The Instigator
nrpaul1015
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Ithacus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

gun control is worthless

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 1 vote the winner is...
nrpaul1015
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 904 times Debate No: 42348
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

nrpaul1015

Pro

The pro side is saying that it is worthless.
The con is siding with it being worthwhile.

even if the legislature passes a law to limit or take away guns entirely, criminals will still find ways to get guns illegally. just because we outlawed drugs, doesn't mean that they are no not a problem.

this will make it hard on police officers not only to look for drugs, violence, etc. but also illegally obtained guns. also this will make it so that people who want guns and get them legally, will be cheated out of their rights promised them by the second amendment of the constitution.

my heart goes out to the survivors and families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, but id don't believe that gun control is the answer.
Ithacus

Con

I do not hold all of these views personally. I am defending them for the sake of debate.

I will not support the outlawing or banning of all guns, although I will defend the argument that certain particularly dangerous weapons (bombs for instance) do not belong in civilian hands. I am making the argument that certain gun control measures are not worthless – to the contrary, they are essential for a safe nation.



1. It disarms those who might be able to stop an attacker

The gun control measures which I am defending limit access to guns in four ways: (1) gun ownership is only legal if you have a gun license without which it is illegal to purchase or carry a gun, (2) people with a history of criminality or mental instability will be unable to obtain a license, (3) it should be illegal to carry concealed guns in public, and (4) there should be a minimum age for being allowed to obtain a license. Homicidal attackers are likely to be violent and/or mentally unstable. Normal civilians who might use guns to defend themselves are less likely to have a criminal history. As such, the gun control measures I'm making a case for won't change the access generally non-violent and sane civilians have to guns, except if they are not adults. However, it would make it a whole lot harder for proven criminals or the mentally unstable to get their hands on a violent weapon.


2. Shooters are going to get guns anyway

That's like saying we shouldn't have laws against rape, murder, fraud or speeding because people are going to do it anyway. Sure, people break the law all the time, I won't argue that. However, we need the laws for several reasons. Firstly, to protect everyone's rights as guaranteed in the Constitution; secondly, to make it possible for law enforcement officials to prevent crime; thirdly, to allow the justice system to punish criminals. Without the gun restriction measures I'm endorsing, a convicted murderer on parole could walk right into the middle of a mall brandishing an assault rifle, and at no point would the police have the power to detain him or force him to relinquish his weapon. This is dangerous. Finally, gun control laws will make it far harder for likely shooters (i.e. the violent, criminal and mentally unstable) to acquire guns. That alone is a worthy reason to seriously consider passing, or keeping, such laws.


3. Slippery slope

If we go after guns, what else will the government take from us? Cars? Detergent? Kitchen knives? This slippery slope argument comes up all the time, but it's wildly silly for two reasons. Firstly: we're debating gun *control*, remember? Cars kill more than guns do – this is why we have licenses for cars, and a minimum age for driving, and a training period, and your license gets suspended if you use your car illegally or destructively. The other two aforementioned instruments are not as deadly as guns, so these sorts of restrictions are not necessarily as productive as they are regressive. I don't support knife licenses. Secondly, and far more importantly, all of the non-gun examples share one trait that guns lack: they are not purely weapons. Their function is not exclusively destructive. As such, appropriate regulation measures between the two groups are in no way comparable. Cars, detergent and kitchen knives all share important alternative roles in the average lifestyle. Cars are highly vital for efficient transport, especially in big cities or across large distances. Detergent is used to clean the home. Knives are used as cooking utensils and other types of knives are used in art, construction and eating. However, guns are used *exclusively* to kill people; furthermore, that is their *primary* purpose. So it's actually ridiculous how many restrictions we have on cars in, say, America, while there are virtually no restrictions on guns.



Now I will briefly make a case for some of my skeleton arguments.



5. Gun ownership should only be legal if you have a gun license, without which it is illegal to purchase or carry a gun.

If we have car licenses, we should have gun licenses. It's as simple as that. If you would like to revoke gun licenses, please revoke car licenses and see where that gets your country.


6. People with a history of criminality or mental instability should be unable to obtain a license.

The power to kill should not be given to people who are proven to be violent, law-breaking, sadistic or irrational. Shops which sell guns should have the right to demand a psychiatric evaluation of any customer. Again, we are not talking about an instrument with mainly positive and constructive uses, and certain alternative abuses; we are talking about the exclusively destructive function of killing.


7. It should be illegal to carry concealed guns in public.

If you are not a criminal, why would you be worried that revealing your gun will alert others to your gun ownership? You may be more likely to be stopped briefly by the police, but this is for sensible safety reasons. You are less likely to be attacked. However, there is really no good reason to disguise your gun illegally unless for criminal purposes. This will make it far easier for law enforcement to apprehend shooters before they act.


