Debate: Right to bear arms (sticky plz Smokey)

[BassRevelation1029]

Resolve: People* should have the right to own guns
Das Ubermensch, the affirmative, will go first with an opening statement. Guitarguy will then follow with his opening statement.

From there, 3 subsequent posts (cross exam, questioning) can be made by each participant (total of 4 posts including opening statement). Please no posts from other than DU or Guitrguy!

There's no time limit for response, but keep it reasonable. The voting thread will take place after the last post.

*Pertaining to Americans

[Der Übermensch]

Ok!

Post 1:
Preamble: Over 200 years ago the founding fathers of this nation created within it's Constitution the Second Amendment, a piece of law which unequivocally gives the citizenry of this nation the right to bear arms. At the time, it was an essential law, and although the circumstances in which it now exists have certainly changed, it is still as essential as ever. In the following debate, we, the pro side, intend to prove and present the four following arguments:
Firstly that civilian possession of firearms are an essential right.
Secondly that despite what detractors will say, expanded legal gun ownership is NOT related to per capita gun violence.
Thirdly that despite what liberal reinterpretations attempt to say of it, the "militia" referred to in the constitution includes all citizens.
Last, to present a logical and reasoned platform for the reform of gun ownership to address such detractors without compromising this essential right. In some parts thereof we advocate the current laws and in other cases increasing rights to access. At no point will we advocate the banning or restricting further of any form of currently available gun.

The First: The Right to Bear Arms
In no way would I try to argue that firearm's primary usage is not to kill. From a mechanical perspective they are merely a medium of projectile delivery, but we all know what those projectiles do. Within that scope, guns serve a large number of purposes, including military and police, hunting, self-defence, and yes, at times crime.
It is understood I believe that the first is exempt from the category of civilian, and thus the scope of this debate, and the last will be covered later. So first I will address firearms as usage in Hunting. A wide scope of firearms can be used for the activity of hunting, including Shotguns, Rifles and even handguns (most common for bear hunting). Hunting is a very popular activity in many areas of the nation, engaged in by millions of people, including myself. It not only serves a recreational function, but also provides food for many people, and serves an ecological function of keeping animal populations in check due to the depletion of natural predators in many areas. Hunting provides a legitimate usage of for most firearms that are legally available as of now, and a reason why they should remain that way.
As to self-defence, gun's again provide a very important function. Legal gun ownership is a deterrent! Studies have shown that petty criminals will often be deterred by the mere sight of a gun, as well as that in states with effective right to carry laws, gun crime is mostly reduced. Conversely, in areas with strict gun laws, the opposite is true. In Washington DC, after the effective banning of all hand guns, the homicide rate ROSE 200% when the national average went up only 12%. It was only in recent years that gun crime dropped. For why, I now enter my second argument, that gun crime is not related to legal gun ownership.

Second: Guns and Crimes
As I said in DC, the homicide rate sky rocketed after guns were mostly banned. DC has started to turn this around though. How? Because the police started cracking down on gang violence, which had been the major source of gun misusage. According to the ATF, under 10% of criminal gun usage is done with a gun the perpetrator purchased legally. That means that 90% of gun violence is committed with guns that wouldn't be effected by a gun ban anyways!! When you read about some poor kid in the projects who was clipped by some gangbanger's stray bullet from a Mac-10, you know he didn't buy that at Wal-mart. To own such a gun, he would have needed to pass a federal background check and be licensed by the Treasury Department. In fact, NFA items (that is, anything that is registered under the National Firearms Act - all fully automatic weapons) are almost never used criminally. Exactly two legally owned machine guns are known to have been used in a murder, and less then a dozen to commit a crime (this being out of hundreds of thousands).
It's a very silly saying that "if guns are made criminal, only criminals will have guns" but it is exactly true. Most criminal usage of firearms is with guns they legally can't have anyways, and although tightening legal ownership may put some limit on the supply, as many guns are no doubt stolen from legal ownership, it will hardly put a real dent on the black market as a whole as weapons can easily be smuggled in the country anyways, and the only real victims then will be those who used the guns for their own protection.
Now, yes, people like to point to the United States and how high our murder rate is compared to other nations who have stricter gun controls. I offer two contentions. Firstly that the United States rate is high, but there are other nations awash in guns ,such as Switzerland, whose rates are comparable to that of the UK, which is known for one of the strictest national gun control laws out there.
Secondly, the United States level of homicide in relation to the number of legally owned firearms is quite low. Much lower than the UK for instance. The vast majority of legal gun owners in the US are good citizens who have no intention of committing a crime with their weapon, and of those gun owners they have a better chance of their gun being used to deter a crime then to commit one.

