CreateDebate


Debate Info

39
29
Guns should stay legal Guns should be banned
Debate Score:68
Arguments:102
Total Votes:69
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Guns should stay legal (32)
 
 Guns should be banned (25)

Debate Creator

zale(46) pic



Guns should stay legal in the United States regardless of what you think of gun control

The second amendment clearly states that every American citizen has a right to a gun. The Constitution is a huge part of what makes up America. We must abide by the Constitution and this means allowing everyone the right to a gun. If the United States bans guns the Constitution is being denied. We cannot have that happen. If you support banning guns then you are anti-constitutional and thus anti-USA. If you want guns to be banned so badly then move to a country where the constitution doesn't give everyone the right to a gun.

Guns should stay legal

Side Score: 39
VS.

Guns should be banned

Side Score: 29
3 points

Guns should be legal and I have no doubt the US will continue to have widespread gun ownership. But I still don't believe efforts at public safety should be automatically blocked. Almost every other thing that makes up our lives has safety parameters in place - what we drive, the food we eat, our work environments, even our free speech (libel/slander laws), etc. We can enforce efforts at safety without the ridiculous slippery slope argument that every gun will be confiscated.

Side: Guns should stay legal
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Guns are legal and the best gun salesman was Barack Obama. So Leftist what efforts do you want to enforce when it comes to guns ? Safety parameters don't keep you safe when you drive , safety parameters don't keep you safe from what you eat and safety parameters don't keep you safe in a work environment. It is amazing to watch you Leftist stumble over your words.

Side: Guns should stay legal
Grenache(6053) Clarified
1 point

Wrong, life would be exponentially more dangerous if you didn't need a license to drive or working brakes and brake lights, etc. And if your food was unlabeled, expired, and laced with DDT. I don't even need to go on.

Side: Guns should stay legal
2 points

1-Populations are most in danger of oppression by their own governments. History demonstrates this pretty consistently. Examples are:

South Africa, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the pre-Ottoman Caliphates, any medieval European nation, etc.

Even powers that invade and oppress other nations generally start by oppressing their own populations. Examples are:

South Africa (invaded Namibia), USSR (invaded E. Europe) Nazi Germany, Rashidun Caliphate (invaded NW Africa & SW Asia), Umayyad Caliphate (invaded N Africa, Iberia, & S Asia), etc.

A well armed people is better able to fight the oppressive government, which is why the Nazis and the current Venezuelan government started the oppression by confiscating all the privately owned guns.

2-A populace armed independently of their government at best deters invasion, and at least is better able to fight against invasion. Examples are: Admiral Yamamoto argued against invading the US by saying the Japanese army would face "a gun behind every blade of grass", the French resistance fighting the Nazis.

By contrast, the Colonial Period is marked by European powers successfully encountering unarmed or inadequately armed populations. Examples are:

Pretty much the entire world.

3-When you are in danger of violence by an armed criminal, seconds count and the police are only minutes away. Personal and family safety are augmented by personal firearm ownership.

Just the possibility of privately held guns can deter robbery & home invasion. Consider, would you put a big sign on your house that advertised that you do not own a firearm? I would not because it would make it a soft target, attractive to violent criminals in exactly the same way gun-free zones are targets of choice for mass shootings.

Side: Guns should stay legal
Dermot(5736) Disputed
1 point

You say ......A well armed people is better able to fight the oppressive government, which is why the Nazis and the current Venezuelan government started the oppression by confiscating all the privately owned guns.......

So a reason to allow guns is because Americans fear oppression from their own government , and your examples are some of the biggest shit holes in the world who tyrannised their people's .

Tell me what chance would the armed untrained population of America have against the might of the American military ?

It would be all over in a couple of hours .

Side: Guns should be banned
WinstonC(1225) Disputed
2 points

Firstly I'd say that having some physical defense against an oppressive government is better than none. Further it would be more like the French resistance in WW2; small cells which could engage in guerilla warfare and harangue their enemy. Deployment of the military against U.S. citizens for the purpose of oppression would cause widespread defection from the army to the resistance. There would be civil war and, due to defections and the fact there are more guns than people in the US, it would not be easily won.

Side: Guns should stay legal
1 point

Hello D:

Truly... The gun in my pocket MIGHT defeat the guy who's trying to rob me.. But, it ain't gonna defeat an Apache helicopter.

excon

Side: Guns should be banned
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

You Darwin you are opposed to guns but you really don't know anything about what your talking about. You need to schooled because your a dummy !!!!!!!!!!!

Sturm Ruger, Southport, Connecticut. ...

Berretta USA, Accokeek, Maryland. ...

Smith & Wesson, Springfield, Massachusetts. ...

Colt's Manufacturing, Hartford, Connecticut.

Look at the gun manufacturers in the North !!!!

