History debate (gun-control)?

Question

So in my history class my professor informed us that we had to pick a partner and a topic and debate over it. So I chose gun-control and chose to be against guns (and no I'm not a hippie, I just chose something) so anyways, the professor was trying to give me advice of debating and that I had to anticipate what my opponent is going to say. And I know exactly what he's going to say, he's going to say "guns don't kill people people kill people" and say it's in our amendments to own a gun and etc. so I was just thinking how in the world can I have a good counter Punch verses that stupid quote? And how should I go about doing the debate? For example should I just throw a bunch of stats of how many kids get in to their father's guns and shoot themselves by accident or appeal to their sense of decency by showing them visual pictures of parents crying over their children that were killed by guns and I was thinking of researching different types of ammunition because there are types of bullets that once inside of you shatter and caused a great deal of damage. And I guess I could say defending yourself is one thing but there is no need for the advanced types of ammunition anyone could buy at their local gun store and so on. Any suggestions would be great, thanks.

Answer 1

Damn why did you have to pick gun-control? But I'll debate you.
"Why is that historically when a dictator has tried to take over a country the first thing they take are gun rights?"
"Do you believe that outlawing guns will stop criminals from getting those weapons? Despite the fact that they outlawed drugs and can't keep those off the streets."
"When that criminal gets the gun illegally and comes after you, how are you going to defend yourself? Cops take a while to get to your house and by that time you can already be dead. Is it not logical to have some form of defense from a coercive individual(s)?"
If you can answer those logically, then you'd be set.

Answer 2

Firearms are just a natural evolution from crossbows, which were a derivative of a bow and arrow.

Emotions may sway an audience, but won't help you win a debate.

The easy way to counter the argument guns kill is to produce an emptymagazine and ammo. IF the ammo doesn't load itself into the magazine and subsequently into the firearm, the firearm is just a fancy paperweight. But since a firearm is an inanimate object it is subject to the rules of physics. It can't kill.

A firearm is a tool like any other tool, no better no worse than the person that wields it. ANY tool can be used as a weapon. Any doubts contact the Department of Corrections of your state for information.

Gun control is an interesting concept from the way the Brady's push it. For some reason an inanimate object having 28,000 laws isn't enough. For some reason, those for 'gun control' seam to think one more law is going to make a criminal obey. Insanity if the criminal is already ignoring thousands of laws.

You can use stats, but as Sam Clemens once said there are three kinds of lies. Lies, Danged (edited for content) lies, statistics. There is always away of twisting stats to say what you want them to. The problem is doctors actually kill more people than are killed by people using firearms.

As far as what the Founders say about firearms ownership, the Federalist Papers totally back the idea of private ownership of firearms.

I don't really understand what you mean by different types of ammunition, but your being short-sighted if you think human development should stop with inferior ammo (along with New Jersey). Hollow-points are used for self-defense and law enforcement so there isn't an over-penitration thus protecting innocent life in the vacinity. Ball ammo is used for target practice and for the military. There are various hunt rounds also. Also, the frangible bullet was developed so it would have "bean bag" type affect on a subject w/o killing them, but that's just a technological development you don't really need...I guess you would rather have a dead criminal.

In all honesty, I'm for gun control too. It involves training, a good fire safe, a triple retention holster, and hitting what I'm aiming at. Anything else violates the constitution

Answer 3

For starters, you may not be a hippie, but you are clearly anti-gun or at least anti- some ammunition.
Now, as to how to counter the truth. All of the propaganda measures you have listed have been used quite effectively.
Perhaps you could get info on how many causes of death were cited as bullet wounds, you could blame the bullets there too. Nevermind that someone had to aim and shoot the bullets, much less load them into the gun. I'm sure some will list cause of death as gun shot to the _______. See, no mention of a human shooting the gun, just the evil gun doing the dastardly deed alone.
You know I was raised in a home with guns that weren't even locked up and I had to sometimes retreive things from the closet they were in by myself, when I was home alone and 6 years old (back then that was still legal) and I never touched those guns. I knew better. My parents taught me.
The problem with these gun control arguments is they always take the personal responsibility of people who choose to shoot guns at other people away. By the logic people use to advocate gun control, no one should be in jail for harming another by shooting a gun. It is the guns that kill people after all, or maybe the bullets, but it sure isn't that person who loaded the gun and looked through the sights at another person and pulled the trigger, is it?

Answer 4

NOTE: I am providing arguments but I actually support private gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. I can beat these arguments my self but were I in the position of arguing for the right to bear arms I would not choose these simple points to support my case.

A gun facilitates killing. That is its sole function. The fact that a person must use it to kill another does not matter except to support the point that it contributes to the act of homicide. It is an efficient tool designed for killing and since it makes murder a simpler and safer prospect for the wielder it follows that it makes murder more likely.

The actual text of the constitution reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We no longer maintain a militia since this has been replaces by either reservist or national guard. Both of these are organized, armed forces led by competent officers. Those who now call themselves militia are arguably a threat to our nation if one considers the tragedy of Oklahoma City. If we have effectively abandoned one part of the 2nd amendment then why should we be compelled to cling to the other part of the same statement.
Times change and the founders recognized this by allowing amendments in the first place. The time has come to make our country a safer place for our children by disarming.
A gun is a deadly weapon and often in our country is is owned by someone lacking even the most basic formal training in its safe use. Private gun ownership makes the job of law enforcement far more dangerous then it needs to be.

These counter the arguments you stated.

Answer 5

Any side of any debate can be won in pure debating terms, but you definately chose the more difficult side. Emotion has no real role in debate, and emotion is all gun control advocates really having going for them. It works in the public discourse to use the "blood in the streets" rhetoric they use, but in a true debate it does not fly. I would recommend a strict law enforcement angle vs. additional gun control laws. That is an area you can argue from a position of strength, but if your opponent does his homework, he will be unbeatable from a pure gun control perspective.

Answer 6

There is very little logical support for your position.

There will always be guns, and there will always be a black market for illegal weapons. The reason for this is because there will always be criminals, and they like guns, and if they're already criminals, they don't care about breaking gun-control laws.

So by outlawing guns, the only thing you are really doing is leaving the innocent people defenseless.

Our founding fathers were very wise to enter the 2nd amendment. They knew that freedom must be defended by good people.

Answer 7

First of all, you have to realize it isn't a stupid quote, it's a truism. You cannot debate effectively unless you understand that your opponent has an equally viable platform.

You don't "win" a debate by belittling your opponent's position - your job is to persuade and present effective arguments, and they don't always have to be "counter arguments" - you don't want him to be firing the shots (lol) and you trying to keep up.

"Throwing out a bunch of stats" or using pictures for "shock value" isn't effective, either. You have to present your own compelling argument.

Look at all the literature already out there - it's at your fingertips. Debate, above all else, requires that you remain calm and collected while making your case.

Answer 8

You should have chosen the other side of this debate. it's easier. You could say that mentally ill people should not be able to buy guns. People diagnosed with depression or PTSD.

Answer 9

You are going to have to do what Bloomberg, Brady and the rest of the gun control advocates do

LIE

It is all you have.

Answer 10

blow his dam head off