The Instigator
NSG
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
revleader5
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

The US should not ban 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/23/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,626 times Debate No: 896
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (23)

 

NSG

Pro

I believe that the US should NOT ban guns!
Do you WANT to give away all your rights and freedoms? Do you enjoy the idea that the government will be able to do anything they want to you and you will never be able to stop them because they are armed and you aren't? That's what happened in Hitler's Nazi Germany. The first thing he did was eliminate guns in the hands of civilians. The second thing he did was eliminate their rights. And they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they weren't armed.

If you are so afraid of Bush becoming a dictator (a ridiculous thought, but I've heard people say it), why would you deliberately play into that by calling for disarmament of the civilian population? Why would you give away the power to stop the threat of this person you see as a military tyrant?
revleader5

Con

Playing devil's advocate here. I am only debating you because you are a Mitt Romney supporter and I am a Ron Paul supporter. Also, I like debating people who are a lot older than me so I can see if I really have skills that kills Ron Paul beleives in the right to bear arms. I presume Mitt Romney does too.

Here is my argument-
About the nazi and Hitlet thing. That was in the 1940s in a country where only one man ruled. George W Bush has a 535 member congress below him, ready to impeach him. Also, if the military turns on us too, there is a United Nations Army always on call, ready to rapidly be deployed for a crisis.
Debate Round No. 1
NSG

Pro

Thank you for the argument, revleader5. I have read some of your posts here, agree with most of them.

Here it goes:

"Also, if the military turns on us too, there is a United Nations Army always on call, ready to rapidly be deployed for a crisis."
I think the 50 cal Barrett high-powered, anti-material, light anti-armor sniper rifle tucked in my gun rack gives me supreme power over the government. Especially if 300 million other people are similarly armed.

300 million people armed against the possibility of the 1.4 million members of the US military being used in a coup. You tell me the odds in that situation. It's not the lone gunman with the Barrett 9 mm. Its the 300 million with hunting rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics, automatics, pistols, army surplus equipment, etc. that protect our liberties.

If even 2% of the nation is armed, that means 6 million people able to stand against our standing military force of 1.4 million. You don't see that as an equalizer? Sure the military has better equipment. But as is often said in military circles, quantity creates a quality of its own. 2:1 odds? I'll take it. And I'll take 300:1 odds even more.

"That was in the 1940s in a country where only one man ruled. George W Bush has a 535 member congress below him, ready to impeach him."
Right, but Bush is not the one that wants to eliminate guns in the hands of civilians or eliminate their rights. I was saying what might happen if the american citizens are not allowed to have guns any more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.You are challenging someone who is older with english as her second language. ;-)
revleader5

Con

1987- more than 3,000 men from 15 to 24 years old were murdered with guns in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.)
Debate Round No. 2
NSG

Pro

"1987- more than 3,000 men from 15 to 24 years old were murdered with guns in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.)"

Hello again,revleader5:

So you are talking about the US has a high gun crimes rate because we are allowed to have guns.

You know I find it interesting that countries in Europe with the strictest gun control laws have the HIGHEST levels of gun crimes. And I find it interesting that Israel and Sweden, the two countries with the most liberal gun laws have both the Lowest level of gun crime and the LOWEST levels of gun-related accidents. Gee, I wonder why that is.

No I don't. I already know the answer.

The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no historical or statistical data to back up your assertion that stricter gun laws result in lower levels of gun violence and gun-related accidents. There is ample evidence to prove the exact opposite. There is also evidence to prove that more liberal gun laws result in significant decreases in crime rates across the board.

"Getting guns off the street" doesn't make people safer or any other stupidity like that. It makes CRIMINALS safer to commit violent crimes. And it creates a black market in illegal guns that are then owned by people who just want to protect themselves from criminals.

If the "war on drugs" is stupid because it creates the very market in illegal drugs that it is supposed to be stopping, then eliminating gun rights is just as stupid. More so, since the right to bear arms is Constitutionally guaranteed, where the right to recreational drugs is not.

Thank you.
revleader5

Con

Just reminding you that I am playing devil's advocate. And I want to debate you on Mitt Romney later, send me a challenge about Ron Paul, but ANYWAY....

1)A Harvard University Study published in The Journal of Trauma Feb 2002, shows that children living in the 5 states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16x more likely to die from unintentional gun injury, 7x more likely to die from gun-related suicide, and 3x more likely to die from gun homicide than children in states with the lower levels of gun ownership. Additionally, children in the top five gun ownership states were 2x as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall.
VPC Exec. Director Josh Sugarmann states, "this study proves what common sense would dictate, a greater availability of guns has dangerous and deadly consequences. Firearms in the home pose an enormous threat to the well-being of our nation's children."
Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and head author of the study, states, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in unintentional shootings. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children." The avalibility of guns has an effect on the number of children murdered. GENIUS!

