The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
mcgrif15
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

gun rights

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 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,363 times Debate No: 19086
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

this debate is about America.

1. 2nd amendment protects the right
2. reduces crime
3. hypothetically speaking, if in the very low chance (.001%) then guns would be useful for defending yourself from the government. My favorite type of government, small government that is afraid of it's citizens.
mcgrif15

Con

First of all I would like the judge not to vote based on who is write or wrong, just who debated better. (I am not debating my opinion)
1. Guns are dangerous. They are the most convenient way to kill a person, and if they were taken away from average citizens, killing more people at one time would be more difficult and thus shootings wouldn't kill as many people.

The Legal Community against violence writes. "The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones. Gun violence touches every segment of our society. It increases the probability of deaths in incidents of domestic violence, raises the likelihood of fatalities by those who intend to injure others and among those who attempt suicide, places children and young people at special risk, and disproportionately affects communities of color."
-(http://www.lcav.org...)
Guns are a huge cause of death in America, why should we give people guns; they are a more convenient way to kill.

Contention 2: There are other methods of self defense. We don't need guns for self defense there are other things we can use to prevent attackers such as pepper spray and tasers, these weapons are primarily for defense, you can't rob a bank with pepper spray, so they will be safe, yet effective for defense.

Now on to attack my opponent's case.

First of all his first contention is that the 2nd amendment protects the gun rights. Gun rights are the second amendment, so we are debating whether this should be in the constitution. This isn't a valid point because it is the thing we are debating.

Second my opponent says guns reduce crime. He offers no warrant or example of this, so how do we confirm this.

Last is my opponent's third point. He states this is a "Hypothetical, .001% chance" occurrence. This small hypothetical example cannot justify the negative effects presented in my case for this one event. However, if a rebellion does occur, chances are, if the people are justified in their rebellion, they will receive foreign aid, and thus get guns in this situation. Also, the rebels will not care about the gun rule if they are rebelling against the people who made it.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

"Guns are dangerous. They are the most convenient way to kill a person, and if they were taken away from average citizens, killing more people at one time would be more difficult and thus shootings wouldn't kill as many people."

Funny because drugs are illegal and peopel still get it. Alchohol used ot be illegal and people still got it. Same with guns. If you illegilise it people will still get it. And further more only the law aboding civilians would give away their guns. If i was a crazed murderer I wouldnt give away my guns because even though its a crime I am about to commit murder anyway so why bother.

Yes many people get shot every year. don't look at numbers look at percentages compared to other countries. look at crime rates. Here is a site that describes my view: http://www.justfacts.com...

"There are other methods of self defense. We don't need guns for self defense there are other things we can use to prevent attackers such as pepper spray and tasers, these weapons are primarily for defense, you can't rob a bank with pepper spray, so they will be safe, yet effective for defense."
Well they wouldnt give awaiy guns anyway so the people who where evil would still have them. So people who are lawabiding like me would have to give away guns which reduce the crime. So since they would keep their guns anyway it wouldnt matter, and further more one could make an AK-47 in his garage with the right tools. These can be obtained through black market once the illegalisation begins because most of the gun black market is from europe.

I made examples above to prove my case about the crime.

Um if the U.S. became like libya we wouldnt get aid for a few years. look at them it took them a while to get rid of quadafi. And they didnt get substantial aid until recently other then no fly zones occasionally.

um... you need to deny that the 2nd ammendment protects gun rights. This is what we are debating about. You need to read it and tell me why it is invalid. And by the way it should be in there. when you have a case I will show you how.

You said that this is against your opinion. I thought you were against gun rights? just need clarification.
mcgrif15

Con

"You said that this is against your opinion. I thought you were against gun rights? Just need clarification."- I am debating that gun rights are bad. That doesn't mean I believe gun rights are bad.

First of all let me address the second amendment because I need to "read it". Here it is "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." if you need me to define bear arms it means firearms by dictionary.com. Another word for firearms is guns. So the second amendment is saying that the right to have guns should be kept. My opponent cannot use the rule itself for one of his points.
"Um... you need to deny that the 2nd amendment protects gun rights. This is what we are debating about. You need to read it and tell me why it is invalid" there is no denying that the second amendment is for gun rights. I attacked gun rights in my case. Again, the second amendment is what we are debating, not a defense for the pro.

"Funny because drugs are illegal and people still get it. Alcohol used to be illegal and people still got it. Same with guns. If you illegalize it people will still get it. And further more only the law abiding civilians would give away their guns. If I was a crazed murderer I wouldn't give away my guns because even though it's a crime I am about to commit murder anyway so why bother."- sure people still do drugs even though it is illegal, but they are still illegal although people still do drugs that are illegal, imagine how bad it would be if drugs were legal. We can't just remove laws because they aren't followed by everyone, that's poor logic.

Also he brings up a source saying that restrictions on gun rights have increased crime rate. first of all none of those graphs included the complete ban of gun rights so you cant use them to prove that the complete ban of gun rights will increase crime. Second, the graphs have another variable contributing to the change in crime rate; the graph wasn't constant before the gun rights laws so the change in crime most likely has no association with gun restrictions. last, that source is contradictory, on one hand it supports his point, on another it supports mine by saying "Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower." these three things make my opponents only evidence irrelevant and also makes his second contention irrelevant aswell.

