Gun Control Laws Do More Harm Than Good
Debate Rounds (3)
Today I am here to debate the topic of Gun Control Laws Doing More Harm Than Good.
I will be on the pro side of this argument.
If anyone accepts, here are three rules. First, the opposition and I are not allowed to rebut or bring in any mention of the comments, and secondly both of us will be kind and courteous. Lastly, each round a maximum of two points will be made. I prefer nice and long and thoughtful points to many but short points. Any amount of rebuttals can be made though.
Today I will begin by talking about something that many people will probably be thinking of. The Newtown shooting was a horrible and tragic event that I am sure all mourn and grieve for. However, I find it disappointing and shameful how some politicians are using this event to push their own agendas. First of all, gun control would not have worked here for two reasons. First off, the gun was taken from his mother, and his mother had a perfect legal right to own that gun. Secondly, Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control laws today(1), yet they obviously didn't work.
It would be one thing if gun control actually worked. But it doesn't. First off, the gun control laws go against the Constitution. When President Obama was sworn into office, he said, "I do solemnly swear that I faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (2). Unfortunately, it has been apparent that he has violated this Oath. The Second Amendment specifically states that every man has a right to bear arms. (3). Obama apparently doesn't care for this particular statement, and he has tried to get rid of our hard won freedom and rights. 94% of people in a poll on Baltimore said that they agreed to a group of gun right advocates suing about gun control laws that they say violate the Constitution (4).
Now let me say something first. When my opponent talked about me saying Obama, I just wanted to comment on how Obama is intent on getting stricter gun control laws. First of all, let me refresh you on the topic. I said that gun control laws do more harm than good. I know that people don't feel safe about violence in schools, and neither do I. But once again, I believe that gun control laws are not the answer to this. To answer this, I have a counter-plan. More on that in the next round.
My opponent failed to rebut any of my points, like how it goes against the Constitution. Nor did he/she rebut the point that Connecticut had some the strictest gun control laws, yet that didn't work.
Secondly, I am going to talk about 'self-defense'. This is relevant, and I am going to bring it up. My opponent talked about an outdated study talked about how 2.5 million guns were used for self defense(1). However, I found a recent study saying the same thing. 2.5 million people use their guns only for self defense. And of the 2.5 million using the gun to defend themselves, the majority of them use it only to scare them off(1). Less than 8% of the time does the citizen harm or kill the attacker. (1). Guns are a way to protect ourselves from murder and/or rape.
Now on to my own point. As I said before, guns are used for self defense. Once again, a recent study stated that 2.5 million gun users have their gun only for self defense. The main problem with gun control - criminals don't listen. Law abiding citizens who follow the law will get rid of their means for self defense if it is against the law. But the point is, the whole reason why criminals are criminals is because they break the LAW. Banning guns won't help anything. Think about it - during the Prohibition, alcohol was banned. During this period though, the rate of consumption of alcohol increased ten fold. People started making alcohol in their own backyards, and tons of black markets popped up. Think about what would happen should guns be banned. My friend's uncle is a gun maker, and he told me that people can't get enough of guns because they are afraid guns are going to banned. Do you think that a criminal would be more likely to break into a house that the owner might be able to defend or go in with the knowledge that they are unarmed and have no weapons?
A Harvard Study has actually found out that in countries such as Russia that completely banned guns, the murder rate is 20.54 when other countries that have no gun control laws like Finland the murder rate is 1.98 (2). Just imagine what would happen to the U.S's murder rate if we banned guns.
Samallama forfeited this round.
Ok so once again, op side has never rebutted any of my points. Not the one about self-defense, violating the Second Amendment, how criminals won't follow gun control law and they would invade houses without the fear of getting attacked.
Now I am going to say my counter-plan. If you're saying what could we do to prevent all of these mass shootings then I have an answer. First off, I read an article WSJ investigating the psychiatric motives behind these shooters. The main reason why these people go on these shootings is because of they want to get known and famous in the paper. They want their name to go down in history, and to be infamous. Whenever a potential killer reads about a shooter, it inspires them to go out and do it themselves, and join the 'cause'. The WSJ article talked about how to prevent these mass shootings. The article talked about how studies showed that all of these people have a sense of 'self-entitlement' and anger over not being recognized. The article said that to prevent these killings, newspapers and reporters should not even mention the name. That way, the motive for going and killing people would be stopped, and at the same time we would be reducing murder and the not violating the Second Amendment.
Thank you for this debate.
Samallama forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by McPherson 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I mean - con forfeited. so..
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.