The Instigator
elijah452
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRealGod
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control Is Bad (BROAD)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 85037
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (0)

 

elijah452

Con

1.(No links or sources unless one of us asks for one)
I want to have a logical and reasonable debate. Most pro-gun control people slap a few poorly made sources without understanding the concept of what they are arguing. I rather keep the argument towards logistics of why gun control is bad and what causes gun crime, and the specifics of why gun control won't largely change these factors. All in all you need to be able to defend your argument with your own words and not rely solely on "sources".

2.No trolls/idiots/source-whores.

-------------------------------
I want the argument to be HOW gun control is bad and the reasons around it. I will go into further detail when I receive a rebuttal.

ARGUMENT: Gun control is bad for the law abiding citizens.

1.Most anti-gun activists say banning guns will disarm gangs and criminals, but gangs and criminals obviously still get guns and it leaves the population under-armed or defenseless (Look at Mexico and Europe, strict gun laws only means the criminals have guns.. For example France has some of the highest gun control in the world) Need I say automatic weapons were banned in Paris but 200+ people still died.

Look at how well the war on drugs is (not) working in America. The same also would apply to guns.

2.Less gun control doesn't necessarily mean more overt gun deaths. Of course there are more accidental deaths and suicides by guns, but other reasons anti-gun activists like to use are purely situational of social-economic and geographical regions .(I will go into more detail when I get a rebuttal as to not overwhelm the first round)

3.How does the (PRO) explain the very low gun (crime and death) rate in America/Canada (and in Europe) from inception until about the 1970s when gun control was almost non-existent?

4.Automatics are banned almost all over the world yet it is relatively easy for anyone to modify most semi-automatics into being automatic. Criminals will be the only ones "allowed" to have automatic weapons.

5.Large gun magazines are banned almost all over the world yet it is relatively easy for anyone to modify most magazines into holding more ammunition.Criminals will be the only ones "allowed" to have high capacity magazines.

6. Armor-piercing, incendiary, tracer and light-explosive round are banned almost all over the world yet it is relatively easy for anyone to make their own ammunition. Criminals will be the only ones "allowed" to have these ammunition types.
TheRealGod

Pro

I like to start off by thanking my opponent for this debate. Although I advocate for gun control, I do not advocate for 100% gun bans. I will also debate according to the criteria and only use sources when requested by my opponent.

My opponents Argument: Gun control is bad for law abiding citizens.

Rebuttals
1. Gangs and criminals still get guns, however it is more difficult for them to get guns; guns control does not necessarily mean unaming citizen;. Mexico's problems are mainly due to corrupt government officials and not their strict gun control. Europe is a continent that consist of many countries, With France even though automatics are banned guns aren't completely banned, 31.2 firearms are are owned per 100 people, that's about 1/3 of France's population. Over 200 people died in venues consisting of thousands, at least 1 person should have a firearm, even then a firefight in amongst the crowd of thousands would leave more injured than dead. Most civilians are NOT TRAINED AGAINST PROFESSIONAL TERRORIST ATTACKS.

Guns and drugs are completely different, it is a lot easier to sneak drugs than guns.

2. Better gun control will mean less accidental deaths by guns. More guns means more deaths, no matter how you look at the data doesn't lie, America has 88.8 guns per 100 people and has the highest death rates by guns 16 times more than Germany. That's means the U.S. Has almost 1 gun per citizen, how many people do you know or have come across and thought, yea I definitely would not give that guy a gun?

3. The 70's were a different time and gun violence started to rise in the 60's and 70's. The type of guns available were different as well as the amount of guns out there.

4,5, and 6 all have to do with gun modifications so my rebuttal here can be shorts. Yes anyone can modify their weapons that goes against the laws but not everyone can do it successfully, it takes precision, time, and patience, sometimes a cooperating helper. Which means people that want to modify their guns to use for illegal reasons will have a tougher time doing so. Sure the Internet can teach you but Do it yourselves(DIYs) aren't always perfect or practical.

Now for my arguments
Why wouldn't you want stricter background checks? Do you know it is easier to get guns in some states than getting your drivers license?(Texas) or even permitted to cut hair?(Airizona)
You should be mentally competent(cleared by a doctor) and trained about properly using a gun if you want to own one meaning, you need to prove you know how to operate it, know the laws about it, as well as a vision test so that you don't operate it without the proper tools.

Reasons

1. 80% of mass shootings in America guns have been purchased legally better gun control could have prevented that. Currently because of a loophole a person can still acquire a gun while their purchase is going througfh a background check which means mentally incompetent people can acquire guns legally.

2. Australia had a very successful gun control campaign after a mass shooting by a 28yo male back in 1996 just walked into a cafe. Pulled a semi-auto out of his bag am opened fire killing 35 people and wounding 23 more. Their law makers ended up banning certain guns NOT all guns. When they did so they LEGALLY confiscated 650k through a BUYBACK program meaning the owners were compensated, as well as creating a better registry of all guns as well as new permits for new firearm purchases. The results? Homicide rates dropped 42% in 7 years and firearm suicide rates dropped 57%

3.Making sure everyone that buys a gun know how to operate, store, lawfully use a gun, as well as being mentally competent helps people who are not responsible law abiding citizens from getting guns. And I said help not completely prevent.
Debate Round No. 1
elijah452

Con

Gangs and criminals still get guns, however it is more difficult for them to get guns"

Yes but they will still get guns even in a 100% ban on guns existed, and an unarmed population is easy pickings for criminals. Do you want to commit violent crimes knowing nearly everyone is armed and concealed carrying? No, that's why criminals tend to avoid committing crimes in states that are the least armed. Of course violent crimes still exists in these areas, a large percentage of those crimes would have not happened or been at a lesser extent of the victim has been armed.