Side: Guns should stay legal
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

I think a more apt way to phase it is 'allowing guns makes it less likely that we should fear oppression from our own government.'

Protection from one's own government is only one of my arguments. In that regard, I see where you are coming from, and your argument has some merit, but I still think it is weak.

History and current international politics demonstrate that the tendency is for governments ultimately to devolve into absolutism, largely because of the efficiency of dictatorial methods. A well armed populace acts as a deterrent to some megalomaniac who might think he/she can seize dictatorial powers easily.

Specifically, I think you are failing to take 3 factors into account.

1-Because gun ownership is SO widespread, and because there are SO many guns (some estimates exceed 300 million) it would be well-nigh impossible for the government to determine which population segment to target. (I even know pro-gun control Democrats who own guns.)

That would require the US government to "pacify" the third most populous nation on earth.

Local and state police forces are obviously less numerous, and generally less well armed than the populations they protect and control. What protects these forces is the widespread respect and acceptance of their authority these populations have for the police.

2-Governments and standing armies have an easier time, and more success, against armies than against diffuse hordes of unconnected individuals and groups. The US military routinely loses asymmetric wars. Examples are:

The US military took 10 years to lose in Viet Nam, largely because of the Viet Cong.

The US has been losing for 15 years in Afghanistan, where the population is smaller, and the geographical area is smaller.

3-The last time the US military had to fight an enemy who had access to infrastructure required for US government ability to function was in the 1860s. Then the Federal government was run without dependence on electricity or telecommunications. This is a significant vulnerability that could make a difference.

I am not implying that the government would certainly lose, only that a quick and easy victory is in no way a forgone conclusion. That uncertainty is a meaningful deterrent to despotism, and it is a direct result of gun ownership being legal.

Side: Guns should stay legal
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

What problem do you have Darwin with anyone being armed or the ability to purchase firearms ?

Side: Guns should stay legal
1 point

Hello z:

Yeah.... I LIKE the Constitution. I thought everybody did..

excon

Side: Guns should stay legal
1 point

Guns are legal in the USA i don't really care what the Whacked Out Left has to say about it.

If i'm not mistaken a Whacked Out Leftist with guns went on a shooting spree at a baseball field !!!!!!!!!

Side: Guns should stay legal
Dermot(5736) Disputed
2 points

Yes guns are legal in the USA , there was a shooting spree at a baseball field and guns were used .....

What's your point guns are good for killing ?

Side: Guns should be banned
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

But who did the killing do you know ???????????????

What was the killer's party affiliation ?????????

Side: Guns should stay legal
zale(46) Disputed
1 point

Banning guns isn't going to solve this problem. Criminals will still have access to guns and citizens who are good and obey the law will be in danger.

Side: Guns should stay legal
1 point

Sure, I'm a gun owner, I'll go along with that. What I won't go along with is the hubris of having to own an assault weapon. What I won't go along with is having to arm against our government. This is, for the moment, AMERICA! When we have to arm against our own government we will be no better than, an authoritarian state. We may as well be in a civil war like Syria! Those who think we are should get OUT! Find their own country!

For many years I've walked the streets of America ... 47 0f the 50 states, I never NEEDED an assault weapon (even in the most dangerous areas)! When I do, we will NOT be America.

Side: Guns should stay legal
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

I know LOTS of gun owners. I have NEVER heard anyone even imply that anyone needs to own an assault weapon.

I have never even heard anyone recommend owning one for any reason other than they are fun to shoot.

With the exception of VERY FEW crazies (who are also preparing for the zombie apocalypse) nobody foresees arming against the US government in the near future.

That said, there are many millions of Americans who acknowledge that in the real world, some modern industrial democratic/republican governments get out of control, oppress their people, and do unspeakable things.

It seems foolish to depend solely on hopes, ideals, & SCOTUS to safeguard our liberties. Just because you and I believe in the Constitution, there is no reason to assume that EVERYONE who is ever elected will likewise revere that set of principles.

It is prudent to ensure that no one in our government ever thinks it would be easy to play Mussolini or Ceaușescu, or that there would be no resistance to oppressing the populace.

Widespread semi-automatic rifle ownership is like wearing a seatbelt. You do not want to need it, and it is unlikely you will, but it is still smart to wear it, just in case. Maybe you do not want to wear a seatbelt, or have great faith in the other people who are on the road with you. Splendid! However, it is illogical to assert it is un-American to wear a seatbelt.

Side: Guns should stay legal
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

Apparently I have more faith in America than you do. I have "worried" about the country since Reagan, but, I haven't lost faith yet.

Come on now! Do you really think your friends and relatives in the Armed Services will turn their guns on YOU and their families? We are about as close to an authoritarian government as we have ever been, right now, and I don't believe we will go much farther! We have thousands of deaths every year over any other country. People will get sick of it quite soon I think.

