Topic: The Right to Bear Arms is detrimental to the safety of the citizens.
For: Gamefreak
Against: Hunter-Ghor

Judges: Maraj, Dez384, Inui

Do Not Begin until January Fifth. Gamefreak leads.

The Right to Bear Arms.

lol

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution may have hurt the country more than it helps. Everyday people have access to guns whenever they want. Not just people like you and me, but people with foul intentions. And that can mean nothing but trouble for the country.

For what reason do people need to own guns? Hunting, yes, but that only requires a rifle. When it comes to handguns and automatics, they are meant for nothing but harm.

Guns should be provided to a select few. Police officers, bodyguards, the army. Something to give the ones who need it an edge over those who would do harm. If everyone is allowed a gun, everyone is on equal ground, which is not what we want as citizens.

Every modern day villain uses guns to do their bidding. A person holds up a convenience store uses a gun to do it. The men who hijacked planes on 9/11 uses guns to take control. Toddlers use bubble guns to annoy you and invoke the desire to swat wildly around you. So many situations where if the people noted didn't have a gun, things could've turned out so much differently.

Knib High Football rules %::%

People with foul intentions can get them anyway. Ever hear of the black market?

With the people with "Foul intentions" not getting anything out of it, the only difference is that it provides guns to normal citizens. Is there anything that hurts?

Guns like that are also quite useful for self-defense, or even just scaring off criminals. Who's gonna try to rob a house if they know they'll get shot if they get seen? Not too many people, and the same goes for most other crimes.

If you're not on equal ground in that aspect, the criminals are gonna be ahead of most people. Which is worse? :hmm:

It's a lot better to be able to just stop a crook yourself than to have to wait for the police to do something about it, when it's unlikely they'll even get there in time to stop it anyway.

As I said: Black market = They can get it anyway. They'll be using guns either way, so you may as well be able to fight back yourself. Think about how 9/11 could have happened differently if the people on the hijacked planes had killed the terrorists attempting to hijack them.

I've never run into that problem, so I guess they must just be annoying you. Can't say I have any problem with that.

If they want to commit a crime, they'll find a way to get a gun. People can already get plenty of things illegally, what makes you think they won't get guns the same way if guns were made illegal?

oshi-

Even the black market has limits to what it can sell. So the number of guns in possession will be greatly decreased than if they could just get them from a store.

The majority of gun based attacks/robberies aren't planned. They catch the people completely by surprise, and usually at night, not giving the people being attacked ample time to get their gun, even if they have one. A robber would just go in shoot you before you have enough time to react.

Sure, a person could get a gun fast enough for self defense if they kept it under their pillow. But for safety reasons that it highly unethical.

Criminals are a part of the group that are not allowed guns. And to stop a crook, you usually have to be somewhat prepared. You have to gain an edge of some sort. If you have a gun, they, most likely, will also have a gun. They can shoot you before you have time to react to them. Whack em with a bat as they come around a corner, regardless of whether or not he has a gun, he'll be down for the count.

Like I said, there's a limited quantity. Most items on the black market I'd assume you wouldn't need mass amounts. But guns need to be made in a factory. If guns are outlawed, those factories will be shut down.

And why the hell would people on the 9/11 planes have guns? Guns are, and always have been, restricted on airlines. Think of how 9/11 would be if the terrorist did not have guns. They would have been outnumbered and sheer force could overtake them, saving so many lives.

It was a bad attempt at a joke ;(

Lets use drugs as an example. Pot is illegal. Pot is a plant. People can grow pot in their backyards.

Guns are not illegal. Guns are machines. Gun require many parts to make them. Stupid criminals cannot make guns.

Damn straight.

It would be hard for them to have much of a supply of guns, yeah. But not impossible, and considering that they could get quite a bit of money out of it, they'd be willing to do quite a lot to get those guns. Probably enough to find some way of getting them.

What would that way be? I can't say I'd know, but is it possible to predict everything criminals will do? Not always.

