The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

mass murder gun should be banned by statute

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,534 times Debate No: 2443
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (10)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"too bad i didn't have my AK47"
people often say prolimits on guns people are just appealing to emotion when someone goes on a rampage and shoots a bunch of people.. and in response are saying we should ban machine guns AK's etc.
that we're better off with those types of guns.

you want to talk about mushy emotional appeal? who ever hears about people not saving themselves, or better yet actually saving themselves, because they had access to an AK47? i never hear about it. i agree it doesn't mean it doesn't happen but. it's just mushy emotional appeal.
who ever hears about people getting ak47ed or machine guned down? lots of pepole hear this. school shootings, irate police, gang shootings etc

there's a difference between AK47's and axes etc (the idea that axes kill ppl too so all should be legal). the analogy makes the point that they're all killing machines, true. but, it's just an analogy, cause AK47's are mass killing machines. the analogy that axes should allow Ak's is the same as the analogy that AK's should allow nuclear arms in hand gun form etc. there are actually people who argue that.
most people don't want nuclulear arms.
so instead of all the analogies.... look to the fact.
the fact is, we don't know what save who etc.
but, i insist that common sense and understanding is that AKs kill more people than they save though, again, cause people don't hear about AKs saving people but do hear about people getting gunned down.

AKs are mass killing devices. i don't think it's unreasonable to say that banning htem or seriously limiting them to very spective people would reduce the number of them. true, criminals have them, but allowing them freely would make them a lot more available.

If you want to argue, on principle, that it doesn't matter that more peple die without the bans, but that those who can defend themselves should have full opporutnity to, then sure, that's an argument that has a basis, but at least admit what you're saying, the premises.

personally... i think reality is that if you have a gun, you're able to defend yourself... it doesn't have to be an AK.
you can have guns without having mass killing devices.
the times you'd actually need an AK are so rare as to render it far being outweighted by the times people get hosed down by them and freeer access.

the doomsday scenario of a giant invasion of the US is just that... a doomsday scenario, very unlikely to happen. again, talk about mushy emotional appeal.
and in most invastions... it wouldn't be that difficlut to arm the populace. only very very unlikely invasions would make us unable to. again, just mushy emotional appeal.

the constitution might provide an argument for mass killing devices.... but even if it did, that's not arguing sound policy, but rather techincal law. the law of man... not to downplay it completely, but it's not a policy argument.
plus... the 2nd amendment is notoriously unclear by academics, so to say it's clear is simply wrong. it could be argued either way.
personally, for those types of situations, i look past the text and look at policy, which is what should be the focus of the debating in the first place.

look past rhetoric people, and see the facts for what they are. as i see them, and i'd insist almost certainly true... more people get hosed by AKs etc than do people actually save themselves with them. (if those people had AKs would that have helped them? maybe. but the fact is they chose not to have them, many times. and usualy the free access to them simply enables someone to go on a rampage a whole lot easier. i admit studies show that guns being legal might be effective generally, but that doesn't mean mass murder weopons.)
i admit studies need done, to see which policy is most effective, if the studies can be determinative. if they can't, then people should just say.... 'if you're right about who gets saved more etc, then your position is good'

to me... mushy emotional appeal to be proAK47's etc, is usually just blind adherence by conservatives who simply want to tout the party line. it doesn't have to do with looking at the reality of the situation.
Yraelz

Con

Thank you for the debate topic. I will be devil's advocate. I ask everyone to vote on who you felt did a better job debating and not on your personal views.

I see where you are coming from and I totally agree with you that they are murder machines. But it is for this reason that we need to keep them around and not ban them.

By 2050 the world population is projected to be at 9 billion conservatively. This means that there will be 1.5 times the amount of people now on earth to support. Think about our situation now. We have millions of people already in poverty in the U.S. Not to mention Mexico, parts of Africa, India, China etc... If we can't keep our people out of poverty at this point what makes anyone think we will be able to with another 3 billion thrown into the mix.

Death is a natural part of life, and ultimately it is something that we have little control over. We can delay death, postpone it, but in the end it will have us. Therefor the only real control we have is over the quality of our life. I propose the idea that 2 billion people living in total harmony would be better than 4 billion living in poverty. Thus I also propose the idea that death is a natural check to life and something that must happen.

Your idea is therefor to prevent the death of our fellow humans by banning the AK-47 but like you have said it is employed by gangs to kill people. Thus I can only condone this killing, gang shooting by me are entirely fine. Gang shootings effectively get rid of the rabble of our society, often people who are already in poverty. Thus not only do they decrease the people in poverty but combat over population effectively. Without them we would be a much more sorry nation than we are now.