"Um if the U.S. became like Libya we wouldn't get aid for a few years. Look at them it took them a while to get rid of quadafi. And they didn't get substantial aid until recently other then no fly zones occasionally."- The reason Libya had no fly zones is because the rebels lacked an air force, they got help on what they didn't have. They had guns. So, according to the Libya example we would get guns because we don't have them.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

:) Libya had guns, ha ha. Since when Qaddafi ilegalized them, those where smuggled in from Europe. So that goes with my case that if illegilized you still get guns.

defense on my sources behalf. I never said it was about that ban, it is just showing the stats if you restrict guns, since you asked I will give you stats on this subject of a ban: http://www.gunblast.com... This talks about the gun bans in England and that criminals still have guns. Here's another: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu... Same stuff with more numbers though. It is also simple logic that this would raise crime. Would you rather rob someone when guns are allowed ad it is possible that they can shoot you, or when they don't have guns.

Um, this is a gun rights debate you have to act like you disagree with the second amendment. If you take he con side that is implied. Then you have to prove that it doesn't relate to normal citizens. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (do't worry there is a lot of web sites that can help you)

"Again, the second amendment is what we are debating, not a defense for the pro."
You have to disagree that is IMPLIED IF YOU ARE CON! And that makes no sense at all, you just said this isn't my defense, if you are against guns in this debate, then you have to show me that I have no legal protection in that right.

People ill still have guns after a ban. Do you know how easy it is to make an ak-47? Terrorists do it in huts in Pakistan all that all time. I made an AR-15 with my dad in the garage a year ago, and my neighbor does that as a hobby. So even if a murderer gives away his gun, (which he wouldn't care because he's gonna kill someone anyway) then he can just make a new one. And most f the black market from guns in this country isn't from gun stores, but from Europe. http://www.savvysurvivor.com... this happens because people break into government gun storage and run away with guns and send them to Libya, middle east, USA, Mexico, etc. So yes, less guns are in circulation, but the same amount are in the ghetto.

"The reason Libya had no fly zones is because the rebels lacked an air force, they got help on what they didn't have. They had guns. So, according to the Libya example we would get guns because we don't have them."
already answered this, but look at other countries Syria hasn't gotten help yet, and thousands of them are killed every protest, so foreign aid comes slow, or to late.

'Fear is the foundation of most governments.' John Adams. So when a government kill people they instill fear to keep in power, if the people had guns, then the government fears them and then there is liberty. Yes the army has tanks and an air force, but they wont kill people when 30% of America can fight back and take down one soldier down with them. In WW2 the fight in the Warsaw ghetto, 400 lightly armed with smuggled in pistols (numbers of 400-1000) help off the German S.S. the finest soldiers in the world at that time at bay for a month. 2090 German troops finally regained the ghetto with 300 casualties and 93 wounded. The revolvers took More casualties, but this was still a phyricc victory for the Germans. I'm not saying that having more guns=victory vs a government, but I do believe being armed gives you a chance. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.monticello.org...

http://gunsandbullets.files.wordpress.com... look at this graph it extends my case for more guns less crime.
mcgrif15

Con

I don't have much time to write this, so instead of addressing every item in this debate specifically, I will just say the voting points for this debate.
1. why Guns should be outlawed. My opponent suggests that because people don't obey laws, the law that is disobeyed needs to be be abolished. how is this the right thing to do. we make laws to protect America, not for everybody to follow them. abolishing guns is good for Americas protection because it docent allow for a way for someone to conveniently kill. as I have shown, guns are responsible for many deaths. laws are broken, that is why there is jail's. we don't change laws because people disobey them
2. the purpose for guns. as I said, Guns kill people. my opponent suggests that once guns are abolished, the people who obey the laws will be defenseless, I refuted this with the fact that there are other modes of self defence. in the case of a rebellion, my opponent suggested the people who disobey the law (The Rebels) will still have guns, so the rebels will have guns. now it may seem like a contradiction saying guns are bad on one hand, and on the other hand they are needed for rebellion. however, in the case of a rebellion, this law didn't apply, so they don't contradict. now, Guns are bad, they are just a way to make death more convenient, and thus shouldn't be legal.

I apologise about my lack of knowledge on the lybia subject

allow me to clarify the second amendment, it is the topic of debate: My case is against this, if that wasn't clear.

His evidence is all the same, I already disproved it in my second speech. (btw he didn't address that, he just brought up similar evidence.)

Please vote con because these reasons.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol i should have lost...
Posted by mcgrif15 5 years ago
mcgrif15
Reasons for voting decision: I love Texas, and they will separate if the 2nd amendment is removed. So don't mess with Texas!!" don't vote like this... there was nothing said about Texas in this debate!!
Posted by david77 5 years ago
david77
ack! i wish i had been the one to accept the challenge, it looks like a fun debate
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
2,191 Americans use a gun in self-defnese every day. GUNS SAVE LIVES.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
please read the graphs on my site
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jellopants 5 years ago
Jellopants
16kadamsmcgrif15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you are very misguided and this debate could have been intellectually stimulating...however, neither of you can spell or come up with convincing points while staying on topic. Please try again.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
16kadamsmcgrif15Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I love Texas, and they will separate if the 2nd ammendment is removed. So don't mess with Texas!!!
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
16kadamsmcgrif15Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's very first line was "this debate is about America", but almost all of his sources to support his arguments occurred in countries in Europe, not here in the US. His 2nd and 3rd arguments were refuted by the Con and his first argument I felt was a cheap blow against the con because the debate was pro or against gun rights, not if it is protected by the Constitution... Con did have some noticeable spelling errors (lybia and not Libya) so I gave pro spelling and grammar