The Instigator
Our_Boat_is_Right
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FanboyMctroll
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,639 times Debate No: 112579
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (67)
Votes (0)

 

Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.
FanboyMctroll

Con

I know that the NRA runs the country in the USA, with 36 billion dollars in revenue last year, the NRA has the government in their pocket and with the antiquated 300 year old parchment called the Constitution that was written when USA was the wild west and you needed guns to survive. Well times have changed in 300 years. And we don't need guns. Only in America do we have a gun death every 11 minutes, rampage school shootings, well people have finally had enough. And it's about time.

All those stubborn NRA loving people with the mentality that "Nobody is taking my guns away" well we don't have to, we will just hit you where it matters, your pocket/wallet. I applaude Deerfield Michigan to be the first to outlaw assault rifles, and if you are a trailer park, confederate flag waving, redneck who says he is not giving up his guns, well we will fine you $1000.00 a day!! I'm pretty sure that welfare check and those moonshine and meth proceeds of crime won't be enough to cover that fine every day, so it's time to get rid of guns, this is the first step. Way to go Deerfield!! People have had enough with Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tec, Orlando Nightclub, Florida school, on and on, enough is enough.

The wild west is over, there are grocery stores for food, we have police forces, FBI, ATF,, State Police, city police, we have enough police presence to protect the public, now lets get rid of the guns, so stop your paranoia and get rid of the gun or be fined $1000.00, how does that catch yea hillbilly?

https://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

You mention the NRA a lot in your argument. We could talk about NRA all day long, but I'd rather we stick with the core of the argument. It is ridiculous for cities to charge you for not giving them your gun. People are the ones killing people; guns are not. I think we should have more security to actually get the guns and to access them. Again, Concealed Carry owners break the law 6% less than the police! They are the most responsible citizens in America. When you bring up all the mass shootings: This is why teachers should have guns, to stop the shooter. It would only be teachers who already conceal and carry, just like they do at the mall, taking a walk, or doing anything. You can't deny the fact that there were multiple armed security guards in the Parkland shooting, yet NONE of them did anything to stop it! So your saying to leave it to the cops. If someone starts shooting at you, the cops aren't right there to stop it. You can shoot back if you have a gun, or other armed civilians can. In the Texas church shooting, a man stopped the shooter with an AR-15. In a Tennessee church shooting, a good Samaritan stopped the shooter and held him at gun point until the cops arrived. These are just to name a few. Concealed-Carry people are more law-abiding than the police and the most responsible people. By the time the cops arrive, it will be to late, as we have seen in so many of these shootings. Again, more guns save lives than take them. In places where guns were banned, murder rates spiked up. This is because of bad guys using knives or getting guns illegally. If the government takes away our second-amendment right, we will have no way to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
FanboyMctroll

Con

Why do so many Americans own guns? The main reason, according to surveys, is protection. Advocates argue that guns in the home both deter crime (criminals refrain from even trying to break in because they fear being shot by an armed citizen) and thwart it (an armed citizen can stop a crime in progress, preventing injury or theft).

The scientific evidence, however, provides little support for these arguments. Quite the opposite.

In terms of deterrence, a recent study found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher levels of firearm crime and do not have lower levels of other types of crime.

Another study, in 2003, found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, not lower. Burglars like to steal not only cash and jewelry but also guns. A homeowner with a collection of firearms may not want to advertise that fact.

As for thwarting crime, gun advocates claim that guns are commonly used in self-defense, and that without a firearm, one is essentially at the mercy of a criminal. Yet, again, that is not what the data show.

The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source of information on the nature and extent of criminal victimization in the United States. Some 90,000 households, comprising about 160,000 individuals, are surveyed twice a year.

Along with Sara Solnick, a professor of economics at the University of Vermont, I analyzed the data for the five-year period from 2007 to 2011, looking at more than 14,000 crimes in which there was some degree of personal contact between the victim and perpetrator " incidents in which a self-protective action by the victim was theoretically possible (for example, assaults and robberies).

More than 42% of the time, the victim took some action " maced the offender, yelled at the offender, struggled, ran away, or called the police. Victims used a gun in less than 1% of the incidents (127/14,145). In other words, actual self-defense gun use, even in our gun-rich country, is rare.

It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, the number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero.

Indeed, a study of 10 previous years of crime survey data found that of more than 1,100 sexual assaults, in only one did the victim use a gun in self-defense.

The data, moreover, do not provide support for the notion that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use " the same percentage as were injured during or after taking other protective actions. Some other forms of protective actions were associated with higher rates of injury (for example, struggling) and some with lower (for example, running away).

