It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Round 1: nyk537 vs wormwood13: "Please Don't Shoot"

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:05 PM
The topic for this debate is "Firearms should be mandatory for all citizens and kept in all homes; excluding convicted criminals."

nyk537 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
wormwood13 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:36 AM
I’d like to take a moment to thank semperfortis for setting this debate up, and the rest of the ATS debate staff for doing such a wonderful job organizing this tournament. I’d also like to extend my best wishes to my opponent, wormwood13. Let’s have some fun.

"Firearms should be mandatory for all citizens and kept in all homes; excluding convicted criminals."

For many people, owning a firearm is as American as apple pie. It’s viewed as a Constitutional right that is every bit as important as free speech or freedom of religion. Others however view firearms as evil and would just as soon they were banned altogether, regardless of what the Constitution says.

With that in mind, we are going to take a step back and examine from an objective standpoint, whether or not firearms should be mandatory for all citizens.

Over the course of this debate we will take a close look at some real life examples of gun policies at both extremes. We will also explore our topic a bit deeper and try to find out more about what is meant when we say, “all citizens”.

There are also some other pertinent questions we should ask ourselves:

Should the mandatory ownership law apply to everyone, or only heads of households?

What kinds of criminals would be excluded from this law?

How should we deal with those who are conscientious objectors to owning a gun?

What about those who do not object but cannot afford to purchase a firearm?

These are all important questions that we will examine in depth through the course of our discussion.

Throughout all of this, we will attempt, for as long as possible, to remain objective in our inspection of this proposed law. We will weigh the pros and cons of such a law, and seek to determine how it might affect all of us, not just some of us.

For now I will keep this introduction brief, and allow my opponent a chance to present to you their platform and direction for our discussion.

After that, we will dive head first into the information and determine what is fact, and what is fiction in regards to firearms.

Wormwood13, the floor is yours.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:30 PM
wormwood13 has been contacted and is dealing with "Real Life" and has requested the 24 hour extension..

This goes in effect at the time stamp of this post.

Thank you for your understanding


posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:52 PM
I'd like to thank all those who set this up, my opponent, and of course all those that will take the time to read this debate.

"Firearms should be mandatory for all citizens and kept in all homes; excluding convicted criminals."

I will be arguing the con side to this proposed law and rightfully so. There are many things wrong with mandatory gun ownership. I'm sure we will take you over the river and through the woods on this one. I will attempt to show you that everyone having a firearm is dangerous and risky. There are fights every day that could escalate into gun fire, road rage being one of them. There is also the issue of mistaken identity. Even police officers who train and work every day with guns sometimes make mistakes. Now you're talking about arming the average citizen? Come on. We simply cannot have any vigilante or self-righteous people running around with guns.

In our confused time, post 911, with all this terrorism garbage going on, people are more frightened than ever. Frightened people should not have guns.

There are also those who wouldn't want a gun no matter what. A mandatory law would force these people who are not qualified in any way, nor wish to be, to wield a firearm. Should their refusal to bear arms be punished? Making anything mandatory is a little fishy in my eyes.

In the course of this debate I will attempt to prove that this law would lead to far more problems. People as a whole can be quite unpredictable, dangerous and panicky.

I will also touch on the implications of having so many guns near the hands of so many children. But for now I will hand the mike back to my esteemed opponent. Make your case my friend and give it your best shot!

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:01 AM
With formalities out of the way, let’s dive right in and take a much more in-depth look at our topic.

"Firearms should be mandatory for all citizens and kept in all homes; excluding convicted criminals."

I’d like to begin by giving a little more meaning to the topic itself. What should we draw from the phrase “mandatory for all citizens”?

Are we to believe that this should be taken very literally; to the point where we are registering children for firearms? Or should this be viewed in a more generalized sense, where we focus more on firearms being “kept in all homes”?

The best way to answer these questions would be to take a look at a real life example of this very issue. In that spirit, I present to you the town of Kennesaw, Georgia.

In 1982, Kennesaw passed a mandatory gun ownership law that required all heads of a household to own both a firearm and ammunition.

Alright, so what? According to my opponent, people live in a constant state of fear and should not have access to firearms. Surely, then we can assume crime skyrocketed in this town, correct?

In fact, exactly the opposite is true.

”When the law passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime…and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then,” said police Lt. Craig Graydon.

How is this possible?

How can people that my opponent describes as “unpredictable, dangerous and panicky” be required to own guns, and yet lower and maintain a low crime rate?

