The Instigator
elijah452
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRealGod
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Gun Control Is Still Bad

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheRealGod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 706 times Debate No: 85165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

elijah452

Con

EXTENSION OF (http://www.debate.org...)

Somehow people believed your side was right when the arguments you made were incredibly ignorant and weak. You ignored most of my counters and hooked the debate into a corner. I want to continue debating.

>"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."

You have yet to explain what kind of gun control measures will realistically work. The only direct option you have told me is to impose a "waiting list".. Sorry but a waiting list is practically useless in terms of gun control measures.. Unless you are in favor of abolishing all gun laws except for a "waiting list"(you would practically be agreeing with me at this point) then I am going to need more reasons.

>"He refuted my Bundy source because he did not read that today's situation with those terrorist started from years ago."

You gave me an article that doesn't support your claims that said link is a "source". Then you told me to read the articles source.. What?

>"He believes video games and shooting at a gun range will help people in a terrorist situation when instead and does not show proof"

Are you really debating this? It's common sense that it helps, by what extent varies extremely but obviously not a large amount. The American and Canadian military both incorporate video game shooting simulators AND firing ranges in their training. Why would they be doing such things if it brings no benefits to them?

>"because it will get more people harmed"

Perhaps. It's extremely situational and depending on many factors.

>"When asked to show his OWN sources for his BOP on Germany he simply just tells you to google it"

Because you're acting like a bloody moron. It's like asking me for a source on 9/11, but okay ill take 10 seconds out of my time to link you.
http://www.bbc.com... There ya go, one link out of the thousands for you to read.

>"cited sources that shows the decline of gun violence and suicide rates in Australia"

I asked for a source, not an article. I want to be able to read the numbers.

>"In conclusion, the only negative side that con has proven is that gun control makes law abiding citizens wait for their guns."

That would be true if all guns laws were abolished except for making law abiding citizens wait. Is that your final argument?

>"Because in Australia suicide rates by guns dropped 74% while suicide rates by other means did not rise"

Of course suicide rates will drop when there are less guns, but it didn't change the overall suicide numbers very much.

>"showing that helps people out as well as their crime rate due to gun violence dropping."

Show me a direct source(a numerical graph or chart) (not an article) showing Australias gun violence going down.

>"The reason is simple, it makes it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns"

What kind of criminals? Petty solo criminals with low intelligence (which makeup a small amount of the overall crime statistics) Or huge gangs and intelligent lone wolves that make up an overwhelming percentage of crime.

Give me the name of any country in the world that has successfully kept guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs.(hint... you can't) (EDIT, except for North Korea)..

>"When they have to learn to deconstruct and reconstruct how to get their guns it takes time, to learn that skill,"

This just proves how ignorant you are about guns, have you ever owned or taken a gun apart before? You realize deconstructing guns isn't some huge complicated thing you make it out to be. Even a noobie with no experience can watch step by step processes that take about 5-10 minutes. This is really something I would like you to counter me on because this is a major hole in your argument.

>"as well importing which takes a while."

takes a while? As opposed to what not getting a gun? Criminals and gangs can make border runs and have everything needed to supply group in about a day or two. This really doesn't hinder gangs is anyway. Some gangs can border run guns faster then the waiting list to get a gun legally. What are you going to say about that?

>"In the time it takes them to learn it, they have a higher chance at getting caught."

Uhm...... what? Do you realize what you are saying? Let's take this into another perspective for a moment and compare it to drug gangs and drug running.
Criminals can smuggle the ingredients and seeds to make anything from meth labs to Marijuana grow ops, they have to grow/process those drugs for several weeks to several months. They do this constantly and only a very few get caught. Smuggling (and rebuilding) guns is not only easier but takes an overwhelmingly less amount of time. So your argument is invalid.

>"Even them just looking for someone that can already do it has an inherent risk."

Like I said before, the fact that you even say this shows your extreme gap in knowledge, and ANYONE that voted for you in the last debate that did so for that argument is also extremely ignorant. I don't know how else to explain this to you. Ask any gun owner and they will tell you that they disassemble their guns for cleaning, and partially doing it is called "field stripping".. 99% of gun owners do this... Full stripping is just a few extra steps taking several more minutes. But really your ignorance blows my mind.

>"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"

How is that a contradiction? Do you know what that word means? An overwhelming amount of mass shootings are done by psychopaths, and most of the white males that have done these shootings are psychopaths. Where is the contradiction? More idiotic ignorance I see.

>"he says they just have anger problems."

More ignorance and a basic failure to grasp such a simple understanding. Let me make it easier for you to understand. Many people are angry with certain issues, like , racism, hate for women (misogyny)... Not just with whites but with blacks also. They may have persecution complexes or feel discriminated against. This makes them angry and want to lash out, but most people don't actually lash out... Why?? Because they have strong humane emotions and social barriers that never take them to the next level, but psychopaths have many brain dysfunctions, things like limited empathy and emotions, extra-violent tendencies and so forth. To put it in a nutshell they are mentally insane. So when psychopaths get angry they have a MUCH higher chance at lashing out as opposed to someone who isn't insane. Do you understand now?

>"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."

