Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    no sound

  • 2 years ago

    While I think @julian may argue that gun control would hurt the poor because they’d have trouble getting a gun legally is correct @tmacdagreat makes great points that when the govt comes to get them it’s the wealthy who were dumb enough to register their guns (NY state as an example and it was published in the paper) telling the govt where to get them and they would also have more to lose if they resisted so they probably wouldn’t, at least not the ones in the city since they have money to buy other types of protection (Hollywood is anti gun and hires armed guards).
    The poor often already have illegal guns and the govt can’t manage to do anything about it. .

    • 2 years ago

      @nellyj_misesian poor people have no trouble getting guns right now . actually the laws make it harder to get gun legal than to walk up to someone on the street and get it illegal .

    • 2 years ago

      @tmacdagreat I completely agree. I always say gun Laws are only intended to keep guns from law abiding citizens and make them subject to the criminals who have no issues getting guns.

  • 2 years ago

    I do feel that most criminal regulation is going to impact poor communities more dramatically and significantly than rich ones. When I was poor, I saw first hand how small fines and rules can really destroy your financial solvency and send you into a downward spiral of legal trouble and expenditures that do nothing for you.

    When you have a decent income, and some wealth, you can just wave your money at those problems and make them go away. And that's exactly what I eventually did.

    Con does make a good point that if you are worried about confiscation of weapons that's less likely to affect people who already mostly deal in the black market, and the poor tend to be much more common customers of black markets than the wealthy and middle class. I've also experienced that first hand.

    I think I side with Con on the resolution, mostly because I think fines and penalties are a lot more likely outcome of gun legislation than any kind of confiscation effort. Both for political reasons and practical reasons.

    --- Debate critique ---
    The sound was pretty difficult to get through here, but I thought Con did a better job making cogent arguments. His analysis on why poor communities need not fear confiscation efforts was crystal clear and delivered succinctly.

    I eventually understood Pro's argument, but it took a while and he said a whole lot before I was able to piece together his overall contention. While this is not a competition debate, it is always worthwhile putting some thought into how you are going to say what you want to say. Write down your main point, practice saying it a few times and you will be able to deliver it easily when on camera.

    No one here really addressed the flip side of whether it was good or bad to have all these guns in the black market. The assumption seems to be that this is inevitable and that generally, the more guns we have the better off we are.

    I think I'm going to vote for Con here, both because I thought he made more cogent and easy to follow arguments, and because he's speaking from experience. I felt I learned a different perspective from his side and I always find that valuable.

    • 2 years ago

      Congrats to @tmacdagreat for ‘winning’ (it wasn’t an official debate and had sound issues) his first more serious debate. You did well.