The Instigator
subdeo
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
themoderateamerican
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should Guns 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 1 vote the winner is...
subdeo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 101395
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

subdeo

Con

I will argue that guns should be allowed to be owned by the public at large. My opponent will take the position that guns should be banned from being owned by the public. Round one is acceptance only, round two is arguments only, and rounds three and four are for arguments and rebuttals. Good luck, opponent!
themoderateamerican

Pro

It is important to the American people that they be protected. I believe there are two jobs for a government; to protect their citizens and to provide infrastructure for their citizens. In order for a government to protect their citizens, there must be a ban on weapons to the public. However, I am aware of the fact that people will still receive weapons. Guns can be banned, but guns cannot be taken from the people. When the founding fathers gave people the right to bear arms, they lived in a time of survival and warfare. They lived in a time where they hunted for food and defended themselves from other nations. Now there is terrorism and domestic terrorism, it is hard to keep guns away from those activists. In conclusion, you cannot keep all weapons off the street, but you can try to keep them away from dangerous people.
Debate Round No. 1
subdeo

Con

Hello! I am looking forward to an enlightening discussion for both of us, and thank you for accepting.

The primary reason I believe Guns should be allowed to be owned by the average citizen is because guns in the hands of citizens help to stop crime. According to The Washington Post, "Many mass shootings happen in supposedly "gun-free" zones (such as schools, universities, bars, or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isn"t allowed in many states." [1] So, the areas that could be called "laboratories" for life without publicly owned guns actually have many shootings themselves. Obviously, something isn't working. Why? It is because the criminals who break the laws by shooting people will not think twice to break just one more law by bringing a gun in a "gun free zone". If these types of gun control laws are instituted, the only people with guns will be the criminals: a frightening thought.

However, if the people have guns, they can stop shootings and robberies. In some cases, even better that police who are not everywhere at once. According to The Daily Caller, "Gun carrying, private citizens who used firearms to stop criminal attacks saved at least 283 potential victims in a period between July 2014 and July 2015... In September of 2014, an 11-year-old Oklahoma girl awoke around 4 a.m. to find that a man had broken into her home and stabbed her mother. The girl grabbed a handgun and shot the man twice, saving her mother"s life. The mother said she had just taught the daughter how to use the gun for self defense the week before." [2] These kinds of facts cannot be ignored. I look forward to reading your arguments.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com.........

[2] http://dailycaller.com.........
themoderateamerican

Pro

The thought of only criminals having guns is extremely terrifying. In contrast to your argument, ordinary civilians with firearms could be just as dangerous as a criminal. Many civilians are not trained to shoot a firearm and are not trained to aim a firearm. Despite attending a concealed carry course, these people are not able to repeat these exercises in the real world. Many people with concealed carry permits not only accidentally kill themselves, but also other people. According to the CDC, in 2011, 591 people in the U.S. died from accidental firearm discharges. Many of these discharges are in public places, which is even scarier. I noticed you did not give a rebuttal to my opening arguments. To my next point, guns should not be allowed to the public because civilians do not have the mental capacity to carry a firearm or discharge a firearm. Some people are capable of using a firearm, unfortunately, they are the minority. It is the government's role to step in and to protect the people from themselves, to a limited extent. I would like to apologize for not reading your Round 1, please note that my Round 1 is an argument, thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
subdeo

Con

I will address Pro"s points; however, I would like to point out to the voters an infraction of the rules. The rules explicitly say that, "Round one is acceptance only"" No arguments were allowed in this round, and pro says, "My Round 1 is an argument, thank you." This is the violation of the rules.
Pro says, "In order for a government to protect their citizens, there must be a ban on weapons to the public." However, I disagree. As I pointed out in my first argument (with the anecdote), guns in the hands of the people saves lives (an estimated 283 victims in one year [1]).
Pro also says that we can try to keep guns out the hands of dangerous people. This is true; however this is an impossible task, and will never be accomplished. In the mean time, it is foolhardy to take the guns out of the hands of the people, because if that is done, the only people with guns will be the villains.
To answer your point about accidental gun discharges, One News Now says, "Recently published statistics show that as gun sales in the United States have hit record highs, accidental gun fatalities have simultaneously sunk to record lows." [2] As with anything in life, there will always be some casualties. This is an unfortunate part of life as humans. However, just because something has caused deaths in the past, does not mean it should be banned. I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is true. Take cars, for instance. Almost everyone agrees cars are a positive development in world history. However, annually, 1.3 MILLION people die in car crashes. That"s over 3,200 a day, which is more than 5 times as many caused by guns in a whole year [3].
Although it is the job of the government to protect the people, this does not mean banning guns. In addition, it is the government"s job to protect the rights of the people: E.g., the second amendment, which clearly protects gun rights.
I look forward to reading your latest arguments and rebuttals.