8. There should be a minimum age for being allowed to obtain a license.

There is a minimum age for drinking and receiving a car license. If for no other reason, there should be a minimum age restriction in order to protect children from themselves. A policeman could not stop a five-year-old from carrying, handling or using a gun without such regulations in place. This would endanger not only people and property surrounding the five-year-old, whose motor and cognitive skills are far from fully developed, it would also seriously endanger the child. For these reasons we restrict drinking and driving age. Until you are at least 15, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of driving. Until you are at least 18, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of voting. Until you are at least 21, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of drinking alcohol. When can a person shoulder the responsibility of having the power to kill dozens of human beings within minutes?



Gun restrictions are not worthless.

Some have useful applications. (Note that I do not need to prove that their benefits outweigh their detriments in order to win the debate – only that they have benefits in the first place.) Please vote for Ithacus / Con if you feel that I have accurately and persuasively defended that position. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
nrpaul1015

Pro

I agree that these controls will somewhat limit the opportunity for violent people to obtain guns, but they will find a way if they are hell bent on getting a weapon. There are so many ways to get illegal guns. You can pay smugglers, you can steal one, and you can get one from a friend found trustworthy by the government. The possibilities for one obtaining a gun illegally are endless.

It seems that all this controversy is revolving around school shootings. I agree with your license argument. But even if a young adult in high school chooses to become violent, there won't be much in the stance of gun control to stop him. The one thing that is going to make schools and public places safer is higher security. This is why I believe gun control is worthless and just another problem for congress to handle.

You stated against my argument about how criminals will get guns anyway by saying that if that's so, then why make laws at all if they are going to be broken anyway. You say these laws are in place to protect rights yet you are trying to take the rights given by the second amendment away. This is what the people pushing for gun laws are trying to do. They are trying to limit our rights.

Gun control could also discourage people from buying gun and obtaining licenses that might save there lives in the case of a home invasion it may even cause some to commit a crime in order to get a gun. Take this story for an example (this is a fictional story written to help prove my case) of why gun control is not a good idea. A man has been accused of a crime and found guilty. He spends his time in jail, and later returns to society a changed man. But he wants to buy protection measures for himself In the form of a gun. He is denied this right given by the constitution because of gun laws. He then must resort back to crime to get a gun to protect himself.

These laws may even turn law abiding citizens to crime to get these guns that can save their lives. These laws are ridiculous and unconstitutional. Why take a good mans right of bearing arms away when the real danger is the criminals who will find a way to get a weapon anyway.

Gun laws are a waist of time and money. They are unconstitutional, and they will never be amended to the constitution. We must focus on our security, not our guns.

Thank you for accepting my debate and I look forward to your next argument.
Ithacus

Con

I agree that these controls will somewhat limit the opportunity for violent people to obtain guns

Then, essentially, you have conceded the debate topic to me. Unless you would like to spend the rest of the debate defending the notion that legislation which limits the opportunity for violent people to obtain guns is "worthless". To the contrary – it saves lives.


but they will find a way if they are hell bent on getting a weapon

Where are you getting this information? You have yet to provide a single source for your outlandish claims. Anyone "hell bent" on something has a higher chance of achieving it, but what could possibly be "worthless" about making it a whole lot harder for them, and thus strongly discouraging those who are not, in fact, "hell bent"?


The possibilities for one obtaining a gun illegally are endless.

You mentioned three ways. Three ways.


I agree with your license argument

Then you agree with at least part of my case for gun restriction. You have once more conceded the debate topic to me. If you want to be more successful at debating in the future, perhaps you should choose less inflexible and illogical resolutions.


But even if a young adult in high school chooses to become violent, there won't be much in the stance of gun control to stop him.

Again, where on earth is the evidence to support any of this? Can you in any way sympathize with the fact that the Columbine shooters may not have been as terribly effective if they hadn't been able to load their guns with bullets from WalMart?


You say these laws are in place to protect rights yet you are trying to take the rights given by the second amendment away. This is what the people pushing for gun laws are trying to do. They are trying to limit our rights.

The Constitution guarantees many rights, two of which are being discussed here. One right is gun ownership. Another right is life. Abolishing all gun restrictions may give lots more people the right to gun ownership, but will have severely negative consequences for millions of innocents' right to life. Somewhere in between supporting both rights we find a balance, but failing entirely to protect one right is simply not acceptable. Imagine if I tried to win the debate "Gun ownership is worthless". I dearly hope I'd lose.


he wants to buy protection measures for himself In the form of a gun. He is denied this right given by the constitution because of gun laws

Let's have a closer look at the rights actually given by the 2nd amendment.

