Mass Debate: Team Rodman vs Team Kemp

[Indy]

BrokenWings is right, and I just want to add that restricting something from someone will only make them want it more.

[cyanide]

Can you really be that naive? Do you honestly think that by outlawing guns, you'll make crime disappear? Just like that, everything will be okay? Come on, be serious.

Wait a minute, did I say that crime will disappear? Did anybody on Team Rodman say crime would disappear without guns? No way. Impossible. But one thing is for certain: There wouldn't be nearly as many deaths as there is now.

Get this in all your heads: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Guns do not operate by themselves, they don't have a mind of their own. The problem is not guns.

The problem is guns. If people wanted to kill other people, do you think they could muster up the courage to beat somebody with a baseball bat with the chance of failing? Or do you think it's a lot easier to pull the trigger from a good distance, knowing that your plain is fool proof? Bingo! There would be a lot less deaths if a powerful weapon such as guns were eliminated. Can a little scrawny kid kill a buff guy with a baseball bat? Maybe, but unlikely. Can a little scrawny kid with a gun kill a buff guy? Definitely.

Do you think if someone were to commit a crime, they would actually purchase a gun legally? It's on records people, how stupid would someone be to do that? Trace the gun, trace the person. And do you honestly think banning guns will deter people from using guns as a weapon? Does banning weed make people want to smoke up less? The truth is, people WILL go through the "trouble" to get weed even though it is illegal. And well, it's just as easy to get a gun.

It's easy to get a gun because it's everywhere, and my point is, the gun provides all the motivation in the world to kill someone. To smoke weed is for the purpose of pleasure, and to shoot somebody with a gun for pleasure is intself sadistic. Banning guns won't deter people from using guns from a weapon, but if they don't have it in the first place, they would rather use a knife or a baseball bat as a weapon rather than go through the trouble for a gun, where it is too damn risky, if guns were outlawed.

Cyanide, education is extremely important in today's society. I don't know what kind of world you live in, but it is very effective. And if you educate the youth about guns, yes they will become more rational as they grow up. Why do you think the government invests so much in sex ed and drug seminars?

You know what, education is important and effective in today's society. I agree with that. But the sad thing is, there's so many illiterate and uneducated youths in today's society. Sure, sex ed and drug seminars help, but it doesn't stop the problem! There's still so much premarital sex and everybody is still smoking weed, it doesn't eliminate the problem. So guns education wouldn't eliminiate the problem. It'd help, but it would not eliminate the problem. The difference between sex and drugs and guns is that sex and drugs are pleasure inducing tools, and guns, is well, if it's for pleasure, once again, it is sadistic, and guns inflict pain and death on others, if not on oneself.

And cyanide, a gun is ten times better for protecting than a bat. Hm, let's see, the robber has a gun and you're swinging a bat? I wonder who will win. And don't be so blinded by Hollywood, this isn't a movie. When you've got a gun and someone's walking around your basement, firing a shot in your house can be enough to scare that person off. You don't have to participate in some kind of Denzel Washington shoot off in your house. Hold him long enough to call the police.

Yes, ten times (actually higher) the chance of dying. How often do robbers have guns? Robbers are cowardly. At any sight where they might be suspected, they will run off and escape. Robbers don't break into homes and kill people, they break into homes to steal, and most of them are smart enough not to risk getting into jail for killing.

If you really wanted to, you could want into a school with a piece of string and produce the same results as Columbine. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's people.

Hmm, can I kill 12 people with a piece of string? Do you think I'll actually be able to kill just one person with a string? It's people with guns that are the problem. It'd be ridiculous for people to kill without a gun if one wants to pull a Columbine.

Gangs, criminals, murderers, they will get those guns irregardless of what kind of laws are in place. Look at other countries that enforce gun control. Is crime non-existant? No, it's just as big of a problem as in the US. Guns are the only way for people to protect themselves in their homes.

