The Instigator
dixie_marine
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
abard124
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Should we be allowed to own firearms?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
abard124
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,688 times Debate No: 8328
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

dixie_marine

Pro

Should it really be a crime to own a weapon? I would like someone who believes guns are immoral and should be banned to try to convince me.
abard124

Con

First off, thank you for starting what is sure to be a very interesting and intellectual debate. Although I do have reservations about this, for the purposes of this debate, I will debate as if I do not have those reservations.

So, I think we can agree that there are two main types of firearm: Assault weapons and hunting weapons. I'm sure there are more descriptive terms (and I could be completely wrong; correct me ifthat is the case), but I'm not well versed in Gun. I've never shot one in my 35 years of existence, and I don't plan to in my remaining 300 (or so).

So, I definitely cannot see why someone would need an assault weapon. If I am correct in my idea of an assault weapon, it is one specifically made to kill other people. Yes, those can be used for self defense, but even from a pro-gun stance, you can just as easy pick up your hunting rifle (obviously that wouldn't work from my stance, but I'm just establishing the question of why anyone would need an assault weapon). Oddly enough, it seems most murders are committed with assault weapons.you have to attack the root of the problem. Those are the assault weapons.

Now, it is hard to justify my stance on hunting weapons, but I still have tricks up my sleeve. Obviously people enjoy hunting, and it would be hard to take that right away, but it goes wrong just a little too often. Imagine this scenario: A hunter (let's call him Jed) is hunting with his son (let's call him Buck). Buck has gone hunting a few times, and Jed is a lifetime hunter. So, Buck hits a really big, well, buck and so he needs help getting it up. Jed goes over to help. So, Buck is inexperienced, so he is fumbling around the gun to find the safety. He finds it eventually, but in the process, he accidentally pulls the trigger. The bullet missed Jed's face by a mere 2 inches (sorry, I don't like hurting or killing people). It's simply too risky to allow dangerous things like that. Didn't like that one? Here's another: A very important man (let's call him Dick) and his good friend (let's call him Harry) go out quail hunting. Dick sees something move. He assumes it's a quail. He shoots at it. 3 years later, Harry Whittington still has 150-200 birdshot pellets inside of him, somewhat of a trophy saying, "I've been shot by Dick Cheney!" I don't like taking away peoples' rights, but it is simply too dangerous to keep hunting. Sorry.

I'm looking forward to a great debate, and I am eagerly awaiting your response.
Debate Round No. 1
dixie_marine

Pro

Nice situations. As for the assault weapons, i'll get back to those, since the only people i know that own them have some military affiliation. As for the hunting weapons, let's limit that term to shotguns, rifles not designed after military rifles, and black-powder rifles. And assault rifles, let's define those as all automatic/burst rifles, such as the AK-47 and M16A2. There are more, certainly, but the list is too long, and those two are the most common. But now to the debate.

Now, accidents are part of everything. Would you have automobiles banned, since vehicular crashes are among the top 3 killers of americans, more than that of hunting accidents? No. You wouldn't. Why? Because of their convenience, for starters. It's much easier to buy a vehicle and go than to tame a wild bronco and then get it used to people. Although yes, it's cheaper, the speed of which is slower than that of an automobile. Hunting with rifles is the same way. You would ban hunting with rifles because of the minimal risk involved? Most people I know go hunting on their own, since it reduces the risk of, friendly fire I'll call it.

Okay, back to assault weapons. The 2nd amendment guarantees civilians the right to own firearms. However, this same amendment does not limit the type of firearms that civilians can own. Because of this, civilians are allowed to own assault rifles. Now that's why they can own them. I will admit that does not justify the ownership of assault weapons. Personally, I don't own one, since if I need one, the government issues me one, being a member of the armed forces. [US Marines, to be precise]. But as for the civilian sect, i can't really see a reason other than defense of self and property to own one. But most people cannot afford assault rifles. Most people use hunting rifles and pistols for self defense. Also, most gun-related homicides involve pistols.

