The Instigator
sofia_gracie
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

American Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 40951
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

sofia_gracie

Con

I believe that the 2nd ammendment to The United States Constitution needs to be revised. It is one thing to hunt for sport but to bear arms to 'protect yourself' is dodgy.
thett3

Pro

Note my opponents advocacy is in favor of gun control, against gun rights. Thus I'll advocate the pro-gun position.

I assume the first round is for acceptance, so back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
sofia_gracie

Con

sofia_gracie forfeited this round.
thett3

Pro

This is dissapointing. Hopefully my opponent will return.
Debate Round No. 2
sofia_gracie

Con

Guns are weapons created for killing & don't belong in general public!

The 2nd highest way criminals obtain a gun is by stealing from licensed gun owners.
Clearly some gun owners feel no concern of repercussion for failing to ensure these weapons are kept secure. Which is proof out gun laws are way to loose with way to minor punishment for not taking it seriously & keeping them secure.
The general public is obviously not able to keep such dangerous items secure or it wouldn't be the 2nd highest way they are obtained.
A gun is a cowards weapon & if he can't get a gun he may not have the nerve to use a knife which is a much closer form of combat. He's certainly not running into a school & stabbing 20 kids to death. Many more of those kids would have lived in that scenario.
I feel that if we tighten gun control we can save lives, yes people will still die but I believe that we can reduce the consequences.
thett3

Pro

Thanks Con. Since it's the last round, I'll just refute Cons argument. My advocacy will come from responses and turns on Cons arguments.

==Con Case==

Con says guns are "created for killing". First, lots of inventions including the internet we're using were originally developed for the military so this warrant doesn't really stand. Secondly, it's the use of the tool that matters. Are guns generally used to kill people? Absolutely not. In fact, the FBI reports[1] that from 2005-2009, there were 72,828 murders using firearms[2].Since Obama has taken office, there have been 65.4 million background checks for firearm purchases[2]. This means that EVEN IF we assumed that these were the only firearms in the United States during this time period (not at all) barely one in one thousand (.11%) of firearms were used in homicides. Taking into account the greater number of firearms and the greater number of aggressive crimes unnaccounted for, we can assume that the percentage of weapons used for aggression is roughly the same if not lower.

Third even if you buy Cons argument it doesn't justify keeping everyone from having weapons because they need to defend themselves against criminals. In fact, Gary Kleck estimates that there are around 2.5 defensive gun uses in the United States per year[3].

Con also claims (without a source) that criminals often steal weapons. Frontline tells us that only about 10-15% of criminals use stolen guns[4], and to assume that they wouldn't commit their crimes without this is just foolish. Even more foolish is to outright ban all civilians from bearing arms just because a small percentage of their weapons (which are prolific in the criminal underworld) get stolen.

Con then bizzarely claims that a gun is a "cowards weapon" and apparently would prefer for people to fight with hulking, seasoned criminals using knives. I don't think I really need to explain why this point fails.

Con hasn't met the burden to change the status quo, thus you negate.

1. http://www2.fbi.gov...
2. http://cnsnews.com...
3. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...
4. http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by AngstChrist 3 years ago
AngstChrist
asparagus, when you consider the context and time in which the second amendment was drafted, the framers had just borne witness to a brutal war against a superiorly armed standing army (the British). The LAST thing they'd want is to leave the firearms solely in the hands of a state sanctioned force.

Its with that in mind, the militia as it is written, refers NOT to state sanctioned forces, but of "the people" - the same type of people who took arms and rose against the tyranny of the crown. they wanted to ensure that should the state again resort to tyranny, that "the people" would have the ability and means to fight back.

Nowhere else in the constitution does "the people" refer to the state. Therefore, it is perfectly rational to assume that the framers intended for US citizens to remain armed and armed similarly to their state counterparts. The AR-15, for example, is the modern day musket and has a rightful place in the American home.
Posted by debatelala 3 years ago
debatelala
there needs to be more control, because if there is more gun control there is less crimes
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
asparagus, contemporary scholarship about the Constitution goes against your argument, see DC vs. Heller
Posted by asparagus21 3 years ago
asparagus21
The second amendment refers to the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia. A random person is not part of a well-regulated militia. As a result, the second amendment does not protect the right of every citizen of the United States to possess a firearm.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Change the resolution to "gun rights" and I'll accept. Even though you're clearly in favor of gun control, your position relative to the debate title is against it
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Just to be clear, even though I am pro, I am AGAINST gun control?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
sofia_graciethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF, pro provided more arguments. Its clear who wins.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
sofia_graciethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited one round. Arguments to Pro because he refuted all of Con's arguments and raised arguments that Con had no opportunity to refute because she stipulated too few rounds. Sources to Pro because he's the only one that used any.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
sofia_graciethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made unsubstantiated heresay, whereas pro made more substantiated, valid arguments. Con's arguments were weak to begin with, and pro easily defeated them all.