The Instigator
moneymachine2004
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
MarquisX
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed

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 2 votes the winner is...
MarquisX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,775 times Debate No: 19106
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

moneymachine2004

Pro

Since it is impossible to destroy all guns and fire arms all together and we are stuck with their presence--its better that we are all armed.
MarquisX

Con

I accept. However based on the way you phrased the resolution, I am going on the assumption that you aren't saying its better that we have a choice, as we do now, but that you're saying that a society in which everyone has a firearm is better.
Debate Round No. 1
moneymachine2004

Pro

I am certainly not saying that everyone will be required to carry a fire arms. However, I am saying that we would be safer if all people of sound mind was armed.

sound mind clarification- any person having any mental problem that threatens or might threaten their ability to make sound reasoned decisions should be banned from carrying a gun.

criminals will buy and carry guns whether its legal or illegal

We would all be safer if everyone has a gun, because the bad guy will always be out numbered. There are always more law abiding citizens than there are criminals. The criminal will be less likely to pull out a gun if he knows that the other person is armed as well. The criminal will be less likely to strike in broad day light, any place where there are a great number of people located at or anytime that it is two or more people. Even if its a gang of criminals, there would be nothing stopping average citizens from stopping their cars and pulling out their fire arms.

The criminals have the advantage right now. They don't care about the law so that carry concealed weapons that might be used against any of us law abiding citizens. I want that advantage taken from them immediately.
MarquisX

Con

Due to a family emergency, I don't have time to make a fully fleshed out argument but I will later.

Let's look at some numbers first.

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearms. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov.... So criminals with guns are hardly an issue, as most just don't have guns, which in your society, they will.

According to this http://karisable.com..., people with severe mental illness are responsible for less than one in 20 violent crimes. So those other nineteen people with a "sound" mind, you'll be arming them.

And here's my favorite http://arstechnica.com...

Just a couple points from that last article:

When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations. Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems. And, for every accidental death, Hemenway cites research that indicates 10 more incidents are sufficient to send someone to the emergency room. Suicides are more likely to be successful when guns areinvolved , even though most people who survive such an attempt don't generally try a second time.

people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels. This is especially true for women. In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides." In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house;no protective effect of the gun was found."

Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor.

I look forward to my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
moneymachine2004

Pro

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9
* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15

2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org... on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
8Id. at 164, 185.
9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com.... Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.
13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.
15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.
19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.
20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research

I will reply to your stats next round
MarquisX

Con

My opponent appears to have forgotten his own resolution. "We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed". What this means is that he believes, that a society in which every adult( I'm assuming adult. He didn't specify but semantics aren't really my thing) is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them at all times would be a safer society. I am not arguing against the right to carry a gun. I myself have two. I just don't believe a fully armed society is better for anyone.

My opponent has not addressed any of my points so extend my argument into the next round.

My opponent did not post the source of his information, but nevertheless I've found it. http://gunowners.org...

Let the record show that I do NOT argue against most of his facts as they make my case for me. Our current stance on gun control is working. Like I stated before 10% of violent crimes don't involve guns. My opponent thinks the world operates like Grand Theft Auto and every criminal has a gun. The truth is 90% of them can't afford it. But see if you're arming everyone, that number goes through the roof. Even if you make the case to say that ex-cons won't be issued firearms, every murderer has a first kill.
Debate Round No. 3
moneymachine2004

Pro

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearms. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov....... So criminals with guns are hardly an issue, as most just don't have guns, which in your society, they will.

This is to say that ninety percent of the non fatal violent crimes does not involved firearms. One, it assumes that the attacker did not have a fire arms because he did not brandish it. Many times it is unnecessary for the criminal to show a weapon. Two, many of the crimes would be deterred completely if the potential victim simply brandished their gun. The bad guy could have a knife, pipe or is simply much stronger than the potential victim. A gun serves as an equalizer. Third, one never knows when they will confront that 10 percent or less that brandish their firearms. I argue that the 10 percent or less would be less likely to commit the crime in the first place if everyone was carrying firearms. Thus, people of sound mind would all be safer if all people of sound mind has firearms.

When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations.

One, it assumes that the 15 to 24 year old is a law abiding citizen and not a criminal. Some of the homicides might be justified. Two, guns should be limited to people of sound mind and judgment which might not be the case for some kids 15-17 years old. The ones that are of sound mind would not concern me. Third, this assumes that every homicide committed upon a person from the age of 15 to 24 would have been committed had more of them of sound mind had firearms. This is to say, that many of those homicides would have been averted had the perpetrator known that everyone had a gun. Fourth, the argument is one that suggests that if we had no guns we would be safer from gun violence. However, that's not possible, so who are the people that we should limit guns to? And even if you limit the guns to those folks, whats to stop them from getting one illegally. Moreover, there are other factors that may contribute to more younger people being victims of homicides in the United States--specifically the illegal drug trade and the profits forthwith comes to mind.

Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems. And, for every accidental death, Hemenway cites research that indicates 10 more incidents are sufficient to send someone to the emergency room.