Thus I offer a counter proposal. We should not only allow AK-47s but make them more available for people to get. Then in turn we should increase our public school security a step our two as to prevent school shootings. Gang shootings fine. School shootings bad. Gangs like to shoot at each other. School children don't really enjoy that idea (usually).

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

is this like a joke debate to you or?

first. if the population is really increasing so much we need to be concerned, then instead of arming the populace as you propose, we should work on getting the populations fed etc. this can be done if you have faith... there's already ways to make alt energy, nuclear etc. ways to increase the energy of our food. we eat what we eat cause it tastes good, not cause it's msot productive. people starve because we can't agree how to handle poverty in africa... how to control them, how to make the economy there. most of it's laziness. poverty does not have to exist.

also. even if that argument doesn't work, which it does. then don't allow AKs but allow other guns. AKs etc simply kill people. it's known for bad, never known for good for the normal citizens. you can defend yourself with just a pistol in todays society just fine.
AKs would only make things worse.
Yraelz

Con

Well, you had two paragraphs so I will go over each of them in turn.

"first. if the population is really increasing so much we need to be concerned, then instead of arming the populace as you propose, we should work on getting the populations fed etc. this can be done if you have faith... there's already ways to make alt energy, nuclear etc. ways to increase the energy of our food. we eat what we eat cause it tastes good, not cause it's msot productive. people starve because we can't agree how to handle poverty in africa... how to control them, how to make the economy there. most of it's laziness. poverty does not have to exist."

>>On your "first." Yes you are right, we should work on getting the population fed, however this is something we have been working on for some time now and we are seeing results. We still have a great deal of people in poverty however and a great deal of people starving all over the world. The simple fact is, our ability to feed people is slowly diminishing as the people become greater. The growth of people is outstripping our ability to create new food.

Your next couple of sentences concern me moderately.

"this can be done if you have faith... there's already ways to make alt energy, nuclear etc. ways to increase the energy of our food."

>>This appears to be a combination of religion, nuclear energy and food. Very scary! Nuclear powered food is a baaaaaaaaaad thing.

Then you say people starve in Africa because we don't know how to handle it and that poverty does not have to exist. You may have a point on poverty not having to exist however even if everyone was a millionaire we still need food to support the population. People die now because they cannot get to food, what is it going to be like with 9 billion people on the face of this earth?

So here is my conclusion. You are right to attempt to increase the energy content of our food, create hybrid foods, micro nutrients etc... However this is not mutually exclusive from my plan of action. We can attempt to create new foods while stemming the growth of the population. Keep in mind this would be gang growth we are stemming, not much of a loss to anyone.

Onto your other paragraph.

"also. even if that argument doesn't work, which it does. then don't allow AKs but allow other guns. AKs etc simply kill people. it's known for bad, never known for good for the normal citizens. you can defend yourself with just a pistol in todays society just fine.
AKs would only make things worse."

>>You may have a point actually..... perhaps if we allow rocket launchers, more impacts, more k-bang. No wait.... they do damage to the surrounding area, that costs extra money... ack! No it has to be AK-47s they are the most reliable to get the job done. Though I'm a little confused on your position. You seem to be under the impression that AK-47s kill people. Its people that kill people with guns, AK-47s just help the killing. So I suppose your position could be classified as: killing less people is better.

Thus I would like to offer you a quote from famous scientist Paul Ehrlich:

"Sooner or later population would completely outstrip the capacity of any other nation to supply food. For every 1000 people saved now, perhaps 10,000 will die when the crunch comes."

So lets examine this quote really quickly. For every 1000 people saved now, 10,000 people will die when the crunch comes. Mr. Ehrlich is arguing in this scenario that death checks are natural and that each person saved now will result in 10 dieing later on because of overpopulation.

So let me apply this to your scenario. For each person you save by taking your AK-47s off the street, 10 will die later. Is that what you want?
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

your theories are not basis in facts.
they're just theories

the US europe etc are known for leveling off in population. that's the natural result with humans etc. Africa will increase and we'll get to 9 billion. the reason this happens is because people would rather have more stuff than to scrumamage up the means to support more people.

micronutrients etc are fully capable of supporting all that. corn has energy content of like 2000 units per corn, and thigns like switchgrass has units like 9000. so, that'd support more than four times our population. and, other countries could do the same thing. they just need the technology which we could get.

my theoriest have much more basis in fact that your's... yours are just spouting off random theories..... like if global warming were true, the cities would flood and droughts would occur and we'd have no means to grow food... when in fact it could be that warming is better.
my point is that you're offereing pure speculation.

i don't have speculation, at least as much, given my facts.
plus, it's not a problem now.... gun ownership etc... so we should't be allowing it now until your problem were to actually occur.

so, you've created a problem where there's not one any way you slice it.
Yraelz

Con

Last speech. Here goes line by line on what you said.