As far as a seatbelt is concerned, I agree with you. However, wearing a seatbelt is one of the hated "regulations" designed to save lives. I think a few regulations to save lives can be added to the 2nd without too much damage to our freedom any more than the safety belt laws. It is un-American to think it would.

I have nothing against owning a semi-automatic sport weapon, I own one. It will only hold 5 shots and that's fine. I'm against owning a weapon with 30 rounds that travel at over 3000'/sec and tumble through one body because the rear is heavier than the point! We have laws against bullets that flatten or break apart (cop killers). These don't HAVE to do that, there's no way to stop them fromdoing terrible damage when they hit! We don't "need" them.

Side: Guns should stay legal
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Crazy AL your a gun owner by your own words but you own no assault weapons ? LMMFAO

Side: Guns should stay legal
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

I have hunting weapons and a revolver. I do NOT have weapons with huge magazines and bullets designed exclusively to kill and maim PEOPLE!

I also DO NOT HAVE a MFA to laugh off, but then, I see nothing funny about YOU, outhouse60.

Side: Guns should stay legal

Gun bans are Not United States Constitutional law. This means that the laws are not based on a basic principle and legal precedent. In most cases if not all cases these laws are political and statistic based supporting a biased focus.

So what is a basic principle which is ignored by gun bands? Refusal of representation of a death itself that result loss of life. Murders all have a basic principle in common not weapon. It is the lack of representation of the death. Murders dispose of a body they do not represent the end of life or loss of life by memorial.

Why has legislation moved away from Constitutional law? These types of laws would also effect the intellectual crimes as well. Effecting such issues as Medical research, abortion and many types of violent crimes with fewer laws.

Guns are legal and should only be proved as being used illegally as this has a basic principle to establish separation of degree of wrong. Death occurs and should also be proved to be tested as represented to the public illegally. As these to have a basic principle that can be measured in degrees of wrong.

Side: Guns should stay legal
1 point

Explain to me without referring to the constitution why you need a gun.

The right to bear arms was established in 1791.

Times have changed since then.

Personally, I would have it so only the military and police have firearms with no exceptions, but at the very least there should background checks, compulsory lessons and then tests.

We have driving lessons and driving tests because cars can be dangerous. Why not have the same for guns? Especially since a guns sole purpose is to kill.

If you want a gun for lawful purposes you would have nothing to worry about.

Side: Guns should be banned
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
2 points

We have driver training and licensing, but in 2015 the US had 35,092 traffic deaths. (https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-fatalities-sharply-2015) It is arguable that driver training is irrelevant.

Conceal carry permits do require training and rigorous testing to obtain permits. There are also myriad voluntary gun safety training programs all over the US.

Side: Guns should stay legal
Hornet(34) Disputed
2 points

But that 35k deaths would be a hell of a lot higher if you could just get in a car and drive without any training.

Side: Guns should stay legal
zale(46) Disputed
2 points

You need a gun to protect yourself and if guns are banned then criminals who choose to disobey the law and keeps their guns will become a huge danger. Regardless, the Constitution is a fundamental part of the United States and it's goals. The Constitution is what gives us our rights to freedom. If the government can abolish one of the amendments then who is to stop them from defiling the rest.

Side: Guns should stay legal
Hornet(34) Disputed
1 point

Then why do the majority of countries where guns are legal have high gun related deaths?

And concerning the government abolishing all your rights, they already technically can https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution (top of 2nd paragraph).

Side: Guns should be banned
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

Hello Hornet:

Why do you need your Constitutional rights??? Yes, things have changed. Background checks are fine. Safe guns should be available.

But, the question was whether I thought guns should STAY legal, and I do.. Plus, I cannot answer a question about law WITHOUT reference to the Constitution..

excon

Side: Guns should stay legal
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

My assumption is that the desire to leave out reference to the Constitution is intended to direct the conversation away from Rights as the starting point, and instead focus on the pragmatic issues underpinning the usefulness/necessity of the Second Amendment.

Side: Guns should stay legal
WinstonC(1225) Disputed
1 point

"Explain to me without referring to the constitution why you need a gun."

The reason is simple; self defense. If you don't have a gun you cannot defend yourself against someone who has a gun. The police usually don't come until after a crime has occurred because they can't be everywhere at once.

I'm from the U.K. so I can't really comment on the specifics of procedures and protocols for the purchase of firearms (and these vary by region and state) but they do exist.

Side: Guns should stay legal
Hornet(34) Disputed
2 points

But you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself if no-one else has a gun.

Obviously it would still be possible to get one on the black market, but the same is true in the UK.

In the UK if you get shot, chances are you're in a gang rather than a murder victim.

