Gun Control is Bad

Hmm. Here we are again. Time for me to rebut your round 3 points, then we go on to the end. The way you arranged this debate, it sure hasn't been a "massacre"... Yeah, that one wasn't very funny. You claim that things like swords are just as efficient as guns. They're not. First off, guns are much faster. They can go into someone in a FRACTION OF A SECOND. Swords will take a second, if you're lucky. See, people use guns because they're easier. You have to have AGILITY to use a sword. You have to take fencing class and learn all sorts of positions and stuff. Most people aren't willing to learn all that, they're lazy. So they just buy a gun. You don't have to be Zorro to use a gun. You just point it at somebody and pull the trigger. It saves all the hassle. When you use a sword, you have to take the time to put the thing in, take it out, then wipe it off and whatever. It's a lot of work. With a gun, you just squeeze your finger. Think about it. If there were two bank robberies, and one of the robbers used a gun, and the other used a sword, which robber would be more likely to succeed? People use guns because they're so freakin' easy. Machine guns, for instance, can kill, like, twenty people in ten seconds. That's two people per second. With swords, you can only kill one person at a time. Unless you get them to stand in a line and shish kabob them. But that's highly unlikely. I mean, when you're on a killing spree, you don't have time to skillfully murder everyone with a dinky little sword. You have to kill everyone as quick as possible before the cops arrive or somebody tries to stop you. Thus, a gun is a much more logical choice for a murderer. Swords just fall flat. You can't call them effective. They're metal sticks. How tacky. Don't you realize that progress has, over time, given us better and better ways to kill each other? Guns are, without a doubt, the ultimate weapon, until we invent those phaser things from Star Trek. Guns can kill lots of people in an instant, and that's what they need. Without guns, they'd have a dang hard time figuring out how to kill people. You claim that, in a world without guns, murderers would just figure out more new and inventive ways to torture their victims. Again, sir, I ask you to look at that graph: https://www.statista.com... 7,000 people use handguns. 3,000 people use other firearms. Only 1,000 people used knives. Think about it, man. By getting rid of those guns, we'd cut murder in half. Probably more than that. Murderers just wouldn't know what to do. They'd have to resort to playing cat's cradle. OK? They would be left on an island without a boat if they didn't have guns. EVERY OTHER WEAPON DOESN'T WORK AS WELL! You also claim that, without guns, the victims wouldn't have any way to defend themselves. Au contrary, my little pro gun dumpling. In a world without guns, victims would actually have a better chance of defending themselves. here, I'll illustrate what I mean by using two scenarios: SCENARIO 1-The world without guns Joe is standing in line at the bank. Suddenly, a crazed madman bursts through the door, threatening all the employees and customers. He's holding a long, six inch kitchen knife. Joe decides to be a hero, bursting out of the line towards the assailant. The guy tries to slash at Joe's chest, and he makes a small cut, but Joe has enough time to grip the guy's arm and shove him into the wall. the police arrive, everybody walks away safe, and Joe is proclaimed a hero. SCENARIO 2-The world with guns Joe is standing in line at the bank. Suddenly, a crazed madman bursts through the door, threatening all the employees and customers. He's holding a long, six foot automatic machine gun. Joe decides to be a hero, bursting out of the line towards the assailant. Unfortunately, the guy pulls the trigger, sending Joe toward the ground, bullet ridden, like a hunk of Swiss cheese. The guy laughs and heads out to his getaway car. Which one would you rather be in? By removing guns from the world, we're not stripping victims of their most valuable defense weapon. We're giving them more of a chance to do away with the bad guys. If a guy tries to stop a criminal, and the criminal has a gun, that guy doesn't have a chance. If the guy just has a sword, then the guy has a chance to disarm the criminal. Swords and knives are a lot slower, and victims of those things at least have a chance of covering up their wound. When you get shot by a gun, you're dead. You don't have time to think. The finger squeezes, and you're dead. By stripping everybody of guns, we're making crime prevention by brave citizens a lot easier. You can be in the news if you want to. You can be given the key to the city. Whatever. the point is, by ridding the world of guns, we'd help citizens stop murder, because they would be in much, much less danger. You claim that the police are inept at preventing crime. I say, that doesn't mean we should give everybody a gun, it just means that the police are inept and they should shape up or ship out. We shouldn't be stuck in a perpetual limbo of bad police, we should fix those guys up and create progress. If we didn't send them out to a shooting, that shooting would be a lot worse. Let's just give 'em better weaponry and better pay, and they'll be speeding to that shooting like a bullet. I think that people DO want to shoot criminals to feel like an edgy vigilante Batman. Think about it. If I was in a shooting, and the guy told me to get down on the floor, I would damn well do what he said. I wouldn't care about winning, I would just care about LIVING. I would not confront that guy unless I had a good plan. And I mean good. They always get caught sooner or later, through DNA evidence and whatnot, so why try to stop them? You would die. People only stop criminals because they want to feel like an edgy vigilante Batman. A few more things. Say you're at a shooting. Would you have your gun? Do you carry your gun around everywhere with you, just in case you encounter something like this? Do you consider it as valuable as a wallet? How does it fit in your pocket? You would rarely ever need to use your gun. Once in a lifetime. In the meantime, you're just carrying your gun around with you, normally? Do you go around looking for shootings for you to shoot your gun off at? That's just asking for trouble. In many states, you can't carry guns around, it makes you look suspicious, like you're gonna kill somebody. It's a minor offense. So, if you were at a shooting, would you have your gun? Would you have left it at home? They rarely need to be used. Paying 200 bucks for them is a waste of money. The 2nd amendment was put in place to A). Wanted the people to have a way to rise up against a tyrannical government and B). So citizens could defend themselves against an attacker. But we don't have a tyrannical government, and chances are that if we do live in a dystopia, we won't have a chance anyway. And people never need to defend themselves against an attacker, that's what the police are for. the 2nd amendment is outdated. We needed it during the days of Al Capone. We don't need it now. The U.S.A. has very little crime. We're not Iraq, we're one of the most politically and legally stable countries in the world. So be thankful for it and quit worrying. Surveillance cameras are effective when you're not at home. You'll have a snapshot of their face so you can track them down. You evidently don't understand their purpose. Finally, it will be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to remove all the guns from the world. But, if it happens, we'll be all the better for it, and we can breathe a big sigh of relief. Of course, it would require a lot of stuff, and that's why, for the purpose of this debate, it's just a hypothetical situation. Still, you need to think outside the box here, and have some imagination as to what a world like that would BE like. It would be pretty nice. Just because things are a certain way doesn't mean they can't be changed. Change is possible. I hope that, in a few centuries, all guns have been melted in a big cauldron. But we have to work toward that. And the first step toward that, sir, is to quit buying guns, so that the firearm economy will become inactive. Or anything, really. Just don't shoot people. It's not rocket science. It's just simple logic. If we take away things that are used for killing, people will stop being killed. That's undeniable.