You are making my point. Before when I said something along the lines of "if 30 people in the Paris attack had guns there would most likely be a positive outcome as opposed to no guns" that's what I meant.. I didn't expect the 30 people to automatically charge in like the movies and save everyone without getting a scratch. In reality perhaps 25 people would instantly run away, I would take a good guess that there would be at least one person willing to go in and attempt to stop the shooter, and all it takes is one guy with a gun to POTENTIALLY change the situation. Who really knows what would happen. There are a billion possibilities. Plus that was one isolated case.. What about the Liveleak video I sent you of the terrorists running in the open streets shooting random people, and there were MANY people watching from the windows and on the roofs of buildings. Are you seriously telling me that if even one of the people on the roofs or in the windows had a gun that the situation wouldn't of gotten better? Heck there were about 30+ people recording the situation as the terrorists ran along the streets. Imagine instead of a camera scope it was the scope or sights of a gun.
TheRealGod

Pro

>"You have yet to explain what kind of gun control measures will realistically work."
You never asked me what kind of measures would realistically work, but I still gave you ways it will work, make it at least as difficult as getting a drivers license, you have to show you can use it, as well as knowing all the gun laws. Add in mental health screening and it could work. Of course the process would change and adapt as people find ways around it but it's a work in progress. Also add a routine check up where you must go to a designated range and show you can still adequately handle the weapons in your possessions, of course though however the program would also compensate for abnormal contingencies, such as when a person is injured and misses the scheduled check ups.

>"You gave me an article that doesn't support your claims that said link is a "source". Then you told me to read the articles source.. What?"
Let me be clear here cause you have confused the two links I gave you.
This is the Bundy incident that I know you did not check. You wanted proof on how the situation years ago started. Why they burned the lands and crop.
"The Hammonds set a fire in 2001 that ultimately burned 139 acres of BLM land. The ranchers say they began it on their own land with agency approval, but prosecutors say they were in fact seeking to cover up illegal deer hunting on the BLM acreage near their property. A second, much smaller fire in 2006 burned another acre of BLM land during a "burn ban" imposed to allow agency firefighters to combat a blaze caused by lightning."
- http://thinkprogress.org...

The second link consisted of data about Australia's statistics as requested when they made stricter gun laws, reducing crime rates by guns as well as a major drop in suicide rates by guns.
http://www.vox.com...
Now I know you only read the headlines and never read the full story so here are the links to the sources that are in the articles. these are the actual studies.
http://andrewleigh.org... page 9 you have a chart
Here is a link to multiple studies about gun control preventing suicide rates http://www.vox.com...

>"Are you really debating this? It's common sense that it helps, by what extent varies extremely but obviously not a large amount. The American and Canadian military both incorporate video game shooting simulators AND firing ranges in their training. Why would they be doing such things if it brings no benefits to them?"

Sorry I googled it and what came up was actually the fact that it was mainly used as a recruitment tool. As well as being way more realistic than ARMA or any other video games. HOWEVER the military does HOPE that game developers will make video games a lot more realistic so that they may be able to implement it so that soliders can see what effects happens depending on the actions they make on the battlefield for example during an airport hostage situation, or when dealing with diplomats. Which means that the games out today are not anywhere near the level yet to be beneficial in a terrorist attack.

>"Perhaps. It's extremely situational and depending on many factors."
This proves my point! It's extremely situational! Gun control would keep guns out of the hands of the people that would make things worst.

>"Because you're acting like a bloody moron. It's like asking me for a source on 9/11, but okay ill take 10 seconds out of my time to link you.
http://www.bbc.com... There ya go, one link out of the thousands for you to read."
This is the exact reason how I know you only read headlines. The link you gave me is a news article on top of that it actual hurts your claim about refugees raping people, most of the news is them saying not to jump to conclusions about the attackers being refuges from your article "The justice minister warned against linking the crimes to the issue of migrants and refugees."

>"I asked for a source, not an article. I want to be able to read the numbers."
I linked the sources above that were in the article, the article gave you the numbers but it doesn't seem like you read it. So sift through the studies for the articles, however if you skipped it before ill tell you again there is a chart on page 9 of the study.

>"Of course suicide rates will drop when there are less guns, but it didn't change the overall suicide numbers very much."
74% of suicide by firearms drops. that means 74 out of every 100 people would normally commit suicide by a gun survived, AS WELL AS THE RATE OF NON-GUN SUICIDE rate NOT INCREASE. That means the OVERALL suicide numbers did change
"However, the paper's findings about suicide were statistically significant " and astounding. Buying back 3,500 guns correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline."
>Show me a direct source(a numerical graph or chart) (not an article) showing Australias gun violence going down.
The above sources shows the figures already

>"What kind of criminals? Petty solo criminals with low intelligence (which makeup a small amount of the overall crime statistics) Or huge gangs and intelligent lone wolves that make up an overwhelming percentage of crime.

