CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
14
Pro Gun Anti Gun
Debate Score:37
Arguments:19
Total Votes:97
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Pro Gun (11)
 
 Anti Gun (8)

Debate Creator

SJWsTho_LOL(2) pic



I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I believe in the basic right to protect myself in public and to defend against a possible tyrannical government in America.

Pro Gun

Side Score: 23
VS.

Anti Gun

Side Score: 14
5 points

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Okay. You're not pro gun. Do you believe me?

Side: Pro Gun
2 points

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?

Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.

If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?

I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.

Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!

The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!

Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?

You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?

I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?

A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.

You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.

You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.

You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!

IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.

Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.

Side: Pro Gun
1 point

I believe in the basic right to protect myself in public and to defend against a possible tyrannical government in America.

I will address the two claims you made individually.

1) Guns are a form of protection.

Using that same logic, one could argue that al Qaeda has the right to own suitcase nukes. I mean, every government in the western world wants to wipe them out, so they have the right to protect themselves, correct?

The thing is, eventually we come to a place where we have to decide what is reasonably needed in the everyday world to protect ourselves, and that is where pro-gunners fall into a contradiction. One only needs a gun to protect themselves in a community where they are likely to get shot, otherwise it is complete overkill. But at the same time pro-gunners downplay the risks of being shot whenever anybody criticises American gun policy. They argue that guns are necessary to protect themselves (from all the guns) while they simultaneously pretend that the effect of guns on everyday life is not that great. There is no actual logic there, just a huge contradiction.

Indeed, to even describe a gun as a form of protection instead of the weapon it obviously is, implies you are hopelessly biased. Clearly, the NRA has twisted your understanding of the difference between defence and attack. If you shoot someone, whatever they happen to be doing at the time, then that is most definitely a form of attack. Hence, guns were designed for attack and not defence.

2) to defend against a possible tyrannical government in America.

This is obviously ridiculous given that you already have a tyrannical government which the rest of the free world is comparing daily to the Nazi regime in Germany. Did guns stop the alt-Reich? Did they stop Bush and Cheney's rape of America?

To believe that guns can protect you against a government which long ago began poisoning the very information you digest is impossibly naive. I am reminded of the infamous quote about fascism coming to America "wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross". Not even the Nazis needed to use force (i.e. they were voted into power) so why would you believe the American government would be any different, 80 years later, with more money and more knowledge? That's patently ridiculous.

And even if the American government did go full Paul Kagame (unlikely, since they sponsored his terror in Rwanda), then your pea shooters are probably not going to be particularly effective against their intercontinental ballistic missiles and fighter jets.

Again, I politely suggest: you have not thought this through properly, have you?

Side: Anti Gun
4 points

correct?

Not when you kill innocent people. Al Qaeda has killed numerous innocent civilians for no good reason. So, no, they don't have the right to protect themselves. The average American, however, has not killed multiple innocent people. So, they still hold the right to protect themself.

likely to get shot

Or raped, or jumped, or shanked, or generally attacked. In most situations, you'll need a gun even if it's just to pull out for intimidation.

weapon it is

Yes, a weapon to protect ourselves.

a form of attack

Unless they attacked you. Then, you're defending yourself.

tyrannical government

Of course, because enforcing the Constitution and American law as a whole is, of course, tyrannical. We're much more tyrannical than Great Britain, which banned Lauren Southern forever simply because she's a far-right conservative.

Side: Pro Gun
SJWsTho_LOL(2) Disputed
1 point

Guns save more lives than take them

Gun bans have proven not to decrease murder rates

American civilians that were untrained won against a highly trained british army that was tyrannical. I could name you several places that have successfully fought back against tyranny.

"you have not thought this through properly, have you?"

I don't think you have thought about the facts and statistics and the value of freedom.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Side: Pro Gun
ADDLTsBitch(11) Disputed
1 point

Prove it gaylord..........................................................................................................

Side: Anti Gun
hiroshima12(2) Disputed
-6 points
0 points

-people save innocent lives, for example someone tries to kill your son but you shoot him first. but let's be honest, we fuckng killed someone , who would'nt feel guilty about that.'

-just imagine all citizen is holding a gun, isn't that fucking scary

Side: Anti Gun
-3 points