The Instigator
frccandrew
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
glavytrain
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

gun rights

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...
frccandrew
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 86438
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

frccandrew

Con

Due to the fact that guns are such a large concern for our society, as far as the misuse of them goes, a lot of people are concerned that they are too readily available for "bad people" and need to be limited or even eliminated completely. When I say a lot of people, I am one of those people. I believe that guns serve no purpose in todays society unless you're going hunting for sport, using a gun in defense from someone else that has a gun (which if guns were illegal then this would be few and far between), or for law enforcing (this can be another debate in of itself due to misuse and unjust use of guns) or government use. Guns, however, are necessary for war and protection of our citizens. The purpose and use of guns has changed drastically over the years and it seems every other day (every day actually and many times a day) there is a new gun-related crime or terrorism involving guns. Eliminating the problem all together (guns) seems to be the most effective way to stop gun violence and acts of terrorism, of course it wouldn't stop problems completely but it's a start and worth a "shot".
glavytrain

Pro

First of all, I didn't come onto this site to talk to a dirty hippie like you. I bet you are sitting in some yoga class eating some tofu-kale hybrid garbage, telling everyone else in the class how you went to Indonesia to "find yourself". You probably spent all of your parents money at an extremely expensive university in order to acquire your super practical philosophy degree (because you're a moron, I wanted to let you know that I was being sarcastic in my preceding statement). Not only is you're argument unoriginal, you also sound like a retarded third grader while explaining it. You're fat, you're stupid, and I had sex with your mom last night. I would also like to say that punching you in the face would be worth a "shot" you insufferable loser. AMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
frccandrew

Con

Hmm.. Interesting counter-point indeed. If it's alright with you, I'd like to get back on track here and talk about gun rights for American citizens, such as yourself (preferably leaving my mother out of the debate). What do you think should happen with current laws in order to both restrict who has the ability to obtain and own a gun, and diminish the amount of gun-related violence here in the great country we live in. What is your position on this topic specifically? How open-minded are you to the fact that your right to bear arms may not be the best for the country as a whole. Meaning.. if you knew that giving up that right could potentially save a lot of lives would you be okay with giving up that right?
glavytrain

Pro

Yeah, I know what I said was interesting, that's why I said it. Also, it's not alright with me to get back on track. I am on track, MY TRACK. Yo momma's so fat, she got her own zip code. Yo momma's so ugly, even Rosie O'donald wouldn't have sex with her. Yo momma's so stupid, she couldn't graduate Sunday School. What do you think about that, you limp-wristed liberal commie weasel?! Now I'm ready to answer your bush-league questions. As far as the current gun laws go, they are way too restrictive. I pay my taxes, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE A TANK AROUND! Is that "specific" enough for you as to my position of this topic? As far as giving up my gun rights, well... you can go straight to hell. I don't care what people say, when the aliens invade, I want to be able to blow their faces off. Oh, I almost forgot to tell you, me and your mother are going to a spa resort this weekend, so we left $20.00 on the kitchen table for pizza. As always, you're a fat, ugly cow.
Debate Round No. 2
frccandrew

Con

I assume this conversation isn't going to make any progress anytime soon. I feel as if we have gotten off of the topic once more and there's really no point now. it would be within my best interest to part ways and allow you to take this one as a win for gun rights.
glavytrain

Pro

Listen man, I'm sorry that I have been harassing you throughout the duratioin of this discussion. I like to test people to make sure that they are reasonable to discuss the exceedingly important subject matter at hand. I have been trolled many times and I like to make sure that I am talking to a real person. Now, if you can forgive me and we can get down to business, I actually do disagree with your point of view and I would like the opportunity to convince you otherwise. As far as gun restriction goes, I do agree that the system in place is positively abhorrent. Firearms are way too accessible in this country, and the background checks should be much more extensive in order to purchase a weapon. Every American citizen should also be mandated to attend a gun safety/use program prior to being able to purchase a firearm. I also disagree that automatic weapons should be available for public use, but I still maintain my stance that every American has the right to bear arms. Do you think that eliminating firearms will cause a decrease in the violence that constantly plagues this country? I think the problem is deeper than that. Most gun violence occurs in areas ridden with poverty and crime, where people are hungry and need to resort to illegal ways of making money to put food on the table? Shouldn't we try to eliminate the cause of violence rather than eliminating an instrument of violence?
Debate Round No. 3
frccandrew

