The Instigator
PoeJoe
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points
The Contender
MidnightSpecial
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

Gun Control Laws

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,901 times Debate No: 507
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (24)

 

PoeJoe

Con

-----
The following is taken from my website, which can be found here:
http://politicaljoe.net...
----

The idea of gun laws is very similar to Communism believe it or not. Communism at it's idea stage is a very, very great idea. But as with a lot of good ideas, it is often so that the idea is oblivious to the fact that humans are evil. As so, humans will find a way to manipulate that idea to make it a bad system. Communism, again, was one such idea that got screwed over by our inner-evilness.

Communism is an extremely complex idea that many have written thousand-page theses on, but I want to focus on one aspect of it, that aspect being how people would work and consume. Communism basically took out money in a sense, and told people to work their hardest at their line of expertise. Then, if you needed anything, you would ask for it, and you would get it. Again, I'd like to state that this is way oversimplified.

So for instance, if you were a farmer, you would produce crops your best and give your crops to people who needed it. Conversely, if you needed something, per say a car, (and communism taught not to over consume) you would ask someone who made cars to give you one. This in my opinion, is a great idea as an idea. However, people are evil, and corruption begins. People had to wait months to get car a because of all the under-dealings, and outside of this aspect of Communism, all hell broke loose.

This is exactly the same with gun control laws. It predicts that if we make it so hard to get a gun, the bad guys will not be able to get guns, and we all can live under harmony. But we as a race are not quite bunny-sunshine. The bad guys would not just stop being evil, they would just start getting guns from the already hugely existent gun underground. And that underground would grow and grow and what else? Grow. Sort of like illegal immigrants and fake ID's, but that's a totally different story.

Take for instance the Temperance Movement. They were a Christian movement in the early 1900s that successfully banned alcohol in the United States of America. They actually got the United States Congress to pass the Eighteenth Amendment of the United States of America, which only got being rejected by Rhode Island. Thank God it was short-lived being repealed thirteen years later by the twenty-first amendment, or else the damage it cause would have been quite multiplied.

The Eighteenth Amendment of the United States of America, subsequently created such a massive alcohol underground, run by the Italian Mafia just for your information, that it became a joke to get drunk, thus forcing Congress to repeal it. However, in those thirteen years alcoholism increased fanatically, and countless thousands died due to alcoholism just because a group of Christian women thought it'd be a good idea. And that brings me back to the corruption of ideas.

Gun control laws may be a great idea, but looking at historical evidence, it will, and has already become quite corrupted. In fact, according to a Time Magazine article entitled, "Darkness Falls" by Nancy Gibbs, 85% of crimes that involve guns are committed with illegally obtained gun. Want more? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms during the 1990's, reported that only 7% of armed career criminals obtained firearms from licensed gun shops.

The simple fact is this. With or without gun control laws, bad guys will always find guns to use, and if they're going to get them anyways, I for one want to arm myself from them. In fact, according to an article entitled "Recent School Shootings" published in 1997 by the Washington Post, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. However, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. Imagine how many lives he saved.

So, some of you might be asking by now, am I implying that more gun control laws mean more violence, and that less gun control laws means less? No. I'm saying that. According to The National Center for Policy Analysis and safestreetsdc.com, in 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 200% while their population dropped about 15%. It got so bad, D.C. was known as the "murder capital" of the United States. Switzerland practices total conscription, and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world according to a 1996 Switzerland Census and just wide know knowledge. Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987 and between 1987 and 1996, homicide rates dropped 36%, firearm homicide rate dropped 37%, and handgun homicide rate dropped 41%. New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966 and two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. Even using Hitler as an example, when he banned all guns in Germany... well you know what happened.

So in conclusion, Gun Control laws, just like Communism and the Eighteenth Amendment, are great ideas as ideas. But humans are evil maniacal beings who love to manipulate. When an idea does not include prevention of evilness in it of itself, the idea will get corrupted. Gun Control laws will be more, but have already been corrupted as evident by all the statistics. So I ask this, why are we adding upon the already 20,000 gun laws we already have in the good ol' US of A?
MidnightSpecial

Pro

It is true that gun control policies are hard to enforce but the good of having them and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms far outweighs the difficulty of enforcement. The basic argument put out by PoeJoe is not that control is bad, but that it is hard to enforce. That reason does not mean and that these policies should be abandoned.