> "Mexico's problems are mainly due to corrupt government officials and not their strict gun control. "

It doesn't change anything, guns are illegal there and only the criminals have them. The people are unarmed and can't fight against the corrupt government or the drug lords. Why do you think the United States made the second amendment? For if similar corruption happened we would be able to fight it out in a revolution. (one which actually happened). Do you think of the Mexican population was as heavily armed as the Americans this huge corruption would of still existed? Well it's really up for debate but I know they wouldn't be walking on the people so hard.

> "31.2 firearms are are owned per 100 people"

That seems about true, but most of the guns are with huge collectors that have huge stockpiles. The gun industry there isn't very big with most of the firearms in Europe (Except for the Czech Republic) being manufactured before the 1990s..Not to mention the majority if the firearms are in residential areas. Whereas in some states almost every single person has a firearm and most firearms being under 5 and 10 years old.

> " that's about 1/3 of France's population."

And yet in a huge city like Paris there wasn't a gun in site to stop these terrorists. Not to mention no concealed carry laws. If 1/3 of the people in or around the shooting area had concealed carry pistols MUCH less people would of died. This is undisputed.

>"even then a firefight in amongst the crowd of thousands would leave more injured than dead. "

The Islamic terrorists were already opening fire on everyone, nothing more would change except for the victims returning fire. The only way "it would leave more injured" as if people started blindly shooting, and that doesn't really make sense. It wasn't pitch black and the terrorists saw enough to easily pinpoint people, the victims would easily be able to do the same. Trying to dispute this is nonsense.

> "Most civilians are NOT TRAINED AGAINST PROFESSIONAL TERRORIST ATTACKS."

Describe what "trained" means.

Most civilians in France aren't trained? Or do you mean the entire world? Well if you are talking about France the gun culture there is nearly non-existent, of course people wouldn't be well trained.. If a system existed like America people would be "trained" enough. You have to get back to me on this one.

"Guns and drugs are completely different, it is a lot easier to sneak drugs than guns."

It's actually easier, guns can be broken down into tiny pieces and sent individually. You can also machine extra parts with only a few cheap metalworking tools. This isn't a source link but I am showing it to better explain my argument.
http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com...
Not to mention it usually only takes one or two small parts to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic firearm.
Dogs can smell drugs and drugs are hard to hide. It's VERY hard to find metal bits and it's very easy to hide.

"2. Better gun control will mean less accidental deaths by guns."

Accidental deaths by firearms isn't an issue. Of course firearms should have an age limit (perhaps 18) and part of being an adult is being safe and responsible. This was the motto of American freedom, there are more dangers in the world but you are a free man. The nanny-state isn't going to look after you. So if someone is stupid enough to accidentally harm themselves with a firearm that's their problem, and it's not justification to have gun control.

"More guns means more deaths, no matter how you look at the data doesn't lie"

Yeah but you also need to realize that if someone was dumb enough to accidentally shoot themselves with a firearm they were probably going to die another way. So maybe 1000 more people die from firearm accidents, well 900 less people die from car accidents or drug overdoses.

"America has 88.8 guns per 100 people and has the highest death rates by guns 16 times more than Germany. "

Well American and European gun violence used to be nearly the same up until the 60's, but America started massively importing poor third world people.. Naturally gun violence is going to go up. Plus look at the most gun violent places in America.. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore. All places with large densities of non-whites. Look at the places with the lowest gun crimes.. North Dakota,Wyoming, Maine,Montana.. They are all the whitest states in America with nearly exactly the same gun laws as every other state give or take. The same thing applies to Canada.

>"yea I definitely would not give that guy a gun?"

Some people are different, but we can't judge people based on looks alone. I do believe in restricting severe mental health people to firearms but that doesn't really count as "gun control" per-say. It would only limit a very small portion of the system. I rather not waste time arguing on this issue.

>"The 70's were a different time and gun violence started to rise in the 60's and 70's.

Gun violence as a whole started going up in the 70's and 80's.. Though it did spike in the 60's in some areas.

>"The type of guns available were different as well as the amount of guns out there."

Uhh no, you could buy fully automatic Ak47s in 1949.. You could also get machine guns with several hundreds round of ammunition and even miniguns in the early 1950's.. So yeah.

> " takes precision, time, and patience, sometimes a cooperating helper. "

A 15 year old with basic metalwork skills can make a majority of these parts. Heck most gun magazines have one pin between the magazine that can easily be sawed off to increase the magazine size. Another link (not source) to demonstrate.
http://farm8.static.flickr.com...
See the pin in the middle? Cut that off and now your weapon can hold more ammunition. This is one of the most popular firearms in Canada. See the irony with these gun control laws?

> "Which means people that want to modify their guns to use for illegal reasons will have a tougher time doing so. Sure the Internet can teach you but Do it yourselves(DIYs) aren't always perfect or practical."

A person with the determination to sacrifice his life to commit mass murder or similar terrorists crime will easily accomplish it.

A gang will easily have a similar time.
-----
> "Why wouldn't you want stricter background checks? "
Because background checks only work on people with mental health issues.. Everyone else can easily bypass the system. Gangs get all the guns they want by having a "freshie" (A guy without a record) to purchase all the firearms and launder them. So it doesn't really stop anyone. It only impedes normal people who don't want to wait weeks to get their guns.

"You should be mentally competent(cleared by a doctor) and trained about properly using a gun if you want to own one "

Unless your IQ is 70 and you are really that stupid you aren't going to tell a doctor you have a mental health problem if it means never getting a firearm.. All it does is make people scared to admit their illness and they won't get treatment, and usually ends up too late if they do something stupid. Vision tests are already done every few years when you renew your driving tests. At this point it would get very tedious.. You are also giving me the idea that you think everyone is stupid and can't look after themselves.

Word limit
TheRealGod

Pro

I want to make it clear that my argument isn't about banning all guns, it's about better control on who is able to obtain them.