Sources:

[1] http://dailycaller.com............
[2] https://www.onenewsnow.com...
[3] http://asirt.org...
themoderateamerican

Pro

I will address the Con's sources first. The first source is a fake source, no information can be found relevant to his argument on the home page. I will again apologize for disregarding the Con's Round 1, this is my first debate and I have now learned how to use this program. Now I will begin my rebuttal.
My opponent says that guns in the hands of people saves lives, approximately 283. My opponent does not mention my credible source from the CDC that states 591 people died in the U.S. from accidental firearm discharges in 2011 alone [1]. Since 2011, gun violence is now more common and you could assume this statistic has increased. It is simple math 591>283. Guns in the hands of the civilians kills more than they save.
(PLEASE NOTE VOTERS): My opponent also lied in Round 3, he states "the only people with guns will be the villains." This is simply not true, has he ever heard of the police. It is not the job of a citizen to protect the community, it is the job of the police. To help them, we should get out of their way and not do their job for them. I believe we should help the police and we should have great respect for the police. However, we are not allowing them to do their jobs and protect us, if we are firing our weapons at criminals. If you see someone, how can you be sure if they are in fact a villain before you shoot them? Only the police have the right to open fire on a suspect. He then challenges that accidental gun fatalities have sunk to record lows. He is comparing a credible source, the CDC, to One News Now. I have never heard of that source and I doubt the voters have either. He goes on to compare banning guns to cars. It is true that cars cause more deaths than guns. My opponent must not realize there is a way to stop car fatalities, hence, the creation of the self-driving car. Google and Mercedes-Benz are both coming out with a self-driving car by 2019 [2]. This is just one example of how problems can be solved. Saying "this is an impossible task, and will never be accomplished" is truly false. If car fatalities can be stopped, so can gun fatalities. My opponent then continues to challenge the second amendment. I will quote my original argument " When the founding fathers gave people the right to bear arms, they lived in a time of survival and warfare. They lived in a time where they hunted for food and defended themselves from other nations. Now there is terrorism and domestic terrorism, it is hard to keep guns away from those activists."
To my next point, if we take away guns from the public access, only two people will have guns, the police and criminals. I would trust my law enforcement.
Next, people who receive concealed carry permits are unable to use them in the field. No longer do people have the self control to have a firearm [3].
I look forward to reading your arguments and rebuttals.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov...
[2] https://waymo.com...
[3]http://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 3
subdeo

Con

I apologize; it seems I posted the wrong link for the daily caller link. It only led to the webpage"s home page. The real link I wanted to show follows [1]:

[1] http://dailycaller.com...

If that link doesn"t work, I have a suspicion it may be the websites fault, when it shortens the links. Whatever, we"ll cross that bridge when (and if) we get to it.
To address the point of guns killing more than they save, we will use an example of a trampoline. Trampolines save zero lives annually. However, According to Livestrong.com, "In calendar year 2006, reports the Consumer Product Safety Review, trampolines caused an estimated 109,522 injuries" About 104,729 of those individuals of all ages who were injured were treated in emergency rooms and released. The rest, an approximately 4,793, were either hospitalized or dead on arrival." [2] However, the benefits to the average person are much greater from both of these items than their detriments, either for leisure or protection, or both. Thus, they should not be banned. Also, you say that, "Since 2011, gun violence is now more common and you could assume this statistic has increased." Actually, your conclusion is incorrect. While gun violence may have increased, this does not affect accidental gun discharges. In addition, we must consider that more than just 283 people have been saved by privately owned firearms. As long as criminals know that many people have firearms in their homes, they will be forced to mentally consider the potential consequences of their actions (e.g., they might get shot). If the criminals know that guns have been banned, what is to stop them from causing a sudden increase of crime? So while privately owned guns have saved 283 lives (in that year), they have saved many more indirectly.