Like I said before, I know criminals will get their hands on guns, but does it matter? No, they're criminals, their intent may be to kill. Normal people who are not criminals wouldn't be likely to become one if they didn't have a gun in their possession, and if they were invovled in some domestic abuse, they wouldn't have a gun, thus, lose any motive to kill or threaten murder. Personally, I don't even have a gun in my house, and many of my friends and family don't even own a gun. There is no point, and "protection" is a form of constant fear. What kind of life would I want to have, with a gun under my pillow, living in fear that somebody is going to break in and try to kill me? What are the chances of that? Maybe the chances are higher in the US because of the guns.

BrokenWings is right, and I just want to add that restricting something from someone will only make them want it more.

Nice try. Sure, when it comes to candy or sex, or other pleasure enhancing substances, but guns?

[Indy]

Nice try. Sure, when it comes to candy or sex, or other pleasure enhancing substances, but guns?

yes.

[cyanide]

Why would people want to do that? It's not like they have a craving for guns... unless...

[IronMan]

The problem is guns. If people wanted to kill other people, do you think they could muster up the courage to beat somebody with a baseball bat with the chance of failing? Or do you think it's a lot easier to pull the trigger from a good distance, knowing that your plain is fool proof? Bingo! There would be a lot less deaths if a powerful weapon such as guns were eliminated. Can a little scrawny kid kill a buff guy with a baseball bat? Maybe, but unlikely. Can a little scrawny kid with a gun kill a buff guy? Definitely.

That is still not the problem. The fact that people would do such things is the problem. Substitute gun with knife, bombs (fabricate your own bombs with google! hurray!), drugs,etc. I repeat, guns themselves do not kill people.

It's easy to get a gun because it's everywhere, and my point is, the gun provides all the motivation in the world to kill someone. To smoke weed is for the purpose of pleasure, and to shoot somebody with a gun for pleasure is intself sadistic. Banning guns won't deter people from using guns from a weapon, but if they don't have it in the first place, they would rather use a knife or a baseball bat as a weapon rather than go through the trouble for a gun, where it is too damn risky, if guns were outlawed.

The whole purpose of my comparison with weed is this. Weed is illegal. Is it hard to get weed? No. Making guns illegal won't exactly discourage that many people. There are still many ways to get guns. And well, most people that commit crimes get guns illegally. It's the safest way, your name or account does not appear on any sort of transcript.

You know what, education is important and effective in today's society. I agree with that. But the sad thing is, there's so many illiterate and uneducated youths in today's society. Sure, sex ed and drug seminars help, but it doesn't stop the problem! There's still so much premarital sex and everybody is still smoking weed, it doesn't eliminate the problem. So guns education wouldn't eliminiate the problem. It'd help, but it would not eliminate the problem. The difference between sex and drugs and guns is that sex and drugs are pleasure inducing tools, and guns, is well, if it's for pleasure, once again, it is sadistic, and guns inflict pain and death on others, if not on oneself.

Are you saying banning guns will eliminate the problem? You say that education only "helps" reduce the problem, but won't eliminate the problem. You also say it's not enough. Well what do you think enforcing gun controls will do? At MOST, it will only help, if even it does that. Either way, it won't be good enough either.

Anyways, I can't really argue anymore, I have a final to write tomorrow morning.

[Indy]

I think me and BrokenWings are on the same page, but i am arguing that i dont want people to not have guns and he is arguing that yeah guns are bad, but they will always be there.

I think guns can be used for good like i said before. Look at the American Revolution, The Spanish revolution, guns were used by the people, and succesfully.

What if only criminals were able to get guns? The people who only want guns for protection would no longer have them because they would follow the law, but the maniacs would still get guns! By outlawing guns you put even more power in the hands of the criminals!

[cyanide]

Are you saying banning guns will eliminate the problem? You say that education only "helps" reduce the problem, but won't eliminate the problem. You also say it's not enough. Well what do you think enforcing gun controls will do? At MOST, it will only help, if even it does that. Either way, it won't be good enough either.

No, banning guns won't eliminate the problem but it would certainly help a lot more than gun seminars!

What if only criminals were able to get guns? The people who only want guns for protection would no longer have them because they would follow the law, but the maniacs would still get guns! By outlawing guns you put even more power in the hands of the criminals!

That's why we have cops with guns

jwill2: I hate to do this, but since this is a team vs. team only debate, we're in a middle of a competition, and only team members can post. I really like your arguments, but we're trying to play by the rules here sorry dude.

