CreateDebate


Debate Info

27
42
For Against
Debate Score:69
Arguments:55
Total Votes:89
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (23)
 
 Against (26)

Debate Creator

Glock(5) pic



"The only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Is concealed carry in this day of age really necessary? Why don't we just ban guns altogether so there is no excuse for this statement?

For

Side Score: 27
VS.

Against

Side Score: 42
2 points

There are rare exceptions but for the most part you do indeed require somebody with a gun to stop somebody else with one, even if that somebody is a police officer.

Side: For
-3 points
SexyJesus(83) Disputed
3 points

Sure you can't arm the good guy without simultaneously arming the bad guy (although background checks are kind of an important part of the attempt to not arm the bad guy) but here's how "reality works": if you're going to dis arm the good guy, you need a plan to effectively and reliably disarm the bad guy too. Do you actually have a plan to do that? Because I can make an AR15 in about a day or two with a lathe and a milling machine, and so can any bad guy. Are we going to go door to door collecting both weapons and the tools to make them? Do you really think that you'd be able to find them all? Second, do you have a plan to identify said bad guy before they get their hands on a weapon? Then maybe keep an eye on their expense accounts to keep them from purchasing weapons or the tools and raw materials needed to make them? Of course not, those resources don't exist, and also for the same reason that we can't identify minors to deny them driver's licenses when they haven't yet gotten a DUI and killed a school bus full of kids: No one is clairvoyant, and no one knows who's going to snap later on in life.

I already know you're going to act like a child in response, if you respond at all, and attempt to claim the intellectual high ground without acknowledging the holes in your logic, because that's what you routinely do. And that's fine, it's the internet, I have better shit to do than worry about it. I just hope that you're at least able to, in private if nothing else, ask necessary questions about your worldview. And if I'm wrong, and you're actually capable of rational discourse instead of tantrums and want to talk it out like intelligent adults, I apologize in advance, and I promise a respectful back- and- forth. Somehow I don't think that will happen, but I'd actually like to see you prove me wrong.

Side: Against
Nomenclature(1176) Clarified
1 point

Sure you can't arm the good guy without simultaneously arming the bad guy (although background checks are kind of an important part of the attempt to not arm the bad guy) but here's how "reality works": if you're going to dis arm the good guy, you need a plan to effectively and reliably disarm the bad guy too.

Nonsense. The entire "good guy" v "bad guy" argument is a false dichotomy in the first place. You can't talk about "reality" and then lump everybody into one of two baskets because reality isn't black and white like that. You need one plan and only one plan: you make gun possession a crime, punishable with a mandatory five year jail sentence. In other words, you disincentivise gun possession rather than incentivise it.

Side: For
3 points

With hundreds of millions of guns currently in this country in, the hands of private citizens, why would you imagine that a ban would be effective?

Side: Against
excon(4376) Disputed
2 points

Hello d:

I assume that most Americans are law abiding citizens.. IF the government banned guns, MOST people would give them up. Using your numbers alone, that would mean a DRAMATIC reduction in guns. I can't see how that WOULDN'T be effective in saving lives.

Would it be an absolute?? Nahhh.. But, we don't make law with the expectation that absolutely EVERYBODY will comply..

excon

Side: For
Amarel(2376) Disputed
2 points

The only legal way for the government to ban guns is through a Constitutional Amendment. If it was politically feasible to do this, it would mean American attitudes toward guns are sufficiently changed that most of the population would abide by the ban. However, as it is right now, I’d the government attempted to ban guns tomorrow, they would make a vast number of law abiding citizens into criminals. Guns remain because the voting public wants them. Even if you don’t.

Side: Against
1 point

Obviously not everybody would comply. Look at how many people do not comply with laws against murder.

The only laws that matter are the ones that prohibit things we actually want to avoid. People don't actually care about controlling guns; that is just a means. What people really care about is preventing murders/attempted murders.

This is why the gun control laws we have now are so ineffective. The people who disobey the laws we care about (murder) will definitely disobey the laws we don't care about (gun regulations).

Side: For
Atrag(5192) Disputed
2 points

You seriously think it is impossible to ban anything that is already in the country? What a strange stance. The more items there are in the country the longer it would take for the ban become effective but bans do generally work.

Side: For

Very passionate and well-written response.

You can't say it can't be done flat out, you can only say you don't want to try.

Side: For
SexyJesus(83) Disputed
1 point

Like the prohibition! Oh wait, that didn't work... Like with drugs! No, hang on- prostitution? No, that's still around... Umm... Example?

Side: Against
2 points

As previously mentioned, I'm not for banning guns. I disagree that the only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun - it's nonsense. The concept behind the statement is nonsense, too - famously, in the Oregon shooting, there was a good guy with a gun...a trained good guy with a gun...who heroically saved lives by not drawing it.

Side: Against
Amarel(2376) Clarified
2 points

After claiming the statement is bullshit, you provided an example (with no source link) of a good guy with a gun?

Maybe you should provide a different example where a bad guy with a gun is stopped by a good guy who has no gun and is not protected by armed backup, that would better make your point. Also, that doesn’t happen.

Side: For
EldonG(531) Disputed
1 point

I'll get you a source link. The point I made was that the gun did nothing in that situation, because the guy with training realized he could do more harm than good by using it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security guardsaidhehad_rob.html

Side: For
EldonG(531) Disputed
1 point

Oh, and here:

"A security guard wounded when he approached Stephen Paddock's room at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on Sunday night is being credited with distracting the gunman, possibly stopping him from continuing to shoot at crowds near the Las Vegas Strip, 32 floors below, a Las Vegas law-enforcement official said on Friday."

http://www.businessinsider.com/mandalay-bay-security-guard-jesus-campos-distracting-las-vegas-shooter-2017-10

He was unarmed. It does happen.