2)Domestic violence also increases due to firearm availability. The results from a Multi-Site Case Control Study by J. C. Campbell, D. Webster, J. Koziol-McLain, C., as published in American Journal of Public Health show: "Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no forearms. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners." Because firearm availability increases domestic fatalities, more citizens, in this case women are harmed by the presence of firearms. Did you consider that?

A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. (2001): "In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self- defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun." It is obvious that domestic violence and deaths will increase because of home owned guns, a severe negative impact is placed on the pro's goal of protecting citizens.

3) The ownership of a firearm makes you more likely to be the victim of homocide. According to the findings from a recent case-control study (Kellermann et al. 1993) were interpreted as indicating that "persons who lived in households with guns were 2.7 times as likely to become homicide victims as persons in households without guns." An article published by the Harvard School for Public Health called "Firearm availability and homicide". "The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide. Two groups of ecological studies are reviewed, those comparing multiple countries and those focused solely on the United States. Results from the cross-sectional international studies typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Owning a gun actually increases your chance for getting killed.

4) The availability of firearms increases suicides. According to a study and case review done by: Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, PhO; IVIartin Killias, PhD; Urs Hepp, MD; Erika Gadola, MA; Matthias Bopp, PhD; Christoph Lauber, MD; Ulrich Schnyder, MD; Felix Gutzwiller, MD; DrPH, and Wulf Rossler, MD, MA. "This result is in line with the well-established association between availability of firearms at home and risk of firearm suicide.' Firearm suicides depend on the availability of the method more than other suicide methods. Firearm suicides result more often fixed impulsive decisions than other suicide methods and tend to be associated more often with alcohol abuse." Victims of firearm suicides were shown to have distinctly fewer previous suicide attempts (22%) in their psychiatric history than were victims of other suicide methods (360/0-70%). Furthermore, firearms are more lethal than most other suicide methods."
Increases in suicide rates are directly related to the availability of firearms, and these suicides are exclusive to firearms. This is another reason that the private ownership of firearms harms individual citizens that the pro was trying to protect.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
I also found it on facebook lol
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
Several things I'd like to point out:

1) The US army could easily suppress the nation if they wanted to. It was mentioned in the debate that we have a standing army of 1.4 million. That's 1.4 million trained soldiers. Even if there were 2 million Americans with guns, the majority of those guns are small arms, which are no match to the weaponry that the military has.

2) But let's say you don't buy that. Let's look at the army itself. The hypothetical situation being talked about here requires that the army be behind the president. Would that be the case? Remember that people that join the army are generally patriotic. They believe in the US and if the man at the top tells them to turn on their neighbors it's not a given that they will.

3) Con round 2: You assert that countries with stricter gun control laws have higher death rates. That's simply not true. In England during the course of 2006 there were 210 gun deaths (That's intentional, accidental, suicide and homicide) (http://www.gun-control-network.org...). In the US in 2005 there were over 10,000 gun homicides (http://www.fbi.gov...).

True that places like Sweden have very few gun deaths. In Sweden the majority of males 18-30 are in the Swedish militia and thus have a gun in their house. However the US does not have a militia, and can't require citizens to own guns.

All that being said, nice debate by both sides.
Posted by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Australia is a good example for this debate.

Hitler too, his gun control policies where impressive.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Me too haha, I think thats the way a lot of people found this.
Posted by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
It looks like I can only report them,LOL.
How did you find out this website?
I saw the Ad on the facebook.:)
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
I have no idea, this is my second day :). I don't believe so but I may be wrong. I guess it may have their emails listed.
Posted by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
Rousseau:
Thank you.:) English is not my first language.
Btw, does this website have any kind of private message settings? Can I email or message any other members at all?
(it is my first day here, so far, I haven't found a way to contact other members).
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Sounds like BornDebater likes his policy. Anyway, Good debate guys. Very nicely done so far. To NSG: Is English really not your first language? Your language is impeccable, especially compared to many of the people on this site.
Posted by BrianFranklin 9 years ago
BrianFranklin
Borndebater,which country with gun control laws has actually been able to keep guns out of the hands of people? If they can't stop drugs from coming into their countries,
And even if you manage to take guns out of the hands of citizens, what makes you think they won't just go to the black market and get another one?
There are black market everywhere.Stop talking like you know it all!
Posted by BornDebater 9 years ago
BornDebater
your dumb, of course it'd be dumb to abolish all guns. Im not even going to debate you. The real contreversy is how to control it, what can be used as an improvision? I believe Tazers have an incredible future. They have come out with new 'guns' that shoot taze bullets in shotgun shells that attatch to the victim and immobilize them. That is what needs to be debated.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 potterfreak5 9 years ago
potterfreak5
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 mv 9 years ago
mv
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 dorobo 9 years ago
dorobo
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 Duron 9 years ago
Duron
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 brandonallison48 9 years ago
brandonallison48
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 Collegebro 9 years ago
Collegebro
NSGrevleader5Tied
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 Bearman 9 years ago
Bearman
NSGrevleader5Tied
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