Third: The Militia
Now, one contention often brought up is that "the founding fathers didn't mean the people, but only the militia!!" This is wrong wrong wrong. For starters, when the 2nd Amendment was made, the people were the militia. Every able bodied male was legally required to keep a rifle or musket at home as well as supplies to last him for a few days. This lasted until the beginning of the 20th Century in fact. The Militia Act of 1903 reorganized things, creating the National Guard, and no longer legally obligating everyone to own a gun. However, if you look up 10 USC Ch. 13, you will fine that the definition of militia didn't change, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." Thats right, we are all the miltia! Or at least anyone who can be drafted is. It is exactly what the Founding Father wanted: What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
To argue that militia is a selective group of people is absurd. It is clearly defined both in the American legal codes as well as the writings of the people who drafted the wording originally that they envisioned arms to be available to the people en mass, not to select groups of people.

The Last: Now, I will agree that gun laws are in need of standardization. What is allowed in one state isn't allowed in another. Standardization is required, and it is allowed as well, since the Federal Government can strike down any state law not in line with the Constitution (**** you Calhoun).
Gun laws in the United States should fall under two main categories. Firstly are those covered by the NFA, which should, generally speaking, be kept as is.
The second is all semi-automatic and single-action weapons including handguns, shotguns and rifles. All these should be kept legal, and available to anyone who can pass a federally standardized criminal background check and has no history of prior mental health issues. I also would propose a one to two week wait for ANY firearm bought, which can be waived is a standardized level gun safety certification, which would need to be established, is passed, to offer incentive to partake in such a program.

Well, thats the gist of my argument. I will provide more detailed argument in the coming posts, and to any questions you have pertaining to them.
good luck.

[guitrguy]

Preamble: The second amendment is the amendment that pro-gunners look to support their argument for the right to gun ownership. However, we live in a day and age that such a right is an antiquated one. The need for private ownership is not needed for a militia, law-enforcement, nor professional military. With this said, how can the right to private ownership be justified?
There are many reasons why this "right" is antiquated and in dire need of repeal. First off, in the militias that exist are gov't ran, and provide the weaponry to militiamen. Same for professional soldiers. Secondly, the existence of guns in the private sector perpetuate violence, and makes it easier for those who are unqualified to own guns to obtain them. Thirdly something such as the right to own firearms, with the capacity to kill like firearms do, is right to infringe on the rights of others, the right to life. That is context enough to repeal the second amendment.

First: The militia is a bunk argument in the context of today. We have an organized militia known as the national guard. In that militia there is no need for private ownership as the guns and training are provide to the volunteers. A ragtag militia of the old days is no longer needed with the existence of the National Guard. A loose private militia would not have the weapons training needed for the efficiency needed to put up an effective defense. Essentially private gun rights are not needed on the grounds for public defense.

Second: The existence of legal guns makes it much easier for those who are unqualified to own a gun to obtain a gun. This comes from the simple fact that having a legal market for gun trading floods the private sector with guns. The more guns there are legal or not, makes it easier for those who want guns to obtain. While I am not saying that banning guns would eliminate the black market, I am saying that obtaining guns becomes much harder to do.
Also there are those who are qualified to own a gun, and have a clean criminal record that are willing to provide guns who cannot. It is as simple as them walking into a gun store, passing the background check, and then passing the gun on to those who want a gun but do not the background necessary to purchase the gun.

Third: The right to a firearm, essentially a killing machine, is one step from advocating a right to take the right of life from others. The Militia is no longer an just reason to support private gun ownership, the existence of a private market for gun trading increases the guns in existence, and conversely increases the existence of illegal gun owners. Its hard to see any other reason for gun ownership for more than recreation. The fact the crimes linked to guns occur such a high rate that the need to ban guns to prevent crimes greatly outweighs the want to own a gun for sport.

