A jolly good debate on gun control

Bet you thought I'd forfeit didn't you? Hah! I would never forget (actually I did forget and I'm cutting this rather fine =P)As agreed you won't post anything next round to keep things even. Just post something like "C-dizzle is awesome" or declare your undying love for me. Something like that. "My opponent points to my first statistic. What I'm trying to say is that if you take away certain types of guns, don't sell guns to people who shouldn't have guns (teens, people with mental handicaps, people convicted of crimes, etc. ), lives will be saved. Should we take away all guns? No. However, the government should do some small changes to protect society and not punish the average responsible gun owner. "Sadly my opponent has failed to substantiate this argument again. Why will lives be lost? You have failed to refute the sustitute argument and so there is no compelling reason to believe that people wouldn't use another tool to kill. Or even just ignore the law, seeing as that is what they are planning to do. "My opponent states that if we should ban guns, we should ban hammers because people hit their thumbs using them. First off, hitting your thumb is a lot better than being shot. There is no need to own certain types of guns (fully automatic weapons, extended magazine guns, etc. ). Gun owners say they want "target practice" or "self defense. " You can shoot targets with a hunting rifle or shot gun. You can also defend yourself with a gun. I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable with everyone owning an AK-47. " The idea of the comparision is to illustrate how just because people can use something to harm themselves or others, it doesn't mean it should be banned. Freedom is always assumed. The potential for accidental misuse is not justification enough for the removal of such freedoms. In addition, whether you feel comfortable with someone owning a gun is immaterial. I feel uncomfortable whenever I see my brother completely fail at chatting up girls. Though I would like this to be illegal, I recognize that it would be irrational. "My opponent says that I can't back up my statement that lives would be saved by banning certain types of fire arms and not letting certain people (that I mentioned above) buy guns. I think it's just common sense. Look at the Tuscan shooting in Arizona. The guy had mental problems. If the government would put more regulations on these gun companies to see who they're selling to, the people killed at Tuscan, Arizona was still be alive including one little nine year old girl. "Appealing to common sense isn't much of an argument. In addition, the lack of support for your argument was made in light of the substitute argument. I made the argument that there would be no difference in lives saved, as people can use other weapons. For example, the guy in Tuscan could have used explosives. Or got an illegal firearm. Though I do like your appeal to emotion with the nine year old girl =)"My opponent talks about substitutes for guns. He thinks that if we ban guns, then substitutes will come up. Am I saying that we will end murder in America? Of course not. We just can save some lives and slow down criminals. "This isn't an argument against the substitution argument. .. "How do guns protect our liberty? Do you honestly think we can defend ourselves from the army? In the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers thought that people would have the same technology that the army did (in that age, everyone had a musket). Now, we are not allowed to own the same types of stuff the military has, therefore, we can't "protect our liberty" from the big, bad government. "Yes actually, I do believe that there is no nation with an army large enough which couldn't be overpowered by its people. And as to the second part, isn't that an argument against gun control? Ie, if we were allowed all the military hardware, we would be able to resist tyranny. "By banning fully automatic weapons and weapons with extended magazines (so you don't have to reload as much), lives can be saved. If you're in an office building with a fully automatic weapon, you can spray bullets everywhere almost non stop. Let's say you had a shot gun. You wouldn't be able to shoot nearly as fast. Someone could simply tackle you while you were reloading. It goes the same way with hand guns with extended magazines. Again, I bring up the shootings in Tuscan, Arizona. The guy shot a hand gun 31 times without reloading once. After he ran out of bullets, one of Congressman Gifford's staff ran up to the guy and held him down. What if he could have only fired 10 times? Maybe that nine year old girl would be alive. Maybe Congresswoman Giffords wouldn't have been shot in the head. "Guns are potent, yes. But there are still comparable substitutes, the closest of course being illegal guns. " Yes, it is impossible to stop the creation of black markets now. We just need the government to crack down on the buying and selling of guns and ammunition especially for certain types of weapons. "Another non-argument. If governments can crack down and prevent all laws being broken fully, what is the need for gun control? Can't they just prevent all murders? "My opponent says that it is quite possible for the American people to overthrow the government. Out of that 300 million, there are elderly people, children, women, and smart people that wouldn't want to overthrow the government. Either way, it's not going to happen because nobody wants to overthrow the government (except some people with very extremist views), and the people brave/crazy enough to try would instantly be knocked down. " Willingness is not an argument. Obviously the assumption has already been made that people are willing to resist this hypothetical government in this hypothetical scenario. Also, women can be perfectly effective fighters, especially when they have guns! "I don't care if you've "done your time. " If you're convicted of an armed robbery or have attempted to or have murdered someone, it's not safe for you to be able to own guns especially fully automatic ones. "So are you trying to say that they don't have rights? I'm afraid this is a very unsubstantiated argument. Why do they not have rights, yet still count as citizens. Remember, the definition of citizen at the beginning included the pre-requisite they have all rights. To conclude my opponent has dropped these arguments;The act of ownership is not an act of aggression and therefore is terrible basis for lawLack of moral authority to restrict gun ownership He also failed to support the notion that restricting guns would do anything.