CreateDebate


Debate Info

78
94
Well Duh Well Yee Ha
Debate Score:172
Arguments:94
Total Votes:259
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Well Duh (31)
 
 Well Yee Ha (40)

Debate Creator

TheSnake(15) pic



Guns Need To Be Banned For Private Citizens

The American obsession with guns is childish and stupid.

Well Duh

Side Score: 78
VS.

Well Yee Ha

Side Score: 94
2 points

Yes, ban all firearms, they're much too noisy and waken my children.

We could keep the decibels down by killing each other with hatchets or knives and let the neighbors enjoy having sex without the constant noise of gunfire.

Side: Well Duh
1 point

There is literally not a single argument for the legalisation of guns which can pass a basic scrutiny test. Whatever benefit gun nuts claim is gained from citizens "protecting themselves" with guns is (vastly) numerically outweighed by the amount of innocent lives they take. More innocent people would be alive today had guns not been legalised in America. That's a simple fact.

Side: Well Duh
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

There is literally not a single argument for the legalisation of guns which can pass a basic scrutiny test.

Right now, Venezuela is a useful argument for private gun ownership. Hitler and Pol Pot also confiscated personal fire arms prior to instituting oppressive policies and committing mass murder.

Obviously private gun ownership does not deter the most dedicated megalomaniacs, but it discourages those who would become "casual dictators."

A well armed populace is a way to ensure that our leaders know that despotism would NOT be easier than leading in a republic and protecting civil liberties.

More innocent people would be alive today had guns not been legalised in America.

Only to a certain chronological point. Everyone dies, ultimately. (Someone killed by Jesse James would have died by now, even had Jesse been unarmed.)

Death is inevitable for everyone, but not everyone has liberty. In fact, the vast majority of people throughout history lived and died under authoritarian rule. Those of us fortunate enough to live our lives in functioning Republics possess the rarest of treasures, freedom. The desire to protect that treasure is an argument for the legalisation of guns which can pass a basic scrutiny test.

Side: Well Yee Ha
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
0 points

SUPER STUPID ever heard of the 2nd Amendment but if you will you can go on an quote the 14th ROTFFLMMFAO

Side: Well Duh
FromWithin(8241) Disputed Banned
0 points

You are a sick arrogant person who is so mindlessly stupid, that you can not grasp that Cars kill far more people. Drunk drivers kill far more people.

Under your moronic thinking, we should ban alcohol and cars as well.

Nah, people like you want to keep your cars and alcohol. FOOL!

Side: Well Yee Ha
TheSnake(15) Disputed
3 points

You are a sick arrogant person who is so mindlessly stupid, that you can not grasp that Cars kill far more people. Drunk drivers kill far more people.

It isn't about which kills more people you obnoxious pseudo-Christian idiot. Cars are designed for the purpose of taking you to places you can't reach on foot. They serve a useful purpose in society and car accidents are an unfortunate by-product of that. Guns are designed to kill. Killing is their actual designated purpose. It isn't a by-product of another irreplaceable purpose. Guns are built as tools to kill, and that is what they are used for.

By your insane religious "logic", since nuclear bombs don't kill as many people as cars, nuclear bombs are therefore safer than cars, yes? There should be no problem with walking into Walmart and buying a nuke, right?

Banned for being insane.

Side: Well Duh
-2 points
TheSnake(15) Disputed
7 points

This country would also be invaded if there had not been guns.

That's why the debate title says "private citizens". Stop upvoting your own shitposts and learn to read.

Side: Well Duh
Antrim(1287) Banned
1 point

Hey shithead, the whole idea of presenting a debate is, through reasoned and rational argument,to persuade people to accept your viewpoint.

You have failed miserably in this regard and should go back to doing whatever it was before you thought you could participate on a site such as this.

Side: Well Duh
Quantumhead(749) Disputed
1 point

the whole idea of presenting a debate is, through reasoned and rational argument,to persuade people to accept your viewpoint.

That idea is of course only legitimate if you present your debate to reasoned and rational people. I'm not sure your idea works so well when the debate is about banning guns and you present it to a culture brainwashed from childhood with the (clearly false) notion that guns are a good thing.