As for your argument that gun control rates increase with stricter gun control laws you fail to acknowledge alternate causes. Look at the places you cite as examples, D.C. and New Jersey. Both those places have huge poverty rates, some of the biggest in the nation. It is no surprise that D.C. and Jersey would have increased crime since the people there are so desperate.

Here are some stats that tend to prove the foregoing point: In 1987, more than 3,000 men aged 15 to 24 were murdered with firearms in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.)

As for humans being inherently evil, that is simply not true. Sociological studies show that humans come into this world tabula rassa, meaning blank slate. If you want to cut down on violent crime you have to attack the root of it, the poverty and accessibility of firearms to the public.

So my position is not only for strict gun control laws, but more enforcement. The USFG should pass legislation to crack down on the illegal gun trade. Basically there is major laws dealing with stopping the illegal gun trade but the money and resources are not there. Proper funding and resources have to given to the members of the law enforcement community.

There are only 22 federal gun control laws, of which 20 are not enforced due to the lack of funding. Third-Way.com explains it:

"The current Administration has not displayed anywhere
near the same aggressiveness with the other 20 major federal firearms laws, even though
enforcement of most of these laws could greatly reduce gun violence.
Prosecutions for 11 of the remaining 20 major federal gun laws were either the same or
lower in 2002 than 2000. For example, the number of corrupt gun store prosecutions
dropped from 36 to 27. The number of prosecutions for illegally selling to a minor stayed
at 7. The number of federal prosecutions for lying on the background check form did
increase – from 501 to 587 cases – but that still means that 99.6% of violators were not
prosecuted in FY2002, compared to 99.7% in FY 2000.
During the first full fiscal year of the Bush Administration, the proportion of federal
cases devoted to the two most frequently prosecuted statutes actually increased from
83% to 86% of total federal prosecutions. Crimes associated with corrupt gun stores,
illegal firearms traffickers, straw purchasers, gun thieves, those who obliterate firearm
serial numbers, sell to minors, bring guns to schools, and lie on a background check
form to obtain a firearm were barely enforced under President Clinton and are still
barely enforced under President Bush. "
Debate Round No. 1
PoeJoe

Con

Ahhh, I must pay great compliment to your counterarguments. This will be hard.

Right off the bat in your first paragraph, you assume, "the good of having them and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms far outweighs the difficulty of enforcement". There are many things wrong with this statement, as its the statement you spew the rest of your thoughts out. I must address this.

Reading that, I ask on what basis is taking away our second amendment rights good? You mention no statistics, no evidence. And when you try to redeem yourself, you briefly say that, "Oh well... it will have worked only if we enforce them stronger. zOmG!!!"

Even dismissing D.C. and Jersey, what about Switzerland, Florida, and Germany? And also, are you implying that poverty just SPONTANEOUSLY increased in D.C. and Jersey when they added stricter gun control laws? Show me the evidence for that.

The only real evidence you DO bring to the table, are the statistics that show Americans love to shoot people. I will not dispute this. However, you must realize your incoherent connection of thoughts. You say that the spontaneous poverty was the reason for D.C. and Jersey's sudden increase in crime, but then you follow saying that Canada and Japan have less gun violence. Several questions arise:

1. Wait, who has more money?
2. Who has the greater population?
3. And who failed to bring connection between lack of gun control enforcement and gun violence? You.

This turn around, I'd love to hear you address one major point: Why do all the statistics show that more gun control laws, equal more gun violence?
MidnightSpecial

Pro

You fail to answer my main argument, backed up by statistical data, that states: The spike in gun violence is not due to the gun laws themselves, but rather the lack of enforcement. This is extremely damaging to your entire argument and failing to answer this major argument puts me way ahead in this debate.

Now to the line by line:

In your third paragraph your true colors show. By saying that "taking our 2nd amendment rights" you show that this argument is not about your original statement but about the 2nd Amendment. The statistics I present are apparent in my first statement, citing the deaths due to gun violence in this nation. And with the recent amount of gun-related deaths in this nation do you not believe that gun control laws are needed? How many deaths will it take until we make it impossible for killers to get dangerous weapons? How many Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, Omaha Department Store-esque shootings are going to have to occur?