Give me the name of any country in the world that has successfully kept guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs.(hint... you can't) (EDIT, except for North Korea).."
No one said it keeps it out of the hands of criminals 100% but it does make access harder. Australia is one country

>" You realize deconstructing guns isn't some huge complicated thing you make it out to be. Even a noobie with no experience can watch step by step processes that take about 5-10 minutes. This is really something I would like you to counter me on because this is a major hole in your argument."
It actually is not a major hole, yes once you learn how to do it can be don easily, you still have to learn a new skill and learning a new skill takes time and patience, it adds in to the planning, just like anyone can learn how to make quick and simple bomb with house hold items. It still takes time, skills, patience that must be factored in to any planning. For example if a kid wanted to get a gun but had to sneak it across the border, he'd have to watch it on youtube over and over because you aren't going to know how to do something just watching a video once, as he watches the video over and over a parent can discover the kid is planning something that might not be good. While the son is away the the parent could discover the kids manifest and realize that their child may be planning a mass shooting. This is something that actually happened to one of my teacher's student. The kid was a bright kid and did not have an IQ under 70 and everyone thought he was a good kid. Luckily it ended with my teacher mentoring him and turning the kids life around.
>"This really doesn't hinder gangs is anyway. Some gangs can border run guns faster then the waiting list to get a gun legally. What are you going to say about that?"
Actually statistically speaking the more you do something the more likely you are to get caught.

You contradicted yourself and just broke up my argument into two pieces. You originally said "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." then you say most mass shooters are psychopaths, and we know most mass shooters tend to be a white male, so which is it? are they angry? or are they psychopaths

>"This makes them angry and want to lash out, but most people don't actually lash out... Why?? Because they have strong humane emotions and social barriers that never take them to the next level"
Actually many people do lash out, however they do so in their own ways, guns isn't the only way to relieve stress and anger, also not all Psychopaths are violent there are white collar criminals who are psychopaths as well.

"You are making my point"
I am not making your point. Yes we do not know how people will react once bullets began to fly in a terrorist attack. However the people that would make the situation worse should not have a gun. What if one of those people mistakes the rare person that could save everyone as a terrorist and kills that person who was a responsible gun owner?
Debate Round No. 1
elijah452

Con

>"You never asked me what kind of measures would realistically work, but I still gave you ways it will work, "

So what you are saying is that you gave me unrealistic ways? Yeah that sounds about right.

>"you have to show you can use it"

So like I said in my last argument, having to show a government official how to operate a gun in a training course sounds well in practice, but in reality an extreme waste of taxpayer money and time. Nearly 99.99% of gun owners would past this "test" in a breeze. Criminals and the mentally ill will also past this test (except for the extremely low intelligence,or OVERT physical disability) This is extremely elementary and pointless. Tell me again EXACTLY why you want gun control in the first place, is it to stop crime? Increase safety, or just to annoy the law abiding gun owners to death?

So like I said, give me gun control laws you believe would stop criminals and the mentally ill.

"as well as knowing all the gun laws."

Once again I repeat myself. Sounds good in practicality but it's extremely wasteful...It wouldn't stop criminals, psychopaths,mentally ill.. Only extremely low IQ people. Do I need to add that criminals will still break the law nomatter how much you make them study, and lawful people won't break the laws nomatter how much you make them study.

>" Add in mental health screening and it could work"

Again you have yet to describe me what "mental health screening" means in reality. It's like you are giving me a cheap buzzword. The government can't just press a button and magically find out everything about you. Mental health checks and criminal record checks only work if you have a criminal record or such an overt mental illness it needs to be labeled by the government.

Most mentally ill people won't seek treatment or spill how they are feeling to a doctor. Mentally ill people that have desires to kill and harm other people won't go out and admit everything (causing him to be put on a list) unless his intelligence is EXTREMELY low. Almost every serial killer and mass murderer (around 95% for MM and 70% for SK, but estimates are rough) would pass a medical check. It's logical to believe if these SKs didn't have guns they would use knives instead, and my estimations use all deaths not just gun deaths. So like I said before, your proposed laws would only stop the EXTREMELY low intelligent mentally-ill from getting guns.

All serious criminals aren't stupid enough to buy a gun of they have a criminal record, so they launder guns from people who buy them that don't have criminal records. Even gangs use the fresh members(without a record) as a bypass of the medical and criminal checks. So like I said before, your proposed laws would only stop the EXTREMELY low intelligent criminals from getting guns.

>"Of course the process would change and adapt as people find ways around it but it's a work in progress."

You are saying short buzzwords but not actually saying anything that makes any sense. The system is already being manipulated and no government official has been able to find ways around it. So what do you system adaptations do you propose Einstein?

>" Also add a routine check up where you must go to a designated range and show you can still adequately handle the weapons in your possessions"

Aaaaaaaand this would stop criminals and the mentally ill how? Also how much do you think it would cost the government to hire a firearms specialist to "test" every gun shooter at a range. If that system was implemented in America where gun ownership is high, it would be so outrageously expensive that it would be scrapped in the first month.Keep trying.

>"A second, much smaller fire in 2006 burned another acre of BLM land during a "burn ban" imposed to allow agency firefighters to combat a blaze caused by lightning."

It's a he-said-she-said argument. Not a valid source.

>"The second link consisted of data about Australia's statistics as requested when they made stricter gun laws, reducing crime rates by guns as well as a major drop in suicide rates by guns."

