The Instigator
Nerification09
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LiliyanH
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Advanced Gun Background Checks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 39152
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Nerification09

Pro

I strongly feel that advanced background checks should become routine in all gun sales. An advanced background check would include psychological evaluations, a polygraph on the intended uses of the firearm, and a periodic evaluation that determines whether or not the gun will be returned to the owner. If the person fails the said evaluations, then the gun and licence will be revoked and the person will be put in a database that is sent to gun sellers that will not allow the person to receive the gun. Although this process may sound extreme and invasive, but if this ends up preventing the next Sandy Hook, isn't it worth it?
LiliyanH

Con

First, a polygraph test can only be used for past behavior. It cannot be used in determining a person's intentions, inclinations, or state of mind (look at polygraph dot org for info).. Second, the right to protect one's self will be violated because in making the process such a hassle, it deteriates good people (who want to protect themselves) from owning a gun.. Third, most people who commit crimes using a gun, use someone else's gun (either stealing it or black market).. Most people who register a gun, are really using it for self defense..
If ownership of a gun should require such heavy measures. Then those same measures should apply to the commander in chief (who is in charge of lots of weapons) , police officers, and any armed government personals.. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Debate Round No. 1
Nerification09

Pro

On that rebuttal, how do you define self-defense? Is self-defense enough force to deter an assailant, or is it killing the assailant? If someone believes that a gun is useful in self-defense, why would they want the weapon as soon as possible? If they were being threatened, they should go to the authorities. The proposed polygraph would reveal the intentions of the firearm by asking them if they intend to use the firearm with malicious intentions. I never said that officials would not be included in the advanced background checks, but rather that they would most likely be first affected by the checks. I feel that if checks occurred, then less guns would be introduced into the streets, and possibly less crime would occur.
LiliyanH

Con

LiliyanH forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nerification09

Pro

Nerification09 forfeited this round.
LiliyanH

Con

LiliyanH forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nerification09 3 years ago
Nerification09
Thank you Agrarian for informing me on the true origins of the weapon in Sandy Hook.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Thank you for your reply.
I would still like to ask one thing.

You have said that Pro's suggestion on periodic background check should also be done for government officials.
How does this point refute the idea of stricter gun control, but rather suggests a guideline on how's Pro's suggestion, stricter gun control, should be led? As a Con, are you not supposed to fundamentally refute Pro's idea of gun control?
Posted by LiliyanH 3 years ago
LiliyanH
To lke-Jin
What PRO is suggesting is not only heavier background checks but repeated psychological evaluations which is not required to be done periodically on any armed gov officials ( hint officer Donor's rampage not long ago).. What I am saying is that if such thing must be endured by regular citizens then it should be endured by officials..but even then, what constitues a stable psychological condition? A lot of people go through depression and it doesn't mean they are going to kill everyone...allowing the gov to define what is sane and what is not puts us in the same position as the the time they were allowed to say that a black man was not a man after all.. And a woman is not smart enough to vote....
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Direct quote from Con:

"...those same measures should apply to the commander in chief (who is in charge of lots of weapons) , police officers, and any armed government personals"

I have two questions I would like to address.

#1 How does this suggestion links back to this debate, discussing if heavier background check on firearm bearers is necessary?

#2 Isn't that what is being done already? Don't armed government officials have strict sets of guidelines and manuals they are subject to regarding their firearms?
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Agrarian a man who actually does the research and finds the facts instead of just blaming guns. Guys like you are rare.
Posted by Agrarian 3 years ago
Agrarian
Just to inform you...

The shooting at Sandy Hook could not have been prevented by a background check.

Adam Lanza took the firearm from his mother, she was the one who purchased the firearm.

Mrs. Lanza was a law abiding citizen, and completely went through the Connecticut gun purchasing process without any rejection, she had absolutely no problems that could deter her from buying a firearm.

However, Sandy Hook could have been prevented if Mrs. Lanza was more responsible, and kept her firearms away, safe and locked up, from her son, Adam, who was known to be mentally ill.
No votes have been placed for this debate.