Regardless of how effective it would be to actually stop the crime, it still does enough to scare away criminals.

Reaserch is your friend. Well, I guess not this time.

Uhh, no **** sherlock. Remember my black market point? Stop taking my points individually.

I notice your point about whacking them with a bat concedes that it doesn't matter whether they have the gun. Of course, it still relies on you being able to see them before they see you, and considering that they're the ones who'll have something to be watching for around corners, that's not likely. Even if they don't have a gun, they'd have some kind of weapon if they would've had a gun, and if that weapon is a dagger, etc., being that close means you could get stabbed.

If the factories get shut down, the people who would be allowed guns would get them... how? Even assuming that somehow works, there's still the possibility of a market for illegal imported guns from countries that would be almost impossible to control.

I'd like to know how gun control laws would be enforced in whatever country the 9/11 terrorists came from. It's obviously not a country that cares much for that kind of laws, whichever it is.

No ****?

So all people who get pot, marijuana, etc. grow it themselves? I don't think so.

Sure, they could buy it from someone, but by that logic, criminals could buy the guns from someone who could make the guns. As I said, even with this country's factories controlled, there's no way to entirely block off gun access.

That's what she said.

Sure, they can get money out of a gun, using it to steal, mug, and even kill people. But once guns are outlawed and on the black market, the price will skyrocket. The ordinary criminals will not be able to get their hands on them, drastically reducing the crime rate in the U.S.

Why would it scare away the criminal? It's not like the people have a sign posted outside their house/store saying, "Hey, we have a gun, so stay clear." The criminals will have no idea whether or not the people have a gun.

And most likely, the criminal himself will have a gun as well, and will probably know more about how to use it than an average person.

I got some research for you. http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafet.../statistics.htm

I'd like to point out two sections in particular:

Guns in the Wrong Hands
Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records. (Broken Records, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation)

This shows how easy it is for a person to get a gun. The worst people in our country can get a gun just as easily as any other person. They have a right to it. But that's why this country has so much violence as well.

America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

This shows how irresponsible we are as a people with are guns. Other countries at the most, have 153 deaths of children. Our country has 5,285 each year. Just because it's every person's "right" to own a gun. And lets face it; there are so many fewer people who buy guys for protection than for all criminal reasons.

Unfortunately, in almost every instance, the criminal will be more prepared for an assault than you. Guns in both hands only ensured a greater chance of you being injured.

The point of using pot as an example is that it only requires a small space to grow, and can much more likely go unnoticed than if you build a gun factory out somewhere. All factories release smoke, making it almost impossible to hide it.

Who is this woman you speak of? She is obviously not related to the debate regardless of how she used the same words as I. You auto-lose the debate.

Note that I was referring to how much they'd get for selling it. But I highly doubt they'd put the prices so high it would barely be bought, considering how it kinda defeats the purpose of selling 'em in the first place.

That was NOT an individual statement, genius. The link I posted as part of it counters all of the points you just made.

Sure, America isn't that great about murders and the like. Note, though, that as my link showed, a town where everyone has a gun never has murders, which would solve that problem even better than the way the situation is in other countries.

...And yet you never post anything to show how you're better off without a gun than with one. The statement in question was referring to you saying that it doesn't matter whether the criminal has a gun or not, so we're assuming they do have one for the purposes of that part of the argument.

Plus, you ignored pretty much everything I had said anyway.

I'm not even gonna counter that, considering that you still aren't even responding to what my points actually are. I already posted another solution, and you did nothing to counter it, so there's nothing more for me to say to that statement.

Is wanting your opponent to auto-lose not basically conceding that you can't beat them otherwise? :hmm:

We voat in heerz, yez?

Othin gets my voat. Too goodz. His first post was especially awesome.

I believe that both participants did well, but I believe that in this debate, Othin was superior. His counters were more realistic and more on topic. GF seemed to meander off-topic several times.

Maraj's vote is not needed, since two votes already are for Othin.

Othin Wins. Gamefreak Loses.