I need a numerical graph or chart showing what you say is true, you can't give me an article where a writer says "gun violence is going down in Australia" and have me expect to take it as true and factual. Next.

>"Now I know you only read the headlines and never read the full story so here are the links to the sources that are in the articles. these are the actual studies."

Then link me the sources in the article that are relevant to this debate. I don't have time to do your research for you.
(EDIT).. I will actually do the research for you because I know you refuse to admit your wrong doing and keep showing me garbage as an excuse.

http://thebelltowers.com...
http://origin.factcheck.org...
And here are government statistics
http://www.aic.gov.au...

There I did your own work for you, and you are wrong.Next.....

>"Sorry I googled it and what came up was actually the fact that it was mainly used as a recruitment tool."

Video games have been used in recruitment tools for the army, but the American military AND the Canadian military both use simulations (aka video games) in their training. Sorry but do some more research.

>"Which means that the games out today are not anywhere near the level yet to be beneficial in a terrorist attack."

It's situational like I said, what's so hard for you to understand?

>"This proves my point! It's extremely situational! Gun control would keep guns out of the hands of the people that would make things worst."

I said video games are situational, how does it prove your point? I have debunked every gun control argument you have given me.

" The link you gave me is a news article"

I knew you would say that. You wanted proof the refugees were committing crimes on a mass scale and article from a news agency is sufficient. I am proving to you the information exists so an article by the BBC (widely accepted News company) is relevant (or I can give you thousands of other links).. So what I am saying isn't BS.

On the other hand I don't want articles as sources when it comes to disputes (When we both don't agree), because an article adds nothing positive or negative to the argument source wise. So let me ask you this, are you saying that the massive rapes in Germany (by refugees) is a lie and non-existent? Shall we debate about that? It would really be silly and only show your utter stupidity.

>"However, the paper's findings about suicide were statistically significant " and astounding. Buying back 3,500 guns correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline."

http://www.mindframe-media.info...
As you see suicides have been on a natural decline since 2002, when the firearms ban was in 1996-1997. So unless you are telling me that in those 6 years that firearm control law somehow changes anything. It didn't. If the drop in 2002 happened in 1997-1998 then perhaps I would agree with you, but it didn't so I don't.

>"No one said it keeps it out of the hands of criminals 100% but it does make access harder. Australia is one country"

Funny how the only country you can give me with a lower illegal gun problem is one surrounded by 5,170 km of water to the nearest smuggling point with extremely tight borders. Not to mention most of the land is forest and hard to smuggle. The laws haven't made gun crime drop in Australia but natural barriers. Many countries have similar if not more gun control laws with a more negative effect.. So cut the BS. It's like saying Hawaii is the lowest guncrime state in America because of it's gun control laws.. Give me a break.

>", you still have to learn a new skill and learning a new skill takes time and patience, "

This isn't building a house, this isn't fixing a car. It's on the same terms as LEGOS. You can follow step by step videos on Youtube in 5 minutes. Seriously look it up yourself. You are only making a fool of yourself to keep debating me on this issue.

>" it adds in to the planning"

5 minutes

>" just like anyone can learn how to make quick and simple bomb with house hold items."

Yeah you're so ignorant it's a lost cause. I personally work with explosive as part of my job. Creating bombs with real destructive force (not talking about shitty gunpowder pipebombs) takes a huge amount of work and skill. Not to mention dealing with incredibly unstable chemicals. You also need primary and secondary charges as well as a detonator. This would take an inexperienced person several weeks to a month (and possibly his life). To make a simple small boom. Like I said before, your ignorance is starting to hurt my head. Please give up for your own sake.

>"Actually statistically speaking the more you do something the more likely you are to get caught."

That's why gangs and criminals cycle cars and people to avoid detection, they have been doing it for years with drugs. Nothing would change if they switched to guns tomorrow.

>"You contradicted yourself and just broke up my argument into two pieces. You originally said "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 which is it? are they angry? or are they psychopaths"

Sigh.......Can you just not read or are you a bad troll? Let me explain it to you again, about 2-5% of the population is psychopathic/sociopathic, just because a person has these tendencies doesn't make them automatically go out and kill people, but it does EXTREMELY increase the chances of doing so because of said mental problems.

"rare person that could save everyone as a terrorist"

What?.........Word Limit.
TheRealGod

Pro

TheRealGod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRealGod

Pro

Sorry if I have any bad wordings I am sick at the moment.

Anyways you cling to the idea that it would be just as easy to get a gun with gun control place nation wide. You dismiss my ideas by saying I am using buzzwords so I will give you a link to a description. And just because you never asked me for a realistic way for control does not mean the ideas I gave were unrealistic. It helps close loopholes. Gun ranges can be changed so that they must be certified to sell guns. Current DMV's can be used to assist implementing test and starting out, and again it would be monitored so that it changes as people bypass the system. Having a brand new system is not going to be perfect right of the bat. It's not a waste of taxpayer money because it helps citizens out especially those that are suicidal. It doesn't stop people with extremely low IQ, there are folks who are very intelligent, yet cannot pass their drivers exam. Show me the numbers that show gun control ONLY prevents those with low IQ or are mentally ill from getting a gun.
>"All serious criminals aren't stupid enough to buy a gun of they have a criminal record, so they launder guns from people who buy them that don't have criminal records." Well that is one of the loopholes we would want to close, even 80% of gun owners agree with closing that loophole.
Change and adapt are buzzwords as well? Does the DMV not update their test as needed? Do medical professional need to prove they have continuous education? Change and adapt as in change happens so that the process adapts as people find ways around the system.

