guns provide means for food.

The first reason people (referring to grown adults 21 and over) should freely be allowed to own fire arms is guns provide protection. If every American citizen owned a fire arm or gun, one would think at first glance, that murders and crime rates would become astronomically high. This in fact is not true. One study showed that "Evidently 98% of robbers say they wouldn't go into a home if they knew someone in there was armed". Just because people are allowed to own a gun does not mean everyone will, but if most people did own a gun, like most Americans, the others would be inclined to follow what the majority of America does. The reason people fear guns, is they fear the always present possibility of someone being shot. This is true for ALL people. I myself own many guns and I am always very cautious around them because they ARE lethal weapons. But that is actually just the point, if everyone owned a gun freely un opposed, in fear of their own lives, they would not be inclined to commit crime because the owner of the house is probably armed with a fire arm which could kill the robber. My point in summary being, the ability to freely own any fire arm or gun should be available to the American people because it provides protection for all citizens who do own a firearm and detours crimes from happening.

My question for you is: "What would say that directly opposes this last point?"

The second reason people (referring to grown adults 21 and over) should freely be allowed to own fire arms is guns provide a means of public defense. The Navy, The Army, The Core, The Air Force, The police, these are just a few of the public servants who use guns to provide protection for their country. day by day they place their lives on the line to protect the people they love. By taking away the ability for people to own guns, you take away the protection of people. As I said in my previous point: " the ability to freely own any fire arm or gun should be available to the American people because it provides protection for all citizens". This is a rather vital point in my argument. providing the military and police with guns can only add protection for America or which ever country in which you live.

My question to you is: "What, if ANY good would come of taking guns away from our military and police?"

The third reason people (referring to grown adults 21 and over) should freely be allowed to own fire arms is guns provide a means of food. Some people are opposed to the idea of hunting, killing animals for game or for food. Now I myself do not kill for sport and to get a trophy of antlers on my wall, every animal I kill, I share with my friends and family and put to full use to honor the animal. Some people can hunt with bows and arrows as I occasionally do, but the weapon of choice of almost all hunters is a fire arm. Guns provide a hard clean kill which ends the life of the animal with minimal pain and injury. For many people across the world, 70%-98% of their food comes from animals which they have killed and therefore, the ability to affectively do so determines the health of the individuals and those they proved for. Hunting has been around for almost all of time, and is vital to the survival of people. Taking away the freedom to own guns takes away their ability to freely live with out dependence on others and to trust the skill of their own hands and abilities. Therefore, taking away guns would eliminate a popular lifestyle and limit the ability for people to feed themselves in some causes the only way of which they know how.

My question to you is: "How would taking away a life style of many human beings and their ability to get food beneficial in any way?"

In conclusion, people (referring to grown adults 21 and over) should freely be allowed to own fire arms (/guns) because Guns provide protection for people which is perhaps most important because no amount of riches can atone for human life. Also, guns provide a means of public defense. With out the brave men and women who gladly defend their people and country, we would be doomed to die. Without he means of defending themselves and us, the men and woman who would gladly lay their lives down in defense may all be condemned to do just that. ALL of them. Lastly, guns provide means for food. many people have hunting for food as a part of their regular life's and is very important to them emotionally and physically. taking away that right and ability would cause many economical problems for people and could perhaps even cause an up roar amongst them which is beneficial for no one. Therefore, people SHOULD be allowed to own fire arms and guns without conscience.
_____________________________________________________________

I hope these points gave everyone something to consider and I hope that you (UchihaMadara) will enjoy countering my argument! Good luck to you and thank you once again to all of the voters!
UchihaMadara

Con

Many thanks to Pro for her opening argument!

Before I present my constructive case, I would like to point out that is that there has been a slight change in the definition of the word "people", agreed upon by both me and my opponent in the comments section-- it is now defined as 'the general public', meaning that exceptions *are* made for the military and for local police units.
Also note that the resolution is not specific to the United States, so Constitutionality arguments shouldn't hold any weight.