Socratic Question #1 – How do you explain the drop in the crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia after the mandatory gun ownership law was passed?

Let’s move on, and examine some of the questions I posed in my opening remarks.

Our debate topic informs us that “convicted criminals” would be exempt from this law; and very well they should be. However, what types of criminals are we talking about here?

As of now, the regulations for this vary state to state, but in order for this law to work we would need a national standard.

Obviously anyone convicted of a felony could not own a firearm, but this should also be extended to anyone convicted of any type of violent crime. Even misdemeanors of a violent nature should exclude someone from owning a gun under this law.

Now, what about those of you who are not criminals but are somehow opposed to being made to own a gun?

As is the case in Kennesaw, amendments to the gun ownership law could be added to grant exceptions to conscientious objectors and citizens who simply cannot afford to own a gun.

The problem many people would have with a law such as this, would be the fear that the government would be forcing everyone to own a gun, and that simply isn’t the case.

So now that we have some of the specifics out of the way, we can turn our attention to how a proposal such as this could really make a difference.

I’ll allow my opponent an opportunity to argue any particular point I’ve made thus far first, and then we can explore how this law would make a difference.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:35 PM
1: an inhabitant of a city or town ; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman.

1 : containing or constituting a command.

These are the definitions of these words. Our topic is "Firearms should be MANDATORY for all CITIZENS and kept in all homes; excluding convicted criminals."
I'll thank my opponent not to generalize this topic and stick to arguing it as it is written.

Since 1990

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

In most cases of suicide and suicide attempts by people aged 0-19 the firearm used was obtained from a friend or relatives residence.
Very few criminals obtain their guns legally. Most buy them off the black market or steal them. This law being passed would mean that every time a home was robbed a criminal would have a chance to get a new firearm. The streets would be flooded.
We should understand that more of a dangerous thing is not the answer. Even one childs life lost due to firearm accidents is too many!

On average, 4 children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents from 1999-2002.

When you think of gun ownership you think, I'm responsible enough, but as a whole it will not work. While a great number of us "citizens" are responsible, there are many who are not. These people should not have guns!We do not need people getting shot because,

The Cleveland Browns lost!
He stole my parking place!
This guy just looked shady!
Believe me this would happen on some levels.Personally, I wish we had reached a time where every U.S. citizen was trustworthy and responsible enough to help defend his/her house or city. Unfortunatly, even though alot of people are, there are way to many that are not.

Socratic Question #1 – How do you explain the drop in the crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia after the mandatory gun ownership law was passed?

Kennesaw's murder rate was between 0-7 a year with most years having around 3. When you have a fluctuating murder rate and you notice that the year you passed this law it dropped from say 5 to 3, then you say that this law effected it but that is impossible to prove. Too many variables.What about everywhere else? you really cant compare a small rural conservitive town with places like Chicago, New York, and Philidelphia. I mean come on.

What about Kennesaw, GA's suicide rate before and after these mandatory gun laws went into effect? Trying to dig up any facts or records from this city is near impossible.I wonder why?

1.Soc?-Why do you think Kennesaw's suicide rate is so hard to find?

2.Soc?-Would you feel comfortable knowing that there are more guns out there?

3.SocTrue or False- More firearms equals more accidents and more incidents involving firearms.

Firearms should not be mandatory to all citizens. what about,
Children under 18?
The mentally handicapped?
Phisically disabled, to the point where you can not effectivly weid one?
If you are an anti-gun activist?
If you don't want too?
If you cannot pass the background and saftey courses?
I assure you this list gos on and on. All these stipulations need to be taken in to account. You can't simpily pass a mandatory gun law for the entire United States without reviewing far more facts. NO ONE would pass this law without years of intensive study. Should firearms be mandatory? Absolutely not!

As of now, the regulations for this vary state to state, but in order for this law to work we would need a national standard.

This law has not even passed in this debate or in real life for a reason. My opponent is already suggesting amendments for this proposed law.

The handgun is simpily not an efficient means of defense, since the average American homeowner is not proficient in its use.

Back to you n to the 7

Don't shoot, its just the mailman!

I do apoligize sincerely for the delay, My first son is only a little over a week and he needs much of my time.Thank you

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:16 PM
Here we go ladies and gentlemen, it seems my opponent wishes to play on your fears by hurling mounds of dreadful statistics at you with no backup information.

Do not fall into that trap.

