The Instigator
ghjv
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sincerely_Millenial
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control Legislation, yes or no?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 85279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

ghjv

Pro

Today in America we have been subject to countless mass shootings, a wake up call to legislators and the American people about our gun reform. I am in favor of banning military grade assault weapons, I have never met a hunter or a person who wants a gun for defense that needs an A-15. I am in favor of allowing people to have pistols, rifles, and shotguns who do not have prior criminal conviction and are not at risk for homicidal behavior. Gun control legislation is ONLY taking guns away from people who are criminals, the terrorists who are on the no fly list, nobody is taking your guns away (as long as you are a law abiding person who has a license). Gun ownership is a second amendment right, and I am glad that people defend themselves with pistols and hunt with rifles, but I am also glad and in favor of legislation that takes guns away from the convicted criminal fresh out of jail, the person who is at risk for homicidal behavior. Gun control legislation is taking guns away from criminals, not law abiding citizens, and that's what I'm in favor of.
Sincerely_Millenial

Con

This is probably going to be a short debate. First of all the idea that gun control legislation is ONLY taking guns away from people who are criminals, please tell me a proven instance in which a criminal LEGALLY bought a gun, passed a background check, and was sold the gun by a law-abiding gun owner who was interesting in arming a responsible citizen and not just making money. The very definition of a criminal is someone who commits a crime. If you didn't already know, it is a crime to purchase a gun without a background check and it is illegal to sell a convicted criminal a gun. So the only people who partake in these activities are CRIMINALS. And no matter how many gun laws you pass, criminals will always get their hands on it one way or another because they are CRIMINALS they do not follow the law. As for "assault" weapons, the term assault "in common law, assault is harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." An inanimate object cannot be given an animate description without a person behind it. The only reason a gun becomes an "assault" weapon is because a person uses it to assault someone which makes them, again, a criminal.

As far as owning an A-15 (pretty sure you meant AR-15), those of us who own one may not need it at the time, but what happens when a very likely civil war breaks out? What happens when you live in a big city and a very large gang of criminals armed with "assault" weapons comes to your home? You really think you are going to stop them with a shotgun or a handgun? No you are going to be mowed down. The only law-abiding citizens who usually own these weapons (and of course there are exceptions) are gun collectors who like to just have them on display and people who live in dangerous cities in which case they have a viable reason in the future to use it.
Debate Round No. 1
ghjv

Pro

You are correct, criminals do not ALWAYS purchase firearms through conventional routes, but gun control laws are not promising to put an end to gun crimes, but rather to stifle it to the ability they best can, less gun control laws certainly don't help, that's only giving up on the prospect of improving the problem of mass murders. So you said that " one way or another because they are CRIMINALS they do not follow the law.". This is a common argument among anti-gun control citizens, and let me say this: of course criminals don't follow the law, but that doesn't just mean that we can give in and let them have their way, if we applied that logic to every aspect of criminal law we would say "since when did murderers follow the law? let's just repeal it because people break it", at best your saying your anti-establishment. And I am genuinely sorry I did not write down the correct kind of gun in my argument, that may happen as I am not (and neither are you) an expert on weapons. So you think a civil war will break out and therefore we should allow our society to engage militia activity or actions (such as owning a military grade weapon), and your inference on a civil war is at best accurate, it's mere speculation and were not predicting a civil war but rather debating gun legislation. And let me just say that if a civil war broke out, we would not want to fuel the fire by providing the militia with high powered weapons, that's just instigation.
Sincerely_Millenial

Con

Again, us gun owners are not calling for a repeal of the law, we have no problem submitting to background checks and any sort of criminal investigations so I'm really not sure where you are pulling that argument from. As far as I can tell, your solution to ending mass shootings is to get rid of criminals therefore crime itself. How are you going to do this? Are you going to delve into science to find some sort of genetic defect that all criminals have in common and remove the problem before it becomes a problem? Are you going to brainwash your children into a certain state of mind that keeps the from becoming criminals? Do you think harsher punishments are really going to deter a mentally insane, nonsensical individual from initiating a mass shooting?

If you want to get rid of the criminals, arm the good citizens. Let there be armed security guards in classrooms so that when a certain deranged individual decides one day he wants to shoot up a bunch of children can eliminate the threat before anyone is injured. Allow for concealed carry licenses to be exactly that: concealed. You can go to work with a legitimate license to carry, but no one needs to know, it's not their business to know. And when a radical co-worker influenced by terrorists decides he wants to end the party early, praise the law-abiding co worker with a gun in his bag/her purse for taking the terrorist out before any more harm was done.

