Login/Sign Up




Gun Control
Books

verya
Apr 24, 2009
9 votes
9 debaters
3
1


+ Add Argument

2
Guns should not be distributed to citizens.


3pointer
Apr 24, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
My position is that no one should own a gun, neither the citizens nor the police.

1. Shown to work in reducing gun related violence. (see England)
2. Takes away the police had over us (gun) and makes us all equal. This was one of the ultimate goals of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, except they hoped to achieve this through arming the communities.
3. The 2nd ammendment is outdated. The main significance of the amendment is overlooked, and that is the right to form militias. This doesn't apply to today because first the militia would be quelled rediculously easy by our military and second our checks and balances prevent tyrannical rule.



 
thr33rightturns
Jul 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Government rules with our authority. If we want to over through the government we as a people would do a lot better job economically. First we would stop paying taxes. Then other countries would stop trading with us for fear of a governments instability. Government can't imprison us all. Besides if the government ever really wanted to screw the world so badly that it would piss off american, it would be through a nuclear war. The right to bare arms part of the constitution was meant not for self defense purposes but for preventing and combating a tyrannical US government. Since i just explained why it would be stupid to use force, you only hope at a defense is "it's fun to shoot stuff" and yes it is, but that's why you join the military. p.s. don't try to bring statistics into this fight because you will lose.

 
thr33rightturns
Jul 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: djames Show

If you look at the statistics (which you probably didn't) you will find that your much less likely to die from 1 gunshot wound then 1 stab wound or 1 blow from a baseball bat. Besides If we ban the manufacturing and sales of all new guns, but keep the old ones. It will drive the price of guns up so much that junkies, and poor criminals (P.S. most murders are below the poverty line.) can't get a hold of them and if they did would sell them rather then use them. Also taxing these sales would create more revenue for the government.

 
Ben Warwick
Feb 15, 2013
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Aaron Felder Show

One there are 5 deaths due to homocides in the USA per 100,000 a year and only 1.4 per 100,000 in the U.K. Of these in the USA 9,203 where committed with firearms close to 3 quarters. However in the U.K only 39 less than a tenth. These figures are for 2011.
Secondly gun control does not remove guns from police officers just the general public.


 
+ Add Argument

4
Everyone should be able to own a gun, at least of a certain kind.


unlabled00
Apr 24, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Everyone should be able to own a gun, at least of a certain kind IF:

1. They do not have a criminal record of any sort.
2. They receive gun safety training, pass the course, and have a valid gun license.
3. The firearm they purchase falls within the limits of said gun license.
4. The firearm owner renews his/her license annually, passing some form of written test.
5. The firearm owner has a properly installed, secure gun rack in their household to prevent it from falling into a child's hands.

etc.

 
frdm
Apr 25, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Nobody in the history of the world has ever been
killed by a gun.

 
djames
Apr 21, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Nobody should own a gun? Worst idea ever in my opinion coming from you 3pointer. 1. We can hardly compare apples (United States) and bananas (England) here. It may be shown to work in reducing gun related violence, I’ll give you that. Does it eliminate it? No. Does it reduce other types of crime? No. Good citizens with guns also equals reduction in gun related violence. (See Texas) 2. Let’s make all good willed citizens equal by arming them. Better yet, let’s one up all good citizens over some of the criminals that don’t have guns. (Most of them will have guns because they get them illegally.) Banning guns gives the criminals a one up on us, which in turn does not make us equal. 3. I agree that the whole constitution is outdated, but what saves us from tyranny? If a movement started in the government and was backed by many then our checks and balances won’t hold. Who runs those checks and balances? Are they more powerful than the words of a crazed, ultra-motivational leader? That’s why we have the Second Amendment because Kung Fu is simply not going to fend that off.

 
unlabled00
Apr 21, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: littleminx Show

I suppose I should have said anyone instead of everyone. Errors aside my point still stands... as long as strict and easily enforceable gun laws exist there is no reason a responsible adult should not be allowed to own a gun.

 
Aaron Felder
Sep 01, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 3pointer Show

Overlooking your spelling and grammatical errors, there are good counter points to all of your points.
1. No it has not worked in the U.K. Violent crimes of all kinds are just as bad in the U.K. as in the U.S., they simply have a smaller population. Less people, around the same percentage.
2. By disarming police and law abiding citizens the only people left to obtain guns are criminals who are the ones committing violent crimes anyway. The only result is that the rate of gun related self defense cases would drop to zero while the rate of gun related crimes would stay exactly the same (if not increase).
3. Your logic falls apart on this point. If the 2nd amendment is outdated and therefore irrelevant in today's society, then the checks and balances (which were established at about the same time) are also outdated. There can be (and some would suggest already is) tyrannical rule in the United States. Our government protects itself from becoming too powerful but not any organization outside of it. The right of American citizens to form militias is and always will be an essential aspect of American society. What is a stronger force? Millions of Americans armed to the teeth or any invading military force from any country or countries? My money is on American citizens ever time. We can see how easily a committed, armed group of pissed of citizens can defend against a stronger invading military force by looking at Afghanistan throughout history.

In conclusion there are no good points listed that would convince me that "no one should own a gun, neither the citizens nor the police."

A good point for your argument would have to be the one made by Dwight D Eisenhower when he said "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities."
The resources consumed by the proliferation of firearms could be better used in other aspects of society. To better it instead of destroying it.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

9/11 america BBC bible black book books britain british bush Christian Christianity comics corruption debate Democracy Election fantasy frankie global warming god government gun Harry Potter history internet Is it good that people can download music for free? Islam kindle lies literature LOTR love Marvel media money Obama politics power racism recession religion republicans school sex Terrorism terrorist twilight uk us VanCam violence war world WUC