My opponent would also have you believe that our topic of discussion must be taken literally, down to the letter. This even goes so far that he would have us believe that we would be handing out guns to children and the mentally handicapped.

Again, do not fall into the trap.

Let's take a look at some of the fear mongering tactics used by my opponent to try and convince you that mandatory gun ownership would be a huge mistake.

We have been painted a picture of a society in which armed citizens would be firing on each other over things such as the "Cleveland Browns" and "parking places".

This is a commonly used tactic by those opposed to gun ownership, and it most often centers around tense situations such as traffic accidents.

But does this sort of thing really happen? Would people really start shooting and killing each other in those situations?

For an answer, let's turn to Mr. John R. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr Lott is the author of a book titled, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control.

During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.(1)

Hmm. That's hardly the grim picture my opponent has painted for us is it?

In relation to my example of the mandatory gun law in Kennesaw, Georgia, my opponent tries to convince you that there are too may variables to draw a conclusion.

The point of this illustration is not in the details though, as a drop in the murder rate is a drop in the murder rate, no matter how small it may be.

We are also to believe that mandatory gun ownership would somehow increase suicide rates among children, which even my opponent must believe is a bit of a stretch.

In that spirit though, let's examine the questions that were presented.

Why do you think Kennesaw's suicide rate is so hard to find?

Most likely the same reason the suicide rates of any small town are so hard to find.

I can't find the statistics for my hometown, or most of the towns near my location.

Does this prove anything?

Would you feel comfortable knowing that there are more guns out there?

Absolutely yes.

Knowing that there were many more law abiding citizens like myself out there ready to protect and defend their fellow man would be a huge comfort.

More firearms equals more accidents and more incidents involving firearms.


Statistically speaking, if we were to ban firearms altogether, we would be just as likely to see a rise in accidents and incidents.

My opponent continues by once again trying to demonize the mandatory gun law by making you believe that the government would be handing out guns to every man, child and invalid roaming the streets.

This simply isn't true.

We are presented with a list of "exceptions"; every one of which I discussed in my opening remarks.

I suppose my opponent simply missed that part.

As of yet, we have seen no real evidence that mandatory gun ownership would have any adverse effects on society.

All we have seen is meaningless statistics and generalized fear mongering.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 02:00 AM

Other countries' experience shows that more restrictions on firearms ownership decreased homicides and suicides in those countries; the more available firearms are, the higher a country's incidence of violence.

I will now respond to my opponents wild allegations of "fear mongering" by posting some actual statistics. If anything I have held back on some of the more gruesome facts of firearm violence.

Ownership of handguns by private citizens for self-protection against crime appears to provide more of a psychological belief in safety than actual deterrence to criminal behavior. Indeed, when the final irony occurs and a citizen’s handgun is either stolen or used against him or her in the commission of a crime, the source of the victim’s security is instantly transformed into the source of his or her terror. And possible death.[44]

On average, 3 children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents from 2000-2005.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined

The last one only studied 26 countries, making our country come in dead last. This brings me to my next point.

Other countries that have stricter gun control laws have less homicide by firearm then the U.S.

Lets look at some other countries with less firearms, Canada, France, England, all have way lower homicides and suicides by firearm then the U.S. The U.S.A. leads the world in deaths and injury by firearm and suprise suprise it also has the most guns in circulation. With this many guns already in circulation why would anyone think adding more guns would help the problem.

The more guns that there are the more the chances of criminals and children getting hold of them. Or for a frightened person to use them in the heat of the moment. There is also a chance for the burglar to turn the tables on a homeowner. Then instead of him running off a homicide occurs.

Knowing that there were many more law abiding citizens like myself out there ready to protect and defend their fellow man would be a huge comfort.

Very noble, even romantic, but you know as well as I do that is not the way a lot of people would see it. I am amazed everyday by the ridiculously cruel way people will treat one another.

Guns kill so easily, any coward can squeeze a trigger do we as a country really want access to these firearms to be even easier than it already is?

Look I'm not trying to take away anyones right to bear arms, but passing a law requiring everyone to have one in my opinion is a horrible idea.

One handgun can kill 10 people in 10 seconds.

Children who get a hold of a loaded firearm wont get a second chance if there is an accident.

Adults solve their problems with words.The sooner we can step up and set that example for the children the better.

I do not set traps I provide truth to those that would read it.I sincerely hope my opponent will stop attacking me and start tackling the issues at hand.