The idea that we need to make sure that criminals don't get their way by creating more laws is ludicrous. "Criminals don't follow laws" is of course a common argument because it is the ONLY argument that makes sense. You can't erase evil from the world and criminals spawn from evil.

And don't claim to know that I am no gun expert either, I happen to be a proud member of the NRA with my own personal weapon(s) that I enjoy taking apart, putting together, cleaning, taking to the range and hunting with. And when it comes to war, I have the right to defend myself period
Debate Round No. 2
ghjv

Pro

No, it's seems like YOUR solution to ending mass shootings is to get rid of criminals! Your the one who wants less gun control laws which makes it EASIER for criminals to get guns, nor did not say that gun control legislation will eliminate gun violence or stop mash shootings but I said it would help! YOUR the one who is basically apposed to to laws in general, (by saying you thought since criminals are going to break them why bother). And the good citizens are already armed, they will not get guns taken away nor have they. You do have the right to defend yourself but you should be able to with the guns legal today, you don't need to have an armory of assault rifles and other military grade weapons. Let me just say though I would like to thank the good people at the NRA for being safe and law abiding gun owners!
Sincerely_Millenial

Con

If you mean I want to get rid of criminals by shooting them down while they are engaged in a criminal act, then yes I want to get rid of criminals. But that is a more effective way that more gun laws. And to say that I am opposed to laws in general is ignorant and uneducated. If you had actually taken the time to read my argument instead of assuming that I'm some gun-ho radical conservative with an issue of gun laws then you would know that everything you said in that last post was not even true. I am PRO gun laws but I am AGAINST making more laws than are already in effect. Gun laws in effect include (but are not limited to):

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.

Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") (1968): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ALREADY CRIMINALIZES THE PURCHASED OF GUNS WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE BACKGROUND CHECK TO THE BUYER. You are arguing for a law that already exists. NEWSFLASH if the law exists and there is still crime that exists in relation to that law, how is rewriting it going to solve your problem?
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Chrysalism// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Good debate you two! I agree with pro, no guns equals happy country. But Con did have some good arguments as well.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter's agreement with a given side does not justify making a decision for that side. Bias is not enough reason to vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
The FBI reported 8,775 homicides as a result of firearms in 2010. Of these, 665 were reported as "justifiable homicides" " those where self-defence was enacted and resulted in the death of another " 387 by law enforcement and 278 by private citizens.

stepping up gun control with background checks, like those that were shot down in the Senate recently, would have been "no more of an imposition than the TSA line." He said he believes those seeing it as the first step to disarmament do not truly understand the Second Amendment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

TSA fails 95% of the time to actually find anything dangerous during the tests conducted by DHS

"the government can"t be there to protect us," the right of the people to bear arms must be protected.

http://www.theblaze.com...
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
Not to mention that these killings also include the criminals that commit them that are shot down by law-abiding gun owners and police officers that are defending themselves or someone else.
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
https://www.fbi.gov...

Knives make up more than twice the homicides that rifles and shotguns do together
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
http://thefederalist.com...
You say you support handguns and not "assault" weapons, but the most gun violence is caused by these handguns. So why would you support anything if you think that the most used weapon in homicides is not the problem, but the least used weapon is? People are more often killed by knives then they are killed by rifles and "assault" weapons. Where is the cry for knife control? You going to make sure that every adult has a pair of child-proof scissors ?
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
http://www.citizensreportuk.org...
Which negates your statistics. For the violence caused in other countries that have stricter gun control like you seem to argue for, they have more homicides caused by sharp objects aka knifes (which are also weapons). So you take guns away from law-abiding citizens and criminals, now we have a bunch of stabbings going around. The numbers are still high making guns NOT the issue but CRIME the issue.
Posted by ghjv 1 year ago
ghjv
We are talking about guns, America, not stabbings and other countries. Stay on topic.
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
Now compare those statistics to how many stabbings occur in other countries because guns are outlawed.....just about the same as gun violence in america.
Posted by ghjv 1 year ago
ghjv
DO YOU WANT TO HEAR SOME STATISTICS? Here's some: America has 3.2 homicides per Capita, the highest in G-8 countries! Did you know that Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. The second amendment is not an unlimited guarantee of firearms, its simply the right to HAVE arms, not arms to not end. There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%). Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths topping liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson"s disease, as well as deaths from fires, drowning, and machinery accidents (according to data done by CNN and Fox News).
No votes have been placed for this debate.