Side: Well Yee Ha
Antrim(1287) Banned
-1 points

If guns were banned how would decent citizens protect themselves from filth such as you.

With dirtballs like you who represent a danger to the more vulnerable members of our society prowling the streets it is vital that they have the means by which to protect themselves.

The Muslim terrorists in Europe know that they can target their defenseless victims with relative freedom from the injurious consequences of their murderous actions.

The Muslim terrorist filth know that this is not the case in the United States so they, along with scumbags like you and your entire family are less active here.

It is indicative of molesters like you who, for highly suspect but painfully obvious reasons call for the removal of the means by which decent law abiding folk can protect themselves in the event of being accosted by scumbag criminals/terrorists like you or a member of your notorious family.

Your blatantly obvious attempt to support the loony left's call for the disarmament of the general public so can perpetrate your criminal activities on a defenseless public isn't going to work.

Side: Well Duh
TheSnake(15) Disputed
7 points

If guns were banned how would decent citizens protect themselves from filth such as you

Yes, your honour, I put a five inch hole in this man's head to "protect" myself from his harsh language. He beat me in a debate you see.

With dirtballs like you who represent a danger to the more vulnerable members of our society prowling the streets

You consider it best to arm us, yes?

Banned for being a Nazi.

Side: Well Yee Ha
Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
2 points

The Nazis actually used gun control. You have it backwards.

Side: Well Duh
brontoraptor(28599) Disputed Banned
1 point

It's all over youtube how to make a gun that will mortaly injure or kill someone, and it takes two pieces of pipe, a screw, and ten to fifteen minutes to make. Goodluck disarming a nation with 400 million legal firearms when they can make a gun for twenty bucks in fifteen minutes.

Side: Well Duh
Quantumhead(749) Disputed
1 point

If guns were banned how would decent citizens protect themselves from filth such as you.

Yeah, that makes sense. Same goes for flamethrowers, tanks and personal missile silos. How can I ever be expected to protect myself if I am not permitted to own those things?

Oh, hang on. Wait.... I have an idea. What if I just man up and stop being a paranoid, frightened little twerp?

The Muslim terrorists in Europe know that they can target their defenseless victims

Hang on a minute, you brazenly Islamophobic, neo-Nazi buffoon. The military has killed approximately two million Muslims in the last 16 years, but it can't protect its own citizens from "Muslim terrorists"? Then what was the point in sending the military to kill two million Muslims in the first place, you idiot? Was it your intention to provoke them? Repeatedly kick a hornet's nest and then claim victimhood when you get stung, yes?

You really have got some nerve. The American military cut the water and electricity supply for everybody in Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, and you are still insisting THEY are the terrorists?

Gtfo with your up is down, black is white nonsense, you fascist toolbag.

Side: Well Yee Ha
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

Q,

Your initial argument is not without merit, I think. If I follow your point correctly, you are saying that the fact that we clearly do not need the larger military hardware, then by extension we do not need the personal firearms.

I am not sure what your second point is because you hid it under insults. Are you saying that gun ownership is no protection from the destruction of infrastructure?

Side: Well Duh
3 points

I don't believe we need to take guns away from private citizens but I do think there needs to be stricter control and rules to owning them as well as penalties to those who don't follow the rules. As to how far that goes or what those rules should be? I have no idea, well I have some but they certainly aren't hashed out.... but our method of just putting our heads in the sand and hoping it will all fix itself isn't working.

Side: Well Yee Ha
1 point

Try to get them banned way to many out there and it could never happen but that is "A Wet Dream of you Leftist" Explain how you are going to ban guns from criminals i will await whatever insane response you might have !

Side: Well Yee Ha
1 point

And then the British police had a reality check and had to arm themselves with........ guns. Why? Because criminals won't disarm no matter what the law says. The left's make believe fairytale that changing gun laws will disarm violent gun offenders is well... childish. No one should be that stupid, even snake, the puppet account.

