The gun control debate is not this simple (see for details)
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent will have to argue that the gun control debate is as simple as this picture portrays it to be. To win, all I will have to do is show that there are other legitimate factors involved in the question of whether or not to completely illegalize guns.
"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."
None of your rights would matter anymore, if you could not protect them!
Moving on to what you said. Your general practice theory, is not true. I will give you an example.
Do you remember the Aurora shooting in 2012? The shooter, James Holmes, bought his weapons legally bought his arsenal of weapons. His arsenal included 4 guns, mass amounts of bullets, and legal chemical grenades. Could you imagine how DIFFERENTLY that shooting would have happened if there were a man carrying a firearm in there? Other's agree, the third source I put will show you what a trained gunman with 29 years of experience has to say about the shooting.
My friend also would like to input, what would other's do if there was a gun control law, yet a small variety of people still use their weapons to hunt, and put food on the table for their family. What are they supposed to do?
I think you have overstepped your boundary about regulating the only thing that protects your right to be here right now. Be thankful.
My opponent is actually doing me a service when he says that 'it is our 2nd amendment right', because he is indeed bringing up a valid point that is not referenced in the picture.
My opponent's friend also does me a service by bringing up hunter's families. That is another legitimate point to consider, and one which is not portrayed in the picture.
Perhaps some of the voters are disgusted with me, which is fair, as I'm allowing Pro-Gun Rights' points to work for my win, when I am clearly in favor of gun control. That being the case, I will attempt to negate my opponent's points, to be somewhat sporting about this.
In response to my fact about where most criminals get guns, my opponent uses a singular case as a refutation. Immediately we can see this is a problem. Anecdotes do not supersede statistics. But onto the anecdote itself, he says that since James Holmes bought his guns legally, I'm wrong. But if guns were illegal, James wouldn't have gotten a hold of those weapons, so this anecdote doesn't really help my opponent at all. The point that a person with a gun could stop James Holmes is like putting a band-aid on a wound. The extra gunman might defuse the situation sooner, but there's still a good chance people will get hurt, whereas if guns had been illegal, James couldn't have gotten one, and there would've been no need to defuse any situation.
And to my opponent's friend, the hunters could use bows. Laws don't go into effect immediately after passage, generally. So a person who hunts with a gun could learn to hunt with a bow before the law goes into effect.
Keep in mind that my BoP was fulfilled before the refutations, so even if those weren't to your taste, I am still winning the vote.
Tilar forfeited this round.
Tilar forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.