Mexico doesn't restrict all guns, individuals may still buy guns, and if the Mexican people truly wanted to overthrow their government through bloodshed they could, however it's not like the civilians are dissatisfied where their government completely, and when they are they have overthrown past leaders without guns.

America has corruption problems just like Mexico(not the exact same one but the problems are just as bad if not worst), yet we are more heavily armed. So how come we still have corruption problems? Guns definitely have not solved that problem. And I'll give you a brief news flash, Corps like Comcast bribe the hell out of politics enforcing laws that protect their own interest while hurting citizens. Anyways back on topic now

Can you stop referring to all of Europe as one big country? There are literally dozens of different countries on that continent.
Are you serious? Have you ever been in a firefight? "It wasn't pitch black and the terrorist saw enough to easily pinpoint people" You do realize the terrorist had no specific target? You also realize with the mass panic it is easy to get confused with a crowd running around. How would you be able to indenting the target from another civilian trying to be a hero?

Trained - as in practicing working in high stress, high intense situations so that you can quickly identify the correct target and perform the duty you set out to do.

Anyone can pull a trigger yes but being in a firefight situation is completely different than a shooting range where the targets do not shoot back and civilians can run right in front of your target. What if you get attacked by civilians trying to be a hero? You have no uniform it'll be easy to confuse you for the enemy

even breaking apart a gun you can indenting those parts as well as the essentials for it, in the end it still takes longer for the guns to enter the hands of the criminal, so you proved my point there why gun control is useful.

Accidental firearms doesn't just happen with people under the age of 18, just because you turn 18 doesn't mean you magically become mature/intelligent enough to properly hand a gun.

Gun violence in the heavily senses populated cities compared to states with small populations? That's like comparing apples to oranges, being white doesn't mean you can properly handle a gun, do you forget that most mass shooting was done by a white male?
I should have been more clear when I said "yea I definitely would not give that guy a gun" I didn't mean literally just look at a person, I mean have had a conversation with them, they weren't deemed mentally incompetent however I still would not want them to have a gun.

There are plenty of people with an IQ over 70 or isn't severely mentally ill that you still wouldn't want to have a gun. So the notion that a mental health check would only apply to a small portion of the population is completely false, there are those with an anger problem, alcohol problem, drug problem, etc the list can go on. Even a mentally competent person can break down, from a loss of work, or figuring out their significant other has cheated on them.
Most of the other points you address about the 15 yo being able to put a gun together and what not. My point there is that it still takes time. Meaning it slows down criminal activity.

You say "you are also giving me the idea that you think everyone is stupid and can't look after themselves"

See there's this thing called Paternalism and the definition is "Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. The issue of paternalism arises with respect to restrictions by the law such as anti-drug legislation, the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, and in medical contexts by the withholding of relevant information concerning a patient's condition by physicians. At the theoretical level it raises questions of how persons should be treated when they are less than fully rational." So these would apply why gun control laws would benefit law abiding citizens and to make them go through such rigorous testing. It's the reason why there are seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, alcohol limits, and hard drug laws, as well as driving laws/license. Does it not make sense that you have to get tested to operate a 2 ton vehicle that could be easily used to kill people when mishandled and prove you know how and promise to use it properly just like gun?

After all you never did answer why 80% of mass shootings gun have been obtained legally as well as the decline of Australia's gun violence after their stricter gun control. At this point you shouldn't even focused on how people can still obtain guns with stricter laws, because you prove my point by showing the extra steps and measures it takes to get around those laws, because my premise isn't that banning guns completely should be done but having stricter laws to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns is actually better.

And a bonus, if you are competent the extra few days or paperwork it takes to obtain a gun shouldn't bother you, as there is literally no reason why you "must have a gun right at the moment" because if you aren't committing any crimes you should be able to plan your purchase out accordingly just as when you set up dates to get your drivers license.
Debate Round No. 2
elijah452

Con

however it's not like the civilians are dissatisfied where their government completely, and when they are they have overthrown past leaders without guns."

Don't give me that, they are working with the drug lords and are extremely corrupt. Why do you think all of them want to flee to America?

>"So how come we still have corruption problems? "

Because they pass small laws at a time.. For example if the government tomorrow passed a law to seize all firearms the populous would near instantly revolt to overthrow the government, but by slowly passing small laws over the course of many years you won't stir up the public.

On top of that people aren't going to revolt over a television company scandal. Take a look at the Bundy Ranch scenario an armed militia took back the land the government wanted to take.(saving words limit)

>"Can you stop referring to all of Europe as one big country? There are literally dozens of different countries on that continent."

Except at this point in Europe there is a union that binds them all together. The EU commission leaders want (and are) passing mandatory gun laws that are effective over Europe. On top of that virtually every country in Europe has similar anti-gun laws at this point.

>" You also realize with the mass panic it is easy to get confused with a crowd running around. How would you be able to indenting the target from another civilian trying to be a hero?"

I have done firearm training that involves shooting in low light conditions but that isn't even the point. The excuse that "with mass panic the armed victims will shoot at random"... Is this really your counter argument? It hurts my brain how you can't comprehend this simple logic.Not to mention other Paris shooters were shooting in broad daylight on an empty street. If that was America they wouldn't of lasted more than 50 seconds without being taken down by an armed citizen.

"Trained - as in practicing working in high stress, high intense situations so that you can quickly identify the correct target and perform the duty you set out to do."

Yet in America plenty of "untrained" citizens managed to stop bank, store and home robberies without causing any of extra damage you speak of.

>"Anyone can pull a trigger yes but being in a firefight situation is completely different than a shooting range where the targets do not shoot back and civilians can run right in front of your target"

Yes but you are only talking about the first 20 seconds from when the situation first begins.. If they decided to shoot the terrorists as they exited the building or stayed in a corner, but do I really need to repeat myself? Over 130 people died and almost 400 injured. Several hundred rounds were shot by the terrorists, they had time to stop and reload multiple times, walk outside the building and so forth.. You are telling me that if 1/3 of the people there concealed carry pistols that it would of made the situation worse? You serious?