>"I need a numerical graph or chart showing what you say is true, you can't give me an article where a writer says "gun violence is going down in Australia" and have me expect to take it as true and factual. Next."
Did you not see the university studies that I linked that contained the graphs?

The sources you gave me contained BROAD crime violence and not gun violence, we are talking about the reduction of gun violence as well as a drop in suicide rates.

>"Video games have been used in recruitment tools for the army, but the American military AND the Canadian military both use simulations (aka video games) in their training. Sorry but do some more research."
The simulations the military uses is completely different from the games available on the market that the average person plays.

>"It's situational like I said, what's so hard for you to understand?"
Yes I understand it's very situational they would have to be at there the exact moment the terrorist drew their weapons and hope to draw their own faster and hit. A fun little cartoon for you http://i.imgur.com...

Sorry a new sources is not a valid source, Fox news is a widely accepted new company and well fox news is fox news. I want actual numbers like you want from me to back up two of your claims, the first being refugees are raping people and the second that rape did not exist before the refugees came. What I gave you were STUDIES not articles done by universities

>"As you see suicides have been on a natural decline since 2002, when the firearms ban was in 1996-1997. So unless you are telling me that in those 6 years that firearm control law somehow changes anything. It didn't. If the drop in 2002 happened in 1997-1998 then perhaps I would agree with you, but it didn't so I don't."
The article you gave me were for suicide in general, and even though the firearms control began in 1996-1997 it's not like they received everyone's firearm immediately, take into account that some suicidal people did not give up their firearms it makes sense to see a decline not taking effect immediately.

Even though taking apart and putting a gun back together is like legos it still makes it harder than just being able to hand someone cash to get a gun.
And you can make a simple fertilizer bomb with fertilizer and a PCP pipe that wouldn't take longer than 30 minutes. A bomb doesn't have to be complicated it just has to go boom

>"rare person that could save everyone as a terrorist"
"What?.........Word Limit."

Sorry what I meant to say was that the person that could make a difference could be shot and killed by someone else trying to make a difference.

Gun violence doesn't just stem from criminal activity, it happens by everyday people. Nine percent of Americans report signs of "impulsive angry behavior" (such as breaking things and getting into fights)"and say they own a gun.
Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.
Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides.
Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.
A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
People with access to more guns tend to kill more people"with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates"as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.
for every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

With all these facts it's no wonder that 80% of gun owners believe we need better control.
Debate Round No. 3
elijah452

Con

>"Anyways you cling to the idea that it would be just as easy to get a gun with gun control place nation wide"

If you are a criminal yes, if you are a law abiding citizen no.

>"You dismiss my ideas by saying I am using buzzwords so I will give you a link to a description. "

They ARE buzzwords, gun control, background check, medical check are all buzzwords. For example if I say "I am going to implement gun control"... It really says nothing about my policies and whatnot.

I don't want a link, I want you to use your own words instead of sending me articles.

>"And just because you never asked me for a realistic way for control does not mean the ideas I gave were unrealistic."

I assumed when I asked that you would give me realistic options.

>" It helps close loopholes"

More buzzwords, describe what loopholes are in gun control laws and what you will do to fix it.

>"Gun ranges can be changed so that they must be certified to sell guns"

And this will help stop gun crime and gun violence how? Just gun control laws for the sake of controlling guns? AKA police state.

>" Current DMV's can be used to assist implementing test and starting out, "

What tests? Speak in full sentences

>"and again it would be monitored so that it changes as people bypass the system"

What is the system? How does it monitor? How does it change?

>" It's not a waste of taxpayer money because it helps citizens out especially those that are suicidal."

If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it whether or not they have a gun, the golden gate bridge has MANY suicides a year.. Should we ban bridges?

>"very intelligent, yet cannot pass their drivers exam."

Sounds like you are giving me an oxymoron, and tell me this.. What percentage of criminals and gangs are unable to commit crimes because one person can't pass their exam.. Yeah none.

>"Show me the numbers that show gun control ONLY prevents those with low IQ or are mentally ill from getting a gun."

Again, gun control is a buzzword that means nothing. For example EVERY single gun control argument that you have given me can be easily passed by virtually any criminal, mass murderer, serial killer, psychopath with an IQ over 70. If you would list me EVERY gun control measure you would implement I will respond to each one.

>"Well that is one of the loopholes we would want to close, even 80% of gun owners agree with closing that loophole."

How is that a loophole? They buy guns with people who don't have a record. It would be impossible to close that loophole.

>"Does the DMV not update their test as needed?"

Sigh... People can still buy a car without a licence and drive on the road. The licence tests are only for law abiding citizens with a high enough intelligence to complete a common sense test.

>" Change and adapt as in change happens so that the process adapts as people find ways around the system."

Thousands of government and police officials have been trying to find ways to change and adapt the system to no avail.. How do you think you will change it?

