The Instigator
MyDinosaurHands
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jp16103
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Gun Control (Copy #2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
jp16103
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 42776
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

MyDinosaurHands

Pro

I am for more Gun Control laws and policies in America. My opponent must be opposed to any further Gun Control laws being established in America.

First Round is for Acceptance.
jp16103

Con

Owning firearms is a right. The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do. Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal. "Assault weapons" should not be banned, or any other firearm. The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty. Lastly, a moral argument: government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies.
(This is my first debate on this website, please excuse any formatting errors, etc.)
Debate Round No. 1
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

My opponent has used his acceptance round to state his arguments. Based on this I will begin my rebuttals in Round One, and post my main arguments afterwards.

R1

"The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do."

It is true that guns do not cause violence, they are simply the middlemen, so to speak. And it is also true that deranged individuals are often behind gun violence. These two statements are true, but that does not mean there shouldn't be gun control laws in America, as my opponent suggests in the first sentence of the quote above. If deranged individuals do cause gun violence, then there should be laws in place to control and hopefully prohibit said deranged individuals' access to guns. Gun control laws are already minimal in America compared to those in countries like Australia[1] or Japan[2], and to further lessen our laws and regulations is an invitation to an even greater ease of access for deranged individuals.

R2

"Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal."

This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this. More importantly, there can be many factors not taken into account when measuring such statistics. For instance, what if an area is experiencing a significant amount of gun violence, and decides to give stricter gun control laws a shot. The following year after this decision may not see much change, simply because the new laws take a while to have full effect, but people taking the statistics take a quick look at the area and say, "Yep, they've still got gun violence."

R3

"The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty."

I'd like to stress the use of the word 'original'. The Constitution was crafted at a time very different than ours, when militias were relied upon to help fight in the revolution. The United States was a baby nation at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and the forces of law and order were few and far between, and so it was necessary for people to join into militias to provide protection. America is no longer at that stage however. We have a tangible police force to protect us now. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. A complete ban on guns is not required, but completely free access to guns is no longer needed.

R4

"government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies."

It seems my opponent's contention here is aimed at a ban on weaponry. I am not for a complete ban on weaponry in the US, so I cannot rebuttal this in its entirety. However I will comment on the idea that firearms are necessary in the modern world to protect oneself from enemies. Statistics show that legally owned guns are rarely used to stop criminals. In fact, legally owned guns are found to be used in socially undesirable ways, such as threatening spouses and children, illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3]. Legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense. This is contradictory to my opponent's idea that guns are necessary for safety.

Main Argument:

Point 1

I do not argue for a complete ban on weapons in the United States. I argue for smarter and stricter laws regarding gun ownership, especially in gun acquisition. Currently 20% of gun sales are private[4], without background checks taking place. This is a huge loophole for potential deranged individuals.

Point 2

We have seen many countries enact very tough gun laws, and been the better for it. My two biggest examples are that of Australia[1], and Japan[2]. Japan has virtually no civilian owned guns. The only weapons that are legal to purchase are shotguns and air rifles, and these are extremely hard to come by, due to the complicated gun acquisition process in place. Japan has had as few as 2 gun deaths a year. Compare that to the US's 12,000 firearm related homicides in the year 2008[2].

Or take Australia, which has seen significant reduction in gun related homicide since the NFA was enacted[5]. It is impossible to look at scenarios like this and claim it's due to chance, and that the same could not happen in America if stricter gun laws were introduced.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
[4] http://www.cnn.com...
[5] http://guncontrol.org.au...
jp16103

Con

Thank you for responding.

R1
I need to clarify my position, gun control laws should be lessen back for law abiding gun owners. Why should law abiding citizens be punished because of the actions of deranged people. I would certainly not want someone who is mentally ill or violent to own a firearm, but there is nothing we can do about it other than arming ourselves to protect us from them. If someone wants to own a firearm they can get one illegally. Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter broke 41 laws that day, more laws would not have stopped him. This also shows that gun control does not work as Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
R2
"This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this."

