The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 6 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,673 times Debate No: 10133
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

abard124

Pro

On November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood Soldier Readiness center, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. He used an FN Five-seveN semi-automatic pistol, which, according to wikipedia, is used by SWAT teams because of their effectiveness against body armor. Why would any civilian need that? Now, Mr. Hasan did happen to be in the military, but he did not receive his gun from the military. He bought it legally at a civilian gun store. What that means is that any one of us could be Nidal Hasan, and any of us could be killed or injured.

Obviously, we can't take guns away from the military or law enforcement. It wouldn't be very practical for our soldiers and police officers to be carrying around deer rifles. Also, I don't think it's necessary to take away hunting weapons. Even though they can be used to kill people, I do recognize that some people live in very rural areas where it would be very inconvenient to go to the supermarket every week, but they still wouldn't need a Five-seveN or anything of the like.

I will allow my opponent to make their argument, and then we can get into specifics.
Nails

Con

My dad keeps a pistol in his glove compartment for defense. It certainly isn't designed for hunting. Should that be confiscated? Should he be forced to keep a rifle in the glove box instead?

My opponent seems to want to keep people safe. How is partial gun control going to do that? If I want to shoot up my high school or kill the rival drug dealer who is stealing my turf I'll just buy a shot gun and saw the end off or use any one of the many equally deadly hunting weapons (imagine being killed by a compound bow, ouch!) Banning these weapons won't work.
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you for responding.

"My dad keeps a pistol in his glove compartment for defense. It certainly isn't designed for hunting. Should that be confiscated? Should he be forced to keep a rifle in the glove box instead?"
I'll put it this way. I've never owned, shot, or an any other way used a firearm before. I've never needed to. I get that it makes him feel comfortable, but that right is so easy to abuse that it's just not worth it. It's like a blanky. It makes you feel comfortable, but beyond that it's just not practical. But unlike a blanky, it kills people.

"If I want to shoot up my high school or kill the rival drug dealer who is stealing my turf I'll just buy a shot gun and saw the end off or use any one of the many equally deadly hunting weapons (imagine being killed by a compound bow, ouch!)"
Well, I don't hunt, and I would much rather see meat killed humanely, but some people do not live within a convenient vicinity to an Albertsons. I would, however, be happy to ban the use of guns within cities. I would have included that in the resolution, but I didn't have room. My full proposition would be as follows: Civilians may not have access to weapons not made specifically for hunting. In order to gain access to hunting weapons, one must pass an extensive background check and be issued a permit, which shall be renewed yearly. Furthermore, guns must be in storage in urban areas, and must be visible at all times elsewhere. So, if you had a gun, it's not like it would be practical to kill someone with it, and hopefully it would be confiscated before you could do any harm.

Looking forward to your response!
Nails

Con

"I would, however, be happy to ban the use of guns within cities. I would have included that in the resolution, but I didn't have room. My full proposition would be as follows: Civilians may not have access to weapons not made specifically for hunting. In order to gain access to hunting weapons, one must pass an extensive background check and be issued a permit, which shall be renewed yearly. Furthermore, guns must be in storage in urban areas, and must be visible at all times elsewhere."

---

My opponent has decided that he wants to debate a new resolution. That's fine; he can start a new debate on it. Vote CON to this resolution on this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

I apologize that I may have shifted a bit. It would have been fine had my opponent ignored the full proposition, but he neglected to recognize that I have made quite a few arguments before even saying that. Because my opponent has done nothing to answer my points, they still stand. My extended proposition; however, does not once contradict the original resolution, so I would attest that it is valid, but clearly my opponent thinks differently. But one thing is clear: if you want to do well on this debate, you'll have to give it more than a sentence.

That being said, my opponent has posted no arguments in his favor to speak of, so I have nothing to negate. In the whole debate, all my opponent has said in opposition to my resolution is that guns can be used for self defense, which I negated. Now, before you vote, ask yourself this: if someone in your family was killed by Nidal Hasan, or by any crazed murderer, for that matter, would you be voting the same way? And again, I've never touched a gun, and I seem to have survived for almost 36 years, and I'm still going. You do not need a gun for self defense.

And with that, I will give the debate to my opponent, who will hopefully discuss a few points this time.
Nails

Con

"he neglected to recognize that I have made quite a few arguments before even saying that. Because my opponent has done nothing to answer my points, they still stand."