>"The simulations the military uses is completely different from the games available on the market that the average person plays."

Actually no, ARMA is a good representation of the real simulator.

>"and hope to draw their own faster and hit. A fun little cartoon for you"

The cartoon brought up a good point but it's simply wrong and very situational. Perhaps in a large open school if someone started shouting "crazed person with a gun shooting!" and most students in the school carried guns, but school shootings don't really work like that. They usually happen in a section of the school while the rest of the students escape or get isolated in a room or corner. (With the initial shooting) Normal people aren't going to be running around the halls looking for students. They are going to run and hide. Mass shooters have the intentions to kill as many people as possible before they are stopped. They wouldn't have time to play games. They storm the building and start shooting. It's pretty easy to spot who the crazed gunman is.

>"Sorry a new sources is not a valid source,"

It is if I am trying to show you news (aka information).. You just sound like a bratty child who knows he can't win this debate and wants to resort to childish games, but heres a wiki with plenty of sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

>" firearms control began in 1996-1997 it's not like they received everyone's firearm immediately,"

They rounded up most of the firearms by the end of 1997. Are you seriously telling me that the police waited 6 FULL years? Tell me you are joking?

>" it still makes it harder than just being able to hand someone cash to get a gun."

Just give it up, your ignorance is pitiful. 5 minutes to reassemble each gun is peanuts for a large gang..

>"And you can make a simple fertilizer bomb with fertilizer and a PCP pipe that wouldn't take longer than 30 minutes. A bomb doesn't have to be complicated'

Ohh a low explosive Potassium nitrate/ammonium nitrate mixture... Yeah you would need a huge amount of specialized fertilizer (one that requires a licence to get) if you want the explosion to be effective. So no it's quite hard to make a fertilizer bomb nowadays.

>"it just has to go boom"

It would go boom, but it would be pretty pathetic. If your goal is causing terrorism firearms would be much more useful then garden bombs.

>"signs of "impulsive angry behavior" (such as breaking things and getting into fights)"and say they own a gun."

And what percentage of those people actually take out a gun and start shooting?

>"Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively."

and?? How many of them actually do shooting?

>" those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without."

and? You don't realize cause and effect. These people would be threatening regardless of they have a firearm or not. Just most people that would have threatening behavior would also be more likely to carry a gun.

>"Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides."

Looks like the law is working perfectly fine.

>"Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans."

Gang related gun crime?=no... Crime done by career criminals?=no. BTW California never has mass shootings or serial killings because of their strict gun laws right?

>"A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater."

That's the nature of the beast. You choose to carry a gun and you accept the responsibilities that come with it.

>"With all these facts it's no wonder that 80% of gun owners believe we need better control."

80% of the entirety of America? Or a small specifically chosen polling group? Yeah thought so.
TheRealGod

Pro

Is this a debate on gun control or a debate on how to create a gun control solution? That is completely off topic, because you don't prove how it is just as easy to get a gun if you have assemble and reassemble, when you do that you can't go to a gun store, you can't go to a private seller you have more of an inherent risk. The loopholes I am taking about is the ability for private sellers and gun shows to sell their guns without a background, or the ability to sell their guns online without a background check either. And out of 75 million gun owners 5 million of which are NRA members 80% of those 75million gun owners support extending criminal background check to the sales of all guns. That's not a small portion of the survey. How is it wrong? They acknowledge that every shooting is different it shows the high possibility of friendly fire, that is the point of it. Even if no one runs up to you informing you, when you find out grab you gun looking for the gun you may find another good guy with a gun. Sorry a new station is not a valid source of information, look at Fox News it calls itself news but it can hardly be called news.
They round up the legal firearms but the illega were still out there, which takes a little longer, and that shows the distribution of guns decline.

>"just give it up, 5 minutes to reassemble each gun is peanuts for a large gang"
How will they get the parts for these guns that are easy to assemble when distribution is slower? They would have to sneak it across national boarders, and then there is transport time. So although it may take a short time to reassemble once you learn how, it takes extra resources to get the pieces.

Molotovs are just gasoline in a glass bottle with a rag, you have a bomb that way.

These people act more aggressive because they own a gun, they don't own a gun because they are more aggressive, if that was the case it would be even more of a reason for gun control.
It doesn't matter if they start shooting, they are still causing problems, and being violent which is not good for the law abiding citizens, an aggressive driver could cause an accident, he acts like he is immune because he has a gun, the violent tendencies are still related to owning a gun.

The gun death rates are generally lower not completely abolished. Lower death rates overall is a good thing.

"That's the bathe of the beast"
So the nature of the beast is having 4 times the inherent risk to injury or death? That does not sound like it is a good thing.

Mother Jones

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.
"Dave Gilson on Thu. January 31, 2013 6:01 AM PDT

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes. (This article has been updated.)

MYTH #1: THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

Fact-check: With as many as 310 million privately owned guns in America, it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 70 to 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

gun ownership

Sources: Congressional Research Service, Small Arms Survey

MYTH #2: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE"PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Fact-check: People with access to more guns tend to kill more people"with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates"as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.
" A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
" Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.