But it's not the firearm itself that is the problem. The problem is the individual that wields the firearm's motives. Today's pop culture advocates useless murdering over girls, drugs, and other stupid crap like that. The more reasonable solution is to censor music that condones such useless violence, since MUSIC AND TELEVISION MEDIA ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Nowhere does it say forms of entertainment are protected. Yes, the freedom of the press. News. Books. That's it. Nothing else in terms of the media.
abard124

Con

Thank you for responding!

"Now, accidents are part of everything. Would you have automobiles banned, since vehicular crashes are among the top 3 killers of americans, more than that of hunting accidents?"
That is a very good point. You know what else causes a whole bunch of accidents? Good old H-2-O. That may sound against my point, but what I'm trying to convey is that we need water to survive. Although we do not need cars to survive, the use of automobiles has been ingrained into our society enough that we would not be able to function properly without them. People can live without guns--and do. Also, it does not serve a definite purpose, as cars and water do (cars for getting people places, water for life). Ney, it's a personal activity which endangers the life of OTHERS. The reason I emphasize "others" is that I really could care less about what you do to yourself. I mean, people should value their own life, but it's not a mandate's job to to value your own life, if you catch my drift.

"Most people I know go hunting on their own, since it reduces the risk of, friendly fire I'll call it."
I must admit that I don't talk much about hunting with my friends that hunt, but I know some of them go with their kids (think Jed and Buck) or their friends (think Dick and Harry).

"The 2nd amendment guarantees civilians the right to own firearms."
Although you could consider me a radical extremist, I would be happy if they changed the text of the second amendment to, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to be protected shall not be infringed." Now I don't they should change the text to change what it entails, but to eliminate confusion. I am a firm believer that it was written only about the militia. Otherwise they would have put it as two amendments or worded it differently. What gives it away to me is the, "being necessary" and the comma. The second part of the sentence obviously is an extension of the first. To make it more clear, if you rearrange the sentence, it would read a, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state." Doesn't make much sense, unless "keep and bear arms" means "be in the militia."

"Also, most gun-related homicides involve pistols."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know anyone who hunts with a handgun. And I don't believe that self defense is a legitimate reason to buy a gun. You could shoot a schizophrenic person, thinking that they are trying to hurt you. You could shoot someone who is having a seizure, thinking that they are going crazy. But worst of all, if you can get a gun for self defense, it's just as easy for a murderer to get his hands on a gun.

"MUSIC AND TELEVISION MEDIA ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION."
That's still the freedom of the press. It can be censored, however, just not by the government. But, see, TV didn't exactly exist in the 1700's, and Beethoven wasn't putting anti-American stuff in his music.

I'm looking forward to the final round!
Debate Round No. 2
dixie_marine

Pro

I will admit, no one hunts with a handgun or pistol. Those are created strictly for self defense. It is for that purpose only that they are even issued in the military. Pistols are not designed to fire at long ranges [any range >100m]. Most pistols are accurate for up to only 25m. They have such a short range because they are intended for close quarters combat. In other words, self defense.

Now to justify my stance I put out on censorship of television and music. Today's television is equivalent to the theatre and plays of the 1700s. No where in the constitution does it say that the federal government cannot restrict the theatre. Therefore, since the government can restrict the theatre, the government can restrict the television. Music has never been part of the press and therefore can be censored and restricted by the federal government unless it ties in with religion. The music and media that promote the uneccesary violence that plagues our nation is not related to any religion and is not part of the press and, therefore, can be restricted, censored, or even banned.