> "You have no uniform it'll be easy to confuse you for the enemy"

Uhm no, pretty easy to tell a distraught citizen with a pistol to screaming terrorists with huge ak-47 rifles and military gear.

>"even breaking apart a gun you can indenting those parts as well as the essentials for it, in the end it still takes longer for the guns to enter the hands of the criminal, so you proved my point there why gun control is useful."

Uhh no you aren't making any sense. Depending on the gun it will take one minute to several minutes to put the gun back together depending on your training, but it's extremely hard to detect smuggled gun that are broken down into pieces. Gangs and terrorists also only need to smuggle a few parts to turn their semi-automatic into an automatic.. and they can smuggle several hundred parts without being detected.

>"Accidental firearms doesn't just happen with people under the age of 18, just because you turn 18 doesn't mean you magically become mature/intelligent enough to properly hand a gun."

Well obviously not, but 18 is when your brain started to mature.

"Gun violence in the heavily senses populated cities compared to states with small populations?"

If you take population into count it's still MUCH lower.

> " do you forget that most mass shooting was done by a white male?"

Well the worst mass shooting was done by an Asian, but white mass shooting tend to be out of anger and not mental health issues. So that's something else.

> ", I mean have had a conversation with them,"

If they aren't of low IQ they are going to know what you are doing, they can feign themselves to look perfectly normal.

> "There are plenty of people with an IQ over 70 or isn't severely mentally ill that you still wouldn't want to have a gun. So the notion that a mental health check would only apply to a small portion of the population is completely false, there are those with an anger problem, alcohol problem, drug problem, etc the list can go on. Even a mentally competent person can break down, from a loss of work, or figuring out their significant other has cheated on them."

And how would mental health experts find out these problems? A person isn't going to admit all these problems at their firearm medical check... Unless you have a record (which most people with these problems don't).. There is no way for you to know.

> "My point there is that it still takes time. Meaning it slows down criminal activity."

By a few seconds maybe. Even Google common guns and their strip time. AK-47 (most popular terrorist gun) can be done in around 10-40 minutes depending on the skill level. Even less for other rifles.. and don't even get me started on pistols which can be fully reassembled in about 5 minutes.

So unless a huge gang or terrorist group needed several hundred firearms converted and done in the same day.. Your counter is null and void.

"After all you never did answer why 80% of mass shootings gun have been obtained legally"

That is true for America, because if it wasn't legal it would be done illegally. Not that hard for even a single person to strip a gun down and go across the border undetected. The only reason they aren't doing it is because it is legal.

>"Australia's gun violence after their stricter gun control."

Well I looked at charts, and well gun violence did drop after the initial ban they soon returned to pre-ban levels with only a very small decrease. So I would like you to source me on the gun violence chart in Australia.. I don't want editorials or Huntington post-like articles.

>" because you prove my point by showing the extra steps and measures it takes to get around those laws,"

Criminals, terrorists and gangs will easily bypass these measures.You know why they don't sell guns? Because there isn't a market for it.

" if you are competent the extra few days or paperwork it takes to obtain a gun shouldn't bother you, as there is literally no reason why you "must have a gun right at the moment" because if you aren't committing any crimes you should be able to plan your purchase out accordingly just as when you set up dates to get your drivers license."

But that law only makes law abiding citizens wait, criminals and terrorists will still commit the crime beit delayed by however long the wait is.

But like I said before.. Most mass shooting are done in gun free zones like churches and schools. It's the same reason people aren't stupid enough to rob a gun store or a police station.
TheRealGod

Pro

Well Mexico isn't exactly a first world country.

You do not know for sure if revolt would happen over the seizure of firearms.
Comcast was only 1 example of how corruption exist, showing most laws don't past the way we were taught, when really Corps throw ton of money and lobbyist which is how laws actually pass I'm America, it's not the glorious voter system you were taught growing up. The Bundy scenario? Thanks for bringing that up, it's a bunch of wackos with guns, first they illegally hunt on a wildlife reserve, the they try to cover it up by burning the corpse using the excuse that they wanted to protect their crops. Then they get sentenced to 5 years which is below the actual time they are supposed to get. The Bundy group is the reason why we need gun control laws, they are nothing but terrorist trying to be above the law(they said they'll do anything even kill) that is using fear tactics. Causing terror, hence the word TERRORist. They aren't the Marty group you want them to be. They are bullies/terrorist with guns that do not care for the land. They are the same group of people who lets their cows everywhere so that there's manure every 20 feet in all direction while wreckless riding their ATV's destroying everything - source cousin from east Oregon

The laws in the EU aren't in effect yet do you cannot generalize them.

You have done firearm training yourself, most people do not, have you ever been in an actual firefight? There is a reason why plenty of war veterans develop PTSD. Your brain hurts? Because your dream scenarios of being the good guy with a gun isn't that effective? If you purchase a gun with the intent that one day you'll be in the wrong place at the right time, you need to wake up to reality. Sure small crimes have been stopped by normal civilians but that is different from trained terrorist with a plan. You cannot say if it was America they wouldn't last 50 seconds, they did not plan an attack in America so we won't know. It's a hypothetical situation without any proof. And I'm only talking about the first 20 seconds? That's about the most Asine thing ever, in a firefight it's always high stress and high intense.

- on reconstructing and deconstructing guns
Time is still taken away from these people and it's a fact
Yes 18 is when the brain starts to mature but even then people still make mistakes with their firearms from improper use.

You also realize those cities have a higher rate of poverty?

It doesn't change the fact that most mass shooting are done by white males "white mass shooting tend to be out of anger and not mental health issues. So that's something else." You are seriously trying to justify and defend white mass shooters by claiming their anger over took them? That's the reason why people need to pass a mental health check.