I will work to negate the resolution by showing that, on balance, a gun ban would be beneficial for society, and should thus be enforced. The most obvious benefit a gun ban would have is a decrease in homicide rates. This seems quite intuitive-- if people don't have weapons that make it easy to commit homicides, less homicides will occur. I will go ahead and pre-empt what seems to be a very common response by opponents of the gun ban...

>> "Guns don't kill people! People kill people!" <<

Some gun rights activists falsely claim that even if guns were banned, people would just find "other ways" to kill people. If this were true, then cities with lower rates of gun availability would have the same homicide rates as cities with higher rates of gun availability (because according to the quoted logic, the gun-less would simply find other ways to murder). However, this is not the case at all; instead, there is a clear upwards correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.

"We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded." [1]

"Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." [2]

"Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide." [3]

"Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners." [4]

There is no denying it-- the prevalence of guns has a direct relationship to higher homicide rates. Guns simply facilitate killings that wouldn't typically happen without them. Due to their ease of use, long range, and other features, guns make murder *much* easier to commit; their mere presence can allow for what normally would have been a heated argument or fist fight to turn into a homicide." [4]

In conclusion, a gun ban would definitely result in a substantial net benefit for society, and since the role of government is to ensure general welfare, the enforcement of a gun ban is necessitated-- people should not be allowed to own guns. I would have liked to pre-empt other common arguments against a gun ban, such as the "Criminals still have guns!" and the "I need to defend my rights!" arguments, but I'm a bit short on time, so I'll leave it at that...

The resolution is negated.
Your turn, Pro! ^_^

____________________________________________________________________________

[1] Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

[2] Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

[3] Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

[4] Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. of Public Health 1089, 1092 (2003),
Debate Round No. 2
SURVIVAL_QUEEN

Pro

SURVIVAL_QUEEN forfeited this round.
UchihaMadara

Con

It is unfortunate that my opponent has forfeited this past round.
Regardless, I will proceed with rebuttals.

R1) Self-Defense

Pro claims that guns are an effective form of self-defense. This has been proven to be completely false. According to studies conducted by the Violence Policy Center, there are a number of practical issues that make it nearly impossible for a civilian to ever effectively use a gun for self-defense. The vast majority of civilians are not well-trained enough to safely handle a gun even in ideal conditions (i.e. an enclosed shooting range); in an actually-dangerous situation, there are "extreme physiological and psychological effects that the experts, many of whom have on-the-street law enforcement experience with firearms, agree inevitably occur in an armed life-or-death confrontation (the only situation in which lethal force is justified in self-defense)," [1]. To suggest that the average civilian could actually successfully utilize a firearm for self-defense where it actually counts is absurd. There is no way that whatever minimal 'benefits' that could come from the self-defense aspect of civilian firearm ownership actually outweigh the increased homicide rates caused by it. And it shows-- "in 1998, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone." [1].

As long as we are on the issue of self-defense, I will also go ahead and address the common Pro-gun argument that "criminals still have guns". The whole notion is blatantly false, simply due to a matter of economics. The vast majority of guns owned by criminals originate from legal producers [2], so if a gun ban were to cause those legal producers to cease in their production of guns, it would suddenly make it much, much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. They would be forced to resort to much slower and more expensive methods. The fact that criminal gun ownership would inadvertently decrease with a gun ban, combined with the fact that most civilians wouldn't be able to use guns to ward off criminals anyways, renders this contention completely refuted. Guns do not have a significant 'self-defense' benefit to society.

R2) Public Defense

In accordance with the definition clarification, this contention should be disregarded, as military/police gun ownership does not fall under the category of civilian gun ownership, which is what this debate is about.

