The Instigator
Frankthetank885
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
winnawinnachickindinna
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control Reform is vital for the safety of our Country

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: 11/12/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 331 times Debate No: 82442
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Frankthetank885

Pro

First round is acceptance. Then one round will fallow.
Rules:
No TROLLING!
Have fun!
Don't Take this too seriously its just an opinion!
winnawinnachickindinna

Con

I will accept your argument. I will be on the con side conveying the facts that guns make us safer as a Country and reform is not necessary! Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Frankthetank885

Pro


Thank you WInnawinnachickindinna for accepting my debate ….Gun Reform is a necessity for the future of our country. Our relaxed reform rules clearly not working right now. Sixteen of the top Twenty-Eight mass shootings in the U.S. have taken place in the passed Fifteen years. That’s a staggering statistic. Furthermore The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). More rules and regulation would reduce gun deaths. About 200 Americans go to emergency room each day, gun violence being the cause. Now I know the number one argument on the opposing side will be it’s our 2nd Amendment Right to own guns. With this being said there were gun controls back in the colonial time. Some of the laws consisted of criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, Slaves, and Native Americans; there was regulation of gunpowder in homes and loaded guns were banned from Boston houses. With this in mind there should be no reason to have High Capacity Magazines. A Mother Jones investigation discovered that he use of high capacity magazines were used at least 50% of the 62 mass shooting taking place from 1982 and 2012. With High capacity magazines being used injury rates rose about 156% and the death rate rose about 63%. There is also no need for civilians to have access to military grade weapons. The 2nd Amendment was written when guns were single loaded long rifles or muskets. Now people can acquire military grade issued SCAR and guns like it. In conclusion there is no need for the public to have access to high-grade militant weaponry.


winnawinnachickindinna

Con

Thank you Frankthetank885 for posting this debate. This should be fun. You have some valid points. But refining the gun rules are not going to make things any safer. You were right the first argument I"m going to bring up is that is a constitutional right for Americans to bear arms. The idea of arming the public is that we could start local militias in the time of need. Weather the threat be foreign or local we reserve the right to protect ourselves from it. You brought up the argument we don"t need to have military grade weapons and don"t need extended magazine clips. Yes it sounds like a pretty good idea to reduce the fire power and limit the bullets, but what is really happening is by enforcing gun reform laws we are making it an un even battleground if it ever came down to battles on the local front. What I mean here is that if you restrict weapons that everyone else has access to except for us it puts us as a disadvantage. Imagine Running around trying to protect your country on your home turf with a long rifle while the opposing side has the SCARS and other "high-grade weaponry". Take a look at Mexico for example; they have one of the most strict gun laws in place. In comparison to the U.S., Mexico had 11,309 murders due to guns that"s about 9.95 gun homicides per 100,000 people. The U.S. on the other hand had 9,146 gun homicides, which comes out to about 2.97 per 100,000 people. The high homicide rate partially is due because the law abiding citizens are fallowing the strict regulations and not getting guns for protection, while people who are getting guns for crime are acquiring the weapons as if they were legally distributed via the black market. The law-abiding citizens are then being over powered and out gunned by the opposing side. Gun regulation would not need to be so apparent if we taught gun safety. When it comes down to it guns don"t kill people; people kill people. A study conducted by Kyle Wintersteen the editor of Guns and Ammo found "Children who are taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than households with out guns"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security and recreation not violence." That leads me to my final point; there is a sense of freedom that comes with owning a gun." Yes the PRO Side will say that sense of freedom is closely related to senseless violence, but they forget about the majority of heroic, gun-wielding citizens, who stand up in the face of criminals and protect themselves and those around them. To sum it all up I will say restricting the gun rights of U.S. citizens does not provide a safer country, it is the teaching of gun safety that will ultimately help with the gun violence the US is dealing with and guns are an important part of many American"s perspective of freedom and by restricting the gun laws you are constricting our constitutional right as an American.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.