Now, let's say that the public's weapons were taken away. Now the even bigger problem arises. How do they do it? They can't just say "All citizens report to the nearest police station and turn all firearms" because the criminals wouldn't do it anyway and the honest citizens would and how would you propose the unarmed mother protects herself and children should they be attacked? Logistically, it would be impossible for the federal government to collect the billions of firearms out among the public. There are too many people out there, and no where to stash the weapons, and the cost of collecting and destroying all the firearms would further wreck our already struggling economy. And let's just say that the government somehow suceeded in collecting 100% of the firearms out there with little rioting and discontent from the public. Would that stop people from killing each other, honestly? No. It wouldn't. Would hunting accidents go down? Maybe. Although, then bow and arrow would be the main method of hunting. Most people I know that hunt are not skilled at using a bow, and I'm afraid that the number of hunting accidents could even increase when hunters are limited to the bow and arrow, since most hunters that use rifles are not skilled at bow hunting.

Yes, in your first argument, you said we must attack the source and with that I completely agree. However, taking away guns from our avid hunters and moms who carry pistols in their purses to help protect their children from kidnappers and themselves from robbers is not the answer. Firearms are just the preferred method of execution and are not the source of violence. Instead, we must find the reason as to why are these people killing each other. In quite a few cases, it is over stupid things like drugs, women/men, and food (a man in my hometown killed another man over a plate of baked beans). In most, it is money and sheer hate. Find a way to get rid of those things that come naturally to mankind, and our nation's violence will all but cease. To help reduce that, I would suggest at least censorship of music, movies, and plays that promote gang violence, murder, and just violence in general. Heck, let's even add video games to that list. THAT stands more of a chance of success in my eyes. But now've stated my final case. I can't wait for your response. :)
abard124

Con

Thank you for responding.

"They have such a short range because they are intended for close quarters combat. In other words, self defense."
What happened to my argument about how you can't use self defense to justify the use of guns?

"No where [sic] in the constitution does it say that the federal government cannot restrict the theatre."
I suggest you read this wiki, or even just the first sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Although the wiki does need citations, the first sentence is pretty straightforward and good. Now click on the word, "media." Read through that, and you will find that it is inclusive. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Soviet Russia. The government CANNOT censor the media. As much as I'd like to see the government do away with Desperate Housewives and American Idol, it is illegal for the government to do that.

"How do they do it? They can't just say "All citizens report to the nearest police station and turn all firearms" because the criminals wouldn't do it anyway and the honest citizens would and how would you propose the unarmed mother protects herself and children should they be attacked? "
Your run-on sentence (sorry, had to be said :-)) is absolutely right. You couldn't just have everyone turn it in. That is utter nonsense. You can see how well abolition worked. What you do is you offer a sizable bounty for each gun turned in, you stop selling guns, and you stop making ammo (or rather, don't allow companies to make and sell guns and ammo to regular citizens). Realistically, you can't get everyone to follow the law, but things would significantly lighten up. Just like if we legalized shoplifting, nobody would pay for anything anymore, but since it is illegal, some people still steal, but most people pay.

"Although, then bow and arrow would be the main method of hunting. Most people I know that hunt are not skilled at using a bow, and I'm afraid that the number of hunting accidents could even increase when hunters are limited to the bow and arrow, since most hunters that use rifles are not skilled at bow hunting."
Sorry to have to take away your fun activity, but what you do is go to the supermarket and buy meat that was shot by someone who works at a farm or something. Those guns would be provided by the government, and obviously, there would be severe punishments if they used it for anything else. Or you could learn to use a bow and arrow.

"...moms who carry pistols in their purses to help protect their children from kidnappers and themselves from robbers is not the answer."
Well, it might be different down where you are, but up in Lake Oswego, Oregon, you'd be thought of as a real redneck and a creep if you did that. I recognize it's different in other areas, but to me, it sounds ludicrous. I mean, I'm a pansy, I know, there has never officially been a murder in my town, but still, that doesn't make guns right.

"To help reduce that, I would suggest at least censorship of music, movies, and plays that promote gang violence, murder, and just violence in general. Heck, let's even add video games to that list. THAT stands more of a chance of success in my eyes."
The government cannot censor the media, BUT, if you get rid of guns, the amount of that media will inevitably go down.

Wow! Round 3 already!

