The Instigator
MrSykoCat
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Dwint
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gun Control; Should it be enforced completely on the mentally ill and former criminals?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
MrSykoCat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 46876
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

MrSykoCat

Con

Yes and no. I fully realize that there are particular individuals out there who are simply too unstable to be granted the use of firearms. That's undeniable for sure. However, does this justify generalizing them as all too unstable to be granted the use of arms?
No. It definetly does no justify this. What basis do I have for this claim? Well, to start, I myself fit both of these "descriptions". I have been diagnosed with various social skill impeding (I will not be specific on these, sorry. Privacy n' all that good stuff) illnesses and even Bi Polar, which means I get mood swings easily. Plus to top it all off my personality type is The Engineer, or ISTP, not a good mix there. On top of that I have a criminal record (again, not gonna be specific). Yet despite all this I remain a responsible individual when it comes to firearm safety. My dad (an out of service Marine and well respected at his job) trusts me with his firearms at least to a certain extent. You would find it difficult to see any diffrence between me and any normal citizen walking down the street, or even talking to me. And the fact is, most mentally Ill people and ex criminals would be safe with firearms. Do I believe in doing more thorough background checks? Yes, although only out of enforcement for current law and not further laws. And for those who do not qualify, there should be some sort of system set in place in which they would be able to regain the right to bare arms, depending on the severity of their crime and/or severity of their mental illness. A system where only those who have passed the absolute point of no return in terms of being able to regain the ability to bear arms should be denied entirely (and preferably put in either a mental institute or prision, for a very, very long time. As that is where the point of no return is). Anyone who would like to challenge me please post a decent counter argument. I hope for this to be as fair and objective as possible, and not based on my past alone. I put that there as an example, nothing more.
Dwint

Pro

Hello!For the first round I will offer a simple argument.There is no point in risking people's lifes.I don't think guns are necessary in the first place, but criminals and mentally ill people are a real danger.Even if they got out of jail, or are being treated, they are an active threat.We don't know that much about mental illneses to be 100% sure a person with serious problems will never have thoes problems again.The same goes for criminals, you can never be sure he won't do anything crazy.So why risk the safety of people living near ex-criminals or ill people ?
Debate Round No. 1
MrSykoCat

Con

So if I'm correct, your current argument is based on not knowing wether or not a criminal or mentally Ill person will become unstable or not, correct? Okay then. But under that same logic, you should be worrying about the actions of everyone. You don't know for sure if your coworker is a sociopath out to use your to his own benefit. He probably isn't, but under your logic, you have to assume that your coworker is a sociopath out to get you, and there for you should be worried about everything at every moment of your life. See the flaw? You also said something about not knowing enough about mental illnesses to be sure that we could treat them to the point that they would never do anything bad again. Well of course they're gonna do something bad again! Everybody's gonna do something bad from time to time! We're all human here! But the problem isn't just bad things happening due to some mental illness, it's not that simple. You need to take into consideration just how bad that bad thing is, and how frequently it happens. If that badness can be reduced to the level where a mentally ill person or criminal
can function in society at least somewhat normally, that person should be allowed to keep and bare arms unless otherwise told by some authoritative figure for a good reason. If that person cannot function properly in society, he or she should be entitled to a chance to turn his or her life around to the point where they can live like anybody else in society, the ups and downs included. Will the pain of their past and mental illnesses alter their choices? Maybe. But if that can be minimized -which it can be in most cases-, then that person will be operating close enough to Normal to be considered normal, and should there for have full rights to keep and bare arms.
Dwint

Pro

It is true any person could suddenly decide to kill someone.A child could just one day kill his parents.There is no point in being afraid of every living person.Criminals and mentally ill people are a lot more likely to kill someone than the average person.The problem with criminals is that they were already in prison and they are not scared to kill again.So my point is why take a chance and hope the mental patient takes all of his pills or that the criminal found Jesus in prison and is now afraid to kill again, when you can just avoid the problem.They can still defend themselves with non-lethal weapons, so why would they need guns? So it's normal to take someone's right to freedom (if they had broken the law, of course) but taking their right to use guns is a problem?
Even if criminals and mentally ill people can function in society, they are still a risk.These 2 categories of people have very unpredictable behavior.Again, anyone can do something unpredictable, but criminals and mentally ill people are a lot more likely to do so. It's very hard for these people to integrate in a society and guns would not make it easier at all.
Also, I can't understand what is so important about owning a gun.I understand in America it's a basic right and people love guns an so on, but if you break the law you have to expect to lose some of your rights, and owning guns should be one of them. It's simple: You obey the law, you have full right, you break the law, you lose some of your rights.
Debate Round No. 2
MrSykoCat

