Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Guns should not be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,348 times Debate No: 120723
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (2)

 

Pro

My position is above and I will open lines of arguments

1)taking guns away from good guys are not the solution
2)Get Rid of Gun-Free Zones
3)Mass shootings are not the fault of guns
4)More guns = less crime less guns=more crime
Sonofcharl

Con

1) How do you decide who are the good guys? As intent is not always obvious. Intent might also be latent, Especially in those with undiagnosed mental health issues.

2) Aren't gun free zones somewhat fanciful notions in the first place? Especially in a society awash with guns.

3) No guns no mass shootings. You can't remove people from the equation so removing guns is the only other option.

4) More guns = more potential. Less guns = less potential.

5) Guns are remote killing devices and indiscriminate in the wrong hands.

6) Guns also have the ability to heighten senses and thereby irrationalise perception. Therefore, A good guy with a loaded gun in their hand is likely to become over confident and irrational.

7) Good guy + gun could easily = bad guy.

8) Bad guy + gun + good guy + gun = potential x 2. The potential for an armed confrontation to escalate fatally is greater when both sides are armed.

Of course it's no good just taking guns off the "good guys". Banning guns also means taking guns off the bad guys.
Does the U. S. Administration and Legislature have the will to do so?
I can think of 4 billion reasons why it doesn't.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

1. The good guys are the VAST majority of gun owners who stop 800k to 2 million violent crimes each year.
2. No, Gun free-zones make up 96% of mass-shootings and women get raped in gun-free zones.
3. No, Mass killings can be committed with a SPOON.
4. Back it up with evidence
5. Untrue, Cars are more dangerous than guns
6. Where do you get that and you are safer with a gun or next to someone with a gun than you are in a car. #1 again
7. Very unlikely, And doesn't happen.
8. No, It saves lives. Look at the mass shooting at a college in the US where a Good guy stopped a bad guy, Or how mass shootings that have low death tolls compared to others are stopped with good guy cops stopping the bad guy.
9. Criminals find a way.

Lithuania has one of the world's lowest gun ownership rates (0. 7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45. 06 per 100, 000 people in 1999, The highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information. Japan has a low gun ownership rate at 0. 6 guns per 100 people and a high suicide rate of 18. 41 suicides per 100, 000 people in 1997. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, In 2012, Mexico had 11, 309 gun murders (9. 97 gun homicides per 100, 000 people) compared to the United States that had 9, 146 gun homicides (2. 97 per 100, 000 people). Gun control laws are racist. Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, Poor, Black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. In the late 1960s, Gun control laws were enacted in reaction to the militant, Gun-carrying Black Panthers. The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, Blacks were never allowed to own guns. In 1831, A law was passed that prohibited free black people "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, Any military weapon, Or any powder or lead and all laws allowing free black people to possess firearms were repealed.
Sonofcharl

Con

1) Pro did not directly respond to my questioning. Nonetheless all the people responsible for gun deaths are people with guns.

2) I refer you to the response I gave earlier. Similarly, A zone where there are shootings is by definition not a gun free zone.

3) Pro's spoon reference is down right stupid.

4) The more guns there are, The higher the potential for gun use. It's a pretty obvious and self evidential statement.

5) We're discussing guns, Not cars. Once again Pro's response is down right stupid.

6) Cars again? And I was referring to what is known as the "Weapons Effect". Research shows that the mere presence of weapons increases aggression.

7) Highly likely. I refer you to point 6. Also, Unlikely and doesn't are a direct contradiction to each other.

8) Pro 's comments are somewhat counter-intuitive to say the least. Pro uses mass shootings as evidence of the benefits of gun ownership. Bad guys shooting good guys shooting bad guys. Gun chaos if you ask me!

9) We're not discussing criminals. We're discussing every Tom Dick or Harry being allowed to run around with a gun.
It's the job of security organisations to prevent crime and not the job of Tom Dick and Harry.

10) How is suicide in Lithuania and Japan related to U. S. Gun law?
If Mexico has the strictest gun control laws, How come there were 11, 309 gun murders in Mexico in 2012?
Does Pro think that if all Mexicans were armed, Then the Mexican gun murder rate would decrease?
And Pro finally adopts a disturbing tone, With their obvious racist and white supremacist suggestions.