This is the only valid point that the opponent makes. However, it is possible to teach better gun safety to owners having children and thereby drastically reducing the number of accidental deaths related to poor gun safety. Young children that are not of sound mind should not have guns. Many more children lives are saved by way of detterence than the ones killed as a result of accidents.

Suicides are more likely to be successful when guns are involved , even though most people who survive such an attempt don't generally try a second time.

To be honest, I really don't care about people committing suicide. These people have nothing to live for and therefore it might be better they kill themselves than someone innocent. Second, if they really wanted to kill themselves, they don't need a gun. There are sleeping pills, bridges and buildings for which they could jump off.

people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels.

I would argue that the hot head with a gun might keep his cool if he knew that everyone including the subject he was thinking of shooting was armed. The coward would know that he couldn't just shoot in run. Again, many crimes would be deterred simply because everyone knew that everyone had guns. Why give these cowards the upperhand?

This is especially true for women. In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides."

I would argue that the person that kills their wife is most likely not of sound mind when committing the crime. However, assuming they are of sound mind, what is to stop them from illegally obtaining a gun? Once a person decides that they are going to kill their spouse or lover, legality goes out the window. Nonetheless, I maintain that the numbers for lives saved due to guns would increase if more people had guns due to the deterrence factor. The numbers I posted bares that fact out.

In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house;no protective effect of the gun was found."

Most of these women killed don't have a gun on them at the time their attacked. In many cases, the male kills not only the woman but their children too. I argue that many of these woman might use the gun on that abusive husband first if they had access to the gun. Even, if they killed him more lives would be saved because he would not be able to kill her kids and possibly other relatives. Moreover, the only valid point this argument makes is that attacks would be less lethal if guns were not involved. As I have noted, a person that has made up his mind to kill his wife with a gun will do so whether or not we make it legal or illegal. Thus, this is an argument for the banning of all guns. In cases, wherein the spouse kills the other spouse in the heat of the moment. It is tragic. However, overall we are all safer by having guns in our homes due to the deterrence factor.

Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor.

My opponent seems to contradict himself. He says he agrees with the current gun laws, yet his central argument is that one should not keep their gun at home--that's laughable. I assume that it is legal for him to have firearms at his home in his state. I, however, live in the Nazi state of New Jersey and here its very hard to get a gun permit--just to protect my family. Forget about conceal and carry rights even though numbers suggest that we would be safer if given that right. Many people here are denied a gun permit because of a misdemeanor when they were a minor. In this state, the police policy is to deny a gun permit whenever possible. It seems that my opponent is arguing that I should not have a right to protect my family because some people use the gun for suicide, some people kill their spouse or some people allow their young children to have access to their guns. We don't need Mr. Government protect us from ourselves. My opponent says he has two guns, I would like to know where he keeps those guns at night? Are they safely locked up at a storage facility or hidden in the woods at night? No, I assume that he has those guns in a location where he can get to them if some low life attempts to harm him or his family. A person of sound mind does not commit suicide. A young child is not of sound mind and should not have a gun. A person that has made up his or her mind to kill his wife is not of sound mind. I think the numbers that I posted clearly demonstrates that we would all be safer if people of sound mind all had firearms.
MarquisX

Con

It appears my opponent believes that everyone is born one of three ways; Good, Bad or crazy. He doesn't understand that the good can become the bad and that 95% of the bad isn't crazy at all.

"I argue that the 10 percent or less would be less likely to commit the crime in the first place if everyone was carrying firearms."
First off if you give everyone guns it won't be 10%, it'll be something like 70%-80%. Secondly let's say there is a clerk behind the counter at a store. I walk in and stick a gun in his face and yell" Don't move or I'll shoot". See I know he has a gun, but I have the drop on him. The criminal will always have the drop on you. What do you suggest he do? Make a move for his gun? I shoot. BAM! He's dead. What he should have done was give me the few hundred dollars, he had then called the police. Then he could give a description and go home to his family. Now with the gun laws we have now let's say this same clerk gets his gun legally and I run into his store. Now because you didn't give me a gun, I have a knife. And he can grab his gun and scare me away without me hurting him because bullets are faster than a knife.

"One, it assumes that the 15 to 24 year old is a law abiding citizen and not a criminal. Some of the homicides might be justified."

Justifiable homicides are a completely different category. This figure refers to murders.

"Two, guns should be limited to people of sound mind and judgment which might not be the case for some kids 15-17 years old. The ones that are of sound mind would not concern me."

How would you even determine that? Is it based on psychological profile? Because most killers, as I have shown before, are of sound mind and judgement.

"Moreover, there are other factors that may contribute to more younger people being victims of homicides in the United States--specifically the illegal drug trade and the profits forthwith comes to mind."

Not even sure what this means. Or its relevance to the case.

"However, it is possible to teach better gun safety to owners having children and therebydrastically reducing the number of accidental deaths related to poor gun safety. Young children that are not of sound mind should not have guns. Many more children lives are saved by way of detterence than the ones killed as a result of accidents."

You keep making claims and not backing them up with any scientific evidence or studies. You need to post sources. Also gun safety is taught now and we still have kids accidentally killing themselves.

"To be honest, I really don't care about people committing suicide. These people have nothing to live for and therefore it might be better they kill themselves than someone innocent."