No they don't:
1. My last argument did address his claim.
Regardless of whether he had already 'said' that we should change the resolution or not, every one of those arguments was for strict/complete gun control, not the resolution I was debating.

2. There wasn't an argument, just a counter-factual assertion.
What he claimed was unwarranted and unreasonable anyway. If you've ever argued over the gun control issue before, you'll notice that all evidence on the issue shows that they save more lives than they harm. [1] There is nothing to show otherwise, except for PRO's unsourced assertions.

3. He made an argument for CON.
Even if they didn't, PRO did concede that guns provide a feeling of safety (he used an analogy to a blanky) to millions, which is arguably a very large benefit to guns. He made my argument for me; why would I contest that?

---

"But one thing is clear: if you want to do well on this debate, you'll have to give it more than a sentence."

1. There were 3 sentences in my last rebuttal. I have given it more than a sentence, so you can vote CON.
2. Why did I 'have to give it more than a sentence' in the first place? I see no reason why PRO's off-topic argumentation justifies anything more, and PRO certainly doesn't give a reason.

---

"In the whole debate, all my opponent has said in opposition to my resolution is that guns can be used for self defense, which I negated."

1. He never negated that. He just asserted that my point wasn't true. Google "Gun Control" and you'll see that his claim goes against all evidence on the subject.
2. He never addressed the argument that criminals can still buy hunting weapons to use in crime, so banning non-hunting weapons doesn't work.
3. There is the argument that he is off-topic, which he concedes in the last speech.

There's 3 reasons why to vote CON. Lets see what reasons you've been given by my opponent to vote PRO:

---

"ask yourself this: if someone in your family was killed by Nidal Hasan, or by any crazed murderer, for that matter, would you be voting the same way?"

A lovely appeal to emotion, rather than logic, but I would posit that:
1. Hassan ould easily have gotten weapons on the black market.
2. He could have bought a shotgun and sawed it off. There are many nasty hunting weapons out there.

---

"I've never touched a gun, and I seem to have survived for almost 36 years, and I'm still going. You do not need a gun for self defense."

1. PRO's testimony can't be trusted, as he is using it to win his own debate round.
2. Even so, he certainly isn't indicative of the whole nation. [1]

=====
Source
=====

[1] http://gunowners.org...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheConserative 3 years ago
TheConserative
There are more deaths from household objects than guns. We should start banning kitchen knives, pressure cookers, and rolling pins.Pro, don't argue that guns should be outlawed when you have never shot one.I live in Chicago and look how the gun bans work. Still the highest death toll even with strict laws.
Posted by kristoffersayshi 7 years ago
kristoffersayshi
It could be a man and a knife, a man and a bat or a man and a crossbow for all I care, these are tools that a man can use. If I had to choose between killing the attacker or becoming a murder victim, I prefer it to be me that survives. When a party is belligerent, and all avenues of negotiation are futile, then one should defend themselves, preferably with a gun.

The dead can't sue.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Yes, the man causes the crime...with a gun.

And if you defend yourself by shooting someone, it sounds bad, but at the end of the day, the person you shoot is losing their life just as you would be losing yours. Their family would be going through the same things that your family would go through.

We're not cavemen, we don't need to settle our problems with violence. We should settle our problems like Americans. You know, sue them.
Posted by kristoffersayshi 7 years ago
kristoffersayshi
I know I'm way late but I live in the Killeen-Fort Hood Area, and t was an early out one high school was on lock down, we were just getting the news and we were so scarred at the time. But I found comfort that if anything happened I know I can defend myself with a handgun. Unlike a gun, a blankly can't protect you. And even though I didn't lose anyone I know (I thank god for that) I still believe it is the man, not the gun that causes the crime.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Nice point, Roy. I didn't even consider that.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
A "weapon" is broadly defined with respect to use in committing a crime. Thus weapons include automobiles, kitchen knives, many blunt objects, the hands of a professional fighter, etc.

No matter, it goes to Con.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
Arguments+Conduct+Sources to Con.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by theshootmaster 7 years ago
theshootmaster
abard124NailsTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
abard124NailsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
abard124NailsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
abard124NailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
abard124NailsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
abard124NailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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