[Der Übermensch]

To make things easier and so it isn't a huge run on of quotes, I'm only citing the leader of the argument rather then the whole thing.

The militia is a bunk argument in the context of today.
10 USC Ch. 13 seems to disagree as does any literature written in conjunction with the 2nd Amendment. As I said, originally, everyone was legally obligated to own a gun (everyone being draft age males), but the law was updated for a modern context. Many people life in cities where firearms no longer make up a factor in lifestyle so lack the know-how for adequate militia service, but it doesn't eliminate the principal in of itself. The founding fathers justified an armed citizenry both for defence from without and within. Just because those threats have diminished greatly doesn't mean they can be thrown out. In most cases when Democratic government was thrown out in favor of authoritarian, private gun ownership was one of the first rights to be dispensed with. And in nations that have a policy of an armed citizenry - Switzerland - the mere factor of it has proved as a deterrent against invasion and occupation.
That being said, I certainly hope that, as it appears, we now live in an age where it will never again be necessary for the people themselves to take up their arms and dispense with tyranny or invasion, but the subsiding of the threat does not warrant the dismantlement of the defense.

the existence of guns in the private sector perpetuate violence, and makes it easier for those who are unqualified to own guns to obtain them.
Any causal link inferred from gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths is false.
I refer back to my first post, point of which were not at all addressed, including the failure for gun bans to curb DC homicides, the fact that no other nation with high gun ownership follows the same violent trends as America -implying gun ownership isn't the issue, as well as the fact that the USA has a LOW rate of gun owners who commit crimes with them compared to other 1st world nations.
I don't disagree that some guns bought legally ending up in the black market is a problem, but it is one I already addressed in my 4th point - Federal standardization of firearm laws - a fact which you failed to acknowledge.

You talk about "there are those who are qualified to own a gun, and have a clean criminal record that are willing to provide guns who cannot," and yes, it is a problem, but a small one since around 90% of guns used criminally were bought on the black market as opposed to through legal means.

The right to a firearm, essentially a killing machine, is one step from advocating a right to take the right of life from others.
Yes, firearms are a mechanism to kill, again that brushes over my stating of that fact.

Its hard to see any other reason for gun ownership for more than recreation.
Which, even if it were the only reason, would still precipitate a very valid, and I would say irrefutable reason for the legal status of a wide range of firearms.

The fact the crimes linked to guns occur such a high rate that the need to ban guns to prevent crimes greatly outweighs the want to own a gun for sport.
Actually, that is firstly false, and secondly the gun crime isn't a reason to ban guns anyways.
Again I state that the USA's rate of firearm deaths is not in line with any other nation that has a high rate of gun ownership, implying a lack of causal relation; and secondly we have a relatively LOW for firearm crimes in relation to the gun ownership per capita.
And anyways, gun crime will exist no matter what. As I said, 90% of gun crime is with illegally purchased guns. The other 10% I would venture, although it doesn't differentiate, were for the most part done by people who aren't very criminally inclined. Husbands killing the guy their wife was ****ing and such. Gun's may make those killings easier, and some might stop, but it won't stop the other 90%. Perhaps the ability to steal guns will help too, but the US has such porous borders I'm sure smugglers will be able to keep supply up with demand. (Mere speculation I know, but I think valid).
What would the real effect be of taking the guns out of the hand of honest citizens and allowing criminals to be the only ones with them?
Lets look at Florida. When Florida passed a CCW law (Right to Carry) it's handgun homicide rate DROPPED 41% while the US average WENT UP 24%. Over 220,000 guns were registered between 1987 - when the law was passed, and 1994, and a total of 18 registrants during that time committed a crime.
Nationally, it is estimated up to 1,000,000 Americans a year use a firearm to deter a criminal from their intent.

If it were possible to ban guns and somehow make the criminals listen, then maybe you would have a point. But the simple fact is, they won't, and in banning guns we only hurt the people who need them most, and those who shouldn't have them the least. As DC shows, it only encourages crime to do so, and as Florida shows, armed, responsible citizens are perhaps one of the greatest deterrent to crime out there.

[guitrguy]

I am going to follow your lead with the short quotes



10 USC Ch. 13 seems to disagree as does any literature written in conjunction with the 2nd Amendment.
We agree that the militia should not be dismantled. However, the militia itself furnishes the guns that would be needed at the time of conflict, as well as the proper training. Private ownership of guns is not needed for defense. There is also no guarantee to training. With out training a militia will fall apart. Fortunately we have an organized Militia that will provide training and guns when in need.