Side: Well Yee Ha

I mean even if for arguments sake, we agree that the U.S. has a problem with guns and the main cause of this is the guns themselves, banning an item outright is clearly not the answer. The issue with banning items after they have been mass produced and sold for a very long time is that people are not willing to part with them. It's likely you would end up with the same situation as the alcohol prohibition. Criminal organisations would see an oppurtunity and expand the black market to account for the ban. So instead of having guns be sold from a registered and government regulated business you would rather they are sold in a similar fashion to illegal drugs? Banning guns, regardless of the principle would be difficult and impractical to execute properly. Why not instead turn to look at the many other countires who also allow private citizens to own guns and see the differences they have? Or perhaps it's time to consider the idea that many of the problems in the U.S that are related to and lumped together with guns are affected by other things as well...

Side: Well Yee Ha
TheSnake(15) Disputed
2 points

I mean even if for arguments sake, we agree that the U.S. has a problem with guns and the main cause of this is the guns themselves

So in other words, even if for argument's sake you do not outright reject common sense?

banning an item outright is clearly not the answer

So, "for argument's sake", if we accept that the item is the "main cause", then "banning the item" is "clearly not the answer"? Are you literally retarded, buddy? Of course it is the answer. You said so yourself and then contradicted yourself two sentences later.

It's likely you would end up with the same situation as the alcohol prohibition

No, it is not likely, because most people of intelligence believe they have the right to put what they want into their own bodies, and you are talking about the "right" to put toxic chunks of lead into other people's bodies. A ban on guns would be like the ban on rocket launchers, and a ban on drugs would be like the ban on alcohol.

You are a complete idiot who is throwing imaginary obstacles in front of a gun ban which don't exist anywhere other than your imagination. It can be evidenced quite simply. You don't want to try a gun ban to see if it ends up how you claim it will end up. No. You want to use what you claim will happen as an excuse not to try a gun ban. It's circular reasoning at its ugliest.

Side: Well Duh
brontoraptor(28599) Disputed Banned
2 points

So, "for argument's sake", if we accept that the item is the "main cause", then "banning the item" is "clearly not the answer"? Are you literally retarded, buddy

It takes 2 pieces of pipe, a screw and fifteen minutes to make a gun. You're a mindless, ignorant clown.

Side: Well Yee Ha
1 point

I'm routinely accused (falsely) of being a liberal and yet I'm here to tell you it's crazy to ban guns for private citizens...

1) In a country awash with guns the fact is the vast vast vast majority of gun owners have never done anything illegal or dangerous with theirs. You hear about the ones that do, because it's catastrophic when it happens, but truly if the majority of gun owners were up to no good we would have already seen a nonstop anarchy of violence on every doorstep for the last 200+ years.

2) There are many legitimate reasons other than self defense for private citizens to own guns including hunting, pest control, target shooting sports, antiquing, and being auxiliary to law enforcement. It's a big country. The needs from city to farm, from coast to coast and imbetween, from job to job, are not taken into account when you declare an overal ban on all private ownership.

3) The recent terrorist attacks in Europe, which operates under rules like you propose, don't even need guns. They're getting massacres done with big trucks and knives and bombs.

Now, after making those points, I want to reiterate my main stance on guns and the 2nd Amendment is that yes the public has a right to own guns but it does not eclipse or eliminate needs for public safety. I still believe licenses and waiting periods and restrictions on some types of guns or ammunition are allowed. And I usually find the positions of the NRA and gun nuts offensive on many levels. I'm not a gun nut. And that's why my objections to your call to ban them need to be taken seriously.

Side: Well Yee Ha
TheSnake(15) Disputed
6 points

and yet I'm here to tell you it's crazy to ban guns for private citizens...

I'm here to tell you that you are the crazy one.

In a country awash with guns the fact is the vast vast vast majority of gun owners have never done anything illegal or dangerous with theirs

This is a completely circular argument. If a ban is put on guns then they will be doing something illegal just by owning a gun.

There are many legitimate reasons other than self defense for private citizens to own guns including hunting, pest control, target shooting sports, antiquing, and being auxiliary to law enforcement.