You also realize experts don't ask people bluntly if they have anger issues and similar things right??? That is not how it works, have you ever taken a personality test? It's impossible to fake your answers to get the results that you want. Same thing with mental health checks theres a series of questions you have to go through that is near impossible to fake.

No no no that counter is not mulled and void because it still delays the criminals, even a few seconds can save a life.

Because it's so easy to obtain a gun it's so easy for anyone to become a mass shooter.

You are making stuff up now when you say gun violence went back to pre-ban levels http://www.vox.com...
That has universals studies linked in there

And what is the problem with waiting as a law abiding citizen if you are not going to commit a crime? Criminals and terrorist having a tougher time getting a gun will still delay them. Making people wait a week or so will not spike crime levels. So again if you have no Ill-intent when you are purchasing a gun there should be no problem waiting. And if you are buying a gun hoping to be that good guy something is wrong with you, you want to be in the spot of danger and then have an excuse to shoot another human being, that makes you a psychopath.

Mass shootings aren't chosen because they are "gun free" zones they are chosen because mass shooters know that that is where people gather. Schools and churches have people gather on a scheduled bases making it easier to just shoot randomly. Just like the movie theater shooter, who was also a white male.
Debate Round No. 3
elijah452

Con

> "You do not know for sure if revolt would happen over the seizure of firearms."

Then you don't know Americans well enough

>"comcast was only 1 example of how corruption exist, showing most laws don't past the way we were taught, when really "

The people in power aren't stupid and they know how to play the system, they are slowly taking our freedoms away one bit at a time and the American people are angry.. Why do you think a large majority of the Republican base wants to support a radical man that will DEPORT ALL MUSLIMS AND ILLEGALS, FEDERAL CONCEALED CARRY LAWS, REMOVING WASTEFUL GUN LAWS, BUILD A HUGE WALL. ETC..... Why do you think a large portion of the Democrats support a radical man that is in favor of a 90% tax rate and a socialist-communist style system? The entire population from the left to the right are angry. If you can't see that then well that's your own damn problem.

>" Thanks for bringing that up, it's a bunch of wackos with guns, first they illegally hunt on a wildlife reserve,"

Uhh no, it was when he refused to pay grazing fees for land he and the people around the area have used for several generations. The government merely claimed it as crown land. I don't know anything about them hunting on a reserve so I would like a source for that.

>"They are bullies/terrorist with guns that do not care for the land"

You are talking from a mighty high horse to be saying so things so ignorantly.

>"source cousin from east Oregon "

That isn't a valid source sorry. I can't find anything on the internet for what you are telling me.

>"The laws in the EU aren't in effect yet do you cannot generalize them."

The law applies to the ENTIRE EU, what am I generalizing?

"You have done firearm training yourself, most people do not"

Most people outside America do not own guns either. There is such a huge fear and stigma with guns that it pushes people away. Look at Texas again for an example, an overwhelming majority of the people there are gun enthusiasts.. It's part of the culture.. The dads teach the sons how to shoot. They practice with their friends, they do mock "battles" with paintball and paint rounds. Perhaps they aren't as trained in police tactics as if they would have taken a long and extensive SWAT style training course.

I know what you are trying to explain to me but it only comes off EXTREMELY ignorant and nonsensical. What you are saying makes sense if you give a fresh noobie a gun... You won't get good results in a terrorist situation. Let me give you an example so you better understand me, here are fictional character profiles that are at least at a large degree realistic with concealed carry shooters.

Noobs aren't even used to the sound of gunfire immediately putting them at a disadvantage,Practically useless.. But instead consider the next tier up...

A woman owns a pistol and she casually goes to the range one or twice a month to practice shooting. In a terrorist style situation if she survives will most likely head for an escape and flee. Or she will draw her weapon but only at a very safe distance.She will be hesitant to fire upon the terrorists and the chance for her to miss (or make a mistake) and cause collateral damage is very high.

Now lets take the next tier, a young man owns a pistol, he plays many tactical army video games and also regularly shoots at the range twice a week(3 or 4 times a month).In a terrorist style situation if he survives will most likely get out of direct danger and wait to ambush the terrorists around a corner or structure.He won't be hesitant to fire upon the terrorists and will have a medium chance to cause collateral damage.(except for self)

Now lets take the next tier. An older man owns a pistol(s), He may have played tactical army video games in the past and regularly shoots at the range 1-3 times a week. (2-4 times a month) In a terrorist style situation if he survives will most likely tend to take take light cover and fire back. He won't be hesitant to fire upon the terrorists and will have a medium-low chance for collateral damage. (except for self)

Now lets take another tier.. A military or police man owns a pistol(s). He has extensive training with firearms from his job and personal life. He has several thousand hours of accumulative shooting and training. He shoots at the range 1-7 times a week. In a terrorist style situation if he survives will most likely quickly draw his weapon and immediately start reading his aim to start shooting. He will have no hesitation to fire upon the terrorists and will have a very low chance for collateral damage (except for self)

So I spent all this extra time showing you example profiles. Do you think the majority of concealed carry people are casual women? No... Mostly a mixture of the second and third option, and a decent of the last option depending on what state and country. Current gun laws almost all around the world don't even allow trained people to concealed carry.I shouldn't need to further explain this to you. You aren't talking from experience..

>"been in an actual firefight?"

Mock paintball and 9mm paint bullet fights in realistic scenarios.

>"Because your dream scenarios of being the good guy with a gun isn't that effective? "

If you are ONE person out of several hundred carrying a pistol you most likely wouldn't even have enough time to pull out your gun before you get shot to bits.. but it's EXTREMELY situational and based on luck/chance. But if 1/3 or even 1/15 of the population had concealed carry pistols I know for a fact the casualties would of been much lower. Take the amount of people that were inside the building and within 30 feet of the building.. I'll give a low number and say about 500 people. If my math is correct if 1/15 of the people in that tight vicinity was concealed carrying that would of been about 33-34 people overall.