11) And what about the 4 billion reasons?
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

1. I did respond saying that good guys are to VAST majority of good gun owners who stop crime.
2. I never said that where shootings take place defines gun-free zones. Where did you get this assumption? And you are right, Gun free zones are a fanciful notion. Amanda collins was walking back to her car after a night class in gun-free zone. She did have a gun but being a good citizen she did not break the law. She was raped. The rapist got away and murdered another woman a few months later.
3. How?
4. You can say that but: Britain banned guns-more crime- again Criminals find a way and can always get pass a ban. Theres a higher potential for gun use but does it correlate with actual gun crime statistics.
5. You say that they are massive horrible KILLING MACHINES. But is that true. Lets take the scariest of all RIFLES. Knives, Blunt Object, Personal Weapons ALL kill more than scary rifles KILLING MACHINES. But, But what about handguns. 7105 people have died with handgun homicide. But wait 80% of gun homicides are drug related, So no only 1421 people thats not gang violence and oh its less than knives. All of this is happening when gun ownership is going up.
6. The Weapons effect is not just guns. What about road rage? If gun ownership is going up, Wouldn't there be more aggression. Is this happening? No
7. Please name an example.
8. Gun chaos? How, How often do you die from car crashes, Not often right. Well getting killed by GUN CHAOS is way less. Your sick of the car analogy because it sums things up nicely that guns are not as harmful as people seem. Good guy with guns stop mass shootings. The criminal could have gotten the gun illegal and no good guy has a gun in that case.
9. "We're not discussing criminals. " You brought up the point about criminals. What you are saying is that citizens should not prevent gun crime but rather Legislature. Citizens have been stopping gun crime since the beginning of civilization and cops show up AFTER a accident. Legislature trying to deter crime has most of the time failed, Even in liberal states like California and Massachusetts. The job of the Legislature is that every citizen has the right to be protected.
10. Banning guns does not deter suicide, Even looking at states it shows the same thing.
11. The Legislature are afraid. They know that when a huge push for gun control happens, That people buy more guns and makes the process difficult, Again disarming 320 MILLION guns is hard.

If guns existed before why are we seeing mass shootings mostly today.
Sonofcharl

Con

1) Pro paints a picture of a secure society guarded by honest armed citizen vigilantes. Is this really the U. S. A?

2) So Pro admits that gun free zones is a fanciful idea.
A rapist is a rapist, That is a separate issue, Indirectly related to the proposition.

3) I've never heard of a spoon mass killing. The victims would need to be very compliant.

4) Britain has strict gun control. Crime rises relative to the decrease in investment in the Police. Crime rate is in no way relative to whether or not the public is armed.

5) I said remote and indiscriminate. I did not say massive and horrible killing machines. Pro is sensationalising. Also once again Pro is somewhat counter-intuitively promoting gun death statistics as a positive indicator of the benefit of liberal gun laws. So 7105 people died, But that's ok because 5594 of those deaths don't matter. Only 1421 good guys died, That's all right then!

6) I think that it's fair to suggest that people do not experience the weapons effect when the pick up a spoon to eat their breakfast or when they get in their car to drive to work. I would also suggest that a road rage incident where both parties are carrying guns has a greater potential of escalating into a more dangerous situation.

7) Name an example of what?

8) We are discussing guns not cars. Is Pro advocating stricter laws on vehicle ownership? Maybe Pro should put that topic up for debate next.
Good guys with guns eventually stop mass shootings. If mass shooters did not have access to guns they would not be able to mass shoot in the first place and the mass shooter only becomes a criminal once they have mass shot.

9) The only reason legislation is not able to deter gun crime is because the Country is awash with weapons. Obviously legislation will only work if the gun itself is removed from society.
Pro always seems to assume that the good guy will always get the bad guy. That's the stuff of movies and T. V. And not the reality. The bad guy is just as likely to shoot the good guy. They both possess guns that have equal potential to wound or kill.

