The Instigator
ZacharyDamon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
oscargarcia2012
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The banning of firearms is a very bad idea

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,606 times Debate No: 26934
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

ZacharyDamon

Pro

The first round is just introductions. I wish my opponent good luck and look forward to this debate.
oscargarcia2012

Con

First I would like to bring in the quote on quote 2nd Amendment which says the following: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now here it is saying a "A well regulated Militia", a militia back then was a military force but it not like the ones we have today. They were a group of individuals that were just ready for war but necessarily did not have, they basically would just answer the call, unlike today that we have different types of branches ready and willing. We also police that are on the job 24/7 that will be ready as soon as that call is answered and not to mention willing to give up their life in order to serve and protect its people and community, There is no reason why in this point in time any person should have a gun because we are protect not only by our policemen but our community as well. Gun will only promote more violence and the easier we make them to be obtained by people the higher crime rate there will be, therefore more and more people will continue to die and crime rates will continue to increase, if you remove the tool then that tool will no longer be an option.
Debate Round No. 1
ZacharyDamon

Pro

I would like to say that the banning of guns is a bad idea because, for one, it is very dangerous. I would like to use a quote that you have probably heard, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That is very true. A gun doesn't choose to fire at a person, a gun doesn't have that choice. Instead, a person takes that gun, points it at another person, and pulls the trigger. To say that the outlawing of firearms would be a good thing because it reduces the violent crime rate, well you will find that it wouldn't.

In fact, we would find out the hard way that would only increase the violent crime rate because if a person wants to kill you, they would use something else or, they would get a gun from the black market. Let's look at the U.K. They are second in the world for the highest violent crime rate, in part because of their insanely strict gun laws. A criminal in the U.K. will know that, because they're armed with a gun obtained from the black market, or some other weapon, and you don't have a gun to defend yourself. (Sources:http://www.mapsofworld.com..., http://reason.com...)

Now we look at a good friend of ours, Israel. In Israel, it is MANDATORY for citizens to own a gun. From the elderly, from a school teacher (in fact, in Israel field trips can only be taken if one teacher per each bus going has a gun), from a McDonald's employee, once you reach the magic age of 21 in Israel they will give you a gun. And guess what else? Israel has the lowest violent crime (and suicide) rate IN THE WORLD. That is because, if you're a criminal with a gun, you know that the person/place you're about to rob has a gun as well. Therefore, as a criminal, would you really want to commit a violent crime if you knew that there's a good chance of your "victim" could shoot back? In fact, Israel has a homicide rate of only 6.5 percent, while the U.K. has one of 27 percent! This shows statistically, that the outlawing of guns would be a nightmare scenario for the U.S. (Sources:http://www.uturnuk.org..., "Guns" by Jerry Tummle and Ronald King)

Also, you say that the police are on their job 24/7, and therefore the need for guns is negated. It may be true that police are willing to lay their lives down for the sake of the safety of the community, but they can't be everywhere at once. By the time the police get to the scene of the time, most of the time the suspect is gone. On the times that a police officer does get to the crime scene while the suspect is still there, they can be effective. But you have to consider the possibility that by this time, there could also be many people injured or even killed. Let's look at the Luby Massacre. On October 16th, 1991 a madman drove his car into Luby's Cafeteria, got out, and started shooting everybody he came across. The rampage lasted for 15 minutes and claimed the lives of 24 people. One of the victims recounted her story from inside the diner, she recalled that she had a handgun in her purse (which was illegal in Texas at the time), and after the car rammed through the wall her purse was flung 100 feet from her. Because she wasn't able to reach it, and because very little to no other patron had a firearm on them, the killer was able to continue on his rampage. The event took the lives of her mother and father, with whom she was visiting the diner with. After the event she became a politician and a major guns right activist, and because that it is now legal to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Texas, we have seen fewer tragedies like Luby's (Sources: http://www.chron.com..., E! special on mass shootings).

Before I conclude this argument, I would like to say that the banning of guns is a bad idea because it will, in no way, reduce the abundance of crime we see nowadays. If a criminal wants a gun, and the gun stores are closed, they will not give up, rather, they will seek it out any way they can. If it means stealing it, they will do it. If it means buying one off the black market, they will do it. They will go to any lengths necessary to get a firearm. Remember this quote, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
oscargarcia2012

Con

oscargarcia2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ZacharyDamon

Pro

ZacharyDamon forfeited this round.
oscargarcia2012

Con

oscargarcia2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ZacharyDamon

Pro

ZacharyDamon forfeited this round.
oscargarcia2012

Con

oscargarcia2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
I wouldn't mind taking this debate but the resolution is too vague. Does "firearms" mean "any", "some" or "all"? "very bad" is vague too, but I might be willing to deal with that.
No votes have been placed for this debate.