The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Lord_Logic
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

more guns less crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,801 times Debate No: 20132
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

16kadams

Pro

first round acceptance!
Lord_Logic

Con

I accept this debate. Hope it won't end like last time...

http://www.debate.org...

I await your response, 16kadams.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I have to prove less guns = more crime, then more guns = less crime. The bop is = shared. For clarification this debate is for North america only. And references to the UK should be ignored (I might accidentally have some)

So lets start with my blog as it has awesome graphs (only look at those):

http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

just look at them.

C2: keensaw georgia

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. [1]

So they where required to own a gun.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. [1]

So after the law passed their crime decreased. Also the states had a 10% drop, so in all logic the crime drop in that place due to gun laws was 79%.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years." [1]

yeah that proves my point.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta. [2]

C3: gun control laws raise crime

On Thursday's Stossel show on FBN, host John Stossel devoted the program to making the case that gun control can increase crime rates and that higher rates of gun ownership tend to decrease crime. [3]

Fewer guns don't necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. ... This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. ... Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control. [3]

It is true, as Aubin claims, that homicides have decreased in Canada over the past 15 years, although I don't understand why he chooses 1996 as the starting year to make his point, when the 1995 C-68 law really started to come in force only in 1998. The main point, however, is that homicide rates have decreased more in the U.S., where guns have become more common, than in Canada: in fact, since 1998, the homicide rate has dropped by 33% in the U.S. while it increased 3% in Canada. [4]

SO canada gun laws make slightly higher crime, less gun laws in the us made less crime.

In the U. K., after the introduction of tougher gun control and a prohibition of handguns in 1997, as well as the general repression of self-defence (victims who defend themselves against violent criminals often get more severe sentences than their aggressors), violent crimes have shot up. [4]

But it is not just D.C. that has experienced increases in murder and violent crime after guns are banned. Chicago also experienced an increase after its ban in 1982. Island nations supposedly present ideal environments for gun control because it is relatively easy for them to control their borders, but countries such as Great Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica have experienced large increases in murder and violent crime after gun bans. For example, after handguns were banned in 1997, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. [4]

C4: conceal carry laws reduce crime

Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI's Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade. [7]

According to a 2000 study by John Lott, PhD, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. [6]

But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida's total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas' violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law. [7]

ok point proved there.

C5: overall more guns less crime in USA

Annual numbers of new AR-15s, the most popular semi-automatic rifle that gun control supporters call an "assault weapon," are soaring. In 2008, there were more than 337,000 new AR-15s configured for home defense [8]

Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. [8]

SO when gun sales rose crime dropped. like in kennsaw.

However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. [9]

low on room :(

But, murders in big cities declined over 11 percent between 2008 and 2009, translating to over a 12 percent decrease in the big city murder per capita rate. [10]

So at the same time gun ownership rose crime fell!

C6: criminals check to see if their victim is armed.

this is actully important as if they do it implies that they are afraid of armed victims, and if they aren't then it proves your point, if it proves yes then I am correct.

51% say they do (agree)
30% say they do it a lot (strongly agree)
the rest dont. [11]

my point wins.

==conclusion==

more guns less crime. Well thats is. wow I just looked I have a lot of sources :)

sources:

http://www.rense.com... [1]
http://www.wnd.com... [2]
http://newsbusters.org... [3]
http://www.lewrockwell.com... [4]
http://www.foxnews.com... [5]
John Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws, 2000 [6]
http://www.humanevents.com... [7]
http://www.nraila.org... [8]
http://prevarication.net... [9]
http://www.nraila.org... [10]
http://www.nraila.org... [11]
Lord_Logic

Con

I thank 16kadams for his fast response.

Resolution: If there are more guns, there will be less crime.

He states, in the second round, that this applies to North America only. Think logically. This does show that he is rather desperate to cut off Con's sources. Many websites about less guns means less crime focuses on the UK. Thus, it gives him the advantage. He never clarified about where we were debating about. Therefore, I shall try but with the unfair disadvantage. I shall have to use: logical reasoning and evidence.