Amendment II: 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.

In discussing the Constitution, we should recall that it is a badly outdated document. If we stuck to the Founding Fathers' original intentions, blacks, women, Jews and the Irish would have no rights and slavery would be legal. I would like to make two major points about the historical context of the 2nd amendment which support the argument that gun regulation is not worthless.


1. Self-Defense


At the time the Constitution was written, America was a fledgling country with nothing even vaguely comparable to modern-day infrastructure. There were regular conflicts with Native Americans among settlers attempting westward expansion, and unsafe roads were riddled with bandits. America had no standing army and no navy. Dangerous wild animals still occupied vast expanses of uncharted territory. Irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army.

Weapons for self-defense are a lot more pertinent in a society with no police, no infrastructural system of emergency medical attention and – I really can't stress this enough – no standing army and no navy. This explains the importance of the 2nd amendment. Nowadays, however, the regular American faces vastly less threats to their livelihood that can be shot down with bullets.


2. Power is Responsibility

At the time the amendment was written, there were no guns, revolvers, or even bombs; the common weapon was the musket. Muskets are terrible at killing people compared to, say, semiautomatic pistols. I do not think the Founding Fathers were not intending the right to bear arms not to extend into the future as technology developed. However, the entire Western world became more aware of the negative impact of the industrialization of weapons technology following two devastating world wars. Countries signed treaties that would, for instance, outlaw the use of nerve gas.

In his highly acclaimed recent book "The Sleepwalkers" about the events leading up to World War I, Christopher Clark explains that prior to the two World Wars, humanity was not aware of the horrific consequences of unfettered destructive power. He posits that the failure of the Cold War to culminate in any actual nuclear bombing shows a vastly different understanding of the violent power of modern technology, of which politicians before 1914 were ignorant. I am arguing that we are not only dealing with more advanced technology, but with far greater destructive power. The Founding Fathers protected freedom of speech in the first amendment, but as shown by the Wikileaks controversy and suicides induced by cyberbullying, greater power entails greater responsibility.


Take this story for an example (this is a fictional story written to help prove my case)

Anecdotal examples are subjective and biased. They have no place in a debate based on objective reasoning and logic. You have no proof to show that your fantasy story could possibly occur, or be of sufficient concern to discard laws that protect thousands of lives annually.


We must focus on our security, not our guns.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone that weapons of any kind threaten security.

Across 30 years in America, from 1970–2000, there have been 3,400 deaths due to terrorism, and 900,000+ deaths due to gun violence. In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement. The result?


For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than 100 deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

One evaluation of the law concluded that: The rates of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the gun laws; there is no evidence of substitution for suicides or homicides. A more recent evaluation, which examined the differences across states, concluded that “the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise”.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...


These statistics confirm that gun regulation could save millions of lives, and a single life is invaluable. Gun regulation is not worthless.

Debate Round No. 2
nrpaul1015

Pro

"The Constitution guarantees many rights, two of which are being discussed here. One right is gun ownership. Another right is life. Abolishing all gun restrictions may give lots more people the right to gun ownership, but will have severely negative consequences for millions of innocents' right to life."

Basically, you are saying that not restricting guns will deprive people of the right to live. This is absolutely crazy. Nothing can take away the right to life, but the mislead people wanting gun control are trying hard to take away our hard fought right of bearing arms.

"Let's have a closer look at the rights actually given by the 2nd amendment.

Amendment II: 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."

This is true but lets not forget you are the one trying to change this.

"In discussing the Constitution, we should recall that it is a badly outdated document."

This is not true. There have been a multitude of changes to the constitution. And for over 200 years the second amendment has been seen as a legitimate law. Why change it now. Oh yes because now we have guns that can actually kill people. You stated, "Muskets are terrible at killing people." So your saying that because now guns are reliably harmful we should not allow them. Tell me, if muskets are such harmless weapons, then how did an estimated 700,000 people die in the civil war, the American revolution, and the war of 1812. not to mention the MIA's and the countless others killed in that time period?

Now I would like to address the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is very true. Just because guns are taken away, that doesn't mean that homicides will drop. In fact, they will probably rise. California, the state with the strictest gun control laws, saw a rise in gun violence. What a coincidence.

Also, guns aren't the only weapon that cause deaths. Based on the sites www.politifact.com and
hotair.com more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than those killed by guns.