Guns did seem beneficial in one category: protecting against loss of property. Looking only at crimes in which the intent was to steal , the victim lost property in only 38% of the incidents when using a gun, compared with 56% of the incidents when taking other actions. But using some other weapon " Mace, for instance " appeared equally effective as using a gun.

Almost two-thirds of the people in the U.S. population live in homes without guns, and there is no evidence that the inhabitants of these homes are at greater risk of being robbed, injured or killed by criminals compared with citizens in homes with guns. Instead, the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the likelihood not only that a household member will be shot accidentally, but also that someone in the home will die in a suicide or homicide.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of household guns are stolen each year. Gun theft is a main pathway by which guns end up in criminal hands. The public health costs of gun ownership are very high.

That is why physician organizations " who care about your health and often see firsthand the harmful effects of firearms " suggest that you very carefully weigh the actual costs and benefits before bringing a lethal weapon into your home.

Case closed, apology accepted (mic drop)
Debate Round No. 2
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

I was never talking about household gun ownership or suicides. You didn't address any of my points, such as the concealed carry and tyrannical government. Yous should consider that the statistics you found about gun-use in public is because less than 4% of the population conceal and carry.
FanboyMctroll

Con

Yes the evil government out to get you because they want you to pay taxes, that's right feed your paranoia like the nuts in Waco and Timothy McVeigh.

Ok so I will reply to your concerns

First of all this whole notion of a tyrannical government and how Jefferson originally said it is BS, so educate yourself first. As far as scholars can tell, Jefferson never said it. Monticello.org, the official website of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, says, "We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, 'When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,' or any of its listed variations." The quotation (which has also been misattributed to Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and The Federalist), actually was apparently said in 1914 by the eminent person-no-one's-ever-heard-of John Basil Barnhill, during a debate in St. Louis

If good government actually came from a violent, armed population, then Afghanistan and Somalia would be the two best-governed places on earth. As we saw from the 2010 shootings in Tucson, Arizona, the consequences for democracy of guns in private hands, without reasonable regulation, can be dire--a society where a member of Congress cannot meet constituents without suffering traumatic brain injury, and where a federal judge cannot stop by a meeting on his way back from Mass without being shot dead.

As for your concealed carry, that is also a big misconception, so read on son, get learned

There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some types of crime, such as assault. One recent study found that states that award concealed carry permits to anyone who meets minimum standards experience 13 to 15 percent more violent crime than states with stronger laws. Overall, research confirms the commonsense conclusion that more guns create more opportunities for injury and death, not fewer.

Claims that firearms are used defensively millions time every year have also been widely discredited. Even when a firearm is used in self-defense, which is rare, research shows that a firearm is no more likely to reduce a person"s chance of being injured during a crime than other various forms of protection. One study suggests that carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim"s risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime.

So there you go, I don't know where you are getting your information from but you are wrong. Guns kill and that is all they are used for. I say ban the second amendment, nobody needs a gun, so stop living in this paranoia induced fear, you don't need a gun
Debate Round No. 3
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
dam lag on this site.
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
Ok happy to be of assistance, and if you should ever come across someone that's like supernaturally stupid let me know they are the most fun to mess with. So bye for now.
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
Ok happy to be of assistance, and if you should ever come across someone that's like supernaturally stupid let me know they are the most fun to mess with. So bye for now.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
FanboyMctroll
You are right
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
And all name calling and previous comments aside, you could benefit from using your sources and not plagiarizing, it may work for you and your friends but if you want to win the votes from others adding your links is a nice little bit of reassurance and may help push people, to your side of the argument.
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
Don't get me wrong I understand that its just you really had me going there I love debates. So back to leering I guess
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
FanboyMctroll
Like I said before my debates are set for 21 and over for a serious debate, I don't want to debate children with their silly underdeveloped brains.

If you can't accept the debate it's because you are still a child and this is a mature debate. just like drinking or gambling there are age restrictions, they are there for a reason, nothing against you being a new member here, it's just that I only debate with mature legal age adults on here not children
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
Or if your not lower it or thats what I'll assume

PS still waiting for your fabled internet friends to come in and save you from your own poor debate skills.
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
Ok so you first want me to debate, then when I can't because I literally joined this site a few weeks ago, then you use the fact that I'm new to insult me or well rather attempt to insult me. Further more, IQ has nothing to do with you debate setting some more falsies from you, and this makes me think your afraid to debate me.
Posted by darkwolf 2 years ago
darkwolf
Ok so you first want me to debate, then when I can't because I literally joined this site a few weeks ago, then you use the fact that I'm new to insult me or well rather attempt to insult me. Further more, IQ has nothing to do with you debate setting some more falsies from you, and this makes me think your afraid to debate me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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