[The X]

What if only criminals were able to get guns? The people who only want guns for protection would no longer have them because they would follow the law, but the maniacs would still get guns! By outlawing guns you put even more power in the hands of the criminals!

Do you think if someone were to commit a crime, they would actually purchase a gun legally? It's on records people, how stupid would someone be to do that? Trace the gun, trace the person. And do you honestly think banning guns will deter people from using guns as a weapon? Does banning weed make people want to smoke up less? The truth is, people WILL go through the "trouble" to get weed even though it is illegal. And well, it's just as easy to get a gun.

There are two questions in this debate with the second relating to gun laws. The first question in the debate is whether there is a gun problem in the US. You have just admitted via the above statements that there is a gun problem in the US. If criminals have easy access to guns then there is clearly a gun problem.

[J@3]

Who is "jwill"... this thread is just for the members of Team Rodman and Team Kemp as mentioned above. I deleted Dogg's post and I'll delete jwill's aswell, I guess if people want to go off and have a discussion with other people about the subject you're more than welcome to make another thread.

[-BHZMAFIA-]

I think me and BrokenWings are on the same page, but i am arguing that i dont want people to not have guns and he is arguing that yeah guns are bad, but they will always be there.

I think guns can be used for good like i said before. Look at the American Revolution, The Spanish revolution, guns were used by the people, and succesfully.

What if only criminals were able to get guns? The people who only want guns for protection would no longer have them because they would follow the law, but the maniacs would still get guns! By outlawing guns you put even more power in the hands of the criminals!

Anything that allows you to kill someone can't be use for the good. No matter how much that person is hated, someone does love that person and they would be losing a loved one. As for the word criminal, anyone can be a criminal because you can't go through a line of people and tell who is a criminal or not so thats the point of making the laws.

[Indy]

There are two questions in this debate with the second relating to gun laws. The first question in the debate is whether there is a gun problem in the US. You have just admitted via the above statements that there is a gun problem in the US. If criminals have easy access to guns then there is clearly a gun problem.

no i was just pointing out how hypocritical your stance is.

[cyanide]

There are two questions in this debate with the second relating to gun laws. The first question in the debate is whether there is a gun problem in the US. You have just admitted via the above statements that there is a gun problem in the US. If criminals have easy access to guns then there is clearly a gun problem.

no i was just pointing out how hypocritical your stance is.

Please explain how.

[The X]

Since Team Kemp has already agreed that there is a gun problem in the US (as noted in my post yesterday) let's look at whether the gun laws need to be changed.

Question: Should gun laws be changed?

Gun laws are hypocritical, and outragous.

Yes, I agree. I think they should be changed.

I understand that you were arguing a different point when you stated this, but I do agree with this statement nonetheless. They are hypocritical and outrageous, and they do need to be changed.

the laws shouldnt be changed because the laws are good enough its not lke changing the laws are going to change the people , they are still going to find a way to get a hold on guns .

I believe laws are put in place for the betterment of society. Laws are brought in as deterrence against an act or acts that society does not view as acceptable. You say that the laws are good enough and don't need to be changed. If they were good enough then there wouldn't be a gun problem, which as noted earlier, your team agrees with. If the laws and any potential punishments relating to gun control are harsher then there will be a lot great deterrence for people breaking them.

For example, take a husband who finds his wife cheating on him and he might wish to cause harm upon her or worse. If there wasn't harsh laws and punishments against these actions then there would be nothing to deter the husband from harming his cheating wife. Relating this back to the gun laws, if there the laws are changed and punishments are made a lot harsher, then there will be a lot greater deterrence against people breaking them. This is due to the fact that they will be less likely to risk facing the harsher punishment. It's as simple as that.


Time to sleep....cheers

[IronMan]

Don't put words in our mouth. I never said there was a gun problem in the US. I will repeat the statement over and over, guns do not kill people. I do not believe the problem with the US society is the existence of guns. The problem is people.

Do you think gun laws appeared suddenly? The right to bear arms is not a recent component in the US Constitution. It has been there for such a long time, and NOW you say it should be changed? It was not a problem in the past. Step back, and ask yourself why crime has become such a prominent issue in the past. I don't think you can just blame it on a law that has existed for generations. People's mentality has changed, and it's time to change that mentality.