Sources: Injury Prevention (gun ownership), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (deaths)

MYTH #3: AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY.

Fact-check: Various studies suggest that being armed increases your chances of getting into a confrontation.
" Nine percent of Americans report signs of "impulsive angry behavior" (such as breaking things and getting into fights)"and say they own a gun.

" Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.
" Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
" In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides.

MYTH #4: MORE GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS CAN STOP RAMPAGING BAD GUYS.

Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0
" Chances that a shooting in a hospital emergency department involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

MYTH #5: KEEPING A GUN AT HOME MAKES YOU SAFER.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
" For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
" 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
" In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

MYTH #6: CARRYING A GUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE MAKES YOU SAFER.

Fact-check: In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
" In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
" A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

MYTH #7: GUNS MAKE WOMEN SAFER.

Fact-check: In 2013, more than 5 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
" A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
" One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

MYTH #8: "VICIOUS, VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES" DESERVE MORE BLAME THAN GUNS.

Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after the Newtown massacre. So what's up with Japan?

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey, Centers for Disease Control, GunPolicyOrg/University of Sydney

MYTH #9: MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ARE BECOMING GUN OWNERS.

Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
" About half of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 37 percent say they do. Overall, about a third of Americans own a gun.
" Around 75 percent of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby have made it easier for people to get guns illegally. And existing gun laws aren't preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands: More than 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally.
" As much as 40 percent of all gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. In a survey, 40 percent of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes said they'd gotten them this way. More than 80 percent of gun owners support closing this loophole.
" An investigation found that 62 percent of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
" When researchers posed as illegal "straw" buyers, 20 percent of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to them.
" The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have a permanent director for seven years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.
Debate Round No. 4
elijah452

Con

>"Is this a debate on gun control or a debate on how to create a gun control solution? That is completely off topic, "

No it isn't. I made a debate on why control is bad, you say gun control is good. Tell me what gun control method is good in detail and how it stops criminals, murders ETC.

>"because you don't prove how it is just as easy to get a gun if you have assemble and reassemble, "

My god you are still on this topic? Assembling guns is something virtually every gun owner does. When you buy a old or used firearm you have to disassemble it to get the oils and gunk out of it. This is probably done by over a million people all around the world per day. So yeah I suggest you stop now.

>"The loopholes I am taking about is the ability for private sellers and gun shows to sell their guns without a background,"

Criminals and lawbreaking people are going to exchange guns without a background check. So background checks only limit the law abiding citizen.

>"75 million gun owners 5 million of which are NRA members 80% of those 75million gun owners support extending criminal background check to the sales of all guns. "

Source please.

>: "Sorry a new station is not a valid source of information, look at Fox News it calls itself news but it can hardly be called news."

I can literally link you thousands of arguments, you can turn on the TV and read it in the newspaper. You are only being delusional and self-denying if you still disagree with me.

"They round up the legal firearms but the illega were still out there, which takes a little longer, and that shows the distribution of guns decline."

Over a period of 6-7 FULL years? Yeah no you aren't fooling anyone.

>"How will they get the parts for these guns that are easy to assemble when distribution is slower? "

What?

>"it takes extra resources to get the pieces."

For nearly unlimited untraceable automatic weapons.. Invaluable.

>"Molotovs are just gasoline in a glass bottle with a rag, you have a bomb that way."

"A bomb is an explosive weapon that uses the exothermic reaction of an explosive material to provide an extremely sudden and violent release of energy." NOT A BOMB.

Try being a criminal, mass murdurer, gangster with only molotovs in your arsenal. Good luck.

>"These people act more aggressive because they own a gun, they don't own a gun because they are more aggressive, if that was the case it would be even more of a reason for gun control"

If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, if it wasn't a knife it would be an illegally obtained gun. These aggressive people are kept in check when good guy have guns too.

>"they are still causing problems, and being violent which is not good for the law abiding citizens"

There is always going to be bad in society, you can blame drugs, you can blame poverty, or you can blame guns. Things like these will always happen nomatter what laws you try and pass. Like I said, good guys with guns keep the bad guys with guns in check.

>"The gun death rates are generally lower not completely abolished. Lower death rates overall is a good thing."

about a 5 point difference. Very minimal for the cost of freedom.

>"So the nature of the beast is having 4 times the inherent risk to injury or death? That does not sound like it is a good thing"

Source please.. There are more factors then just gun ownership.. Look at monolithic Switzerland for example.. The gun ownership rate is virtually 100%. Gun crime and violence is also non-existent. It has almost reverse the laws as Australia yet less gun crime then Australia (and the rest of the world) What do you say for that?

>"Mother Jones"

Sam Jones..

I don't read copy pasted arguments..

>"More than 80 percent of gun owners support closing this loophole."

Again I ask for source.

>"An investigation found that 62 percent of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check."

And what will change when gun laws are passed? Nothing.
-----------
By the way you have not given me your gun control arguments yet, I have been asking for two rounds now. You just spit out garbage and copy-pasted paragraphs from the internet... It's not helping your case.
TheRealGod

Pro

Your reason for why gun control is bad is because, it will take longer for good guys to get guns while it is easier for bad guys to get guns, as well as good guys with guns keep bad guys with guns in check. However this has been proven false because for every one time a gun is used in self defense there are at 7 times that assault has happened by a gun owner, from a governments study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You don't seem to understand my point that when the distribution of guns is more difficult you still have to gather the parts by other means.

