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

Vigilante Justice

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
Friendly_Bear has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 111782
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




On the note of gun control, we need to get rid of the idea of vigilante justice. This idea that you need a personal arsenal to defend you and your family is absolutely ridiculous.

In a modern society we can't have people running around with guns trying to be the judge, jury, and executioner whenever they feel like it.

This is a message to disprove the points given to why we should not have gun control. You don't get to decide whats right when you feel like it because you have a gun.


First, what you're talking about is not vigilante justice. Using firearms to defend your family is not vigilante justice. A vigilante would hunt down gang members to "clean up the streets" someone who simply wants to defend themselves does not meet the definition of a vigilante.

Next, the idea that people are killing because they feel they can. You are morally justified in using force to defend your home and family. In your leftist fantasy world where the police have teleporters, you don't need guns to defend against teleporters, and in your fantasy world, a democratic government can never turn usurptuous. However, in real life the police don't always show up on time. Governments turn on their citizens. This is why we need firearms in the hands of responsible civilians.
Debate Round No. 1


First, in your right wing fantasy world, is usurptuous a word?

Now, onto the real debate. I think that we need to clarify the difference between self defense, and using a firearm to decide what punishment is given to a criminal. Of course life threatening situation call for split second decisions and fire arms can be used to protect you and your family. But I am talking more about the situations in which no one's life is at stake, yet gun owners feel the right to shoot at a criminal who maybe only stole something from a store or their home.

This idea is ridiculous and shouldn't be an argument in any debate on gun control. There have been multiple cases in which a criminal is shot and killed by a legal gun owner after only stealing or another crime in which death is not a just punishment.

Onto the idea that you need guns to defend against the government turning on its citizens. This makes no sense, sorry to tell you but all the AR's and shotguns you own aren't going to do anything against a tank or fighter jet. So this is again another point that cannot be used to debate the need to defend yourself with guns.

The situations in which a gun will be a just and necessary retaliation to a crime are few and far between. If you want to help the world by stopping criminals, become a police officer. We can't have every citizen thinking that they have the right to shot first and ask questions later as in the stand your ground law.


ous is a suffix forming adjectives that have the general sense "possessing, full of" a given quality ( covetous; glorious; nervous; wondrous); -ous, and its variant -ious, have often been used to Anglicize Latin adjectives with terminations that cannot be directly adapted into English. The latin Usurpare does not have this possessing trait and thus I have given it one.

To criminalize the use of a firearm to defend one's own property would be an act that would leave the victim of a crime in an impossible situation. If someone breaks into my home with my sleeping daughter upstairs, I can't be made to assume that the criminal has no violent malicious intent until he attempts to harm my daughter. This is why a large number of states have established castle doctrine.(1)

Your next argument shows deep historical ignorance. innumerable times throughout history a weaker force has withstood the onslaught of a great power through nothing more than the weapons they had on hand. Typically through guerilla warfare. take the banana wars for example or Russian campaigns in Afghanistan

The police force are a wonderful function of government. However, when seconds count, the police arrive in minutes. While I have every ounce of respect for our boys in blue, They can't always be there. The stand your ground law only allows for the use force if there is an impending or immediate threat in which case unless there is a police officer nearby you may be required to use force to defend yourself.(2)

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
Forfeit? Unfortunate.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
I just noticed I typed teleporters twice. Teach me to proofread...
This debate has 0 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.