Police say Williams reportedly cut the Reeds off in traffic when they caught up to him. Detectives say Marcus Reed started shooting and Williams fired back

Yes, this sort of thing really does happen.

The rumors of gun violence came after a murder last Friday in Lake Waccamaw after the Whiteville at East Columbus football game.

It's not just fun and games.

Less guns means less idiots with guns!

Your move sir.
don't go off half-cocked.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:03 AM
I had honestly hoped that I would be able to spend more time discussing the topic itself than I would in response to my opponent. However, there are certain things which cannot be given a pass.

We have 4 external sources quoted above that have no source whatsoever. Each of these contains either a statistic about child violence or a situation of random gun violence. This un-sourced material serves no purpose other than to shock and scare people into believing owning a gun is too dangerous.

We are also presented with 2 sources that contain information about gun violence that uses information that is extremely outdated. The first of which only uses data up until 1997, and the second’s most recent information was compiled in 1980!

So not only has my opponent presented us with completely un-sourced material, but we have also been given statistical data that is almost 3 decades old!

Surely then my opponent must have presented us with some compelling arguments against having a mandatory gun law then?


The only original content we are provided is pure conjecture about where these guns would end up, and in whose hands. We are given the insight that 1 gun can kill 10 people in 10 seconds, and that the children won’t get a second chance.

My opponent is simply avoiding the topic altogether and attempting to play on your fears and emotions.

Unfortunately I will not afford him that luxury.

I’d like to point you to yet another real life example of a place where gun ownership is high, and yet gun crime is low. This place is the country of Switzerland.

Switzerland uses many techniques that I believe could be adopted into the mandatory gun ownership law.

For instance, the law provides that firearms can be kept in all homes; much as our topic describes. However, if one wishes to carry their weapon outside of their home, they must obtain a special permit. These permits are only issued to those with a stated need to carry a weapon to protect themselves or others. The applicant must also pass an exam dealing with both weapon skills and full knowledge of the laws surrounding that weapon. This would be a huge step in assuring that these guns are not flooding the streets as my opponent suggests they would.

Another step that Switzerland has taken, yet does not fully enforce, is subsidizing ammunition. With this, the ammunition for weapons is more difficult to obtain, and can only be sold to those with the above mentioned permits. A similar system could be used under out mandatory gun law that would be another step in assuring that everything remained safe.

So what do we have so far in this debate in regards to our mandatory gun law?

We have seen a real life example of an American town that has enforced a mandatory gun ownership law, with fantastic results. I have presented you with solutions to the issues regarding gun ownership among criminals, as well as those who are opposed to owning guns and who cannot afford to own a gun.

Furthermore, I’ve introduced some techniques such as permits and stricter distribution of ammunition that could further cut down on fears from the law.

What opposition do we have to this?

All we have is outdated statistics and irrational fears of random violence and murder.

Information of gun ownership in Switzerland obtained here.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:22 PM

I had honestly hoped that I would be able to spend more time discussing the topic itself than I would in response to my opponent.

I will now continue to discuss the topic itself. Should there be more guns? Should people be required to keep guns in their homes? Would this law being passed bring down the rate of murders and suicides by firearms? Or would the number of deaths skyrocket as a result of said law? This is very tricky subject matter, so allow me to cite and quote some people far more versed on the matter than us.

In 2005, 69 preschoolers were killed by firearms compared to 53 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

This is the most recent data available by the Center for Diseases Control and Prevention

Firearms are the cause of death of more children between the ages of 10 and 19 than any other cause except car accidents.

Carl Levin United States Senator

There is a direct correlation with countries that have the most hand guns, and their murder suicide rates. America leads this list hands down.Even Switzerland is poorly ranked with far more gun violence than say Japan or Canada. Even France and England are ranked higher than Switzerland, but that is because they have fewer guns.

My opponent would like you to believe that if given a gun, everyone would rise to the occasion and help fight off the criminals, and that noone would ever let their kids accidently get a hold of their gun. This is a pipe dream. The more households that have guns the more these accidental incidents and crimes of passion will happen. I'm not saying it would spiral out of control or anything to that nature, but there would definitely be an increase in incidents involving firearms. Pouring gas on a fire will not help.

If it seems grim at times that is only because the subject is a depressing one. Noone wants to hear about suicide rates, and accidental child shootings. However just because its easier to brush off the staggeringly high numbers of death that these guns have caused dose'nt mean that we should. We all know that as a society we should be moving away from guns, not towards them...