In your fourth you attack the correlation of gun deaths to poverty. Do you honestly think that there is no link? A 1992 study into the relationship of poverty and gun violence stated: "The major association for firearm fatalities is with socioeconomic factors such as poverty levels and alcohol consumption. Unless this country directs its efforts toward the socio-economic ills which appear to bear the strongest relationship to violent deaths by firearms, the fatalities likely will remain high whether this country has gun control laws or not. (http://findarticles.com...)"

Also: A relationship between unemployment and criminal violence has been relatively well documented (Lofftin et.al, 1989; Parker, 1989; Vold, 1986). A relationship between ethnic group membership and criminal violence has also been established (Gurr, 1981; Lane, 1968; Lenton, 1989; Monkonnen, 1989; Williams, 1984), although this may, in fact, be due to structural poverty.

So once again, it is seen that the lack of enforcement of current gun control policies leads to an increase in the death rates, not the laws themselves. So more evidence for my position:

"The multivariate statistical regression model suggests that the existence of gun control laws indeed have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths, although this relationship is weaker than previously reported. If, however, the United States had had a uniform gun control law similar to the 1977 Canadian law, the impact may have been stronger than that found here, which relies on systems of laws that vary significantly between states. Accordingly, it appears that the Brady Bill, if implemented properly, may have significant impact on deterring the number of deaths associated with the firearm use. (http://findarticles.com...)"

In conclusion:
1) I have established through analytical and statistical arguments that it is due to the lack of enforcement, not the actually gun control laws themselves, are to blame for gun-related deaths.

2) I won that human being are not inherently evil.

3) Poverty rates are also a substantial factor in gun-violence.

So anyone who is going to vote in this round have two options:

A vote for PoeJoe is a vote for doing nothing to prevent gun violence in this country.

A vote for my policy of enforcement solves for most gun-related violence in this nation preventing another Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Omaha.
Debate Round No. 2
PoeJoe

Con

I think I'll do a paragraph by paragraph as well.

Third Paragraph:
You incorrectly state that the Columbine and the Virginia Tech shootings were the cause of not enough gun control. In both cases, the commiters received their guns illegally. And in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, he was suspected of being mentally ill. However, no one ever forced him to seek help. This is fault of the administration. Again, in both cases, more gun control laws would not have helped. Repeating a past statistic, 85% of crimes that involve guns are committed with illegally obtained guns.

Fourth Paragraph:
I never said there was no correlation between poverty and gun violence. However, you still seem to dismiss all the statistics that show just when gun control laws are placed, gun violence increases. You have still yet to show me any evidence that poverty coincidentally increased at the same time gun control laws were placed. To back up your claims, you take a quote representing the opinions of a few unknown people. Please adress my statistics.

Fifth-Seventh Paragraph:
Again, I never mentioned anything about unemployment. Perhaps there is a correlation, but you have yet to adress my statistics.

----

In conclusion:

1) MidnightSpecial has yet to adress why the statistics show that gun control laws lead to gun violence, and has misdirected the audience into talks of poverty, irrelevant to the topic of gun control.

2) MidnightSpecial has yet to prove how more gun control would lead to less gun violence.

3) I have proven how less gun control would mean less gun violence.

----

At the end of the day, the simple fact is this:

I want more freedom and liberty. I also want less Americans to die. Less gun control means les gun violence.

And although he probably doesn't realise it, MidnightSpecial is calling for more gun violence, more death, less freedom, and less life.

All voters, look at all the statistics, and use your common sense.
MidnightSpecial

Pro

The laws that are in place make the guns illegal, that is why they are called "illegal guns." Without the proper enforcement it makes it possible for these people to obtain these illegal guns. More gun control law enforcement is what is needed to prevent these tragedies. These laws are key to stopping tragedies that would occur in a no gun control world.

In your world, a world without gun control, it would make it easy to obtain guns for any person. Whether they be a hunter or a killer. So why should there be no gun control laws?