Are you honestly telling me that with the realistic character profiles I have given you that not one of them would of made a positive impact?

>

A few minutes per gun, but to get automatic weapons it's a very low risk with high reward. Do I need remind you that this isn't the hunger games, gangs and terrorists have lots of time. Hell terrorists are already sacrificing their life to massacre people, they have virtually unlimited time. You think a few minutes or hours will change anything?

> "You also realize those cities have a higher rate of poverty? "

Because the blacks can't keep up in the workforce and are forced to a life of crime to survive.

>"You are seriously trying to justify and defend white mass shooters by claiming their anger over took them? "

Of course I am, take a look at Germany for a great example. Massive amount of German women are being raped and sexually assaulted by these refugees. Something that was nearly non-existent before they came. This might drive a perfectly intelligent and reasonable German male to take up arms and defend the "tribe"... It's in our instinct and blood.

>"You also realize experts don't ask people bluntly if they have anger issues and similar things right??? That is not how it works, have you ever taken a personality test? It's impossible to fake your answers to get the results that you want."

And like I said, it's easy to mould a personality test to fit the caricature you want. Heck I even did it when I entered the military as I was afraid of being denied for antisocial tendencies. I don't consider myself exceptionally smart and it was easy.

>" that is near impossible to fake"

Not really. Just imagine the personality of a male friend you have and simply copy/paste.

>"even a few seconds can save a life."

A few extra hours to waste a combined several million hours of lawful people's time.

"That has universals studies linked"

I want a source not a bloody article.

"where people gather."

and the people can't defend themselves in those gathering spots.

Word limit.. had to cut my arguments short.
TheRealGod

Pro

"Then you don't know Americans well enough" this is a personal opinion and the argument is invalid. Again my stance is Gun control is good and NOT the seizure of all firearms.

Please show proof that a majority of democrats support Donald trump.

Here's a bundy source - http://thinkprogress.org...

Ignorant means uneducated, the bundies are indeed that, a group of terrorist as they are use terror to try to get what they want. Please know when to use the word ignorant.

You are generalizing Texans, please show proof that a majority of them do mock battles.

You're scenarios and profiles prove nothing as they are silly. Video games are completely different from an actual firefight, if you think playing COD gets you ready for an actual firefight you need to wake up, just being used to the sound of gunfire does not mean you will think clearly when you are getting bullets firing back at you. All you did was waste character space. In fact please show proof about people playing video games and shooting at the gun range being enough training to prepare them for a terrorist attack. The only thing that can actually prepares is actual professional training AND experience. I put emphasis on and because of a lack of experience will cause a lapse in judgement.

"Mock paintball and 9mm paint bullet fights in realistic scenario"
Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but that isn't a real firefight. Anyone with experience will tell you the two are completely different. And I'll make it clear since you are dreaming still. An actual firefight everyone is shooting to kill, which means your life is on the line. Which also means you have to be prepared to take a life, and not everyone is ready to do that no matter how much training they have. There are literally people who gets discharged from the military because they can't pull the trigger. Be in an actual firefight where your life is in danger and you will be able to claim you have been in one. Because you don't get to just wipe the paint off and go home.

Again you don't know for a fact casualties would have been lower or not so this argument is also invalid because it's you're personal opinion. Even with your character profiles, those people wouldn't make a difference, videogames and reality are just way to different. The only character profile that would make a difference would be the policeman/military man if they had combat experience. And it also depends where you are, do you think a pistol can accurately hit a target across a concert venue? The "realistic character profiles" you have given would get more people hurt.
Minutes and hours makes a big difference, especially if government agencies have caught on. It gives them extra time to possibly take them down. It's a domino effect, and planning must be done with reconstruction of the weapons.

"Because blacks can't keep up in the workforce and are forced to a life of crime to survive"
Sorry to burst your bubble again but black people aren't the only ones in poverty.

Your Germany example is also asinine it does not justify the mass shootings that take place due to white males that have gotten guns legally. Also please show proof that German women are constantly being raped and sexually assaulted by refugees. Also show proof that it was non-existent before the refugees arrives

mental health screening criterias would of course change as needed.
"A few hours to waste"
How is this a rebuttal? This actually solidifies my point, if you have no ill-intent when purchasing a gun, there should be no need to have it right away. As a gun is designed to do one thing, and that is to kill.

"I want a source not a bloody article" that article has its sources cited as well as the statistics from the actual studies.
"And the people can't defend themselves in those gathering spots" a movie theater doesn't have metal detectors and isn't a gun free zone. The coffee shop that the kid shot up because girls didn't give him attention doesn't have a gun policy.

I will remind you and everyone you had nothing to say about Paternalism as well as you still avoid the fact that 80% of mass shootings guns have been obtained legally, if there was a system in place to prevent those people from getting guns in the first place things could have been different. You also ignore that the bundies are terrorist with guns at the moment. As well as the fact that suicide rates drop. And people who have committed suicide are law abiding citizens so it would benefit them if they failed their mental health/background checks
Debate Round No. 4
elijah452

Con

>"Please show proof that a majority of democrats support Donald trump."

What? I clearly said a majority of Republican voters support a radical man that wants to build a wall and deport illegals (Obviously Trump_

Then I said a large portion of Democrat voters are in favor of a radial man that supports a 90% tax rate and socialist-communist style system.. (Obviously not Trump, who do you think it is?)

>"Here's a bundy source - http://thinkprogress.org...;

I said the bundy RANCH situation, the one from years ago.. Not the Oregon militia situation in 2016.

>"Ignorant means uneducated, the bundies are indeed that, a group of terrorist as they are use terror to try to get what they want. Please know when to use the word ignorant."

You're assuming that I am ignorant. Please know when to use the word ignorant.

