The Instigator
David_Ranger36
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
palmertio0
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

'Gun Control' or 'Gun Ban' is completely pointless.

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: 10/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 397 times Debate No: 81766
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

David_Ranger36

Con

This is completely pointless. Taking away guns wont stop people from having guns, it'll only get more people killed. Its same situation with drugs; Though they're outlawed, people still get them and use them. Say they manage to take people's guns away, and you're in your house one night and someone with a gun breaks into your house. You and your family are fucked. He can kill you all, and you've got nothing but blades and blunt objects to fight back with. He has a ranged weapon that could possibly go through walls. Id like to hear everyone else' opinions.
palmertio0

Pro

I accept.

Since you failed to make any rules or definitions, I will now be making my own:

Definitions:
'Gun Control': Any law, act, or other form of policy regulating the purchase, possession, and use of firearms.
'Gun Ban': Any law, act, or other form of policy completely outlawing the purchase, possession, and use of firearms.
Firearm: any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any similar destructive device.
Completely: Absolutely, fully, beyond reasonable doubt
Pointless: Having little or no sense, use, or purpose

Rules:
1. Forfeiting a round is an automatic disqualification/forfeit of the whole debate.
2. No ad hominems.
3. General good conduct.


Now, onto my argument.

I will be arguing for stricter regulation of dfirearms in general rather than an outright ban.
My main proposals are:
1. Background checks for all gun sales
2. Federal gun tracking
3. Reduced ownership of semi-automatic weapons
4. Greater gun safety awareness programs
5. Child safety locks
6. Smart guns

However, guns should not be completely banned.
I believe that guns should be allowed for the primary purpose of hunting. Hunting is not only the source of many people's livelihoods and a sport demanding skill, but is also necessary for the control of animal populations and helps widen awareness about the conservation of nature. Self defense should really be more of a secondary concern for gun owners.

I accept and agree with the Second Amendment of the Constitution and its provisions for gun ownership but point out its wording:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you are "fucked" whenever a armed robber enters your home and you do not have a gun, then 76% of households are "fucked." Currently, only about 34% of households actually have guns. [1] I am not denying that guns can be used in self defense; rather, they have been used to stop a small percent of possible mass shootings. [2] The real tragedy is when these guns get in the hands of the wrong people. In 2015, there have been 281 mass shootings in which 4 or more people have been injured or killed. That is almost one mass shooting per day. There have also been 1,554 accidental shootings this year. [3] A saddening exapmle of these of these are the ones that are caused by toddlers. This year there has been at least one injury or death caused by armed toddler every week. This has ended in the deaths of 13 toddlers and 2 people. [4] By far the largest source of gun deaths is suicide. This year 21,175 have commited suicide using firearms. [5]

A large percentage of firearm deaths, especially those caused by accidental discharges and suicides, could be reduced with safety measures. General campaings and safety standards requiring people to store guns more safely could prevent children and teens from reaching firearms. This would help reduce accidental shootings by children and may reduce suicides by making guns harder to access by teens. Another possible safety measure is making guns "smart." "Smart" guns can only be fired by their owners. They achieve this using identification wristbands, code locks, fingerprint detection, and hand biometrics. Stolen guns would be unusable and children would be unable to shoot the guns. This would also reduce the number of accidental discharges when moving weapons. [5]

Background checks and gun tracking would make it harder for criminals and the mentally unstable to access firearms. This could potentially lead to a reduction in violent crimes involving guns. Also, stricter laws concerning the purchase of semiautomatic guns, mass shooters' weapons of choice, [6] would definitely help reduce the number of people killed in shootings.

Sources:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.gunviolencearchive.org...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
[6] http://www.motherjones.com...
Debate Round No. 1
David_Ranger36

Con

David_Ranger36 forfeited this round.
palmertio0

Pro

Aww. All of the good debates I've had have ended in a forfeit by the other side.
Debate Round No. 2
David_Ranger36

Con

David_Ranger36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
David_Ranger36

Con

David_Ranger36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
David_Ranger36

Con

David_Ranger36 forfeited this round.
palmertio0

Pro

palmertio0 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.