The Instigator
ISupportGunOwners
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
likespeace
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Do u believe that Gun Control and a ban on assault rifles will solve the problem of gun crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
likespeace
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,392 times Debate No: 28663
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

ISupportGunOwners

Con

a background check law and they see your latest actions your stability to own a weapon a gun safety test i should know i had to go through all test before i could buy my weapons to protect myself from are corrupt government i think banning assault rifles and banning high cap mags will do nothing anyone can murder someone with a knife the same day as the Newtown shooting a man brought a knife in and killed 17 kids we need more help with mental health more cuts from are blind government are taking place in mental facilities banning guns wont help you can easily get full automatic weapons on the street than in a store you guys say a machine guns assault rifles we need more protection on gun control thats not the problem in columbine all there guns were bought illegally i own ar-15s which all you liberals call an M16 there completely different ones only semi automatic and the m16 is fully automatic you liberals dont know the difference you think banding guns will solve the problem its extremely hard to get guns in in California yet the crime rate is extremely high a kid in my town was murdered by an illegal tech 9 which was fully automatic with the serial numbers removed impossible to get in my state legally so explain to me how banning guns is going to help its mental health we need help with an assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon this government has changed i around to the point of where if the clip has 30 round in it its an assault weapon thats not it machine guns are already banned an AR-15 is not a machine gun an MG-42 fully automatic german made LMG is a machine gun which is already banned. the hardest thing is to get a full automatic weapon in the united states you have to get certain permits aka a C3 license they are impossible to get in many states and you have to pay a tax stamp and go through a week long process to get it and in many states longer than a week and the mom of the Newtown shooter didn't own an ar-15 he murdered those kids with pistols everyone needs to know there facts before debating them
likespeace

Pro


My Arguments

Strict gun control laws would solve the problem of gun crime.

I will discuss a hypothetical constitutional amendment that bans the sale and possession of firearms within the United States of America and its territories, under penalty of death or life in prison. There would be a few exemptions, such as the military. There would also be a transition period where some would be exempted (security guards) and penalties would be less severe.

Given the above, it would no longer be in a person's self-interest to buy a gun, carry a gun, or commit a crime with it--unless they were willing to forfeit their lives in the process. I assert that many criminals do not wish to forfeit their own lives. Additionally, even some law-abiding citizens who value either their own lives or providing for their family would acquiesce. Therefore, we would expect to see a sharp reduction in gun crime (and an increase in the use of other weapons, such as knives).

Rebuttal to Opponents Arguments

: anyone can murder someone with a knife
: explain to me how banning guns is going to help its mental health

Many of your statements are off-topic. The topic you chose is whether gun control can solve gun crime.

: the Newtown shooter.. murdered those kids with pistols

Those guns would be illegal following the proposed gun ban.

: in columbine all there guns were bought illegally

The shotguns were bought at a gun show--which would no longer exist following the gun ban.

The pistol was bought for $500 from a pizza shop employee. If the penalty for gun possession or sale were death or life in prison, it's highly unlikely that person would have sold that gun for $500.

: you can easily get full automatic weapons on the street than in a store
: a kid in my town was murdered by an illegal tech 9 which was fully automatic
: its extremely hard to get guns in in California yet the crime rate is extremely high

You say that fully automatic weapons are easily available to criminals despite being mostly banned.

First, only 2% of investigated violent crimes in California in 2009 were committed with fully automatic weapons[1]. I have seen similar or lower numbers for other places in America. The Batman, Aurora, and Sandy Hook killers did not use fully automatic weapons. This support limited access and the long-term effectiveness of banning guns.

Second, the proposed amendment would further reduce the number of fully automatic weapons available on the black market. There would be no more legal owners to steal from and fewer semi-automatic weapons to convert.

If the proposed ban does as well as the fully automatic weapons ban, we may be looking at gun crime rates at 1% of current levels! That's what I call "solving the problem of gun crime". Dear readers, please vote Pro. :)

[1] http://oag.ca.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
ISupportGunOwners

Con

ISupportGunOwners forfeited this round.
likespeace

Pro

I submit that I am due a conduct point as my opponent was a no-show for an agreed upon round two.

Additionally, my arguments clearly stand, and he has no defense to my refutation of his own.
Debate Round No. 2
ISupportGunOwners

Con

ISupportGunOwners forfeited this round.
likespeace

Pro

I took my opponent's challenge and explained how a new gun control measure would drastically reduce gun crime. I also refuted their limited arguments to the contrary. My opponent viewed my arguments, but then opted to forfeit the debate. My opponent was the instigator, but neither attacked my arguments nor defended their own; thus, my arguments stand unchallenged and their arguments stand refuted. The only logical vote is in my favor.

Thank you for reading this debate! :)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
My opponent has poofed! Thanks for reading, and please remember to vote Pro. :)
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
What I put in quotes was what I originally saw. In any case, my opponent would have had a better chance with, "Gun control won't reduce violent deaths." He definitely has an uphill road to prove, "Gun control won't solve the problem of gun crime." I hope he doesn't poof on me. :)
Posted by ISupportGunOwners 4 years ago
ISupportGunOwners
@imabench read the debate it says gun crime....
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
likespeace, the resolution of the debate clearly specifies 'GUN crime', not just all crime or any type of crime in general...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
"Go U believe that Gun Control and a ban on assault rifles will solve the problem of crime"

As stated, your argument is a strawman. I don't know anybody who believes that even if the Wizard of Oz were to make all guns disappear tomorrow, that "the problem of crime" would be solved. After all, income tax fraud and many other forms of crime do not require weapons. If you were to change your argument to, "reduce violent deaths in America", you might get some bites!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
ISupportGunOwnerslikespeaceTied
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 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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
ISupportGunOwnerslikespeaceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F. Con didn't use capitalization or punctuation.
Vote Placed by Canadian-In-Florida 4 years ago
Canadian-In-Florida
ISupportGunOwnerslikespeaceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I give points to Pro for man obvious reasons. I, however, do not believe that a convincing argument was placed by either side. While I do put tied on the issue and believe that "some" gun control and assault bans would provide a reduction, I don't think a full ban on all guns would solve the problem. Take for example Prohibition and a constitutional amendment to ban all alcohol, it led to one of the most violent non-war time periods in American history. And that was a ban on something that was just an inconvenience. While I agree some legislation would be effective, my argument for my vote rests on the fact that Pro's concept is too radical and he provides little evidence to prove it's effectiveness other than an assumption of similar effectiveness from the assault ban. I give the other points to Pro but I can't say either side won the argument itself.