"your theories are not basis in facts."

>>Yes they are, population is growing, people are starving. More population = more starving people.

"the US europe etc are known for leveling off in population. that's the natural result with humans etc. Africa will increase and we'll get to 9 billion. the reason this happens is because people would rather have more stuff than to scrumamage up the means to support more people."

>>First off you admit we will be getting to 9 billion in this post thus confirming my case. Secondly how is population leveling off the natural result with humans? We are always attempting to develop better health care and live longer. We are a population that strives for longer and longer life, thus our population increases and increases. U.S is at 300 million now, it is projected to be at 400 million by 2050. Leveling off?

"micronutrients etc are fully capable of supporting all that. corn has energy content of like 2000 units per corn, and thigns like switchgrass has units like 9000. so, that'd support more than four times our population. and, other countries could do the same thing. they just need the technology which we could get."

>>What....? Things like switchgrass has units like 9000. so, that'd support more than four times our population? Where are you pulling this information from? If your evidence is factual then why do we still have million of people dieing all the time of starvation? Roughly 30,000 people a day to be exact. Its more than apparent that certain sections of the world have already become overpopulated and we are already seeing some of the problems.

"my theoriest have much more basis in fact that your's... yours are just spouting off random theories..... like if global warming were true, the cities would flood and droughts would occur and we'd have no means to grow food... when in fact it could be that warming is better.
my point is that you're offereing pure speculation."

>>I'm giving you theories from prominent scientists that can seen to be true through real world empirical evidence. You offered me "switchgrass has units like 9000" something that I'm not even sure the meaning of. "my theoriest" are fact. Global warming has nothing to do with this debate.

"i don't have speculation, at least as much, given my facts.
plus, it's not a problem now.... gun ownership etc... so we should't be allowing it now until your problem were to actually occur."

>>Let me evaluate what you just said. "We shouldn't be allowing it now until your problem were to actually occur." My problem is this, "people starving in mass." Thus, what you just said is essentially this:

We shouldn't do anything about the problem until people are starving in mass.

Not a sound strategy at all.

Thus I rest my case. We can allow the least needed members of our society to destroy each other while solving for overpopulation at the same time. This is a win scenario for us. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ManBearPig 9 years ago
ManBearPig
Here's an idea, who cares about statistics? The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment. If gun-grabbers don't like a gun because it's "evil looking", that's their problem. You telling me, a law-abbiding citizen, that I can't have a certain gun is ridiculous. And hopefully we will get an "individual" ruling in the D.C. case from the SCOTUS to stop people like Sarah Brady, Hillary Clinton, and Carolyn McCarthy, from trying to take our guns.

Now I'm not saying that I'm against all gun control. Requiring a background check and making sure someone has not just been in a mental institution is very very logical. Telling someone, who is law-abbiding, they can't have a certain type of gun is illogical. It's the same thing with these "gun free zones" or really "criminal safe zones". The gun-grabbers just don't get it. Criminals don't care that guns aren't supposed to be there and they keep killing the people that have been disarmed.

I myself, own an arsenal...including 3 AK-47s. I've never commited a crime in my life and am a very pro gun safety person. I will never give them up; ever. I think the 2nd Amendment refers to all "small arms"...meaning anything from a small revolver to a machine gun"; so don't come at me with: "then let's all have a nuke" argument. Telling someone they can't own a gun because it "looks evil" is just ridiculous and we won't stand for it again.

For you gun-grabbers: You have a right to live gun free and be at the mercy of the criminals. But you don't have the right to force me to do the same. And if you aren't fully against guns, but just "assault rifles". You have a right to not own one, but again you don't have a right to force me to do the same.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Thats actually a mildly good point..... Hmm.....
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
There is no way you can be 24yr. old unless you are ESL. Opening argument is almost unintelligible. Never concede so arguments especially so many in the opening argument when they haven't even been presented; this wastes everyone' s time.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Had to take this!!! Amazing! I will definitely post shortly.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by psynthesizer 9 years ago
psynthesizer
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ManBearPig 9 years ago
ManBearPig
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03