Side: For
1 point

Maybe you should provide a different example where a bad guy with a gun is stopped by a good guy who has no gun

You are the one who needs to do the explaining. Why do you support the sale of guns to bad guys to the first place? Clearly, if you stop selling guns to bad guys then the good guys will no longer need them.

Side: For
2 points

Technically, it doesn't take a gun to stop another, a SWAT team can use shields and swords, or others can use different types of projectiles, such as spears, bow with arrows, throwing knives, the list goes on, but it all depends on who defeats who first.

Side: Against

Creative response, I like it.

There's also NLP for more advanced psychologists to make a person not want to shoot.

Side: Against
1 point

I disagree that the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I've seen people holding guns disarmed before. I've even had guns aimed at me personally.

No amount of me warning people that there is a section of the government attempting to overthrow it and replace it with something else that is probably not going to be better is going to convince people that those who want to take the guns are doing it for nefarious purposes... But I believe this to be the truth.

Side: Against
1 point

OK. Let's ban guns. Here's how.

Step one: elect 2/3rds of congress to your cause. That's 67 senators and 290 representatives. Got that? OK.

Step 2: have them propose a vote to an amendment to the constitution which repeals the second amendment (hope citizens don't revolt).

Step 3: Get the legislatures of 38 states to ratify that amendment.

Congratulations! The 2nd amendment no longer exists. But wait! Guns are still legal- you've just removed the barrier for the government to enact legislation to that end. Which brings us to:

Step 4: enact "common sense" gun reform. Here's a little secret: no one can agree on what the hell that means. Anyone who says the phrase "common sense gun laws" usually has uninformed, incomplete ideas on the subject that A) won't work and B) are referred to as "common sense" only because they think that such a statement validates their claims and puts them on an intellectual high ground. In reality, "common sense" is just a label that sounds good in their own heads, and when debated rationally they usually can't defend their ideas. But! Thankfully, we're not talking about "common sense gun reform", we're talking about a complete ban. So get that law passed, and get it signed by the president, assuming the people haven't already stormed the capital. Hooray! Guns are illegal! Now you have to:

Step 5: enforce the law. Oh, good luck with this one. Well, it's only one gun per person in this country. Actually a little more. So, let's have a massive mobilization of all branches of the military & National Guard, the ATF, the FBI, Homeland Security, DOD, every single local law enforcement agency in the country, etc, etc, etc. Which is an epic cluster fuck in and of itself. They all get to go door to door, demanding people turn over their weapons (repeat steps 1-3 to repeal the 4th amendment, and the 9th). From 300 million people. Many of whom aren't giving up their guns without starting the next fucking civil war. And here's an interesting question: will law enforcement even carry out that mission? I've been in the military some time now, and most of us are some of the most pro gun people you've ever heard of. Would they actually confiscate everyone's weapons, and turn their own personal weapons over, or would they go home and say "come and take them"? Which brings up another interesting point: anti gun people often ask what good it will do to have an AR15 when the army is coming after me with a tank. What's more accurate is to say that three soldiers are coming after me in a tank. Three soldiers who swore to uphold the constitution above all else, are probably pro- gun, and hate the ever loving hell out of congress and all of their bullshit. I'm willing to bet most of them won't engage an American civilian target at all, and some will turn their tank around and find something else to point it at. Like the politician giving them unlawful orders. (Oh, and it's also noteworthy that while the military has the bigger guns, we have more of them. A lot more. And they also don't have the greatest track record against insurgent tactics. Remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? None of those ended well.)

Oh, and if all that happens, I'll still be able to make AR15s with a lathe & milling machine at a rate of about one a day.

Look, taking weapons away from people isn't going to guarantee that someone won't be able to get their hands on one anyway. It's just going to guarantee that the only people without guns are the people who choose to follow the law. If you're of a mind to kill someone, you're not going to change your mind because owning the gun is illegal. Not legal does not mean not armed. Not armed does not mean not dangerous. And as far as what will stop a bad guy with a gun: it sure as fuck isn't a good guy without a gun.

Instead, why don't we have a discussion about why so- called "gun free zones" exist? I seriously want to hear an intelligent argument for that one, I really do- especially considering that the deadliest mass shootings routinely occur in these areas. Why do we put up signs that effectively say "The occupants of this designated are have been rendered defenseless for the convenience of any passing psychopath"? Do people really think that someone with the mind to kill as many people as possible are going to see that sign, and think to themselves that they had better not bring their guns to kill people here, because that would be illegal? And why do we give people like this positions of power instead of a corrective bitch slap?

Side: Against
1 point

There is a grain of truth to it. But just one litte grain. Life just isn't that simple...

1) Law enforcement could stop them

2) Intelligent design of businesses and homes (even basic lock-up) can stop them.

3) Sometimes a dog can stop them

4) Sometimes a nonlethal technique, like an incredibly loud siren, can stop them.

5) Sometimes a spotlight or security camera can stop them.

6) Some other kind of weapon might stop them (even simply a taser or pepperspray).

7) Fear for their own family or loved ones may stop them

8) Sometimes a panic room to escape to can stop them.

9) Being outnumbered by unarmed people willing to do what it takes can stop them.

10) Technically another bad guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. (That's like when a white supremacist is raising hell and some gangster of some other color pops a cap in his @ss).

I'm sure there are more.

Side: Against