Any causal link inferred from gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths is false.
This is a bit of a straw man, as I purposely said crime, not just death. ignoring all others crimes misrepresents the problem the guns create. Also if you take a look at other locations on a broader, and a much more accurate scale, you'd actually see a decline in gun crimes.

In 1995, the rate of murders with handguns totaled 0.3 per 100,000 in Canada compared to 4.5 per 100,000 in the United States. At the same time, the rate of murder by other means was only slightly lower in Canada (1.4 per 100,000) compared to the US (2.2 per 100,000)


You talk about "there are those who are qualified to own a gun, and have a clean criminal record that are willing to provide guns who cannot," and yes, it is a problem, but a small one since around 90% of guns used criminally were bought on the black market as opposed to through legal means.
obtaining a gun when you are unqualified from a qualified person is illegal.

Actually, that is firstly false, and secondly the gun crime isn't a reason to ban guns anyways.
Again I state that the USA's rate of firearm deaths is not in line with any other nation that has a high rate of gun ownershipIts naive to think a gun would end gun crimes, the idea however, is to make obtaining of guns harder. Less guns = less chance for misuse. Also refer to the statistical comparison of Canada to the US. You'll also see the same in other nations that have strict guns laws.

If it were possible to ban guns and somehow make the criminals listen, then maybe you would have a point. But the simple fact is, they won't, and in banning guns we only hurt the people who need them most, and those who shouldn't have them the least. As DC shows, it only encourages crime to do so, and as Florida shows, armed, responsible citizens are perhaps one of the greatest deterrent to crime out there. Maybe those stats reflect a lack of enforcement of guns laws, and making sure those who shouldn't own a gun do not own one?

[Der Übermensch]

We agree that the militia should not be dismantled. However, the militia itself furnishes the guns that would be needed at the time of conflict, as well as the proper training.
In the situation where the unorganized militia, as defined in USC, were needed to defend this nation, it would be far to late for guns to be distributed and training meted out.

obtaining a gun when you are unqualified from a qualified person is illegal.
Yes, and as it is not the normal practice for how a criminal gets a gun - criminals mostly associate with criminals - it won;t change much to stop legal purchasing.

Its naive to think a gun would end gun crimes, the idea however, is to make obtaining of guns harder. Less guns = less chance for misuse. Also refer to the statistical comparison of Canada to the US. You'll also see the same in other nations that have strict guns laws.
No actually, you won't see the same in other nations, as I have said multiple times.

In the USA, there are 90 guns for every 100 people, and 7 gun deaths per 100,000.
In the UK, there are 5.6 guns for every 100 people, and 1.4 gun deaths per 100,000.
We need to go one step more though. In the USA, there are .000078 gun deaths per gun owned. In the UK, there are an amazing .00025!!!
The United States tops the gun ownership charts, but in terms of how many of those guns are used for crime, it is beaten out by the first world nation known to have one of the strictest gun laws in the world.

Country by Guns per person/ Ranking in homicides per 100,000/ Ranking in Homicides per gun owned
USA 1 3
Finland 4 8
Switzerland 7 10
France 8 9
Canada 5 6
Sweden 12 11
Austria 9 9
Germany 10 12
Greece 6 5
Australia 8 4
Italy 2 1
Spain 11 7
UK 3 2

What do you notice about those numbers? Mainly that there is little to no relation about gun deaths to gun ownership. #2 and #3 in deaths are at the bottom in ownership for starters.
So yes, I looked at the "statistical comparison" but I'm sorry to see I did NOT "also see the same in other nations that have strict guns laws." I saw that nations with the strictest gun laws seem to be plagued quite badly by it as well.

Maybe those stats reflect a lack of enforcement of guns laws, and making sure those who shouldn't own a gun do not own one?
In a way you are kind of right, but the conclusion is a non sequitur I would venture. As I said earlier, the crime rate dropped when the DC police started to introduce new tactics to deal with gang violence, which was the cause of all the deaths in the first place. All of which were guns that not only should they not have owned if there was a gun ban, but they shouldn't have owned EVEN IF THERE WASN'T.
Which gets back to the main point. Criminals don't care about gun laws, because they are criminals. Law abiding citizens do care, because they are law abiding citizens. Gun laws most readily disarm the people who are mostly likely to use a firearm in a situation where it is legally justified, be it hunting or self-defense.

