The Instigator
Eminentend
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dukeblueinmyveins
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control is illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,333 times Debate No: 31915
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Eminentend

Pro

In my opinion, gun control in general is highly illogical. I will allow my opponent to state his or her position the first round.
dukeblueinmyveins

Con

First of all, I would like to thank Eminentend for the opportunity to debate. This is my first debate on this site, and I am looking forward to a rigorous discussion. Eminentend intends to argue that gun control in general is highly illogical. Below, I provide an initial counter.

1) Age restrictions are logical

-Very young children should not be able to legally have access to guns, because they may not understand the effects of using them. The National Rifle Association advises parents with "very young children" to "discuss gun use on television as opposed to gun use in real life," because very young children have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality when it comes to gun use (http://eddieeagle.nra.org...). They may see actors killed on one show or movie only to find them perfectly fine in another show or movie, making the effects of gun violence appear more benign or impermanent.

-Very young children may not be able to safely handle guns. Even in the U.K., where kids are allowed to use shotguns if they have a license and adult supervision, the youngest child to be granted a license was seven years old. Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, lead spokesman on firearms legislation for the Association of Chief Police Officers said that evidence on young people obtaining shotgun certificates does not give cause for concern, but even he acknowledged that there should be an "absolute minimum age" of 10 (http://www.bbc.co.uk...).

-Laws restricting gun access to children reduced unintentional gun deaths in the United States among youth aged 14 to 17. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...).

2) Universal background checks for mental illness are logical

-Mentally ill persons may not have the lucidity to know how to use guns safely, so access to guns should be restricted for persons known to have diagnosed, serious mental illness. Mental illness is associated with increases in suicide, and, in the United States, more people kill themselves with firearms than anything else (50.7% of all suicides in the U.S. were committed using firearms in 2006). Even the National Rifle Association President, David Keene, is in favor of background checks to block people who may be mentally ill (http://www.cnn.com...).

3) Among competent adults, having less restrictive gun laws is associated with greater incidence of suicide and overall gun death rates

-In states where firearm laws are modest or unrestrictive, men and women have higher suicide incidence rate ratios than in states with restrictive firearm laws (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...).

-Strong gun laws are associated with lower gun death rates in general (http://smartgunlaws.org...)

Given the above, it is my contention that while not all gun control is logical, the idea that gun control in general is highly illogical is an overstretch.
Debate Round No. 1
Eminentend

Pro

Thank you for responding dukeblueinmyveins, as this is also my first time posting on this website.

1) Age restrictions are logical

I believe I was not very clear when I started this debate, and I would like to apologize. I do agree with the fact that age restrictions are logical. By gun control I meant the assault weapons ban which is infringing the 2nd Amendment and the ridiculous "7 bullets per magazine" and assault weapons ban in New York. (1)


2) Universal background checks for mental illness are logical

While I do agree that background checks make sense, it will not stop the mentally ill. One schizophrenic passed a background check from federally licensed gun dealers, and was able to use the gun to kill his mother. (2)
A background check did not save Gabby Gifford's life. (3)


What good are new background checks if the current ones are not even being enforced? Putting that aside if one were to think about it carefully, most violent mentally ill people would not even consider a background check and just buy one illegally.

3) Among competent adults, having less restrictive gun laws is associated with greater incidence of suicide and overall gun death rates.

Anyone that wants to commit suicide will take anything that is available, that is not a matter of guns.

A great example of a crime filled city is Chicago with 40 gun-related homicides per month. Guess what? It has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. (4)

Criminals are going to break one law in order to achieve the breaking of another one, (They're criminals, duh,) proving once again background checks are useless.

And just a question. Suppose you are a criminal intending to kill children in a certain school.
Would you enter the school with a sign that says "Gun-free zone" or would you enter a school with a sign that says "Warning, staff is armed, anyone attempting to harm any students will be met with lethal force.

1.http://www.governor.ny.gov...
2.http://www.cnn.com...
3.http://www.newsbusters.org...
4.http://www.nytimes.com...


dukeblueinmyveins

Con

Thank you Eminentend for the clarification and responses. I will address your responses below:

1) Age restrictions are logical.

You have conceded this point. The argument that an assault weapons ban is infringing on the 2nd Amendment can be made as can the argument that there shouldn't be a 7 bullets per magazine restriction. However, these arguments are much more specific than the overarching claim that "gun control in general is highly illogical." I am being asked to debate something much different from what I agreed to debate, so I ask that this not be held against me. Given the Supreme Court's recent decision to establish an individual right to bear arms for personal protection under the penumbra of the 2nd Amendment, it is unlikely that magazine restrictions or assault weapons bans would pass constitutional muster.

Out of curiosity, do you support any restrictions on the type of weaponry available to individual citizens? Is there any line you would draw at which public safety overrules the possibility of using a weapon for protection or sport?

2) Universal background checks for mental illness are logical

Just because background checks have not stopped everyone who is mentally ill and potentially dangerous from obtaining a firearm does not mean that they have not stopped anyone. In fact, background checks have been highly effective; since the NICS instant background check system was implemented in 1998, background checks have denied transfers to over 1.7 million prohibited purchasers (http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org...). As can be seen from this figure, even if background checks are not always being enforced as they should, they are being enforced often. They are helping us keep guns in the hands of the people who should have them rather than in the hands of those who pose a danger to the community.