Con

I think we have a major misunderstanding here. See, I wasn't talking about people who have committed offenses so serious that they are on the level of murder, as you have stated in the line "The problem with criminals is that they were already in prison and they are not scarred to kill again". And I'm also not talking about people who are mentally dilusional, like people with skitzophrenia. I will take the blame for not being clear in what I meant by "former criminals" and "mentally Ill" people. For criminals, I mean people who have commited crimes quite some time ago; the more severe a crime for instance, the longer you have to wait before your rights are re-established, with there being a, how do I put this? A "Line of no return" as you could put it. For instance "Murder". In this case, you would probably be monitored for life anyways. Plus, I think this is what you thought I meant when I said criminal. And as for mentally unstable people, well, I think your failing to realize that there are certain levels of severity here that your failing to take into account, not to mention different types of mental illnesses altogether. And I know that I said a few posts ago that I wasn't going to say which ones I had (Privacy n' all that good stuff), but what the hell, I may as well (no rhyme intended). Asbergers, Autism, ADHD and Bi-polar disorder. All of these I have in their moderate, well, how do I say this? "Severities" Is one way of putting it. But before I break this down for you, I would like you to remember that this is only an example of what a person may have. There is a very wide spectrum of mental illnesses almost all coming in their own combinations and with their own severities. Now, lets get started. Asbergers and Autism shouldn't be taken into account for gun safety unless their severe, as far as I know (having had them for my whole life) that these are just social disorders. ADHD definitely shortens attention spans, but that alone also wouldn't have any affect on my safety. Maybe my shot placement, but not how safe I am using a firearm. The only problem I would really have with safety is my moderate bi polar disorder. But there a great many amount of medications out there that can stabilize people pretty effectively. Now I don't wanna get too in depth into this subject, as that would be straying from the point. And the point is that these people, these human beings, with the exception of people with severe disorders and people who have committed severe crimes, are capable of being responsible gun owners. But your solution to the problem is to simply ban it from them entirely, because they "might" still be dangerous. How much more cowardly and unwilling to even negotiate out what rights these people should have could somebody get? Your solution is the coward's way out of this problem, to simply ban it from them. No ability to prove that they're safe. No probationary period in which they are supervised with their firearms. No evaluation of how bad they're problems actually are. No temporary restrictions. No classes educating and re educating these people about firearms and firearm safety. Nothing. Zero. All for the sake of keeping it simple. You would strip normal rights from somebody just because your suspicious about wether or not they could handle it, without a second thought about what their problems actually are and the fact that they can reliably and permenantly be solved, and have before! I doubt you know even the bare bones basics of psychology, and yet you claim to know that "these two categories of people have unpredictable behavior". The simple fact is that everyone could be potentially unpredictable. Everyone is a potential sociopath. Everyone is a potential criminal. Everone could potentially be or become dangerous. I agree with you in that if you break the law, you lose some of your rights. But you shouldn't lose them forever. And you shouldn't lose them automatically just because you have a mental illness or two. You can't say that all people with criminal records or mental instabilities are all automatically dangerous because of them; you need to evaluate each case individually and then decide what the course of action for earning rights back should be. And this doesn't just apply to gun rights, this applies to ALL rights. Everybody (again, with the exception of severe cases) should be able to gain their rights back through some sort of system. What that may be and how many times you can screw up would, of course, need to be worked out. However, there needs to be something in place, some mechanism or system that would allow for the reinstatement of certain rights. Just banning it from people altogether based to suspicion or to keep it easy and simple is the move that a cowardly bastard with NO regard to the constitutional rights of the people would do. And unless you have some serious evidence to the contrary, I believe anyone with some heart and some balls to back that heart up would agree with me, including you.
Dwint

Pro

Dwint forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MrSykoCat

Con

MrSykoCat forfeited this round.
Dwint

Pro

Dwint forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Taylur 2 years ago
Taylur
Shouldn't innocent mentally ill people have a right to defend themselves in America?

(I don't agree with having guns at all, I'm from the UK)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
MrSykoCatDwintTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the debate leaving Con unchallenged.