The Instigator
awsome1
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Legitdebater
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

guns are bad

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 3 votes the winner is...
awsome1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,788 times Debate No: 29295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

awsome1

Con

People say that guns are bad, but I dont believe that. Unless someone is able to put up a real good argument I will still like guns. So someone please debate with me.
Legitdebater

Pro

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
awsome1

Con

So I do not think guns are bad for many reasons first a gun ban would not keep guns out the hands of criminals, (Just look at what happened in Australia) this is because a criminal could just go to a black market and get a fully automatic AK-47 as opposed to a hunting rifle at a local sporting goods store. The same would be true for a longer or harder registration process, it would only punish law-abiding gun owners. lets compare Australia and Switzerland. In Australia were a ban on on privately owned firearms has only made the crime rate go up nearly 300% in the state of Victoria alone! look over to Switzerland were every adult male owns a rifle and handgun and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. So now lets review that The likely reason for that is probably because in Australia a criminal can walk into someone's house knowing they are unarmed. In Switzerland a criminal is not going to go into someone's house knowing they are armed. This is why I am not for more gun laws.
Legitdebater

Pro

My opponent gave very legitimate examples on how guns could be could. However looking at our home country U.S.A., we can see that guns have had an extremely negative impact on our society and the world. From past events such as the Columbine massacre, to the terrible tragedy in Newtown, we can see that guns can have cost innocent children lives. Not only that, but in 2011 31 940 people died from gun-related injuries in 2011. In 2007 and 2009, the rate of homicide per 100 000 individuals was 2.98, and the unintentional gun-fatality rate was 0.27. To put that in perspective, the homicide rate was 99 times more than the United Kingdom and Japan combined. Also, if we look our neighbors up North (Canada, they're doing just fine without the need to bear-arms. Carrying guns in homes does not make a country a better society, but a rather paranoid and unstable society as we can see in the U.S. The summary of this round is that guns to much more harm than good and have an negative impact.
Debate Round No. 2
awsome1

Con

to start off law abiding gun owners stop around 82500 crimes across the nation annualy. An example of a homicide stopped by a law abiding gun owner would be in portland oregon three days before the newtown school shooting. So what happened was a sociopath walked into a mall carrying an AR15 he opened fire on a crowd but was stopped when a man carrying a concealed handgun put the sociopath at gunpoint, the crazy man then proceeded to kill himself. Looking over to the newtown shooting and though I agree that it is terrible someone would do that however that guy was crazy and he would have found to kill kids with or without a gun. the reason he used a gun is just because that was just the most conveniant method. Even if you dont believe me in china on the same day as newtown a man walked into a school and stabbed 22 children. this proves that a gun isnt going to kill anybody it requires an evil person behind it. its basiclly like the saying goes, guns dont kill people, people kill people.
Legitdebater

Pro

My opponent gave decent reasons on why the Newtown shooting was more of human evil than a gun problem. However, what my opponent didn't rebuttle was that guns are way too accessible in the U.S. There have been countless cases of guns being stolen from peoples homes and little children accidentally shooting other children. Is this pure evil? I ask you or is it because guns are way too accessible. In Canada, they have strict gun-registry laws that restrict semi-automatic and automatic rifles, machine guns and any other semi-automatic and automatic guns. This significantly lowers the accidental gun-deaths and homicide death rate. My opponent also said that psychopaths can just use knives instead of guns. But don't you think psychopaths use guns because they are more efficient and can kill massive amounts of people. This was probably the mentality of the Psycho's in the Newtown and Columbine shootings. The point is that guns are way too accessible and have an extremely negative impact.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
"Sorry, I forgot to put my sources."

The debate is already over, so it's too late to present new evidence.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
The stated resolution in the title and round one was "Guns are bad."

Both sides inexplicably discussed gun control laws and the accessibility of guns. Whether guns are more or less accessible does not affect whether the objects are good or evil.

Con wins for two reason--

1. Con claimed it was not the gun that was evil but rather the person behind it and Pro conceeded that it was more the person who was evil.
2. Con's numbers in favor of guns were 82,500 crimes stopped per year. Pro's number agains guns was 940 deaths per year. Con's numbers were bigger. It's too bad Pro did not cite the source for his statistics and then challenge Con's statistics. The real statistics aren't so clear cut.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Sources in comments after voting has begun? Too late.
Posted by Legitdebater 4 years ago
Legitdebater
Sorry, I forgot to put my sources.

Round 2 sources: http://wiki.answers.com...
http://scienceblogs.com...
Posted by mananlak 4 years ago
mananlak
Uh, the debate is about whether or not guns are bad you're arguing about gun laws in Round 1?
Oh, and where are the sources?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
awsome1LegitdebaterTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did make arguments, however didn't back them up very well. He didn't even touch upon Con?s main argunent. Con does make grammar mistakes, such as not capitalizing "to" and "let?s".
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
awsome1LegitdebaterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
awsome1LegitdebaterTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: No points for conduct; there was no misconduct to penalize. Pro had better S&G. But Pro relied on a narrow view of the issue to demonize guns rather than taking a broader view. Yes, reducing guns reduces gun crime. But that comes at the cost of an increase in overall violent crime. Pro failed to counter the prevention of crime by law-abiding gun owners, and failed to consider that knives aren't the only alternate weapon that could be used, some of which are far more deadly and harder to regulate than guns. Sadly, Con didn't consider this last point, either, but on the whole, Con wins for argument because Pro makes a weak case and fails to address all of the issues presented by Con. No sources, no vote for such.