The Instigator
Our_Boat_is_Right
Pro (for)
The Contender
hillaryhamilton
Con (against)

I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
hillaryhamilton has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 116257
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

We should not ban assault weapons, or any type of gun. More than 80% of mass shootings are done with handguns. Only 350 deaths a year are with rifles of any type. Over 90% of gun murders are with handguns. Knives kill more than 4 times the amount of rifles. Should we ban knives? What about cars? Gun bans have proven not to be effective in america or other countries. The assault weapons ban from 94-04 did not work one bit. Why should we try to ban guns if we have already tried several times, and now the government has your guns, so you can't protect yourself for self defense or a tyrannical government? Another question. Do you trust the government right now?
hillaryhamilton

Con

Sorry but your argument is stupid and flawed. It's very idiotic to say that knives kill more people than guns.

Majority of mass shooters obtain guns legally, 167 of mass shooters weapon were obtained legally and 52 were obtain illegal.

You claim that knives kill more people which is another flawed argument. In USA gun homicide exceed homicide by other mean. Did you see any students go on rampage killing with a knive ? Hardly are there any. Knives does kill people but it can never reach the same death toll as with a gun or assault weapon.

Does the second amendment protect knives ? No it doesn't. The problem here in America why so many suffer from violence because we have gun culture.

If the Las Vegas mass murder armed with a knives, do you think he would be able to kill 58 people ? I don't think so.

But why can he achieve the death toll of 58 ? Because of bump stock device can make semi automatic weapon functioning like automatic weapon. And now you argue that everyone should own this type of deadly weapon including mental ill and criminals right ?

Please use more common sense. Please don't think like kindergarden children do. Even they can think more rationally.

You also argue that cars kill more people than guns. Okay that might be true. If you look upon the news, there are many vehicle ramming attack which kill as much as mass shooting.

For example the terrorist attack in France (Nice) , a truck drove into pedestrians killing 86 people. That attack is indeed more deadlier than the Las Vegas mass shooting.

But you must keep in mind that vans and trucks are not design to be a weapon but they can indeed be a weapon.

Should we have regulation on cars ? Of course we should, but i certainly don't agree with gun enthusiasist saying ,, If guns are banned, why not ban cars as well ? it killed even more people".

Simply we don't ban cars because it can be useful for transportation but it should certainly have a strong regulation on it.

The same argument should we also say,, OH HEY AIRPLANES KILL MORE PEOPLE, LOOK AT 11. SEPMTEMPER ATTACK 2001, 2000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHY NOT BANNED AIRPLANES !!!" ?

No we don't say such kind of stuff. It's very retarded to say that. Cars and airplanes are not a weapon of choice but guns are. We can work hard to regulate cars and airplanes but not banning them.

But nevertheless it cannot be compared to assault weapon. Assault weapon is an military style weapon, it's an weapon of war design merely for killing people. You can't go hunting with it or using as self defense or use in sport .

Assault weapon is completely unecessary to own and it should be outright banned.
Debate Round No. 1
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

Before I start, I want to say that this should be a civil debate and no name-calling. Remember, you are trying to change my mind, and have made some good points so far.
"Majority of mass shooters obtain guns legally, 167 of mass shooters weapon were obtained legally and 52 were obtain illegal."
Sure. However, there should be mental illness screening, because at least half of mass shootings are carried out by mentally ill people.(http://www.latimes.com...)

"You claim that knives kill more people which is another flawed argument. In USA gun homicide exceed homicide by other mean. Did you see any students go on rampage killing with a knive ? Hardly are there any. Knives does kill people but it can never reach the same death toll as with a gun or assault weapon."
I said "rifles of any type". Knives kill 4 times the amount rifles do, and blunt objects and body parts kill more than rifles as well.(https://www.statista.com...)