" you think playing COD gets you ready for an actual firefight you need to wake up"

Because when I said "realistic military shooters" I obviously meant COD.. The fact that you even stated COD shows your lack of awareness. There are plenty of realistic shooters but with ARMA being one I distinctly remember.

>" All you did was waste character space. In fact please show proof about people playing video games and shooting at the gun range being enough training to prepare them for a terrorist attack."

You're setting up arguments that are virtually impossible to counter, the fact that you are even saying this further proves how out of touch with firearms knowledge and common sense.

You are dead set on your arguments and it seems nothing I can say will convince you, so I am not going to write a complicated argument and instead say this.

Look at the terrorists and mass shooters themselves, only VERY few have military or police training. Most of them only got their experience from shooting ranges. Look at the two California shooters recently, all they did was shoot at the range constantly and they had the will and "experience" to kill many people.

And what about the terrorist militas in the middle east and especially Syria.. Most of them literally have no training and are simply given a gun and told to shoot, yet they are surprisingly successful in holding back the Americans, Russians, French.. ETC.

It's not just about training, it's about state of mind and self sacrifice. A gun is point and shoot, and depending on your mindset will frame you on what happens next.

"I put emphasis on and because of a lack of experience will cause a lapse in judgement."

Yes, that's why I stated in my last reply that the chance for your own death is high if you attempt to stop the terrorists, but around 130 people had already died in that Paris attacks so for someone to risk their life to even kill one of the terrorists is a sound idea.

>"Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but that isn't a real firefight. Anyone with experience will tell you the two are completely different"

Actually no, and even if you won't take my word for it.. If the Canadian army includes it in their training then it must be useful, what are you going to do argue with the military now?

"Because you don't get to just wipe the paint off and go home."

It's not about that, it's about the "training" you just said.. Now you are meaning physiological training? Damn Shrek stop changing your mind.

>"Again you don't know for a fact casualties would have been lower or not so this argument is also invalid because it's you're personal opinion"

Well you would have to be pretty dumb to think that everyone that is armed is just going to lay down and die. You are dead set on a narrative and there is LITERALLY nothing I can say to change it. Why are you even debating if you have convinced yourself that your twisted logic is the only right logic.

>"do you think a pistol can accurately hit a target across a concert venue? "

A first time shooter... Not even close..... A person who visits the range and hones their skills.. Absolutely. Saying that makes me doubt you have even fired a gun before.

>"Sorry to burst your bubble again but black people aren't the only ones in poverty."

Yes but the majority of blacks are on welfare and social services, while only a small amount of whites are.

>"Also please show proof that German women are constantly being raped and sexually assaulted by refugees."

You serious? Have you even looked on the news? Are you this dense? Just Google "Cologne Germany rape" .. It's on news stations all over the world. I am losing patience for a smelly onionboy like you.

>"Also show proof that it was non-existent before the refugees arrives"

Well it's common sense, take the 80 or so rapes per day by refugees and compare it to any rape statistic before that point. Seriously just Google it so you don't keep wasting my time with your garbage.

>"How is this a rebuttal? This actually solidifies my point, if you have no ill-intent when purchasing a gun, there should be no need to have it right away. As a gun is designed to do one thing, and that is to kill."

Because it's a law that wastes lawful people's time. In America the wait can be several hours to a week, in Canada it can be several weeks to a month. It's simply a law to wait. Why not put a wait time on getting your car? If you don't have ill intentions you can wait. You should just give up your arguments are getting sad.

>"As a gun is designed to do one thing, and that is to kill."

Rat poison is designed to do one thing, and that is to kill, yet it's extremely useful. You have that scared leftist mindset that wants to take away everything deemed "too scary for the children", but here we are back to step one.. It doesn't matter if guns are sooper dooper scary and can kill things, criminals will still have those guns nomatter what laws you pass. Like the war on drugs actually brought more drugs into America.

>"that article has its sources cited as well as the statistics from the actual studies."

Then give me the cited sources that are relevant to what you are trying to prove to me.

>" 80% of mass shootings guns have been obtained legally"

and if we banned all guns tomorrow 100% of mass shootings would be done illegally.

>"if there was a system in place to prevent those people from getting guns in the first place things could have been different. "

a "system in place" would only stop overtly stupid or physically handicapped. The majority of mass shooters are psychopaths, and they are above average intelligence. They won't any trouble fooling ANY system you want to put in place.

"mental health/background checks"

What does that even mean? A magical button automatically and omnisciently reads the minds of the person and scans them for problems?... Describe how a government official can "mental health check and background check" a clean person . Nearly all the mass shooters were clean.
TheRealGod

Pro

Con has failed to show that Gun Control is bad, when I have stated Gun Control is NOT about taking away guns from everyone but instead making it more difficult for people with ill intent to receieve a gun, even if it's just by a few minutes. He refuted my Bundy source because he did not read that today's situation with those terrorist started from years ago. He believes video games and shooting at a gun range will help people in a terrorist situation when instead and does not show proof, because it will get more people harmed. When asked to show his OWN sources for his BOP on Germany he simply just tells you to google it, when he does not want to click on the cited sources that shows the decline of gun violence and suicide rates in Australia.

In conclusion, the only negative side that con has proven is that gun control makes law abiding citizens wait for their guns.
Which shows it's still beneficial for people trying to get guns normally especially those that are suicidal at the time. Because in Australia suicide rates by guns dropped 74% while suicide rates by other means did not rise. Showing that helps people out as well as their crime rate due to gun violence dropping. Therefore gun control is beneficial to everyone except those will ill-intent.

