"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I affirm the resolution, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Gun - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Outlawed - made illegal (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Outlaw - one who is "outside the law" (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Reasoning:
People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns.

I thank whoever accepts this debate.

Thanks to Mongeese for starting this debate.

My opponent has attempted to affirm the resolution that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

His one and only argument to back this claim up was:

"People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns."

While I agree entirely with this assertion, my opponent has made a fatal flaw in his argument; he forgot about police officers and the fact that they can still own and carry guns even in countries where guns are entirely outlawed.

Police officers are not ALL outlaws, yet all of them will still be allowed (required) to own, carry and operate guns. We can therefore conclude with certainty that were guns outlawed, it wouldn't be ONLY outlaws who have guns.

It's a bit early to claim a win, but what the hell. Vote CON.

My definition of outlaw was one who is "outside the law."

"While I agree entirely with this assertion, my opponent has made a fatal flaw in his argument; he forgot about police officers and the fact that they can still own and carry guns even in countries where guns are entirely outlawed."

If guns are outlawed, policemen have either two choices:
1. Turn in their guns like everyone else. There is no reason for the banning of something not to include policemen.
2. Keep their guns. In this way, they and the government that operates them elevate themselves "above the law" by not following their own laws, which is what the countries described by my opponent do. And being "above the law" is "outside the law."

So, either way, anyone who has a gun is an outlaw, because either they are outside the law with guns, or within the law without. Anyone who disobeys the law is outside the law, and thus an outlaw, and that would include police officers.

"My definition of outlaw was one who is "outside the law.""

Errm... right. I'm not disputing that. Using your definition of outlaw, I showed quite simply that because police officers (NOT outside the law) will continue to own guns when they are outlawed, then not "ONLY outlaws will have guns" when guns are outlawed. This clearly and effectively negates the resolution.

This is open and close stuff.
---
"If guns are outlawed, policemen have either two choices:
1. Turn in their guns like everyone else. There is no reason for the banning of something not to include policemen.
2. Keep their guns. In this way, they and the government that operates them elevate themselves "above the law" by not following their own laws, which is what the countries described by my opponent do. And being "above the law" is "outside the law.""

Both of these points are obviously garbage. Let's take Australia as a recent example of a country who has explicitly outlawed gun ownership. The police officers in Australia are still required to carry guns. [1] This gives us a recent, real-world example of the fact that when guns are outlawed in a country, it won't ONLY be outlaws who possess guns.

I have negated my opponent's semantic argument by using his own simple definitions, and have also given a recent example of a country who DID outlaw guns and how that country's gun-owning populace DOESN'T consist solely of outlaws.

Vote CON.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Using your definition of outlaw, I showed quite simply that because police officers (NOT outside the law) will continue to own guns when they are outlawed, then not 'ONLY outlaws will have guns' when guns are outlawed."
However, I said that because the government is granting federal officials the right to do things that are against the law, they are essentially "above the law," as a governmental official is "above the law" when he has the right to break the law, and the laws don't apply to government officials.
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
"6. police power
This means that the police can do what ever the hell they want to keep you from breaking the law even though they can.
to make sure that i did not another speeding ticket the police wrote me an extremely high ticket so that when i paid it i would be broke. Therefore i would not have a car to speed in anymore. That is police power."

There. Police fit the definition of "outlaw" when they are "above the law," which, in this case, they are.

"Both of these points are obviously garbage. Let's take Australia as a recent example of a country who has explicitly outlawed gun ownership. The police officers in Australia are still required to carry guns."
So in Australia, policemen are "above the law," and thus, "outside the law."

"This gives us a recent, real-world example of the fact that when guns are outlawed in a country, it won't ONLY be outlaws who possess guns."
The policemen are outlaws, by definition.

"I have negated my opponent's semantic argument by using his own simple definitions, and have also given a recent example of a country who DID outlaw guns and how that country's gun-owning populace DOESN'T consist solely of outlaws."
This fails once the connection is made between policemen and outlaws.

Vote PRO.

"However, I said that because the government is granting federal officials the right to do things that are against the law, they are essentially "above the law," as a governmental official is "above the law" when he has the right to break the law, and the laws don't apply to government officials."

Above the law (police being ALLOWED to run red lights if deemed necessary to perform their duties) is clearly not the same as outside the law (me running a red light because I feel like it). The very link my opponent cited [1] for the definition for outlaw makes this quite clear. The police are IMMUNE from laws when on duty, and therefore it is impossible to break them. 'Outlaw' is distinctively defined to mean one who is breaking the law, and needless to say that doesn't apply to police officers who are required to carry guns for their job.

I see no reason to address the rest of my opponent's argument, because it is a repeat of the same semantics he's exhibited throughout the debate, and which I've already rebutted. He also uses a definition from the urban dictionary to prove whatever point he feels he has, which is a basic source fail.

My opponent's entire argument has relied on semantically trying to equate the immunity police officers have against the law with the act of breaking the law. He has stretched his definition of outlaw as "outside the law" far beyond where it should be stretched, as is obvious when he resorts to saying "The policemen are outlaws, by definition", and other such clear contradictions.

This is the equivalent of me saying that the word 'philosophy' means "love of wisdom", and then conclude that everyone who loves wisdom is in fact a philosopher. Or if I tell you that the word 'democracy' literally means 'popular government', and then conclude that in a democracy ALL governments are popular. It is taking the base literal meaning of a word and twisting to suit a resolution which, in this case, I've shown quite simply to be wrong.