"In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower." The murder rate did not just average 73% higher over the span of 1 year, rather it rose exponentially over 30 years. This shows that areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes, specifically murder. DC is not the only example, numerous other cities have shown the same results such as Chicago. When the handgun laws of DC were overturned in 2006 the murder rate in DC has dropped exponentially.

R3
The original intent, remains the same today, "We have a tangible police force to protect us now". The reason the right to bear arms exists is to protect us from the police and government forces. "A free people ought to be armed." George Washington once said, without trying to make an ad hominem argument, I think the principle behind that quote remains true to this day. The right to bear arms is essential to protecting our liberties from enemies, even if the enemies are those who swore to protect us.

R4
My argument here needs clarification, I understand you are not calling for a complete ban of firearm, my point here is that nobody has the right to limit my freedom to own a firearm. Yes, I will acknowledge that firearms are used for terrible things, but to judge all gun owners on the actions of the few is irresponsible and unfair. It is like judging freedom of speech by the actions of neo-nazis and the KKK. It simply isn't fair. " illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3]." "legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense." A government survey from the 90's shows that "Government figures from the National Survey of Criminal Victimization suggest 100,000 uses a year of guns in self-defense against crime, the vast majority of these uses being the display of weapons to deter or dissuade." This was during a time of higher crime rates in the United States than today, also it is very difficult to measure how many firearms are used in self defense and protection because you cannot measure crimes not committed due to knowledge of firearms in a home or on a person.

MAIN POINTS REBUTTAL
P1
In order to argue against this I need clarification on what your overall position and what "gun control laws" are we debating. Specifically background checks or something else.

P2
Foreign Nations:
In order to understand why other nations with gun control laws have lower gun crime rates one must look at many factors specifically, culture and overall crime rates. In many nations such as Britain who have fewer gun murders than the US, when their gun control laws were enacted, the homicide rate rose in which guns were used and not used. Britain since has one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world. Also, the 12,000 statistic is unreliable as it does not consider how many of the firearms used were illegally purchased. Also while on the issue of other nations, Switzerland's gun related homicide is (for 2010) 40. In a country where people are required to own semi automatic weapons. Every male is required to own(http://en.wikipedia.org...) a SIG SG 550(http://en.wikipedia.org...) A 550 is capable of fully automatic fire. You have completely ignored the culture issue that is much larger than laws.

Sources:
http://www.justfacts.com...
http://www.justfacts.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

I am unwilling to debate further, due to my now conflicted opinions on gun control. I found lots of conflicting information while working on my argument in Round 2, and now I can't honestly debate for the Pro side.

To my opponent I apologize for cutting this debate short, however I don't feel like bs'ing my way through the next two rounds. So I surrender.

If you want to have a concession debate on a topic I'm more firm on, we can do that.
jp16103

Con

I understand, personally I'm glad I convinced you. :) How does this work? Do you forfeit the last rounds?
Debate Round No. 3
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

End Debate.
jp16103

Con

Debate ended.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by hoosty69 3 years ago
hoosty69
I feel that gun control is not even realistic in the US for the very reason that the country has been so flooded with weapons over the years that there is absolutely no way of getting them out of the unregistered hands and therefore honest citizens will always feel the need to arm themselves as a balance. That being said criminals will always find a gun as a junkie will find a drug, a irresponsible gun owner leaving an unsecured gun always has the chance of having it stolen, curious child using it, family member or friend going through a suicide depression - well we know how that can turn out. Yes even a honest and responsible gun owner can go through a unique mental switch over. Bottom line, the guns flow out of the manufactures like candy bars and they're everything from revolvers, semi-auto pistols , to assault type guns. Hunting equipment to me has never been the issue. Anyway more guns in the hands of people equal the need for more guns in the hands of people.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Spamkybones 3 years ago
Spamkybones
MyDinosaurHandsjp16103Tied
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: Pro surrender
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
MyDinosaurHandsjp16103Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro surrendered.