The Instigator
debatingequality
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepticalone
Con (against)
Winning
5 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Skepticalone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,537 times Debate No: 44844
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

debatingequality

Pro

Studies show that gun control laws lead to a lower firearm murder rate in the United States. I am strongly in favor of stricter gun laws.

http://www.politisite.com...
Skepticalone

Con

I accept your terms. Thank you for hosting this debate Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
debatingequality

Pro

There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting.

The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders.

In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses.

As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.
Skepticalone

Con




Thank you, Pro.
I have three points I would like to make in regards to this issue:
1. Guns laws do not work.
2. States with higher concealed carry permits have less gun related crime.
3. We have sufficient laws.

Gun laws do not work
--In 1976, Washington DC city council instituted extreme gun control measures. This law prohibited residents from possessing fully functional fire arms in their own homes. Restrictions for legal gun ownership in DC during this time period were:
a) All guns must be kept unloaded.
b) All guns must be rendered temporarily inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock.
During this period of restriction, the murder rate was 73% higher than when the law was first implemented, and 11% higher than the rest of the US. [1]




--Chicago, Illinois implemented a ban on handguns in 1982. This ban disallowed civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered prior to the law. During the ban period, murders committed with handguns rose by 40%. [1]





States with higher concealed carry permits have less gun related crimes

“Lott and Mustard (1997) found those states with a less restrictive law saw a 7.65% drop in murders. The new study examines data from 1980 to 2009, one of the biggest time periods in research of this kind. It also looks solely at gun crime, rather than violent crime which is the case in similar research. State level data on gun related murder is taken from the Supplementary Homicide Reports from the United States Department of Justice and the information on CCW laws was obtained from a variety of United States bodies.” [2]
States with the most gun control had the lowest gun ownership, the highest violent crime and murder rates, and the highest non-firearms murder rates illustrated in chart below.


[3]

We have sufficient laws now

Currents laws include:

    • It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition:


someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien,someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

    • It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.

    • It is illegal to "engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms" without a federal license to do so.

    • It is illegal for any federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.

    • It is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines. [1]


The current laws clearly restrict gun ownership and handling in a reasonable way in a similar fashion to which pro desires. Conceal carry permits generally require a safety/training course to be completed before approval. If Pro would like to advocate enforcing current laws better I agree. However, adding news laws would be redundant and pointless.

I will make rebuttals to Pros argument in the next round.

[1]http://www.justfacts.com...
[2]http://www.science20.com...
[3] http://slgop.org...
Debate Round No. 2
debatingequality

Pro

debatingequality forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Con

I am sorry to see my opponent has forfeited his round, but, as promised, I will provide my rebuttal to my Pro’s argument.

“There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years.”

First, I would like to illustrate there has not been an increase in mass murders in the last twenty years.

A study conducted by Fox and Delateur asserts “mass shootings have remained stagnant over 34 years, averaging 20 a year, and that few are committed by the sorts of mentally deranged individuals that are commonly portrayed in the media.” [4] The study debunks the myth ‘Mass murders are on the rise’ by using FBI statistics and looking at any mass murders occurring between 1976 and 2011. Other sources such as “Mother Jones” limit the definition of mass murders and show a distorted view unlike the Fox and Delateur study which is a comprehensive study.

“The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. “

My opponent does not provide any evidence for this claim.

“In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united states.”

Pro has not provided any evidence for his assertions.

In fact, the link Pro provided in his opening statements actually shows union gun control, prohibition, and post-JFK assassination gun control corresponding to increasing the homicide rate in the United States in the related time frames.

US Homicide rates 1885-2012


Thank you for your time, guy and gals! I look forward to Pro's Conclusion.

[4] http://www.trendingcentral.com...

Debate Round No. 3
debatingequality

Pro

debatingequality forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Con

Pro has not established evidence for his arguments. Pro has not refuted my arguments supported by evidence. My position stands. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BazooBuggy 2 years ago
BazooBuggy
Pssst. mention how gun control worked in australia
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
debatingequalitySkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
debatingequalitySkepticaloneTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides a lot of detail for his position in R2 and R3. Pro fails to rebut either round, forfeiting in R3 and R4. Con does a good job here articulating his position quite well, it's unfortunate that Pro FF'd 2 rounds. Argument points to Con for providing a good case for his position, and due to Pro clearly failing on his BOP due to the good job of Con and the FFs. Conduct for Pro's FFs.