How can the criminals obtain the guns if the citizens that don't have a record can no longer sell it to them? That is the loophole that a majority of gun owners support.

Here is your source for gun owners supporting stricter background checks and closing the loopholes available.
https://cdn.americanprogress.org...

How about you link my the numbers that like you demand that I do. I am always able to send you a valid source that has its studies cited linked and source, again a news station is not a valid source.

Gathering illegal contraband from millions of people will take more time than a couple of years.

The unlimited supply of automatic weapons is due to very lenient trade market.

Molotovs are still classified as a bomb under military and judicial guidelines, they are considered "poor mans grenade" or "mock fire bomb"

A small number of people who pick up a gun develops violent tendencies, again it's an impulsive behavior.
Good guys with guns do not keep bad guys with guns in check if 7 assaults are happening for every one crime stopped due to guns. Why is it that states with tighter gun control such as better gun storage laws have a lower rate of gun homicides?

The study for gun ownership causing 4 time more inherent risk in Philadelphia

I am glad that you brought up Switzerland I was waiting for that, because people have a misunderstanding about Switzerland. 2014 research shows that only 25% of citizens owns a gun, in 2005 61%. Also the big thing in Switzerland is that their gun politics is different, every citizen of Switzerland is conscripted into the Switzerland military, meaning they learn how to use and care for their gun, as well as military issues assault rifles are usually kept at home with no ammunition.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheFlyingPham// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct went to pro, con attacked pro a lot, calling him ignorant, or an idiot. Sources and arguments would go to pro as well. Pro used reliable sources when demanded by con, to solidify his arguments. His sources involved case studies instead of news articles. The charts and graphs provided were also described well in pro's sources while I had a hard time trying to figure out what con's sources provided. Also telling someone to google something is not a source. Pro had tons of arguments to go off from, while con stuck his same argument without a lot of counter-arguments. For example a debate about the terrorist shootings, pro describes, and provides a visual how difficult it would be for a good guy to take down the terrorist without being in the exact right place at the exact right time, while also being a faster draw. While cons rebuttal did not explain a how, that was realistic.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the reasoning for sources is borderline, the analysis of the arguments presented in the debate is sufficient and the explanation for sources goes far enough to explain why they're being awarded.
************************************************************************
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
Looks like more butthurt kids shilling on all my debates... Yeah this site is infested with these little shits.
Posted by TheRealGod 1 year ago
TheRealGod
Africa is a continent, but it's also doesn't have the strongest government as well as Mexico, gun control, Syria is a war zone right now that's an entirely different story, you can go to a battlefield after the battle is over and get guns that way. I don't know much about turkey, but the more I look up Switzerland I like their control measures. I could see it working in other first world countries, apart from the conscription part. The other measures can still work, seriously look it up how air tight their gun control is.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
hmm at least you grasp some logic. Now tell me this.. Would a Swiss style gun system work in Mexico, Africa,Turkey or Syria? If not tell me why.
Posted by TheRealGod 1 year ago
TheRealGod
Switzerland still has tighter gun control than Australia, you asked for a system that could work, we'll look at Switzerland than :) you can only buy ammunition for the gun you own, you must also submit a crap ton of paperwork, such as what manufacture you are getting them from etc etc, everything that you do with a gun in Switzerland you have to have a valid reason and there is a way you must go about doing them. It doesn't matter if you said Australia or America, their gun control is tighter than both country. Like I said before gun control isn't about taking away guns, it's about making sure they are being used responsibly.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
I said Australia not America.. Learn to read
Posted by TheRealGod 1 year ago
TheRealGod
Well I guess you don't realize that Switzerland also has tighter gun control measures than America, you have to get a permit if you are transporting your gun, even if it's just to show your friends. You now you gave the debate away by bringing up Switzerland :)
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
Nah. People like you can't be reasoned with. You can't even wrap your mind around simple concepts, why am I going to waste more time with you. Perhaps when you are older.
Posted by TheRealGod 1 year ago
TheRealGod
If you'd like to include 1 more round because I was sick that is fine with me
Posted by TheRealGod 1 year ago
TheRealGod
Thank you for extending I could not move yesterday from whatever i had
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheFlyingPham 1 year ago
TheFlyingPham
elijah452TheRealGodTied
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 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 went to pro, con attacked pro a lot, calling him ignorant, or an idiot. Sources and arguments would go to pro as well. Pro used reliable sources when demanded by con, to solidify his arguments. His sources involved case studies instead of news articles. The charts and graphs provided were also described well in pro's sources while I had a hard time trying to figure out what con's sources provided. Also telling someone to google something is not a source. Pro had tons of arguments to go off from, while con stuck his same argument without a lot of counter-arguments. For example a debate about the terrorist shootings, pro describes, and provides a visual how difficult it would be for a good guy to take down the terrorist without being in the exact right place at the exact right time, while also being a faster draw. While cons rebuttal did not explain a how, that was realistic.