Rebuttals- Many of my rebuttals hits various amounts of his arguments.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

I will not try to prove this argument false, but I will say that Kennesaw always had a low crime rate, and 89% less would not make much of a difference because the crime rate was already really low. {5}

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

Because people are required to handle guns, it gives criminals an excuse to buy guns for their sake and to rob/kill. Home invasions happen to 20% of all people. Having a gun for the household doesn't make a huge difference. Home invaders usually come in groups of 5. {6}. Because the 5 people are most likely carrying a gun, 5 against 1 or 2 will not make a huge difference. Even worse, a relative may shoot another relative accidentally. This law will create more successful crimes. This shows that with more guns, there MAY be less crimes, but most of them will be successful. As for less guns, most of them will be unsuccessful.

As 16kadams states, "Fewer guns don't necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true." This shows that when passing a law on gun control, it may mean less crime or more crime.

As {6} shows, the ban on guns made murder and crimes drop by 10%. This is from the National Rifle Association. It shows that less guns means less crime. He talks on and on about the UK. :(. As we see from 16kadams, Canada gets an increase in crime. We see another UK example.

Gun. A gun is easily ready to kill. 1 shot and you may be dead. Why would criminals check to see if their victim is armed? When the criminal just points and presses the trigger, it results in near sudden death. Even worse, banks will now be very cautious and perhaps formidable when people deposit money. It will trigger successful crimes because tellers will not see who is innocent and who is the criminal.

We see from {3} that a man disarmed the criminal but was nearly shot by a bystander walking by with a gun. The bystander thought the man who disarmed the criminal was the criminal, but it was all sorted quickly when police came. If we continue with more guns, many innocent people will be shot, mistaken for the real criminal.

{1} http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...
{2} http://voices.yahoo.com...
{3} http://www.nytimes.com...
{4} http://www.rense.com...
{5} http://www.spike.com...
{6} http://www.nraila.org...

==>Conclusion

I concede, mainly due to the fact that he never clarified where we would debate about. He chose North America, which I have not found many sources of: less guns less crime. This, is why I have to concede. Though I may show logic, 16kadams has the unlimited resources and evidence. If I search online, sources go to less crime more guns because of the unclear Round 1. Vote 16kadams, but note that I had trouble because Pro did not clarify. Because it only applies to North America, I cannot use many of my sources.

Happy New Year.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

well he conceded so I do not have to um refute anything I won.
Lord_Logic

Con

NOTE: I conceded due to the fact of no clarification. Please read my Round 2 explanation: (after the resolution).

Though he wins, I urge you to give Con: Spelling & Grammar. Rest of the points: 16kadams. Also, I'm going snowboarding tomorrow so I won't be on.

Rubric: Just a score

Agree: ?
Agree: ?
Conduct: Pro (I conceded)
Spelling and Grammar: Con
Arguments: Pro
Sources: Pro or Con, you choose.

In any way, Pro wins this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

Um ok arguments me, conduct me, yeah he gets spelling. Sources unknown. OK vote pro I get an automatic 4 points.
Lord_Logic

Con

I'm bored so...

Just bringing back Koopin's speaches.

KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I just noticed you used my blog as a source.
Posted by Trance 4 years ago
Trance
Guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens is not something to be feared, like the anti-gun zealots would have you believe.

We are safer as an armed society, and are not at the mercy of the thugs and crooks (who don't care if the gun they are using is illegal or not) or an over-zealous police force

The day we lose our rights to bear arms, is the day we go from being Citizens to Subjects
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
lol...the resolution should have been something like

"The US Federal Government should Ban Handguns"
...

"more guns less crime" seems to confine the topic
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
If the more guns means less crime, the United States would be the world's safest nation.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
um...even if you used europe I could have owned it
Posted by Lord_Logic 4 years ago
Lord_Logic
16kadams mainly killed my sources by not clarifying in the first round and saying that it only applies to North America, giving him the greatest advantage and leaving me with much sources. Bad Pro.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I will next round bring in the other evidence from my other debate
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
thanks conservative, and I hope the sources help. con lol I get the 3 days joke
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
um k
Posted by Lord_Logic 4 years ago
Lord_Logic
This will take me three days...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadamsLord_LogicTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won for his good arguments and con's concession.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsLord_LogicTied
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: Arguments goes to pro because con conceded. CON had better s/g although
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
16kadamsLord_LogicTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used many convincing sources including studies and statistics to back up his position which turned out to be strong and convincing.
Vote Placed by nerdykiller 4 years ago
nerdykiller
16kadamsLord_LogicTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: um Con stated that I should vote PRO. I see that there was confusion, but in the end.