I'd like to thank you for instigating a wonderful debate, and you debated very well, but may the best man win!
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
Con was very opinionated...abard124 quoted "So, I definitely cannot see why someone would need an assault weapon". BAD thing to say in an argument. Do not give your opinion, only use logical reasoning to refute. Also, just because someone doesn't necessarily NEEDS something doesn't mean it should be banned, so don't bring the necessary speech up. People don't need cars, computers, any many other commidities, but should those be banned?

Just my $0.02
Posted by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
I thought the hunting story was gonna go more like "When he went over to help him with the buck another hunter shot at it thinking it was alive and hit one of us" or something like that. Haha
Posted by alexM 8 years ago
alexM
I think that people who lives in forests need it because
they cant get any food if they dont live near a meat market
thats why i think that they need to hunt
Posted by Ahalsch19 8 years ago
Ahalsch19
Pro... I totally agree with your side. You could have brought way more ammo with you, no pun intended. I had to vote for con even though i'm on your side in this debate. You should have pulled in the fact that people use shooting as a hobby and sport. It's in the Olympic Games and many other competitions. Also handguns are used for hunting in many places. I work at a sporting goods store and we sell multiple handguns with scopes mounted on them for deer and other game.

But for your first debate it wasnt bad. Try and stay away from Wiki thought. get solid evidence.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Pro,
I recommend you read the SCOTUS opinion on the DC hand gun ban as it destroys con's 2nd amendment argument. I found this debate to be tied with room for improvement for both sides. I gave Con the grammar vote, but I would like to see y'all debate this again after looking into the debate more. Also, the movies/theatres/music argument was not really on topic and is completely wrong.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Statistical analysis in the gun ownership debate will always be a wash, so I'd have to disagree with Roy heartily on this one. While I haven't read the entire debate yet, so I won't be voting yet, I can dig up plenty of credible statistics from first world, congruous nations that have severely limited access to guns but have monumentally lower crime rates than the United States.

While some guns may deter crime, crime is a systemic issue, and owning a gun won't actually solve the infrastructural problem of crime. Change has to be affected at a much more foundational sense in order to truly prevent crime. Owning or not owning a gun, while not entirely mutually exclusive, is a bandaid solution to a much bigger problem (wrapped up in things like socioeconomics, etc.).

Now, does that mean we shouldn't necessarily have guns? No. But it does separate gun ownership from long-term solvency, because it can't solve.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The more compelling argument was essentially the Second Amendment one. The government does not and cannot guarantee the individuals safety from crime. The argument to prevent accidents fails because many more dangerous but non-essential things are permitted. The movie argument is irrelevant, it's free speech.

The debate would be improved with more references. The book, "More Guns, Less Crime" is a lengthy statistical study that shows gun ownership effectively lowers crime rates. About a thousand crimes a day are deterred by gun ownership.

There actually is still subsistence hunting. Probably most in Alaska, but other places in the South and West.

An "assault weapon" is repeating military rifle, like an M-16. "Defensive" would have been a better term for the debate, but it didn't cause any confusion.
Posted by abard124 8 years ago
abard124
I thought you debated quite well...
Posted by dixie_marine 8 years ago
dixie_marine
This is my first debate. I'm not expecting to win on my first debate. I was looking to see where I could improve on.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
I agreed with Pro at the beginning but had to rate Con higher for this debate. Elimination of a form of expression infringes on the right to freedom of speech under the first amendment, so that option was out as a response. (Note: Media does not equal press: speech = uninformative media, press=informative media). Additionally the link between the justification (maintaining a militia) for the prohibition (may not infringe right to bear arms) plays in Con's favor unless Pro argues that the intermingling of state government with federal government at this time necessitates that individuals be extended the right to bear arms individually in order to form an effective militia.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ahalsch19 8 years ago
Ahalsch19
dixie_marineabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
dixie_marineabard124Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
dixie_marineabard124Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
dixie_marineabard124Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by abard124 8 years ago
abard124
dixie_marineabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07