Con

Not a problem, I appreciate you staying with me on this important topic. I believe we are somewhat on the same page as far as the gun restriction laws in place. We need to be more thorough in who can obtain weapons and for what reasons they intend to use them. Unfortunately, even with such restrictions in place, this wouldn't stop theft of weapons in the hands of a responsible owner, not to mention all of the accidental gun-related deaths that occur each year in America, even with the proper training, the gun could still cause unintentional harm to the user or people surrounding the user. To answer your questioning regarding whether it would eliminate violence completely, of course not. People have always been violent and guns are simply, as you put it, an instrument to that violence. If that instrument didn't exist, people would find other ways to kill and cause violence, no doubt. Guns specifically, however, simply make it easier. Someone that has killed with a gun could probably tell you that it wasn't a hard thing to do, it's a split second decision, a pull of a trigger, and if violent people were not given the instrument that makes killing so easy they might think twice about their decisions/actions.
glavytrain

Pro

If violent people have guns, then non-violent people need them more. If I may give a few examples, I would like to further my point. The Aurora movie theater shooting and the Virginia Tech Massacre. You might be thinking that these are examples to strengthen your argument. Quite the contrary actually, you see, regardless of whether guns are illegal or not, people who operate outside the parameters of normal society( i.e. hitmen, drug dealers, gang members, robbers) are going to be able to obtain those weapons. Such is the case in both of the aforementioned shootings. If both of the perpetrators of those shootings really wanted to get firearms, they could. There are ways around the law. That being said, people who do abide by the rules of our society need to be able to protect themselves. If there had been at least one person who was trained in the proper safety and usage of firearms, and carried a firearm themselves, there would have been a significant reduction in casualties. Conversely, in the actual instance of the Aurora movie theater shooting, no one had a firearm, and they had to wait for police to arrive while the shooter gunned down more and more people. There will always be guns available to those who really want them, and for those of us who want to protect ourselves and others around us need to be prepared.
Debate Round No. 4
frccandrew

Con

You bring up an excellent point, and I actually agree with your reasoning. It just occurred to me that you can't magically make all of the current guns go away. Implementing a law with that idea in mind would not only fail to cease every gun in America but it would fail to decrease crime because criminals don't follow laws and always find a way around them. It was a pleasure having this conversation/debate with you (minus the first couple of responses...) and I hope you continue to stand up for the things you think are right. Debate on my good man.
glavytrain

Pro

I had a great time debating with you. You have been extremely patient and understanding throughout this entire discussion. Can we be friends? Perhaps, even, best friends? In any case, I wish you the best of luck in all of your debate ventures. Sharpton for President y'all!! PEACE!!!!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sarah314// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro spent the first two rounds spewing complete nonsense when they could have been actually debating the issue at hand.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter just presents a reason why they disliked Pro's first two rounds, and not an explanation for how the debate turned out.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: mmurph123// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: See the below RFD, but for the gist of it neither side really argued anything or provided any sources, impacts, warrants, all the other things debaters get up in arms about. Gave the arguments point to Con for not being rude and for attempting to put up arguments. Conduct was a gimmie and the all caps justifies a point for con grammar.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments aren't sufficiently explained. Not being rude is not a basis for awarding these points, and unless the arguments actually negate the resolution, neither is attempting to argue in the debate. (2) Using all caps is not sufficient for awarding S&G. The voter has to explain why the argument was difficult to read and not just why it was annoying. (3) The voter should be careful to not reference other RFDs. The vote should stand alone.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 10 months ago
kkjnay
frccandrewglavytrainTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I should be paid for having to read this debate. Conduct points to Con as Pro was consistently personally insulting Con.