"But why can he achieve the death toll of 58 ? Because of bump stock device can make semi automatic weapon functioning like automatic weapon. And now you argue that everyone should own this type of deadly weapon including mental ill and criminals right?"
There should be mentall illness screening and background checks, and you should be able to get one if u pass for sometimes hunting, but mostly to protect against a tyrannical governemnt.

"Simply we don't ban cars because it can be useful for transportation but it should certainly have a strong regulation on it."
And guns are neccesary for self-defense and to protect against government tyranny. There are over 2.5 Defensive gun uses per year. 800,000 of those saved lives. Even if you take away guns, it still means 200,000 lives saved by guns. That equivalates to 1 murder(all weapons) every at least 18 lives saved.

"The same argument should we also say,, OH HEY AIRPLANES KILL MORE PEOPLE, LOOK AT 11. SEPMTEMPER ATTACK 2001, 2000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHY NOT BANNED AIRPLANES !!!" ?"
Airplanes kill very small amounts of people. Cars kill much more than guns.

"Assault weapon is completely unecessary to own and it should be outright banned."
America already tried it for 10 years 94-04 and it did not have an affect on murder rate. Cities and countries with the strictest gun laws have have high murder rates after guns were banned, it did not help murders go down. "assault weapons(plz define)" kill 370 people a year. very small.

Question: Do u trust the government and trump admin.?
hillaryhamilton

Con

I am glad that you said we should have mental health screening. At least i am happy that you support background check on gun sales.

Because I have heard of really idiotics moron don't want to have background check.

By the way you mention that assault weapon can also be used for hunting. But this is wrong. A hunters don't need an AR-15 to hunt down animals. Assault weapon are not hunting rifles. Most often hunters use Snipers and shotgun which it's much more suitable for hunting.

Because to effectively hunt down an animals you only need a weapon that can aim on them accurately and only a single shot to kill. An AR-15 won't be useful because you can't aim it from a long distance. A sniper is useful because it can be fired from long distance while an AR-15 do not.

Do you also need a fully automatic machine gun to hunt animals ? Of course not. These weapons are weapon of war. Hunters don't need to have an weapon of war.

You mention that assault weapon can be used for self defense. But why not use hand guns instead ? Besides Second amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms but it doesn't protect weapon of war.

"The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia, ruled that,, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to weapons of war.

There was also federal law banning assault weapon in the year between 1994 to 2004 and we saw much fewer mass shooting than it's today. After the year 2004 the law was expired and we saw and surge of mass shooting and death toll. Mass shooting has become more deadlier than before because of the law was expired.

You also mention that cars kill more people than guns which may be true. But according to the recent statistic , gun death are now becoming as common as vehicle accidental death.

In Japan for example, one of the strictest gun laws in the world, being killed by a gun is just as common as being killed with lightning strike. The probability of gun death is 1 in 1000,000 which is very very low.

But Japan has fewest guns per capita which make them the safest nation.

You said that banning assault weapon won't solve murder which it's true. Assault weapon are responsible of only 1 % of all crimes. It's true that most criminals use handguns but the reason why this weapon should be banned is to reduce or prevent mass shooting.

It's has been very clear that people who want to kill a of people often use assault weapon. And things like bump stock and high capacity magazine even make mass shooting more deadlier.

But nevertheless you claim that cars kill more people than guns so cars should be banned is irrelevant and illogical. Of course we work hard to regulate cars such as providing seat bells,airbags, child safety seats,mandatory reporting of defects by carmakers.

All these has been proven to reduce dramatically death per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Shouldn't we have the regulation on guns also ? Why not ?

Yes i fully agree that we should treat guns like cars but guns in america are much less regulated. This is why gun control could fix this loopholes.

Gun control doesn't deprive the right to bear arms. It doesn't violate Second Amendment. It's a typical nonsense slippery slope argument from gun lobby like the NRA. Gun control just ensure that we are safe and there is more regulation on guns.

I support Second Amendment. I support the right to bear arms. My Grandfather often went hunting but he doesn't own an AR-15 style weapon that can kill lots of people in a few minutes like the weapon which was used in Parkland,Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Orlando nightclub, Sutherland, and Aoura movie theather.
Debate Round No. 2
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

Yes, I am glad we found common ground.