In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available) there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S. 12,352 homicides (40% of U.S. gun deaths) 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S. gun deaths) 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent. (5% of all U.S. gun deaths combined.

Numbers from obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Report Online, 2008.

I hope that you will all take into account that Switzerland and Kennesaw, the only 2 points brought up by opponent could'nt be further from the major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.Enacting a mandatory firearms law in any major city would inevitably lead to more criminals getting a hold of them. Not to mention the general fear of any situation escalating to gun use.

Its time we put a stop to the sheer number of guns we allow as a country or else our children will think thats how they can solve their problems also.We need to make this world a gentler kinder place not a more dangerous one.

"Nobody moves or I shoot!" Easy E

Back to you nick...

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:06 AM
Well here we are; we have reached the end of our time together. I’d like to once again thank wormwood13 for debating me, and all of the members of ATS who have followed along with our debate.

Over the course of this discussion we have looked at many different topics. We have examined some real life examples of mandatory gun ownership around the world, and weighed the pros and cons of those examples. We have discussed some intricacies of the mandatory ownership proposal and looked at how they could improve the idea. We have taken a closer look at some expert opinions on gun ownership and exposed the fear techniques used by my opponent.

All in all, we have given the mandatory gun ownership proposal a fair shake, and have been provided with little in the way of opposing it.

My opponent’s main argument throughout this debate has been that making gun ownership mandatory will not eliminate crime.

Of course it won’t.

Making guns mandatory will no more eliminate violent crime than banning guns altogether. If you take a criminals gun, they will find a different way to kill you, it’s just that simple. What making gun ownership mandatory for those who are willing and able will do is give them a means of self defense.

There as been no suggestion here that owning a firearm equals turning into some sort of vigilante policing the streets. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite would be true.

Many people would just as soon never use a gun at all; but at the same time would feel safer knowing they had one available if need be.

My opponent has spent most of his energy trying to bombard you with statistic after statistic about how many children are killed by guns and how dangerous it would be to make them a mandatory item. I have attempted to steer clear of statistics and discuss the topic itself, but now I would like to provide you with some statistics of my own.

The number of new guns rises by about 4.5 million every year. There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.

Since 1991, the nation’s total violent crime rate is down 38 percent. (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.) Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low.

States with RTC laws (Right-To-Carry), compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.

NRA-ILA : More Guns, Less Crime

So you see, statistics can be found to support any point of view, at any particular time. Just because crime has gone up or down is no reason to dismiss this important proposal as unnecessary or dangerous.

I have provided detailed information on how this plan could not only work, but how it has worked. I have gone over extensively the path we could take to implement such a law and the techniques we could apply to improve it.

When reviewing the information presented within this debate, the facts speak for themselves.

"Firearms should be mandatory for all citizens and kept in all homes; excluding convicted criminals."

Again, a big thank you to everyone who followed this debate and supported both myself and wormwood13. This debate was a lot of fun!

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 08:56 PM
Well the debate draws to a close, and what can I say. In order to pass this law, this mandate, far more research must be done on the subject. I think even my opponent would agree that our opinions of this topic and the amount of points brought up are simpily not enough to pass such a law.

Guns equal death. Prehaps we can evolve to less lethal means of protection for ourselves and our homes, that way a mistake can be corrected. You cannot take a bullet back.

There are those that train in the use of firearms, saftey, practice, application. The average American worker, especialy now with the current state of economy, does not have the time. I've said it before "The handgun is not an efficient means of defence, since the average homeowner is not proficient in its use."

Furthermore, The government should not be telling people what they should have in their homes. If a citizen feels it is his duty to do so then he should have the right to bear arms, but forcing everyone to do somthing is unconstitutional, It arouses suspicion, and would be a costly mistake.

Do not allow this flawed mandate to be effected...

"Next time you see a Sherrif, shoot him....A smile!" Marge Simpson

I would like to thank my distinguished colleague nyk537, semperfortis for setting up this little tiff, (I had a barrel of laughs!), and of course those who took time out of there life to read our thoughts.....

Thank You.

"Bang bang! My baby shot me down." Kill Bill

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 12:49 AM
Judgment Time


posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:26 AM
We have a Winner!!!!

At first I felt nyk537’s opening statement took a weak stance, almost agreeing with the negative of such a law, but it was actually quite effective because after wormwood13’s “fear mongering” approach, nyk537’s objective responsible one gave the argument a more balanced, safer, educative feel. nyk537’s first example provided a calming effect by showing an example of how the law has worked in a small town. The unavailability of the data from that town is suspicious though, but nyk537 provided later sources that back it up.