Side: Guns should be banned
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

Personally you would be an arrogant controlling fool to think you have the right to take other's guns.

How would you like us taking away your alcohol and thereby preventing drunk driving deaths?

We don't just use guns to kill innocent people. We use them for protection against the killers who laugh at your gun laws.

Remember prohibition? Did people stop drinking? GET A BRAIN YOU MINDLESS LIBERAL AND LEARN!

The only reason it is the Democrat's goal to take our guns is because they want to usher in a big government socialist nation whereby guns would make it harder for them to control the people.

Look over in Europe where the people are being killed left and right because they are not allowed to have guns to protect themselves.

A couple Terrorists killed 100 people in a theatre because they were the only ones with guns! This was in a nation where guns were not allowed to the people. How did those terrorists get guns?

Side: Guns should stay legal
1 point

Exactly!

I talked to a Texas cop once, who said his professional observation was that the problem that causes much of the gun violence is not which people have guns, but rather which people DO NOT have guns.

He said the problem is that there are NOT ENOUGH people walking around armed in public!

Better gun control means improving your aim.

Side: Guns should stay legal
Hornet(34) Disputed
1 point

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbyfirearm-relateddeathrate

The US had 3.43 gun related homicides per 100,000 people in 2014, whereas France (where a number of terrorist attacks have happened) had 0.21 in 2012.

Less guns means less gun related deaths. The idea of defence is flawed, because you wouldn't need to defend yourself if it was harder for others to get guns.

It's a lot easier to defend yourself against someone with a knife than a gun.

Your example of alcohol is also flawed, because there are laws concerning drink driving and drinking in public.

Side: Guns should be banned
zale(46) Disputed
1 point

Guns are MUCH easier to handle then cars. And it does not say in the Constitution that everyone has a right to own a car.

Side: Guns should stay legal
Hornet(34) Disputed
1 point

So don't you think the constitution should be changed?

You could easily survive today without a gun, but less so without a car (unless you live somewhere with good public transport).

Slavery was legal in the US for 245 years. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

Side: Guns should be banned
1 point

You don't want to debate the topic you just want everyone to agree with your opinion , which is basicallly if you don't support your view well fuck off out of the country , why did you post the topic up ?

Regarding the constitution your relatives possibly held the same views on slavery as in if you don't support the keeping of slaves you're anti American and you should leave the country ....

Despite the freedoms demanded in the Declaration and the freedoms reserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, slavery was not only tolerated in the Constitution, but it was codified.

The Constitution has often been called a living tribute to the art of compromise. In the slavery question, this can be seen most clearly. The Convention had representatives from every corner of the United States, including, of course, the South, where slavery was most pronounced. Slavery, in fact, was the backbone of the primary industry of the South, and it was accepted as a given that agriculture in the South without slave labor was not possible. Though slaves were not cheap by any measure, they were cheaper than hiring someone to do the same work. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and tobacco required slaves to work the fields from dawn to dusk. If the nation did not guarantee the continuation of slavery to the South, it was questioned whether they would form their own nation.

You really should think before you type .

Side: Guns should be banned
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

I am unsure of whether you are arguing for compromise to mitigate the Second Amendment.

Your discussion of compromise regarding slavery could be read to indicate that compromise on gun legality is as necessary as legalized slavery and the 3/5 compromise were for ratification of the Constitution.

Alternately, your use of the example of slavery, which is an obvious evil, could be read to indicate that a similar compromise on the Second Amendment would be similarly evil.

You obviously care about the Constitution, but what exactly are you saying about whether guns should stay legal?

Side: Guns should stay legal
Dermot(5736) Clarified
3 points

What I'm saying is in reaction to the OP comments and showing how flawed his logic is as he states .......

If you support banning guns then you are anti-constitutional and thus anti-USA. If you want guns to be banned so badly then move to a country where the constitution doesn't give everyone the right to a gun............

One could say any Americans that opposed slavery were anti USA I'm demonstrating what a ridiculous statement it is .

Side: Guns should stay legal
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

You don't live in America as you have said and you are not concerned about the Bill of Rights as you have said. The heading of the post is about guns and you go on some rant about slavery. Are you just a little spun out today ?

Side: Guns should stay legal
Dermot(5736) Clarified
1 point

You don't live in a Muslim country you half -wit yet you never stop ranting about Muslims ; you're too stupid to even comprehend what I said .

Side: Guns should stay legal
1 point

If criminals all are able to get guns, this reduces the power that armed police have over them.

If criminals are easily getting underhanded weapons, a large scale operation of undercover infiltration to find who is supplying guns should be carried out, it's so easy to bait people to tell you who can sell you a gun if they don't know you're a cop. An equivalent of DEA should be set up for guns and basically do what the DEA did to the cartels in the drug war to gun sellers.

Side: Guns should be banned