Also your "evidence" states that when gun control laws are enacted violence goes up, but you refuse to give the "why" to that argument. My evidence provides the reason why gun violence increases, and that reason is poverty. My stats directly answer yours for this fact.

---

On your conclusion:

Your first point says that poverty does not have any relation to gun violence. Again, that has been disproved by my stats and your own statement. Poverty is a leading cause to gun violence, and cutting down on gun violence the key reason for enacting gun control laws.

On your second point I have an empirical example. England has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and their gun violence is extremely low per capita. Also, I sight Canada's 1977 gun control laws (see above argument) and show that Canada's gun violence is also extremely small per capita.

On your third point, you have not proven why no gun control leads to less gun violence because you do not provide the "why" in your arguments. Saying that more armed citizens prevents gun violence is a falsehood. Look at Canada and England.

---

So voters do not look to PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs, but look to the empirical evidence that I have provided.
Debate Round No. 3
PoeJoe

Con

I guess I must take care of more of your bull first. *sigh*

1. Again, I in no way said, or am saying that poverty does or does not help gun violence. That is irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps in addition to loosening gun control laws, we should also help impoverished cities that so happen to be riddled with gun violence. However, this is irrelevant.

2. You said it yourself. America is different. We shoot each other a hell of a lot more than other countries do. Perhaps it's the culture, or the media, or whatever Moore is pointing his (huge) fingers at at the time being. But it still should be known that we are different with gun violence. I agree, when some other countries (besides Switzerland and Germany) increase their gun control, gun violence does go down. However, all the statistics that are relevant to America, show that less gun control means less gun violence.

3. True at the extent of I-am-not-sure-of-why. As stated above, ask Michael Moore. However, I do know that what I say is true. All the evidence backs me up. Less gun control means less gun violence.

----

Now your turn:

In your conclusion, find statistics that show that more gun control leads to less gun violence in America. I'd love to see it.

----

MidnightSpecial will probably not do the above requested. He has a knack at floating around the issues and making decent points out of that. However, given already three chances, he has never managed to dispute the fact that less gun control means less gun violence.

If you support gun violence, then by all means, vote for MidnightSpecial. However, if you're tired of all the shootings, death, obstruction of liberties, and gun violence, do the right thing.
MidnightSpecial

Pro

A voter in this debate must look to my arguments because:

1) I provided the better statistical evidence as to why my side is right.

a. A voter must first look to my "findarticles.com" evidence that sights a scientific study done to prove that it is the lack of enforcement of laws, such as the Brady Bill, that have led to an increase in gun violence in this country.

b. A voter must look to my evidence from Third Way that also points to the lack of enforcement of these laws

c. A voter must also look to my evidence that supports my alternate causality that sights socio-economic factors such as poverty.

2) My empirical examples of Canada and England prove that stricter gun control laws lead to less violence. This has directly answered PoeJoe's indict of my argument.

He says I need evidence that gun control laws lead to less violence in America. But look at my evidence that points out that gun control laws, when enforced lead to less violence such as in England and Canada.

3) I have told a more logical story and provided better analysis in the debate, unlike PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs.

----

So basically the voter has no reason to vote for PoeJoe. Enforcing the gun control laws that are already on the books, just like Canada and England have, would lead to less violence in America. Since there is is no way the PoeJoe's policy can reduce poverty in this nation and solve for the root causes of violence repealing the gun laws this nation has will increase the death due to guns in this nation.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MidnightSpecial 9 years ago
MidnightSpecial
I'd like people to comment and critique my arguments. why did you vote for or against me?
Posted by MidnightSpecial 9 years ago
MidnightSpecial
umm i'd like to. i'll argue anything, but i'm not for street protitution.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Hey MidnightSpecial, I'm not sure if you'll see this, but you're doing a heck of a job. I'm assuming you're a senior (I'm a freshmen), and I'm quite new at this.

After this I'd love to debate you on the legalization of prostitution. Judging by your profile, I'd guess that you're against, so I'll take the pro side.

Would you be interested?
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by grecherme 8 years ago
grecherme
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by megan91509 9 years ago
megan91509
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wedoada 9 years ago
wedoada
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Davisc09 9 years ago
Davisc09
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by garptarp 9 years ago
garptarp
PoeJoeMidnightSpecialTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30