10) A good guy shooting someone who is suicidal is somewhat counter-productive, Ha ha.
Seriously though, Suicide is not relevant to this debate.

11) There are 4 billion reasons why the U. S. Administration would not want to impose a gun ban.

12) We are seeing more mass shootings today:
A) Because social perception and social values have changed.
B) And because inappropriate people have easy access to guns. 320 million of them in fact.
Debate Round No. 3

Pro

1. Actually yes, USA founded on guns and whiskey.
2. No you don't get it, The first person, If had a gun in that situation(which she couldn't). She would have put down the rapist.
3. It was an example
4. Prove
5. "Guns are remote killing devices and indiscriminate". Ok. 5594 of those deaths are different and combating that requires different procedures.
6. Anything can assault people in a road rage incident.
7. An example of when that happened.
8. Its an analogy. Plus Mass shooters can get guns illegally.
9. Criminals generally don't spend enough time on their gun skills compared to citizens. As well as conceal carry arms.
10. Suicide is very prevalent.
11. Tell me one
12. So its not all about guns. Inappropriate people shout not have guns. Making my point
Sonofcharl

Con

Conclusion:

There's no point in going around the houses again with the same old rhetoric.

For me guns are simply a manifestation of mans basic instincts. The inherent necessity to kill or be killed.

We like to think that as a species we are advanced and civilised. Our intellectual specialism has no doubt allowed us to live immensely different existences to that of our organic cousins. But despite all our supposed morality we still possess the same old instinctively acquired information that we have always possessed, And unless we are genetically engineered to remove that information, I expect that we will always be the same.
In this respect the good guy and the bad guy are exactly the same. Good and bad are simply socially contrived misconceptions that disregard the reality of the human condition.

A gun is an inanimate object and will remain inanimate until it is in a persons hand. Once there it becomes a killing device that is subject to exactly the same subconscious, Primeval stimuli as the club or the spear was once subject to.

Guns are as guns do and will no doubt remain so, Until such times when we have devised a more advanced personal killing device.
And man is as man does and for the time being will remain so.
And mans love of guns is simply a manifestation of his inherent selfishness.
And he will not give up his guns, Because his selfish worship of the four billion dollar god, Is an emotion far greater than his respect for his fellow man or his fellow beings.
Amen.
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
But CON didnt elaborate either
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Dr. Franklin

The burden of proof was on you. That is your fault for not explaining your point clearly which resulted in Con asking questions since your claims were simple.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Do I need to elaborate and oh yeah did Con elaborate
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Omar, You just voted because you agree with Con. "
If I didn't agree with him/her I would have voted for you. What is your simple claim? Try and put more detail in your claims or add an explanation so that there is less chance for the other person to get the wrong meaning from it.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Dr. Franklin

Did you not see what I quoted from the debate?
Those statements debunk your side.
You said mass shooting are not because of guns. Con pretty much said in order to have a mass shooting we require guns. If you don't understand that don't bother speaking to me and realise you needed more depth in your claim instead of stating something so simple as if it won't used as your actual stance. Why not elaborate more on what you say instead of saying this "Mass shootings are not the fault of guns" Is that too difficult?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Omar, You just voted because you agree with Con.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Dr. Franklin

The most recent data is in 2008. Do you have anything sooner? There is an 11 year gap between our current time.
The source I am thinking was your evidence:
https://www. Bjs. Gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008. Pdf#page=27
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
https://www. Bjs. Gov/content/guns. Cfm
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Dr. Franklin

Do you know how to source?
Simply copy the URL here.
Or maybe you know you are actually cherry-picking the data to suit your narrative.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
According to Department of Justice"s Bureau of Statistics, As gun ownership has increased, Gun-related homicides have dropped.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
AnonymousSonofcharlTied
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: Countering Omar's poor vote. Needs to discern both sides.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
AnonymousSonofcharlTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Liked this response from Con "No guns no mass shootings. You can't remove people from the equation so removing guns is the only other option." also liked this "Pro did not directly respond to my questioning. Nonetheless all the people responsible for gun deaths are people with guns." and this "How is suicide in Lithuania and Japan related to U.S. gun law?".

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