[The X]

Don't put words in our mouth. I never said there was a gun problem in the US.

You might not have said directly that there was a gun problem in the US, but two members of your team, including yourself, stated that it was easy to get guns. The fact is that in the US it is easy to get guns, whether you are a criminal or not. I believe that there must be clearly be a gun problem in the US if the guns are as easy to get as what you and your teammate say they are. That was my point. What I wrote earlier is stated below.

What if only criminals were able to get guns? The people who only want guns for protection would no longer have them because they would follow the law, but the maniacs would still get guns! By outlawing guns you put even more power in the hands of the criminals!

Do you think if someone were to commit a crime, they would actually purchase a gun legally? It's on records people, how stupid would someone be to do that? Trace the gun, trace the person. And do you honestly think banning guns will deter people from using guns as a weapon? Does banning weed make people want to smoke up less? The truth is, people WILL go through the "trouble" to get weed even though it is illegal. And well, it's just as easy to get a gun.

There are two questions in this debate with the second relating to gun laws. The first question in the debate is whether there is a gun problem in the US. You have just admitted via the above statements that there is a gun problem in the US. If criminals have easy access to guns then there is clearly a gun problem.

Do you think gun laws appeared suddenly? The right to bear arms is not a recent component in the US Constitution. It has been there for such a long time, and NOW you say it should be changed? It was not a problem in the past. Step back, and ask yourself why crime has become such a prominent issue in the past. I don't think you can just blame it on a law that has existed for generations. People's mentality has changed, and it's time to change that mentality.

That's exactly right, times HAVE changed. The second amendment in the Constitution is outdated, and laws should be changed and tweaked to accomodate for the change in people's attitudes and society's current moral standing. That law was brought in hundreds of years ago when people had the threat of Indians coming onto their land at any time and killing them. That threat no longer exists, and the US government has since introduced a law enforcement structure that helps to prevent and deter such crimes. The guns laws are outdated, and I believe, not relevant to today's society.

[IronMan]

No, that's faulty logic. You're saying gun problems are related to the fact that they are easy to get. The easier they are to get, the more serious gun problems are right? That is what you're trying to say. But that is wrong. The fact is, guns have always been this easy to get. The two factors are independent of each other. Look at the facts. Gun laws have always existed, but they were not a problem in the past. So are gun laws the cause of the problem? That makes no sense, nothing has changed in the laws for it to be suddenly the problem.

[The X]

No, that's faulty logic. You're saying gun problems are related to the fact that they are easy to get. The easier they are to get, the more serious gun problems are right? That is what you're trying to say. But that is wrong. The fact is, guns have always been this easy to get.

I don't see it that way. If guns are easy to get then someone who is going to commit a crime won't have any trouble acquiring one. If guns are harder to get and less convenient, then the criminal may choose another weapon like a knife for example, which is less lethal than the gun. The more guns that are out there and available for purchase, the more problems you are going to get. It's the same with drugs. In today's society human beings seem to gravitate towards convenience. Harder laws and punishments will encourage deterrence and increased gun controls relating to the new, harder laws will lessen the convenience and of a criminal acquiring a gun.

So are gun laws the cause of the problem? That makes no sense, nothing has changed in the laws for it to be suddenly the problem.

Gun laws are not the only cause of the gun problems. As stated, the change in society has helped aide the problem. Gun laws will help curb the problem. Whilst they could never erradicate the problem, I think it's foolish to say that tougher gun laws wouldn't deter people from breaking the law and hence, lower gun-related fatalaties.

Look at the facts. Gun laws have always existed, but they were not a problem in the past

.
As I stated before, times have changed and the gun laws that have always existed are not relevant to today's society, so arguing that they were not a problem in the past and therefore should not be a problem now is essentially asking everyone to essentially bury their heads in the sand and not look at what needs to be done to rectify the situation. This is what is happening at the moment, with political figures such as George Bush taking the easy road and not confronting the issue that is there. Education is important as you stated, but there does need to be tougher laws to aide any education efforts and send a message to society that gun-related crimes are not acceptable.