You said it was naive to believe guns can prevent gun violence, yet provided nothing to refute the statistics I used to back up this argument. It is an quite clear that Florida brought its rate of firearm homicide down by about 40% by INCREASING the number of armed civilians. I would almost go so far as to say that it is an undeniable fact, but obviously there could always be some freak, unforeseen coincidence.
I will also again repeat the fact that every year, up to and over 1,000,000 law abiding citizens USE a firearm to DETER a criminal from their intention.

[guitrguy]

In the situation where the unorganized militia, as defined in USC, were needed to defend this nation, it would be far to late for guns to be distributed and training meted out.
Even if they did have guns, the training would be insufficient to provide any real defense.

Yes, and as it is not the normal practice for how a criminal gets a gun - criminals mostly associate with criminals - it won;t change much to stop legal purchasing.Thats an assumption that to be a criminal you have to get caught.


No actually, you won't see the same in other nations, as I have said multiple times. If there is no direct correlation, then how can you make the assertion that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a deterrence to crime?


In a way you are kind of right, but the conclusion is a non sequitur I would venture. There would still be ability for hunters to have guns, and those guns are least likely to be used in a gun. They are harder to conceal and less likely to be used. However putting a handgun in the possession of all is not a good idea. Just the because there is no criminal record that does not mean a person is not liable to become irrational in a stressful situation. Ie, Mailman shooting up his post office, VA Tech, etc.

You said it was naive to believe guns can prevent gun violence, yet provided nothing to refute the statistics I used to back up this argument.
I said it was naive to think a gun ban would completely rid gun crimes, the stats we have both posted show that gun crimes still do occur in nations with strict gun laws/bans. However if the gun business are no longer able to manufacture guns like hand guns and assault rifles, the existence of guns to be sold on the black market also diminishes.

It is an quite clear that Florida brought its rate of firearm homicide down by about 40% by INCREASING the number of armed civilians. I would almost go so far as to say that it is an undeniable fact, but obviously there could always be some freak, unforeseen coincidence. This is one state, to make assert that this pattern would apply elsewhere is absurd with out more similar statistics in other locations. As you said before the is no clear link to legal gun ownership v. strict gun laws on gun homicides. Assuming the stats from one location would apply elsewhere contradicts that assertion.
I will also again repeat the fact that every year, up to and over 1,000,000 law abiding citizens USE a firearm to DETER a criminal from their intention. That is a mere correlation from one state. We also see in Philadelphia with a murder rate of almost per day and lax guns laws, that gun ownership is not necessarily a deterrent. New Orleans is also another city with a high murder and lax gun laws.

[Der Übermensch]

(I would just remind guitr that this is the summation. No new evidence can be introduced here)

Through this debate, I have hammered on a number of key points, non of which have been fully countered, and some of which have been completely avoided by the opposition.

To my first contention, I have asserted and shown that it was the explicit intent of the founding fathers for the interpretation of the Second Amendment to apply to citizens, not just members of the organized militia, a point which has been completely un-addressed. My opponent has also failed to fully address the fact that fire arm possession is necessitated by the recreational act of hunting. In fact, I recall reading him say, 'there would still be the ability of hunters to have guns'. That is great, considering all most all guns with legal status have a purpose for hunting. As I already stated, rifles (deer), shotgun (birds) and handguns (bears) all have legitimate usage in hunting. Based on my opponents own assertion, there seems to be a very good reason to keep most currently legal guns with that same status.

As to my second contention, I have demonstrated that firstly, the rate of gun ownership shows little to no correlation to the rate of gun crime on the international level. The United States tops the list in both, but it is an anomaly, as nations with very low ownership also show gun crime.
I have also provided statistical data to support the idea that the tightening of gun control laws leads to an increase in victimhood to gun crimes, and also that the increasing and encouragement for a responsible, armed citizenry acts as a deterrent. My opponent has decried the Florida statistics as "only one state", completely skipping over my NATIONAL statistics of overall crime deterrent by armed citizens. Regardless, he has only provided anecdotal evidence to counter my point, and no hard facts to back it up.

