The Instigator
preston9876543212
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
peace_out_man
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 265 times Debate No: 86938
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

preston9876543212

Con

I feal like gun control is dumb. If i set down my gun on my patio would it kill anyone? NO it would sit there and do nothing it only works when i pull that trigger. People kill people. guns dont kill people. So if the democrats want to get rid of guns because people have killed people with guns then we should get rid of cars because of people dieing from car accidents. And we should get rid of the sport of baseball because if someone slaughters someone with a baseball bat. The second ammendment CLEARLY states everyone has the right to bear arms. People say everything is better in England because guns are against the law and i will admit that death rates are less but thats would of the frkin reasons we left england. If the democrats want to make guns against the law to stop outlaws then only outlaws will have a gun because its against the law.
peace_out_man

Pro

First of all, what's the point? If I give a baby a knife, he/she is sure to cut them self with it. If I give a man with the mental capacity of a baby a knife, they will too. If I give that same man a gun, he will cause more harm than he will ever be able to make up. The truth is, guns have caused more harm than they have protected and a few incidents of a person being saved by guns does not justify the many murders that are ravaging the nation. The 2nd amendment, although it states that people have the right to bear arms, does not specify what type of firearms and how easy they are to get, meaning the government does have the power to restrict access to just about anything but a small pistol which could save more lives than it hurts.

People think that it will protect themselves from school shootings. It does, but disarming them and the rest of Americans, means disarming the school shooters as well which would eliminate the shooting in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1
preston9876543212

Con

First of all let me remind you a baby doesn't know how too pull the trigger of a gun. So if anyone is that stupid they should already have mental help and not be out buying guns at a gun store. And I agree with you that the second amendment doesn't state what type of firearms you can have, but that doesn't matter. That's like saying theres a rule that you cant rob a store, but it doesn't say what kind of store. so can I rob a grocery store rather than a gas station. NO. that goes with guns too just like how you cant rob all stores, so you can own all guns. But anyways if we make guns outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
peace_out_man

Pro

The idea it isn't a man who acts like a baby, but rather a man with the decision making abilities of a baby, and if they seem fit enough, they can get their hands on a gun if they want.

You're right it doesn't say what kind of store because the government hasn't legalized robbing Wal-Marts yet, if they were to, it would be the exact same thing, the second amendment was like that until the government started banning guns, now that we know the government has the full right to do this, they should do it.

The thing is, a shooter on a rampage will kill more people in a disarmed society than an armed society before he's disarmed/killed himself, but the amount of shooters will DRAMATICALLY decrease therefor lowering the death count. Many shooters don't know how to access illegal weapons and these illegal weapons distributors will decrease with the lowering weapon count. That high school kid who's parent's used to have a shotgun locked up, cant shoot up his school anymore because of the gun ban.

Also, before you say anything, the removal of guns in the US is a slow process and if done right, can succeed, so we will be able to reach a point where the shooter isn't armed.
Debate Round No. 2
preston9876543212

Con

well maybe we can make gun laws stricter but not completely gone.

And the government shouldnt have started taking away guns. The government does not have the right to start or finish taking away gun rights. We can have stricter laws, but taking away guns completely is foolish. And like you said and armed society is less likely to unarm or kill a man/woman with a gun, but there really is no point. Murderers will not stop killing, because guns get taken away. They are just going to make different weapons and then society will be in even more danger without guns.

Another important thing to focus on is even if we stop selling guns there will still be guns in society. Unless we decide to go from door to door taking people"s guns, which is unfair, the ammount of guns in the U.S. will stay. So in conclusion taking away guns is pointless. Its almost like entering a war before it starts. Innocent people die just like innocent people who are hunters and dont use their guns for bad get there rights taken. We need to increase security and defense rather than entering a war before it starts
peace_out_man

Pro

peace_out_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
preston9876543212

Con

preston9876543212 forfeited this round.
peace_out_man

Pro

peace_out_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
preston9876543212

Con

preston9876543212 forfeited this round.
peace_out_man

Pro

peace_out_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Well what I think should be addressed in this debate is the fact that the criminals won't be obeying laws anyways... So how would banning guns even work for good? A man intending to commit a crime would obviously get guns illegally too, so he walks into my house, he has a gun, I do not because they were banned and I am a upstanding citizen. So he can shoot me from afar rob my home, rape my family and kill us all. All because the government doesn't let me have guns. If guns stay allowed then I could shoot the dude. It would put us on equal standing. Plus how about the fact more people were killed by fist and hammers than guns? I mean really. If someone wanted to kill another that badly, we have things called Cars....
Posted by james.edwards 9 months ago
james.edwards
Dear Round 1 Pro:

The second amendment "right to bear arms"is intended to be, like all constitutional rights not dictated by the government. The sole idea of "right to bear arms" is to give the power to the people and prevent oppressive governance. Like all constitutional laws there isn't meant to be a double standard. That is the law for everyone. Everyone can bear arms. It's intended to allow citizens to carry the same arms as the military. The second amendment is currently useless as the arms the people carry do not give them any sort of ability to defend themselves from the government through force.

The beauty of a republic is a nation not ruled by the the government, not ruled by the majority but ruled by law. The constitution is the law in the republic. The government cannot disobide the constitution, and if they do corrupt against it the population has the right and responsibility to restore order. The second amendment authorises the american people to protect there constitutional rights through force.
No votes have been placed for this debate.