The Instigator
analytical-one
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
the-mad-ones
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

The Government should outlaw 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,082 times Debate No: 3745
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

analytical-one

Con

My second debate...my first of which I was thrashed by the commentors...so here goes.

The U.S. government should not even consider trying to take guns away from the American people. Reason why I believe this is because it's more than likely going to end up like the Prohibition attempt--doing more harm than good.

If the gov't were to take away our guns to try to "limit violence and crime ratings," the opposite effect will take place. There will be riots and guns being bought and sold below the gov't's nose.

That being said, go for it Pro...
the-mad-ones

Pro

My opponent was very unclear with regards to the meaning of the outlawing of guns. Very few if any nations outlaw guns altogether. Some nations, such as Japan, outlaw guns for all purposes except for hunting, which is heavily regulated. I'll assume this is what my opponent means. The purchase of guns for non-hunting purposes (handguns, rifles used for protection).

"The U.S. government should not even consider trying to take guns away from the American people. Reason why I believe this is because it's more than likely going to end up like the Prohibition attempt--doing more harm than good."

>> This is simply a hypothesis by my opponent. There's no fact or empirical evidence here.

"If the gov't were to take away our guns to try to "limit violence and crime ratings," the opposite effect will take place. There will be riots and guns being bought and sold below the gov't's nose."

>> This is the same thing, except it includes hyperbole.

My opponent has failed to prove how the outlaw of guns for non-hunting purposes would result in more crime, or heavy black market sales.

A quick example to refute this point would be Japan. Non-hunting gun ownership is outlawed. In addition, police have the right to search for guns, and monitor any related actions/items. The crime rate in that nation is much lower than in the US (as of 1998 US per 100K murders was 6.32, Japan per 100K murders was 0.58.

Even if you do assume greater black market purchases of guns, and subsequent use of those weapons, it is very possible that the immediate reduction in crime following the ban would be much greater than the subsequent increase in crime following an establishment of a black market for these weapons. Unless my opponent can prove this is not the case, her stance will remain unsupported.
Debate Round No. 1
analytical-one

Con

It is simply unconstitutional for the U.S. government to outlaw any use of guns. Like, if they TOOK AWAY OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Not just for hunting, but even for self-defense.

If the gov't took away all guns altogether (military purposes excluded), then the people will throw a fit, basically. Because it is Unconstitutional.
the-mad-ones

Pro

My opponent chose to jump to a totally different argument. This is one of the problems of failing to be clear in the opening statement. Very well.

1) The second amendment is an amendment to the constitution. It can be repealed, through a two-thirds majority vote in the US House and US Senate, followed by ratification in three-fourths of the state legislatures. If the government were to outlaw the usage of guns for non-hunting purposes, or any purposes, they would simply have to go through the amendment process and create a 28th amendment repealing the 'bear arms' portion of the 2nd amendment. This would be legal and 'constitutional'.

2) There is still a lot of controversy surrounding exactly how unconstitutional the banning of handguns would be (District of Columbia v. Heller being one example). So we could argue constitutionality if my opponent so desires, but considering the number of legal cases over time relating to this issue, it would probably require a lot more than one or two arguments on debate.org. In addition, I doubt that anyone on debate.org (including myself) is an expert on constitutional law. So this is a relatively infeasible stance.

3) People will 'throw fits' whenever most laws are passed. How many people? What types of people? Is there any long term value lost as a result of these 'fits'? And is it what's best for society?
Debate Round No. 2
analytical-one

Con

My opponent chose to not shut up about my arguments.

The topic of my debate has always been the same; losing our rights to carry guns will result in catastrophe. As said before, the nation will probably react the same way it did when the government took away alcohol during Prohibition. They will get upset when someone takes away any right to do anything, including carrying guns.

You haven't really argued why guns SHOULD be outlawed...shouldn't that be the position of my opponent?
the-mad-ones

Pro

Considering that my opponent was unclear from with regards to exactly what 'outlaw' means, I am not sure what my stance should be.
Does outlaw refer to ownership by citizens?
By usage of any and all types?
Does it mean the police and military cannot use them?
Does it mean we choose to enter conflict with all nations who do use guns?
What does it mean?

Considering that my opponent began this debate, I am simply refuting her implied position that the government should not control the usage of guns. By doing so, I simply create a position for myself that it is possible to control the usage of guns without widespread damage to society, and without conflict with the constitution.

In addition, if my opponent wanted to find an argument as to why guns should be outlawed, she had an implied version in my first argument.

"A quick example to refute this point would be Japan. Non-hunting gun ownership is outlawed. In addition, police have the right to search for guns, and monitor any related actions/items. The crime rate in that nation is much lower than in the US (as of 1998 US per 100K murders was 6.32, Japan per 100K murders was 0.58.

Even if you do assume greater black market purchases of guns, and subsequent use of those weapons, it is very possible that the immediate reduction in crime following the ban would be much greater than the subsequent increase in crime following an establishment of a black market for these weapons."

There was no substance in my opponent's argument. It was completely based on fear-mongering along with a weak attempt at arguing constitutionality.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by realistic 8 years ago
realistic
mad 1 - I was refering to your opponent. you did a fantastic job on your side of the issue. as for your challenge... i'm new here and am getting to know how it all works. in due time;)
Posted by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
realistic, you're free to post your own debate. with regards to this one, I simply argued at the level necessary. Had I been presented with a stronger opposing argument, I would have offered the same in return.

The more you say, the more vulnerable you are.
Posted by realistic 8 years ago
realistic
someone clearly does not understand the difference between an argument and a debate. I believe that throughout history gun control speaks for itself. An unarmed populace is easy pickin's. The Soviet Union from 1929-53, Turkey in 1911, Germany 1938-45, China 1948-52, Cambodia in 56' and, most recently, Australia; where gun related crime has increased wildly now that those who are law abiding have disarmed themselves. Consistently all of these laws preceded eradication of thousands or even millions of political or religious dissidents. Without the means to defend ourselves we must rely on the police. Have you seen the news lately?
Posted by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
My not telling you what to do wouldn't change the fact that you are overly sensitive...or at least behaving as such.
Posted by analytical-one 8 years ago
analytical-one
Don't tell me what to do...God it's my second friggin' debate! I'm new to this...is everyone going to be a bossy a$$ to me?

Aw screw it maybe I should just close my account...
Posted by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
She's didn't say anything offensive. Was a relatively objective comment. Quit taking things so personally.
Posted by analytical-one 8 years ago
analytical-one
Wowzers, first comment and it's a real jerk! Yay!
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Good luck getting a contender on this one. Especially since the resolution is so vague...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
analytical-onethe-mad-onesTied
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 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 8 years ago
turtlecool2
analytical-onethe-mad-onesTied
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 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 8 years ago
WeaponE
analytical-onethe-mad-onesTied
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 
Vote Placed by number5rules 8 years ago
number5rules
analytical-onethe-mad-onesTied
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 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
analytical-onethe-mad-onesTied
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 
Vote Placed by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
analytical-onethe-mad-onesTied
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