To finish, I believe that no matter how you try to use gun control to quell domestic violence, it is a good try but not a good idea.

www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties
Ithacus

Con

So your saying that because now guns are reliably harmful we should not allow themBasically, you are saying that not restricting guns will deprive people of the right to live. This is absolutely crazy. Nothing can take away the right to life

I think shooting someone would be a pretty effective strategy. There's a difference between "taking away" a right and violating it. I am not discussing "taking away" any rights, I am discussing limiting certain freedoms to prevent the violation of fundamental rights, the most basic of which is life.


This is true but lets not forget you are the one trying to change this.

I'm not advocating changing the 2nd amendment. I'm advocating that gun control *has value*, which involves repudiating the claim that it is in conflict with the 2nd amendment.


There have been a multitude of changes to the constitution.

27 amendments in 224 years is hardly a "multitude". The 2nd amendment has not been changed for centuries. This means that it is still in the original wording used by centuries-old authors. My argument for its outdatedness stands.


And for over 200 years the second amendment has been seen as a legitimate law. Why change it now.

While again, I'm not advocating changing the 2nd amendment, I really need to address the fallacy here. The 3/5 Compromise was also considered "legitimate law" until slavery was abolished and blacks considered citizens. Laws should always be changed to adapt to a progressively more tolerant, educated and technologically advanced society. Otherwise we would live in a nation that denied equal rights to women, blacks, Jews, Catholics and the Irish. I hope we can agree that would be dystopian.


So your saying that because now guns are reliably harmful we should not allow them

(You're not your.) There's a difference between banning and regulating. Did you even read the paragraph I wrote? I explicitly stated that "I do not think the Founding Fathers were not intending the right to bear arms not to extend into the future as technology developed". My argument is not focused on the improved efficiency of technology alone, but the greater destructive power that has accompanied weapon development over two centuries.


Tell me, if muskets are such harmless weapons, then how did an estimated 700,000 people die in the civil war, the American revolution, and the war of 1812. not to mention the MIA's and the countless others killed in that time period?

I didn't say muskets were harmless, I said they were ineffective relative to modern semiautomatic pistols. You really want to argue that? Of course hundreds of thousands of people died in the Civil War and the War of 1812 (although by the 1860s, technology was already significantly more advanced than it had been in 1789). However, 60 million died in WWII.


Now I would like to address the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is very true.

Of course an instrument is still doing something, even if it isn't acting on its own – it's an instrument, that's its job. Of course a tool needs to be *used* in order to *function*. Our own bodies are tools – if I were to accept your reasoning I could say people don't kill people either, intentions kill people because our bodies normally do not commit conscious deeds such as murder without intention behind it; thus, why bother imprisoning people? After all, they're not the problem here. That line of thinking is clearly fallacious. Our bodies are vessels of our will. This does not mean they cannot be held responsible for the consequences of obeying our will. Should we be putting guns on trial? No. We put actions and intentions on trial for murder. Thus, I don't know why this is an issue for you -- the law and justice systems are not assuming that guns kill people. Nevertheless, taking instruments away from people will diminish the ease with which they can perform certain tasks. If you were to ban all cars, trains and planes, people would still move from place to place, but it would be far slower with major impacts on traffic, economy and environment. Of course gun control will have consequences -- consequences which are arguable, but extant.


Just because guns are taken away, that doesn't mean that homicides will drop. In fact, they will probably rise. California, the state with the strictest gun control laws, saw a rise in gun violence. What a coincidence.

This is in direct contradiction to Australia's experiences. Show me a source for your claims about California. Show me a Harvard analysis which concludes that gun control measures are counterproductive. I have satisfied the BoP for my claim that gun control is effective -- you still flail in baseless assumptions.


Also, guns aren't the only weapon that cause deaths. Based on the sites www.politifact.com and hotair.com more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than those killed by guns.

A. By no stretch of the imagination are these sources viable scientific studies and thus they are irrelevant to an educated debate supported by facts. B. This does not mean we should not attempt to diminish gun deaths. That's like saying that, based on Wikipedia.com, more murders are committed by men than women, so we should naturally give up on regulating female criminals.


In conclusion...

(1) you have not provided any valid evidence of your own;

(2) you have not addressed the valid evidence which I have provided that directly contradicts your baseless views;

(3a) you have conceded the debate to me by admitting that regulation "will somewhat limit the opportunity for violent people to obtain guns"; and

(3b) you have conceded the debate to me again by admitting that "I agree with your license argument".