These aren't legitimate reasons. They are laughable attempts/excuses to circumvent the main purpose of guns. People don't need to hunt (and if they do licenses can be issued), people don't need to shoot rats (they can use poison like we do in the UK), target shooting doesn't require personal ownership (hence it is a red herring), antiquing is fine provided the guns are not functional (and cannot easily be made functional) and there is a very good reason why the police don't appreciate vigilante "justice".

The recent terrorist attacks in Europe, which operates under rules like you propose, don't even need guns. They're getting massacres done with big trucks and knives and bombs.

This has absolutely nothing to do with guns. If I take a hatchet and stick it in your stupid head it does not evidence that I should have shot you instead.

You people are literally INSANE.

Side: Well Duh

Most people who own guns aren't doing the harm dude obviously it's the ones who don't. Why are you so stuck up you can't hear other people's opinions. If you take guns away there's nothing stopping people to invade America then what will we use to protect us with. Seriously answer my question I will be happy to hear what you have to say because all your doing is arguing for no point.

Side: Well Yee Ha
TheSnake(15) Disputed
1 point

Most people who own guns aren't doing the harm dude

Strange. Whenever I point out that most Muslims aren't doing the harm, you guys seem to have the opposite opinion. Do you have to practice your double standards, or do they come naturally?

If we gave everybody nuclear weapons, then MOST people would not use them to obliterate half of America. You see what I'm saying?

Why are you so stuck up you can't hear other people's opinions

It isn't that I'm stuck up. It's that I've heard all of your "opinions" before, dozens of times, and every single one of them is logically indefensible. In fact, let's call a spade a spade: they aren't even your own opinions. You all say the same things for a reason, and when those things are systematically debunked you all have the same emotional reaction for the same reason.

Side: Well Duh
1 point

Good luck getting the criminals to surrender their guns. The people who obey the law would be at the mercy of all the violent and still armed criminals. What would stop home-invading sociopaths once there was no longer the chance that the residents might have a gun?

Side: Well Yee Ha
1 point

How is disarming private citizens working out for the people of Venezuela?

Side: Well Yee Ha

Ok this is such a flawed argument people have. You can never take away guns from people it is their right to bear arms. If you take guns away they will make new ones, they will threaten with knifes they will use bombs explosives etc. Why should we take them away in the first place its not the guns doing the harm it's the people pulling the trigger. People need to understand this, we have a law about guns for a reason why don't you open your history book and read them.

Side: Well Yee Ha
0 points

Hello s:

Nahhh.. Not as long as it's a constitutional right.

But, we don't need to ban them.. We just need to REGULATE them so people who SHOULDN'T have them, can't get them..

Of course, right wingers believe that ANY regulation is an attempt to take their guns away.. Go figure..

excon

Side: Well Yee Ha
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

Of course, right wingers believe that ANY regulation is an attempt to take their guns away.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think the question is what level of regulation counts as infringement.

For the record, those of us on the right have compromised a lot on the definition of infringement.

Certainly, the framers and ratifiers of the US Constitution did not anticipate automatic weapons, RPGs tanks, or F-18s, Apache attack helicopters. Most of us right wingers have compromised: RPGs, tanks, F-18s, and Apache's are off the menu. Some are still arguing about automatic weapons, but when the government tries to outlaw semi-automatic weapons, we say that is definitely infringement. Face it, we left the really good arms off the table, so fair is fair.

Certainly the framers and ratifiers lived in a society that included the mentally ill, criminals, and people who used dueling to settle conflicts over insults, but they did not see fit to end the second amendment with anything to the effect of "...except in the case of people who SHOULDN'T have them." Even most of the extreme right wingers have compromised on this, too. We have acceded to, and even supported for good reason, prohibition of the right to bear arms by convicted felons and the mentally ill, provided there are explicit limits and robust due process PRIOR to prohibition.

Side: Well Duh
excon(18260) Clarified
1 point

We have acceded to, and even supported for good reason, prohibition of the right to bear arms by convicted felons and the mentally ill

Hello m:

You wrote down those provisions, put 'em in a book and called yourself reasonable.. But, you won't close the gun show loophole where felons and nuts CAN buy guns with NO background check whatsoever...

When Obama suggested we CLOSE that loophole, the NRA went nuts..

excon

Side: Well Duh