The Instigator
Juris_Naturalis
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
TheDoctor1996
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Juris_Naturalis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 34734
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Juris_Naturalis

Pro

1st round acceptance. I think we both know what law-abiding and mentally healthy mean. Firearm is any gun. This does not include artillery, RPGs, grenade launchers or the like. I would like that they not even be mentioned.

Legal purposes- Hunting, recreation, competition, self-defence, collection.
TheDoctor1996

Con

1st round.

Nobody in this day and age needs guns to protect themselves, that's why we have a police force, otherwise there is no point of having a police force.

We do not need to hunt animals for food either; we have farms that keep animals, there is a growing number of vegetarians and vegans in the world and if anything most people these days do not hunt animals because we believe that hunting is immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

1. In Warren v. district of Columbia, the Supreme court ruled that the police do not have to provide police services to an individual, except when they develop a special duty to particular individuals (i.e. witness protection)(A). The average 911 response time is also 10 minutes(B). Are you really willing to risk your life and the lives of your families for 10 minutes while intruders run rampant through your home? Or would you rather be a self-sufficient member of society and do your best to protect yourself, so the police doesn't have to.

2. True, we do have farms that keep animals, but odds are, those farms feed them steroid riddled food to make them "meatier" and are kept inhumanely(C). Your statement about a growing number of vegetarians is an opinion until you cite a source to back up your theory. If you hunt for your own meat, the animal is allowed to live it's life freely and interact with it's species as they were intended to. And when their time comes, one bullet, that they never see coming, is a very humane way to treat an animal you will soon eat. No cages. No steroids. Just the animal in the wild.

A. http://en.wikipedia.org...
B. http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com...
C. https://awionline.org...
TheDoctor1996

Con

1. Isn't the duty of the police "to protect and serve", if so their duty is to protect and serve the community which includes individuals!

2. The standards of animal welfare are better than they used to be, the entire European Union has recently banned battery farms and several EU states such as Sweden have banned ritual slaughter. Also the number of vegetarians has been increasing, particularly in countries such as the UK, Germany and the Netherlands.

A. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

The community and the individual are 2 different things. What I'm saying is, it's not their job to protect any one individual, rather, the whole community. Is a home invader a threat to the whole community? No, because they're only threatening you, in which case, you should have a means to defend yourself.

2. And actually, wiki said that ya'll up in the U.K are actually more of a "meat avoider" or "meat reducer". Not as much full on vegetarian as you claim. And I'm still waiting for a farm to come along that treats it's livestock as well as a wild animal. I personally don't believe there will be one, which is why I prefer to hunt when I can, because it is always more humane to an animal than any farm.
TheDoctor1996

Con

1. Even if a home invader is only a threat to you, what is the likeliness of somebody breaking into your house? I'm pretty sure the risk would be low. Most home invaders would not invade a house in somewhere like London's East End or South Manchester; most would rather go for a large house in somewhere like Richmond or Hampstead because they would presume that the occupants of the property would have expensive possessions such as Aston Martins, jewellery or paintings and even so most rich people have security systems to protect their homes which are linked to the police.

2. The amount of vegetarians HAS increased in the UK but the number is only around 6% and that number has been increasing since the Second World War, humane slaughter is now compulsory in the UK and many parts of Europe except for Muslims and Jews.

A. http://www.euroveg.eu...
B. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

1. True, but the rich guys are the ones more likely to have good security over those possessions that your average citizen cannot afford, so that makes the rich less likely targets. And in America, a home invasion happens every 15 seconds(1). The same source shows that every 1 in 5 American homes will be invaded. I can't speak for the U.K but that's how it is in America.

2. Ok, but no farm will ever be as humane as hunting until they let the animals roam free and socialise with their kind.

(1). http://www.globalsecurityexperts.com...
TheDoctor1996

Con

1. While good security of possessions may make the rich less likely targets of home invasions, I do not think that a burglar would want to go to a working class neighbourhood and steal possessions. Even if they do not invade houses most of them would invade banks and shops especially shops like jewellery shops which have security systems anyway.
While your source says 20% of American homes get invaded, statistics are not 100% accurate. For example, crime statistics show that Scotland has a higher murder rate than England and Wales, but there are 2 majors flaws; around 40% of Scotland's population live in the Glasgow area which has some of the worst slums in the UK outside London, West Midlands, Northern England and South Wales. The other major flaw is that Wales, which has very low crime rates, is in the same jurisdiction as England which makes England look safer than Scotland.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by JonathanCrane 3 years ago
JonathanCrane
I think the arguments from Pro were superior to Con. Con stated that police made private ownership of guns unnecessary. However, Pro gave us two good reasons to think that this is wrong. One, police have no obligation to protect individuals. Two, police often don't arrive in time to stop a crime. Con's response was to quote the motto that some police have. How this answers Pro's points is not apparent to me. It's an irrelevant observation because it does not impact the supreme court ruling or the delayed police response time.

Con also says that people aren't going to break into homes, but target the rich. I think this is a weak point, because as Pro pointed out, people break into normal homes all of the time.

Con is correct to say that we don't need to hunt for food. However, this is a bit of a straw man. Nobody thinks you need guns to hunt for food. There's plenty of other food. It's more about the sport than the food.

Ergo, I give arguments to Pro.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
Juris_NaturalisTheDoctor1996Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter someone123456789.
Vote Placed by someone123456789 3 years ago
someone123456789
Juris_NaturalisTheDoctor1996Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: NO
Vote Placed by JonathanCrane 3 years ago
JonathanCrane
Juris_NaturalisTheDoctor1996Tied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 3 years ago
DetectableNinja
Juris_NaturalisTheDoctor1996Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is TIED. S/G I'll say is TIED, but I recommend strongly that both of you take the time to proofread and edit a bit more, just to make the presentation look a bit cleaner. Args go to PRO. First, I don't know what the settings were, but this debate could have been much more developed with longer rounds/more detailed cases. I think you both should also look into making your cases more developed with stronger cohesion and stronger use of logic or research. The round comes down to the 2 basic contentions surrounding self-defense and hunting. I call hunting a wash. Although Pro didn't effectively rebut hunting with evidence, and only was anecdotal, Con in my mind didn't create a big enough impact of the hunting is unnecessary argument. Self-defense Pro won, as he showed why police are ineffective for individuals while Con seemed to rely on anecdotes too much. Sources to PRO, as Con relied on Wikipedia more than half the time. Room for improvement here, but good clash!