R3) Food

This argument, while interesting, is basically irrelevant in the context of modern day society. The only people who still hunt for food currently are those who live in nomadic tribes, and they make up roughly 0.4% of the world's population [3]. No matter how you look at it, the negative effects of pressuring such a tiny portion of the world population to adopt a different life style are absolutely minuscule in comparison to the great benefits that would come to the developed world from a gun ban; it is most certainly worth the trade-off. Furthermore, Pro has provided no evidence that firearms are these peoples' primary choice of weapon; such a notion would actually seem quite counter-intuitive, considering that most nomads live such a lifestyle either out of a lack of contact with urban societies (and therefore wouldn't have guns) or out of a desire to 'stick to traditional values' (in which case it would be hypocritical to make an exception for a weapon as unorthodox as a firearm). This contention is refuted.

_______________________________________________________

In conclusion, the benefits of owing firearms are virtually non-existent, while a total civilian gun ban would inevitably lead to a substantial decrease in homicide rates and violent crime in general. It is clear that civilians should not be allowed to own firearms; thus, the resolution is negated. Vote Con!

[1] http://www.vpc.org...
[2] http://www.pbs.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SURVIVAL_QUEEN 2 years ago
SURVIVAL_QUEEN
@cheyennebodie Lol, its cool bro. Trust me, I done have original ideas often either. But I am rather good at passing on information. (except for things like secrets my friends don't want me to tell) (: You are really cool by the way.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
uchiha..... Have nothing to hide. I never intend on ever getting an original thought. I just take information I see and hear, dissect them,toss out what I perceive to be bad and keep the good. That is what all people do.The only thing difference between people is perception.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
In retrospect, posting that on the internet was not the best way to keep it "between you and her".
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You can quote all I say. I just heard it somewhere else and liked it. I have never had an original thought in my life. And between you and me, I never will.
Posted by SURVIVAL_QUEEN 2 years ago
SURVIVAL_QUEEN
@cheyennebodie
"And arming just the police will not stop violence. They are not first responders. The victim is."
Very well said! Would you mind if I quoted that?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I agree with gun ownership. We have the second amendment foremost to put fear into a tyrannical government.When the government fears the people, we have liberty. When the people fear the government, we have tyranny.If the German people had not had their guns confiscated under Hitler, there may never have been a war.If the folks in some of them African nations that there has been genocide had been armed , it would have been different.In WW2 the Japanese made the statement that they would not invade America because they would have a gun pointing at them from behind every blade of grass. That was an exaggeration, but it made the point.We are armed against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.Has any one but me noticed that it always the democrats who want our guns?

And arming just the police will not stop violence. They are not first responders. The victim is.
Posted by SURVIVAL_QUEEN 2 years ago
SURVIVAL_QUEEN
@UchihaMadara Not a problem at all! I have had this account for only a few days and already I have seen many dishonest people who only seek points and winning. I started this debate to test myself and my opponent. I have played basketball for 4 years and there is nothing that rubs me raw more than someone who would play dirty. I thank you for being reasonable and kind in your words. It will take you a long way here and in life. Anyway, good luck in the debate and I hope you have a good week!
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
That's perfectly fine :)
Thank you for accomodating!
There are many debaters on the site who would take advantage of such a slip up to get a free win, so I really appreciate that.
Posted by SURVIVAL_QUEEN 2 years ago
SURVIVAL_QUEEN
@UchihaMadara I apologize as I did not see your comment until now and I have already posted one of my points arguing that police and the militia should be allowed to own guns because I was under the mistaken impression that you were fully against anyone owning guns. Please disregard that point and in your post please explain the misunderstanding so it is fair to the public voters. I wish to have no edge on that matter and I apologize once again for the mix up. (:
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
An armed society is a polite society.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SURVIVAL_QUEENUchihaMadaraTied
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 Checkmark1 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: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SURVIVAL_QUEENUchihaMadaraTied
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 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
SURVIVAL_QUEENUchihaMadaraTied
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 Checkmark1 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: FF, which is a shame, cause it looked like there was a good potential for expansion.