"By the way you mention that assault weapon can also be used for hunting. But this is wrong. A hunters don't need an AR-15 to hunt down animals. Assault weapon are not hunting rifles. Most often hunters use Snipers and shotgun which it's much more suitable for hunting."
Read this article-https://www.brentonusa.com...
You still haven't answer this- What is the definition of a so called "assault weapon"?

"Do you also need a fully automatic machine gun to hunt animals ? Of course not. These weapons are weapon of war. Hunters don't need to have an weapon of war."
Machine guns are illegal, ever since 1933. What is a "weapon of war"? Ar-15's and rifles are semi-automatic weapons, which is basically every gun like a handgun. Pull the trigger once, a bullet comes out. Pull it again, another bullet comes out. It has the same basic functionality of a hunting rifle or handgun.

"You mention that assault weapon can be used for self defense. But why not use hand guns instead ? Besides Second amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms but it doesn't protect weapon of war."
Handguns are used mostly for concealed-carry. people can use AR-15's for home defense, and mostly to protect against a tyrannical government. What is a weapon of war? An AR-15 has little difference to any other handgun or other gun, and the 2nd amendment does protect the right to own one.

"There was also federal law banning assault weapon in the year between 1994 to 2004 and we saw much fewer mass shooting than it's today. After the year 2004 the law was expired and we saw and surge of mass shooting and death toll. Mass shooting has become more deadlier than before because of the law was expired."
Um, no. https://tcf.org...
Also, the murder rate did not go up after it expired. the ban did nothing on mass shootings or murder rates. It steadily declined during the ban, and ever since it expired, the homicide rate has remained virtually the same. So you can't say murders declined because of the assault weapon ban; Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.(https://www.infoplease.com...)

"You also mention that cars kill more people than guns which may be true. But according to the recent statistic , gun death are now becoming as common as vehicle accidental death."
Can you site that please? Gun murders are far more common than gun murders and gun deaths.(https://crimeresearch.org...)

"In Japan for example, one of the strictest gun laws in the world, being killed by a gun is just as common as being killed with lightning strike. The probability of gun death is 1 in 1000,000 which is very very low."
That's Japan. And i don't care about gun murders, I care about all murders.

"But Japan has fewest guns per capita which make them the safest nation."
Site their murder rate please.

"You said that banning assault weapon won't solve murder which it's true. Assault weapon are responsible of only 1 % of all crimes. It's true that most criminals use handguns but the reason why this weapon should be banned is to reduce or prevent mass shooting."
So why would we ban them if it has no affect on murder rate? Over 70% of incidents in mass shootings are done with handguns, shotguns, or revolvers.(https://www.statista.com...) Should we ban handguns too since they are the main culprit?

"It's has been very clear that people who want to kill a of people often use assault weapon. And things like bump stock and high capacity magazine even make mass shooting more deadlier."
Only 30% are done with all rifles(look at statistics above). Bump stocks can be banned i guess, sure. The magazine doesn't have anything to do with it though. Handguns don't carry as much as rifles, but they are used in the majority of mass shootings. Plus, you can put new clips in, because most shooters would agree it is very heavy to carry 30 bullets.

"All these has been proven to reduce dramatically death per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Shouldn't we have the regulation on guns also ? Why not ?"
Gun regulations don't decrease the murder rate.

"Gun control doesn't deprive the right to bear arms. It doesn't violate Second Amendment. It's a typical nonsense slippery slope argument from gun lobby like the NRA. Gun control just ensure that we are safe and there is more regulation on guns."
It does, because the 2nd states you have the right to bear arms. Banning "assault weapons" which you still haven't defined, or any other gun, is a violation of the 2nd amendment. They are necessary for home defense and mainly to protect against a tyrannical government.