Concerning the militia function, I have demonstrated that the current legal interpretation of the function of the unorganized militia is still very much based on the principle of an armed citizenry. Although our modern times diminish both the internal and external threats that it was put in place to counter, the waning of a threat is no reason to let down ones defenses.

As to my last contention, which I considered my most important, my opponent has offered no counter. I stressed the fact that gun laws in this country DO need to be changed, but not to take away our right to them. Rather to Federally standardize them. My opponent cites Va. Tech, which was an admitted tragedy, as well as an incident where the perp should not have been sold a gun. The lack of Federal control on background checks and more importantly mental health checks is a direct cause of the tragedy, and as I already stated, the implementation of such policies is essential to maintain a healthy gun culture within this nation.


Conclusion: Guns have a function of killing things, both animals and people. With the former, this alone is a reason to keep guns legal - as my opponent seems to agree - as hunting is a long standing tradition in this nation, and a healthy recreational activity. As to the latter, it is regrettable that some people choose to use firearms as an offensive tool, but it is one that will not be stopped with a gun ban. The vast majority of legal gun owners are responsible citizens of this nation who would never use them for a crime. The vast majority of criminal gun usage is will illegally procured firearms on the black market that would at best be only slightly curtailed by the banning of legal gun sales. Guns serve a valid, legitimate, and essential purpose as a weapon of self defense. Eery day good citizens use them to protect themselves from those who mean them harm and mean to violate their rights. To ban the ownership of firearms would have the largest effect on these people. The ones who don't wish to break the law. The ones for whom firearms are used righteously. Those who would be left with their guns would be those who have disregard for such laws, and these are the ones who we need to take the guns away from. To ban guns effects the wrong people.
To solve the gun problems of this nation, standardization and more innovative police tactics offer, and in the latter have proven, to be a much better solution then a stop-gap action of disarmament.
For this reason the only logical and viable path is to retain the citizens right to maintain arms and to uphold the 2nd Amendment as envisioned.

[guitrguy]

Guns are a product death, my opponent and I both recognize this. However, the case remains that even the private ownership of guns is not needed, nor should it be a right. In the time of defense, the national guard would step in with superior weapons and trained soldiers. The more guns out there legal or otherwise increases the chances of misuse. The likelihood of a criminal obtaining one also increases. How exactly can a tool used to take away someone's right to life be consider a right to own?

The Militia again, if it were to ever needed at a private level, would be too weak and disorganized to sustain a real defense. We have an organized militia that provides weaponry and training to civilians. However those guns are no kept in private homes, for there is no reason for. There would be sufficient time for the National Guard to organize, so again there is no need for private ownership from this point.

While my opponent brought up the fact only 10% of gun homicides were committed with legally owned guns. He failed to address how many of the 90% of illegally owned guns were previously owned legally and then sold to criminals. My bet is a good majority. It is much easier to legally buy a gun then turn a profit on the black market than to smuggle guns in from outside the US.

He also brought up that there is no clear correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, however he claims, using DC and NYC for his examples, that banning guns increases gun crimes. He also claims that increasing gun ownership is a deterrence, using Florida as his example. When looking at New Orleans and Philadelphia, two cites with lax guns laws, you see that they still have high rates of gun crime. The only thing he can stand by is the lack correlation between private gun ownership and rates of gun crime. It does stand to reason the less guns equals less crimes. For that truly work there must be strict control across the board, and not just a few a cites and towns here and there.

The only legitimate means of private gun ownership that comes to mind is sport/hunting. However that is a privilege and not a right.

The Second Amendment needs to be looked at again, and determined whether or not this "right" it affords is still applicable in this day and age. We need to let go heritage sometimes, especially those that can prove to be harmful to others. Holding on to tradition for the sake of tradition is not always a good thing.

[Der Übermensch]

Yay! It's over. Bass seems to be offline, so I guess I'll make the voting thread.
Don't worry, it'll be impartial :p

[guitrguy]

Good debate, man.

[Der Übermensch]

very :)

Hopefully there will be more. Although we obviously can't do the next one, what do you say winner of this one gets to choose the topic for the next one?

[guitrguy]

Sounds good to me.