Police officers will continue to carry guns in a society which bans them, yet they will not be outlaws by any reasonable definition of the word. Vote CON.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Above the law (police being ALLOWED to run red lights if deemed necessary to perform their duties) is clearly not the same as outside the law (me running a red light because I feel like it)."
Let's say that the law is some random 3-D shape, a cube. If a person is above this cube that is the law, then they are not inside the cube, and instead on the outside. If they were just above the center of the cubic law, then they would just be within the upper extremities of law, not above the law. It doesn't matter if the federal government is involved or not; the police are not required to follow a law; thus, they are above that law; thus, they are outside the law.

"The very link my opponent cited [1] for the definition for outlaw makes this quite clear."
I defined "outlaw" as "outside the law," which you agreed to. Thus, anyone who is outside the law is an outlaw for this debate, whether they are a bandit or not.

"The police are IMMUNE from laws when on duty, and therefore it is impossible to break them."
The police are above the law; thus, they are immune. This still means that they are above the law; if they weren't above the law, they'd either be gunless or illegal.

"'Outlaw' is distinctively defined to mean one who is breaking the law, and needless to say that doesn't apply to police officers who are required to carry guns for their job."
Not in this debate. I defined "outlaw" so that it would include federal officers who remain with guns even after they are made illegal.

"I see no reason to address the rest of my opponent's argument, because it is a repeat of the same semantics he's exhibited throughout the debate, and which I've already rebutted."
You may have felt that you have rebutted the semantics, but you haven't.

"He also uses a definition from the urban dictionary to prove whatever point he feels he has, which is a basic source fail."
It was the only source I could find that would define "above the law" without referencing a hip-hop group, blog, film, or TV series. It is also an acceptable source for Debate.org; I have seen many debates that use them.
http://www.debate.org...

"My opponent's entire argument has relied on semantically trying to equate the immunity police officers have against the law with the act of breaking the law."
The federal government making people above the law is valid under their own laws, but "above the law" is still "outside the law," no matter how you look at it.

"He has stretched his definition of outlaw as 'outside the law' far beyond where it should be stretched, as is obvious when he resorts to saying 'The policemen are outlaws, by definition', and other such clear contradictions."
The idea of an outlaw having to be someone who breaks the law and is on the run is non-existent for this debate, because it conflicts with the agreed-upon definitions.

"This is the equivalent of me saying that the word 'philosophy' means 'love of wisdom', and then conclude that everyone who loves wisdom is in fact a philosopher. Or if I tell you that the word 'democracy' literally means 'popular government', and then conclude that in a democracy ALL governments are popular. It is taking the base literal meaning of a word and twisting to suit a resolution which, in this case, I've shown quite simply to be wrong."

From Round 2:
"'My definition of outlaw was one who is 'outside the law.'

Errm... right. I'm not disputing that."

If I concede that those definitions are correct, then by all means, I deserve to lose such debates.

"Police officers will continue to carry guns in a society which bans them, yet they will not be outlaws by any reasonable definition of the word. Vote CON."
They are outlaws by the agreed-upon definition for this debate, whether you now question its reasonability or not. If you disagree with the resolution, don't say that you won't dispute it.

In conclusion, when guns are outlawed, only bandits and policemen, apparently, will still have guns, and because bandits have been conceded to be outlaws, and policemen have been proven to be outlaws, only outlaws will have guns.

Vote PRO.

Thank you for this debate.

"I defined "outlaw" as "outside the law," which you agreed to. Thus, anyone who is outside the law is an outlaw for this debate, whether they are a bandit or not."

What you've conveniently failed to mention about my acceptance of your definition is the context with which your definition was presented. You said in Round 1:

"People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns."

This CLEARLY puts your definition of 'outlaw' into the context of somebody who must "continue to resist the law as always." This obviously was not meant to include policemen, who presumably don't break the law and who will have no need to 'resist' the law change. When I brought up policemen in Round 1, you twisted your definition of outlaw until it no longer meant what it actually does mean. You equated 'democracy' with 'popular government', and concluded that every government party in America is popular. You can call policemen immune from the law, above the law, beside the law, 3 ft. from the law, inside, outside or beneath the law. However you twist these words, policemen are not outlaws by the very nature of them being immune from the law's reach.
--------
"Let's say that the law is some random 3-D shape, a cube. If a person is above this cube that is the law, then they are not inside the cube, and instead on the outside. If they were just above the center of the cubic law, then they would just be within the upper extremities of law, not above the law. It doesn't matter if the federal government is involved or not; the police are not required to follow a law; thus, they are above that law; thus, they are outside the law."

More of the same stuff from my opponent, once again trying to prove that all lovers of wisdom are philosophers and all governments in a democracy are popular. Twist the words however you will but the fact remains that police officers are not outlaws by virtue of their occupation.
-----------
"Not in this debate. I defined "outlaw" so that it would include federal officers who remain with guns even after they are made illegal."

Right, you posted a semantically-based debate for which you presumed you'd covered all your bases in the resolution so you didn't actually have to do any work. Unfortunately, your entire case rests upon the faulty logic that police officers are all outlaws, which, by your own definition and the context in which it was presented, is absolutely false.

"It was the only source I could find that would define "above the law" without referencing a hip-hop group, blog, film, or TV series. It is also an acceptable source for Debate.org; I have seen many debates that use them.
http://www.debate.org...;

It is essentially a joke website. You may as well have used Uncyclopedia.

Voters, my opponent has clearly tried to pull the wool over your eyes and mine by setting forth a definition in Round 1 and placing it in context of his argument, and then, when the obvious hole in his argument was brought up, changing the definition beyond all meaning so that we end up with garbage like "all police officers are outlaws". I have shown, theoretically and with a real-life example, that in societies where guns are outlawed, it isn't ONLY outlaws who have guns. Therefore, vote CON.

Thanks to my opponent.