Why should law-abiding citizens have to sacrifice their basic human right because of what some dumb criminal did? It is not their fault, neither is suicide by other people.

If you give an essential gun to the government, the chances are you won't be able to protect yourself as well against a tyrannical government who now has your gun, because AR-15's are more effective t long range than handguns, and more accurate. Why would you give the government your gun when they were the exact people designed to protect against?

Also, a question that you still haven't answered yet- DO YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT AND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?
hillaryhamilton

Con

Ok now i almost understand your point of view.
So i ask you frankly if you think assault weapon shouldn't be banned, then are you against the movement of March for our lives ?

Then you would think this movement is quite stupid right ?

But we all agree and you should strongly agree with us that we should have background check on all guns sales. Nobody should oppose this. Background check is meant to keep guns out of dangerous people.

Anyone who argue that background check does not work is really retarded.

99 % of experts agree that background check is the best approach to end gun violence. Background check has nothing to do with infringe the right to bear arms. It doesn't violate 2n amendment.

terrorist,criminals,domestic abusers and mental ill are not well regulated militia.

How about if we do like this .

Let's make gun regulation like in Germany. Germany has fourth highest gun ownership but the lowest gun death. How did they achieve that ?

Germany has strong background check

Germany has safety storage on guns

Germany has gun registry and gun license

Germany banned fully automatic weapon and also semi atuomatic weapon that cannot be used for hunting and sports.

And Lastly most important point is Germany does not guaranteed the right to self defense. It's illegal in Germany to use guns for self defense.

Concealed carry permit is forbidden.

Look i want to send important message to Hunters and Sportsmen. ' I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. IF YOU WANT TO USE GUNS FOR HUNTING I FULLY SUPPORT IT. I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE YOUR RIGHT AWAY. MY GRANDFATHER ALSO LIKE TO ENJOY HUNTING.

BESIDES THERE IS NO NEED TO PROTECT YOURSELVE FROM TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT AND YES I TRUST TRUMP AND THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL.

WE ARE IN THE 21TH CENTURY. AMERICA IS AN INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. THERE ARE NO SLAVERY AND COLONIES ANYMORE.
Debate Round No. 3
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

"So i ask you frankly if you think assault weapon shouldn't be banned, then are you against the movement of March for our lives ?"
I think they have the right to do it, and should be able to voice their opinion on it. The ultimate goal is to save lives, but people have a different approach to it. I think people need to do more research on it, like I have done so much. I like to find actual statistics more than what I feel. I think the movement is ban guns or assault weapons, but if anyone disagrees they hate children or don't care about saving lives. I think they should be more open to opposing arguments, so I am mostly against their opinions their expressing through the movement.

"But we all agree and you should strongly agree with us that we should have background check on all guns sales. Nobody should oppose this. Background check is meant to keep guns out of dangerous people."
We already have background checks on gun sales. But I think they should be stricter and mental illness screening.

"Let's make gun regulation like in Germany. Germany has fourth highest gun ownership but the lowest gun death. How did they achieve that ?"
Even if they have a low gun death, that doesn't mean they have a low homicide rate. Even if they do, Germany banned guns before 1930. It would not be conclusive to say German has a low murder rate because of the ban. Plus, look what happened a decade after they banned guns- The holocaust. If Germans and Jews had guns, they could have had a very good chance of defending themselves or other people. This is a perfect example of why the 2nd amendment was created- to protect against a tyrannical government, like Germans could have done if they had guns.

"Germany banned fully automatic weapon and also semi atuomatic weapon that cannot be used for hunting and sports."
Semi-automatic is basically every gun, unless you are not counting a revolver or shotgun.

"BESIDES THERE IS NO NEED TO PROTECT YOURSELVE FROM TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT AND YES I TRUST TRUMP AND THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL."
Look at Germany, and North Korea right now. It is very necessary to defend against a possible tyrannical government. Ok, I was asking because I've talked with people who said they don't trust the government, but wan't them to take their guns away, which seems very illogical to me.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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