The debate topic is: Gun control is worthless. You yourself have surrendered the debate to me by contradicting that resolution and agreeing with my arguments against your faulty logic. Worthless means having no real value or use. Saving lives and limiting potential criminals' access to weapons is an invaluable and immensely useful result of gun regulation measures. I am glad that we agree.
Debate Round No. 3
nrpaul1015

Pro

I will make this conclusion short and sweet. I believe that gun control, no matter the strictness, is an empty gesture. You keep stating that gun control makes it harder to get guns. this could be true, but it wont stop gun violence not by a long shot. Again, gun violence has risen in places with strict gun law. and since it seems like you cant read, I GOT THIS INFORMATION AT, www.politifact.com and hotair.com more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than those killed by guns. AND www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualtie. AND en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties. I would like to point out that I listed these clearly ant the end of my previous argument.

To be honest I cant say I've enjoyed this debate. It seems you have a way of antagonizing your opponents. It seems that people like you will never see that gun control is an empty worthless gesture and will never have a nation wide impact. thank you for your time and let the best argument win.
Ithacus

Con

and since it seems like you cant read, I GOT THIS INFORMATION AT, www.politifact.com and hotair.com

I did respond to that. Accusing me of illiteracy seems somewhat low at this point, especially after accusing *me* of antagonizing my opponents. Here is my response since you missed it in Round 3: By no stretch of the imagination are these sources viable scientific studies and thus they are irrelevant to an educated debate supported by facts. I cited an up-to-date 2011 Harvard Injury Control Research Center article. Basically anyone can create a website on the internet and write basically anything in it. This is why nobody in their right mind quotes Wikipedia, Snopes, or random people's tweets in scientific studies. Who knows when half of those web pages were last edited, let alone updated -- it could have been 1998 for all we know. Furthermore, your claim about gun control "failing" in California can be traced back to only one source: Cam Edwards, who works for NRA News. You see the conflict of interest there, right?

Let's take a closer look at California. NRA says "failing", I say "succeeding", and so does data from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. California’s firearm mortality rate declined to 7.5 per 100,000 in 2010, while the rest of the nation was at 10.3. Between 1990 and 2010, California reduced its firearm mortality rate by 52 percent -- a reduction 24 percentage points greater than the rest of the US. http://wonder.cdc.gov....


You say your conclusion will be deliberately kept "short and sweet", I say you have run out of arguments and are unable to respond to my challenges, namely that you (a) provide any valid evidence of your own, (b) support your claim (contradicting a Harvard analysis and raw data from the CDC) that gun regulation does not prevent gun violence, and (c) repeatedly conceded the debate to me, then finished off with several sentences of attempting to personally disparage me by expressing your disappointment in my character. You really want to go there? I provided a Harvard analysis stating that gun regulation in Australia was "incredibly successful in terms of lives saved". This means that you, by opposing any form of gun control, are arguing *against* measures shown to save lives, in favor of the uninhibited freedom to take lives. I didn't accept this debate because I wanted to harmoniously agree with you.

Regardless, it is not our character but our arguments which are under voter scrutiny here. I hope it is quite clear that I have satisfied my BoP. I challenged you to provide evidence for your unsubstantiated claims; you provided none. I pointed out that you contradicted yourself, thus conceding the debate to me; you failed to respond, and repeatedly misconstrued the argument here, which is not whether gun control will end all violence but whether or not it is *worthless*. By once again in Round 4 saying it "could be true" that "gun control makes it harder to get guns" you're shooting yourself in the foot. As your opponent in this debate, I am not interested in hurting your feelings or making personal arguments against you, but it behooves me to point out when your arguments fail, when you contradict yourself, or when you play into my hands. You have conceded the debate to me, and failed to defend yourself when I pointed it out, instead falling deeper into a rut.


people like you will never see that gun control is an empty worthless gesture and will never have a nation wide impact

At least people like me can read a Harvard Injury Control Research Center analysis literally describing gun control having a nation wide impact and reassemble their views to reflect reality. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu.... If this is my camp I embrace it.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by hoosty69 3 years ago
hoosty69
I feel that gun control is not even realistic in the US for the very reason that the country has been so flooded with weapons over the years that there is absolutely no way of getting them out of the unregistered hands and therefore honest citizens will always feel the need to arm themselves as a balance. That being said criminals will always find a gun as a junkie will find a drug, a irresponsible gun owner leaving an unsecured gun always has the chance of having it stolen, curious child using it, family member or friend going through a suicide depression - well we know how that can turn out. Yes even a honest and responsible gun owner can go through a unique mental switch over. Bottom line, the guns flow out of the manufactures like candy bars and they're everything from revolvers, semi-auto pistols , to assault type guns. Hunting equipment to me has never been the issue. Anyway more guns in the hands of people equal the need for more guns in the hands of people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JackFritschy 3 years ago
JackFritschy
nrpaul1015IthacusTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used very shaky arguments and insulted pro on several occasions.