But wait! Isn't the resolution " We would ALL be safer if everyone was armed"? Or are we to allow people to kill themselves because you don't care?

"Second, if they really wanted to kill themselves, they don't need a gun. There are sleeping pills, bridges and buildings for which they could jump off. "

THIS IS FALSE. Even the most severely depressed person has mixed feelings about death, wavering until the very last moment between wanting to live and wanting to die. Most suicidal people do not want death; they want the pain to stop. The impulse to end it all, however overpowering, does not last forever. Having a gun nearby makes the decision easier as it is a spilt second decision. http://www.suicideoutreach.org...

"I would argue that the person that kills their wife is most likely not of sound mind when committing the crime. However, assuming theyare of sound mind, what is to stop them from illegally obtaining a gun? Once a person decides that they are going to kill their spouse or lover, legality goes out the window."

Also false. Most murders between spouses are not premeditated, but crimes of passion. Having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of a fatal attack.

"Most of these womenkilled don't have a gun on them at the time their attacked."

Why would they?

"In many cases, the male kills not only the woman but their children too."

Not true. And even if it was it just helps my case anyway. We shouldn't just give anyone guns.

"However, overall we are all safer by having guns in our homes due to the deterrence factor."

I agree. However we should NOT just hand out guns to anyone

"My opponent seems to contradict himself. He says he agrees with the current gun laws, yet his central argument is that one should not keep their gun at home--that's laughable."

It is laughable considering that its not my central argument. I'm only highlighting the dangers of having a gun at your home and how many more deaths will be caused if we give guns to anyone who has a "sound" mind. We would not all be safer with giving criminals guns. We should stick to the way we do things now and people should be screened.

"I , however, live in the Nazi state of New Jersey and here its very hard to get a gun permit--just to protect my family. Forget about conceal and carry rights even though numbers suggest that we would be safer if given that right. Many people here are denied a gun permit because of a misdemeanor when they were a minor. In this state, the police policy is to deny a gun permit whenever possible. It seems that my opponent is arguing that I should not have a right to protect my family because some people use the gun for suicide,some people kill their spouse or some people allow their young children to have access to their guns. We don't need Mr. Government protect us from ourselves."

Ah. So we should give every gangbanger, drug dealer, and rapist a gun because you don't want to go through the legal system. Makes sense. And yes, you do need Mr.Government to protect you. You really think the absence of a legal system will be safer?

"I would like to know where he keeps those guns at night? Are they safely locked up at a storage facility or hidden in the woods at night? No,I assume that he has those guns in a location where he can get to them if some low life attempts to harm him or his family"

Right. But if you give the low life a gun, I won't be able to get to mine would I? As it stands 90% of the time, I can grab my gun and get the upper hand

"A person of sound mind does not commit suicide."
Yes they do
"A young child is not of sound mind and should not have a gun."
Agreed. Let's not increase the chances of him getting his hands on one

"A person that has made up his or her mind to kill his wife is not of sound mind."
Yes they are. I have shown you the numbers. 19 out of twenty murderers are completely of sound mind.

"I think the numbers that I posted clearly demonstrates that we would allbe safer if people of sound mind all had firearms."

No, the numbers you posted proved that gun control works. What you want is the opposite of gun control. You want people shooting at criminals like vigilantes. I hate to break it to you kid, but do you know why its illegal to be a vigilante? Because most end up dead. Just because you have a gun, it does not make you Batman. That's why we have police. If a criminal breaks into my home, I grab my .44 and keep it on him. 90% chance he won't have a gun. If your plan goes into action, he will have a gun and him knowing I have one will make him shoot before I can react. So tell me, how am I safer if you give the criminals guns?
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
I personally hate guns and the destruction that they can cause. However, last week someone threaten to come to my house and do harm to my family. So I went to my local police station to apply for a gun permit. They gave me the run around. I have to fill out all sorts of paper work and then do a background check, which could take as long as 6 months. If I am approve, I will only have 3 weeks to purchase a gun. Do you think the bad guy is going to apply for a gun permit? No, he will just come to my house and start shooting. Since, I am a law abiding citizens I will wait for this permit and hope that this guy doesn't act on his threat. This is the country that we live in.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
How do you determine who has a sound mind? Someone who won't kill anybody with a gun? That seems unfair...
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
I would argue this to the death with you but I completely agree with you!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
hey i agree, but if you want vids and stats on this topis just message me.
Posted by DoctorZhiva90 5 years ago
DoctorZhiva90
Are you advocating that every single person should be armed, or that people should have the choice to be armed and not have that right takeaway? There is actually a compelling case for everyone being armed: look up Kennesaw, Georgia, it's an interesting case where a high presence of firearms has not dramatically increased crime like the Left wants us to believe.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
moneymachine2004MarquisXTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro had better numbers, a lot of good solid statistics however Con's final round was extremely strong so he wins the arguments points.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
moneymachine2004MarquisXTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's resolution made sense but then the COn (in the very last round) showed how people may become crazy, how children may get their hands on those guns, suicide rates go up, etc. etc. and I think he won the argument. Both sides had very good sources and conduct, spelling wasnt in issue. Good debate