3) Among competent adults, having less restrictive gun laws is associated with greater incidence of suicide and overall gun death rates.

It may not be true that anyone who wants to commit suicide will take anything that is available. Suicide attempts can be cries for attention or help, and people who attempt suicide are not always sure about what they want. In an Oxford, UK study of attempted suicide, 36.9% of those who attempted suicide reported only low suicidal intent, while 33.9% reported moderate intent, 25% reported high intent, and 4.2% reported very high intent (http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk...
csr/monpubs.html). Yet, firearms are highly effective for suicide (although there is the possibility of failure): http://www.amazon.com... Easy access to firearms may be contributing to the success of suicides that may have otherwise been unsuccessful, leading to a decision by the individual to not commit suicide after all. Here is a citation for research that demonstrates that when you reduce access to lethal means, suicide rates diminish:

Johnson, Rene M; Coyne-Beasley, Tamera. Lethal means reduction: what have we learned? Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2009; 21: 635"640

You raise the issue of Chicago's homicide rate, but this is just one example. You have to consider larger trends to get the full picture. Overall, states with weaker gun laws have higher gun violence: http://www.americanprogress.org...

You depict criminals as being people who are going to break one law in order to achieve the breaking of another because "they're criminals, duh." However, it isn't as though there are two groups of people: criminals and non-criminals. Everyone has committed a crime at some point, whether that crime was driving faster than a posted speed limit or committing a homicide. You have not provided any evidence to suggest that there are certain people who will inherently break all laws and some who will break none. Thus, it is possible that some, when confronted with what would be necessary to obtain a firearm illegally, would use that opportunity to rethink their actions. It is also possible that people have some laws they would break and others that they would not because of their values, beliefs, worldviews, the difficulty of breaking the laws, fear of certain consequences but not others or any number of other reasons. For example, I have no problem with speeding in my car, but I would never commit a DUI.

You raise a hypothetical regarding a criminal intending to kill children in a school and ask whether a gun-free zone sign would be more or less effective than a sign that indicated that staff are armed and violence would be met with lethal force. Personally, I don't think either would be effective. If someone is intent on killing children in a school, neither a gun-free zone sign nor threat of lethal force is going to effectively deter that person. One has to assume that killing others will likely lead to lethal force from the police in response.

Thank you for your comments, and I look forward to the next round.

Best Regards,

Dukeblueinmyveins
Debate Round No. 2
Eminentend

Pro

Eminentend forfeited this round.
dukeblueinmyveins

Con

Eminentend has forfeited this round. I would be happy to debate further if Eminentend is willing to continue participating.

Best Regards,
Dukeblueinmyveins
Debate Round No. 3
Eminentend

Pro

Eminentend forfeited this round.
dukeblueinmyveins

Con

I'm happy to continue this debate, but there is nothing else to respond to given the recent forfeiture.

Best Regards,

Dukeblueinmyveins
Debate Round No. 4
Eminentend

Pro

Eminentend forfeited this round.
dukeblueinmyveins

Con

Greetings! I have responded to each argument presented by my opponent. My opponent has forfeited the last three rounds and failed to rebut my arguments. Therefore, I request your vote. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dukeblueinmyveins 4 years ago
dukeblueinmyveins
That's disappointing. No one voted...
Posted by dukeblueinmyveins 4 years ago
dukeblueinmyveins
Cowboy, thank you for your comment. If you look at the breakdown, half of firearm deaths are actually from suicides (http://www.nbcnews.com...). The next highest category is homicides. Killing someone in protection of a home represents a very small fraction of firearm deaths. In fact, all legal killings constitute only 2% of firearm deaths. With all due respect, you are misrepresenting the data by claiming that the exception to the rule is the rule. The evidence is not "tainted."

As for your other comments, please understand that my arguments should not be misconstrued as being opposed to all forms of gun ownership. I respect the 2nd Amendment. The debate I agreed to, however, was to take the con position against the statement that gun control in general is illogical, which is a highly general statement and thus reasonably debatable.
Posted by Cowboy0108 4 years ago
Cowboy0108
Did you know that the supreme court ruled that it is not the police's responsibility to prevent crimes. Primarily, this is to prevent them from getting sued when someone gets shot. Still, who's responsibility is it? Yours. This responsibility would be made much easier with a gun.
Furthermore, I looked into one of your sources and it should be completely eliminated as a source because one of the categories was overall firearm deaths. This would include those who were killed breaking into someone's home and got shot. Thus the evidence is tainted and odds are, the same goes for your other sources.
Common sense things that should be heard:
If teachers in a school had guns and someone started shooting, they can shoot back before the cops are even called. Duh
Outlaws do not obey the law. Duh
If the law is to turn in guns, they will not obey
Law abiding citizens obey the law
If the law is to turn in guns, they will, and will be left defenseless against the outlaws(mentioned above)
Now I must ask, who is morally superior, a woman who has been raped and strangled or one with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
Posted by makeshift8 4 years ago
makeshift8
Everyone should carry guns on them at all times. I have a loaded .22 dear rifle under my bed just in case. If people have guns on them, especially dangerous ones, then nobody will want to take a risk of them getting shot.
No votes have been placed for this debate.