The Instigator
TheRadicalConservative
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Socialismisthebest123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gun Ban

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...
TheRadicalConservative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 119396
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

TheRadicalConservative

Con

Honestly, A gun ban is the dumbest thing you can do for America.

My opponent will state his/her argument first about why a gun ban is the right course of action in America.
Socialismisthebest123

Pro

You are an idiot.

A gun ban is the best thing for America.

Of course, You people on the right are such scums all the time.

I will wait for round 2 to post my argument, So it is fair.

But I am intrigued to know why you think a gun ban is bad
Debate Round No. 1
TheRadicalConservative

Con

You liberals make me want to kill myself.

Gun ownerships across America have been increasing steadily while crime rates have been decreasing steadily. Explain to me how reversing this would make things better.

Also, Do you have any prove whatsoever that a gun ban would work how you plan it to? My proof that guns are good is what I just said: Increasing gun ownerships, Decreasing crime rates. Explain to me how Chicago, With one of the strictest gun laws in the country, Still has one of the highest homicide rates in the country. How does this work? It doesn't. Taking away guns doesn't help with anything, And their is no proof that it will.

And you do realize that even if we do ban guns, There will still be a black market. If every citizen and law enforcer doesn't have a gun, And a man gets ahold of one, What are you going to do? Beat him to death with bats before he opens fire on a crowd? No. The law will have guns to protect themselves and the public.

There is an armed burglar that breaks into people's house once every 5 seconds. If that burglar has a gun but you, By the law, Don't have one, What are you supposed to do? That burglar will kill you entire family while you go right up with a baseball bat when he is opening fire.

Many people die from school shootings every year. Do you know how the shooter is stopped? By armed policemen. Policemen with guns, Not policemen with bats. You should never bring a knife to a gunfight.

How do you expect this to work? Chicago has already proved that it doesn't work. I have already proved that guns don't equal crime, Because gun ownership increase resulted in a crime decrease. So how will this work?

Liberals, Liberals, Liberals. Always stating things not supported by facts. Let's see if you're different.
Socialismisthebest123

Pro

First off typical dumb conservative. It doesn't freaking matter that a person is liberal. I am not, By the way, I'm just a moderate Democrat that believes strongly in a gun ban.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, Except that "gun control" at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, As much as it infuriated some, Was still too tentative. "Certain kinds of weapons, Like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, And certain kinds of ammunition, Must be outlawed for civilian ownership, " the paper argued, Making the case for "reasonable regulation, " nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. "We shouldn"t "take them away" from people who currently own them, Necessarily, " writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, But we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, But because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme"an acceptance, Ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, Of an individual right to own guns"to another, Which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

Their wariness, As far as I can tell, Comes from two issues: a readiness to accept the Second Amendment as a refutation, And a reluctance to impose "elite" culture on parts of the country where guns are popular. (There are other reasons as well, Not least a fear of getting shot. ) And there"s the extent to which it"s just so ingrained that banning guns is impossible, Legislatively and pragmatically, Which dramatically weakens the anti-gun position.

The first issue shouldn"t be so complicated. It doesn"t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U. S. Gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it"s right there in the First Amendment that we don"t have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn"t prevent any of us from saying it"s been misinterpreted, Or that it should be repealed.

When you find yourself assuming that everyone who has a more nuanced (or just pro-gun) argument is simply better to read on the topic, Remember that opponents of abortion aren"t wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. They"re not keeping their opinions to themselves until they"ve got a term paper"s worth of material proving that they"ve studied the relevant case law.

Get the latest from TNR. Sign up for the newsletter.
Then there is the privilege argument. If you grew up somewhere in America where gun culture wasn"t a thing (as is my situation; I"m an American living in Canada), Or even just in a family that would have never considered gun ownership, You"ll probably be accused of looking down your nose at gun culture. As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, And not, You know, About owning guns. Guns" I mean, Must it really be spelled out what"s different? It"s absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference.

There"s also a more progressive version of this argument, And a more contrarian one, Which involves suggesting that an anti-gun position is racist because crackdowns on guns are criminal-justice interventions. Progressives who might have been able to brush off accusations of anti-rural-white classism may have a tougher time confronting arguments about the disparate impact gun control policies can have on marginalized communities.

These, However, Are criticisms of certain tentative, Insufficient gun control measures"the ones that would leave small-town white families with legally-acquired guns well enough alone, Allowing them to shoot themselves or one another and to let their guns enter the general population.

Ban Guns, Meanwhile, Is not discriminatory in this way. It"s not about dividing society into "good" and "bad" gun owners. It"s about placing gun ownership itself in the "bad" category. It"s worth adding that the anti-gun position is ultimately about police not carrying guns, Either. That could never happen, Right? Well, Certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility.

Ask yourself this: Is the pro-gun side concerned with how it comes across? More to the point: Does the fact that someone opposes gun control demonstrate that they"re culturally sensitive to the concerns of small-town whites, As well as deeply committed to fighting police brutality against blacks nationwide? I"m going to go with no and no on these. (The NRA exists! )

On the pro-gun-control side of things, There"s far too much timidity. What"s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what"s feasible keeps what needs to happen"no more guns"from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, Embraced unapologetically if it"s to be reckoned with.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRadicalConservative

Con

I am sorry for the name calling, To start off. My bad. I don't know why I did that.

But to my point, You are not telling me what the goal of this gun ban is, Neither how it would work the way you expect it to. Actually, You shared none of these.

Can you tell me three things?

1). What is the goal of this gun ban you speak of?

2). How is this supposed to work?

3). How do you expect it to work?

Because I'm not arguing about racism right now. This is about guns, And I don't care if people aren't speaking up. That isn't my problem or yours. Tell me the goals, How having police officers unarmed, Will work. Tell me how reversing the way things are now, (again, Gun ownerships have increased while crime rates around the country have decreased) will help anything. My goal here is to prevent crime and to protect the citizens of this country. Is that yours also? If so, Then why do you want to get rid of the driving force behind lower crime rates?
Socialismisthebest123

Pro

I know your name is Jeff, Lol I can see u
Debate Round No. 3
TheRadicalConservative

Con

LOL
HI JACOB
Socialismisthebest123

Pro

Socialismisthebest123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by valganis 3 years ago
valganis
A short, But very good reason for not enforcing gun control upon the people has occured in history. Hitler took guns from Jews to leave them defenceless to the Nazi squads and Gestapo invading their homes and carrying them off to their deaths. If American's right to owning guns was given a muzzle that restricted it entirely, It would leave the citizens vulnerable to guns bought by criminals on the Black Market and leave little but sticks and stones to deter the government itself from only God knows.
Posted by Tentak 3 years ago
Tentak
name calling isn't a good sign :(
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
I like how you go straight to personal attacks instead of being pleasant person and having a proper debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hello83433 3 years ago
Hello83433
TheRadicalConservativeSocialismisthebest123Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct sucked on both sides so the only point is going to con since he didn't forfeit.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.