The reason is simple, it makes it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. When they have to learn to deconstruct and reconstruct how to get their guns it takes time, to learn that skill, as well importing which takes a while. In the time it takes them to learn it, they have a higher chance at getting caught. Even them just looking for someone that can already do it has an inherent risk. He also contradicts himself when he says most mass shooters are done by psychopaths yet before in the earlier rounds when confronted with most mass shooters are white males, he says they just have anger problems. Con is not consistent with his argument. In the comments we see first hand the experience of a combat medic who tells me, no matter how much training people have there are those when the battle began that sucks there thumb in fetal position and those that are ready to die for their cause as well as everyone in between. However the "shiniest as he say it" always have a different look in their eyes after the first bullet begans to fly.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheFlyingPham// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources), 1 points to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I rambled too much earlier I guess so I will try to keep it shorter to hit all the the topics on the reasons why and just rushed through. Con actually had better spelling and grammar. Pro has good conducts that are more realistic. Pro also had better arguments why gun control was good for people, particularly suicidal people. When asked for a source pro gave a link that had the studies linked in them which made it very convenient to find the sources, the data there did not lie. Con however did not really provide a source when requested to do. It was a tie on conduct cause they both attacked each other a bit, however pro did cease in the last round.

[*Reason for removal] (1) S&G requires a higher standard than the one the voter is using. Merely having better S&G is not enough " one side has to have produced an argument that's actually difficult to read in order to warrant this point. (2) It's unclear how the voter is coming to a decision on arguments. The sole reasoning the voter cites is with regards to suicidal people, but the voter has to directly look at specific arguments given by both sides in order to have a sufficient RFD. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Both sides provided them, so the voter cannot just focus on a single source without explaining why the sources of the other side were non-factors.
************************************************************************
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
>" TranquilSpirit "

"As for conduct, I would say it would be a tie."

That literally makes no sense, his sources are foul "my cousin is a source".. His logic is ignorant and so forth.

"that seemed to be more of an attack on each other than actually trying to sustain their argument, "

Yes well PRO didn't counter most of my arguments.

"even an armed citizen probably wouldn't know what to do once panic has set in. No mock fight, video game, or paintball match could prepare anyone for a real life survival situation."

It depends on the person, if you give an inexperienced person these things it won't make a difference.. But you have to understand that not all concealed carry gun holders are 15 year old girls. Most people that would instantly panic wouldn't likely be concealed carry pistol holders.

All in all I would say I easily won over him on every aspect, but my arguments weren't very good due to PRO not being able to mentally grasp anything I say.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheFlyingPham// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to make up people profile and scenarios to go with them, although they were a good attempt, it is a farcry from realistic and his only rebuttle for getting called out on it was basically saying "pro is stupid for not being able to understand" cons scenarios sound like they are coming from a movie. Shooting at a gun range and playing video games is not enough to keep you calm under a surprise attack, even regular military a surprise attack still affects you - speaking from combat medical experience. The drop in suicide rate is Australia is surprising which really caught my attention. I've known too many people that committed suicide by guns. And that 74% drop is too big to say it's not beneficial to citizens.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G, or sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by TranquilSpirit 1 year ago
TranquilSpirit
Before the debate, I agreed with Con. Upon reading the debate, I have shifted to the side of Pro.

As for conduct, I would say it would be a tie. Though there were a few times, by both parties, that seemed to be more of an attack on each other than actually trying to sustain their argument, it stayed rather neutral on both sides for the most part.

As for who had better spelling and grammar, I would have to vote for Con. There were spelling and grammatical errors present in both arguments, however Pro's errors were a little more prevalent in his argument.

I would have to vote Pro when it comes to a convincing argument. A good part of the argument was based on real life events that have happened, and how they could have been prevented if citizens would have been armed. Pro makes a good argument that in a real firefight, even an armed citizen probably wouldn't know what to do once panic has set in. No mock fight, video game, or paintball match could prepare anyone for a real life survival situation.

As for sources, the argument was again tied. During the acceptance round, it was specific about sources not being used unless otherwise asked for. The argument was strongly knowledge/opinion based and both lived up to such agreement.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
I was talking about the rally in Texas where nearly everyone in that building was carrying guns. The situation happened where one cop with a pistol managed to stop two terrorists with automatic weapons. You have to admit he was pretty lucky to win, and if he wasn't lucky those two terrorists would of swarmed the rally and (if not the entire civilian population at the rally carrying guns) killed anyone long before backup cops could arrive.

When I replied to you saying "I never said it would stop the attack 100%"

What I was saying was if the 30 (1/15 of the population injured in the Paris shootings) had concealed carry pistols the chances of the outcome being more positive is very high, but I never said it could (or would) stop the attack 100%..

BTW make a counter-debate because I am really astounded people agree with his ignorance. Maybe you can shed some light?
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
elijah452, you said, "It isn't disputed and 100% fact... That if the people at the rally were similarly armed (or rather unarmed) with a police force as incompetent as the ones in Paris.. Perhaps over a hundred people could be killed."

I responded, " you claim to be 100% certain."

You responded, "I never said it would stop the attack 100%"

Perhaps you are the one who needs to learn to read more carefully. I'm not being biased.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
{Pro]
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
It's too bad con voters don't know how to read. Whatever it only proves the biased.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
I never said it would stop the attack 100%, but the chances of it making some sort of positive effect is greater then waiting 3 minutes for the police..

" the evidence suggests that guns do far more harm than good."

Guns or gun control? Because criminals will still get guns NOMATTER how strict your gun laws are.
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
"It's a lost cause even trying to debate illogical people like you."

I was thinking the exact same thing. I really did try to see things from your perspective. To your credit, I feel that mass shooters do target gun free zones and the some of the arguments that say they do not are flimsy at best. I was willing to consider your side until you claimed that the armed citizens present during the Curtis Culwell Center attack would have stopped the gunman if the police hadn't. You have no way of knowing this, but you claim to be 100% certain. Does that not seem illogical? Or that people only mistake identity if the environment is pitch black.

I'm still comparing statistics and various studies, but so far, the evidence suggests that guns do far more harm than good.
No votes have been placed for this debate.