With an all around more polished debate I give the win to the fighter Nyk537.

It also worked because it had another great source to back it up. The use of Lotts as a source cancelled many of wormwood13’s claims. Especially the claim that there needs to be more study. 18 years is a lot of study which included a large portion of the US counties. Also including;

wormwood13 said “Some people are responsible but many aren’t” Lotts said “People with permits are more responsible”

wormwood13 said “More is not the answer” and Lotts described how it has been shown to be true.

The source said 90% of crimes occur by those who had criminal records. That 58% of Worms 66% of murders caused by firearms is by known aquaintances or relatives consists in part of that 90% criminal class. Some of these people are not to be included in such a law.

wormwood13 suggested a small town’s statistics don’t apply to a large city, but Lotts suggested it does.

In terms of wormwood13’s stance that the proposed law must be taken literally and not to generalize did not sit well with me. I had to ask myself “Is is bad to consider amendments involved with such a law?” My answer is most definitely no. I agree very much with the idea of national standards, and guidelines, and special case allowances. As well as penalties and laws governing the availability of guns to children within the home. Something that was not addressed, but makes common sense.

wormwood13 stressed the dangers to children, which is a very big concern,
and that guns are not an efficient means of self defense, which I find arguable.

That the homeowner is not proficient, which could involve training as is seen in Swiss examples should a law be instigated.
And that it is a psychological illusion of safety. Something that may well work both ways. Especially, when a criminal has a false illusion of safety.

Also that guns=death, but I would ask if all guns have caused death?
All of these concerns have merit, but I felt nyk537’s arguments and sources provided a much better education in favor of such a law.

This debate is an interesting one as I thought that there was a lot of ground to be covered yet both debaters didn't come even close to fleshing out the various directions that they could have. Especially disappointing was the showing of nyk537 as he is a seasoned debater but never seemed to 'show up' this roud. His sourcing was weak, as the use of Kennesaw as an example is very poor considering the fact that smaller towns/cities will invariably have a different socio-economic atmosphere then a metropolis and thusly the motivations and behavior of its' citizens will differ greatly.

Who here will attribute a gang environment found in say Los Angeles to be similar to a Kentucky rural area?

That said, wormwood13 didn't refute that point as effectivily as he could/should have. I would have liked to have seen greater attention and detail in the refuting of not only that example but the other as well because it does not necessitate that successful programs in one country, considering cultural differences, will be mirrored by another.

wormwood13 brings up some valid points regarding the veracity of giving all able citizen a gun citing the fact that people will react and some reactions in some instances could result in the use of guns if they are mandatory. While I do not agree that this is the case soley based on the "Law of Averages" argument he seemed to employ, I do not disagree with it. Nyk537's dismissal of such claims as 'fear-mongering' is a wholey inadequate strategy as there is no substance to the argument. Indeed, the reasonings for a mandatory gun law to be implemented could very well be predicated on fearmongering as the term/concept is subjective.

While both Fighters proved to be very minimal in their presentations and efforts, I have to give the debate to wormwood13.

Round 1: nyk537 vs wormwood13: "Please Don't Shoot"

Let’s do this by the numbers…


Goes to…Nyk537

Much more information was departed in the opening post by Nyk537. The direction he was going, his outline and intentions were made clear and left the reader with no doubt as to what to expect.

Wormwood13 just did not seem to put his heart in the opening and left the reader wondering what to expect.

Reply 1

Goes to…Tie..

Bothe Fighters used the Kennesaw, Georgia issue to their advantage. This makes one wonder if nyk537 was wise in referencing it. We shall see as this progresses.

Reply 2

Goes to…Nyk537

While wormwood13 gave a good accounting, his post was far too short and so did not really “nail down” the issue he was presenting. Also starting a post off with sources is a gamble at best and this one did not pay off. Too much outside information and too little substance.

Reply 3

Goes to … wormwood13

Disappointing post from both fighters actually; short and simply rehashing old material. Yet this one time wormwood13 did in fact use source material to his advantage and took the round.


Goes to … Tie

While both fighters tried to “tie up” their debates in their closing, the brevity and lack of interesting material was disappointing to say the least.

Debate goes to nyk537

nyk537 by majority decision!!!!

nyk537 will move forward in the tournament

Congratulations to both Fighters!!!


top topics


log in