Yes, the police would have guns, however, there are far more criminals than police, and the police are not everywhere at once. We would be wise to arm ourselves to protect ourselves and others.

You say that, "If you see someone, how can you be sure if they are in fact a villain before you shoot them?" However, this is a non-issue. The only cases when someone would need a gun to defend them are in cases of obvious violent crime. Take murder for instance. It is obvious who the villain is, and who needs to be stopped with lead.

My One News Now source is credible. Even still, the number they gave was from another study, so it wasn"t even their original work in the first place.

Perhaps those companies you referenced will come out with such a car. But in the mean time, we cannot just ban cars! Your analogy is flawed. Also, new technologies come out all the time that makes guns safer, and many have concerns about the safety of self-driving cars. Even if guns were banned, do you think that would stop crime? Criminals would just use knives and clubs! Even before guns were invented, the world was filled with crime, even worse than today. Guns give those who would otherwise be too weak to fight off a criminal with a club or knife a fighting chance to protect them.

Yes you are right when you say, "When the founding fathers gave people the right to bear arms, they lived in a time of survival and warfare. They lived in a time where they hunted for food and defended themselves from other nations. Now there is terrorism and domestic terrorism, it is hard to keep guns away from those activists." Those activists are the very reason why we need to keep and bear arms today. I don"t see how this supports your claim.

I would like to know what you mean by "self control to have a firearm". Self control to do what? If you are talking about the self control not to kill people, I think you are wrong.

Sources (ctd.):

[2] http://www.livestrong.com...
themoderateamerican

Pro

In rebuttal, to compare guns to trampolines is insane. What is the purpose of guns? To kill. You cannot ban everything that kills, but the use of guns is to kill. You say you would address the point of guns killing more than they save, but instead you used a trampoline example. You, in fact, were incorrect when you said criminals know that people have guns in their homes. No, because the majority of people do not have guns, and if they did, they would not be in a place where the resident could defend themselves. And, for the record, we cannot assume guns save indirectly. We now live in a time of terrorists, when you said "The only cases when someone would need a gun to defend them are in cases of obvious violent crime", this is false. People do not always shoot at people when it is obvious. Also, I did not say ban cars, I said decrease the death toll of car accidents. You said technology come out to make guns safer, but would not this make defending yourself harder? If you keep your guns, activists will use bombs and cars instead. That is how my quote supports my claim. For your information, "self control to have a firearm", means being responsible and careful when using a firearm. Make sure you are doing what is right. Today, people will shoot their guns whenever they are threatened.
Voters, even if you do not agree with me, you can see that my debate is based off of facts, not hypotheticals like "Guns give those who would otherwise be too weak to fight off a criminal with a club or knife a fighting chance to protect them." If they are too weak, would they fire a firearm in the first place?
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
I can't vote yet, but I would vote for con.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
I agree with subdeo, in that guns are necassary for our safety as a nation. We need to be able to rely on not just the government to protect us, but ourselves.
Posted by BoeingG 1 year ago
BoeingG
Assuming you're a Conservative, supporting Gun rights is contradicting your ideas about our borders and immigrant/ terrorist gun violence.

Don't you want these attacks? Don't give 'em the guns.

And it's not only immigrants but American people as well who are abusing their right to have a gun at all by committing an astounding number of homicides. I personally feel our nation would be safer with - if not a complete ban - more heavily regulated restrictions.

And though it may very well be your Constitutional right, why should loons be permitted to roam the streets plotting to kill innocent people?

Times have changed.
Posted by What50 1 year ago
What50
Just saying there are licensing laws that requires the person who owns firearms have training and testing requirements to do own the firearm.

http://smartgunlaws.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
subdeothemoderateamericanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Infraction of the rules.