The Instigator
cal352
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Gun Control

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...
AlternativeDavid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 60537
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

cal352

Con

The belief that enforcing stricter gun laws on those who use guns for good(gun owners who protect themselves, their families, and potentially prevent crimes) will keep guns off the streets(from those who buy guns off the black market rather than a gun store " obviously requiring no permit, no background check, etc) is very foolish. If this method were actually effective, then illegal drugs would not be an issue. Vilifying gun owners by imposing gun restrictions make it tougher for registered, law abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms and does nearly nothing to prevent real criminals from acquiring them.
Is gun control the solution to deterring heinous acts and creating less crime? Gun control is legislation that is specifically aimed at imposing measures to make it harder for an individual to acquire a firearm. Gun control comes in many forms including mandatory licenses, background checks, waiting periods, and various others. As Alex Jones had said "When strict gun control laws are prevalent, the fear of getting shot goes away and criminals tend to flourish." which shows how something that is meant to prevent crime (gun control) actually contributes to crime.
Individuals who go through the legal process and apply for a gun permit care about their own preservation of life. Someone does not apply for a gun permit in order to commit gun related crimes. It would be illogical for people to do such a thing because they would be identified immediately after committing such a crime. A true criminal isn't taking gun safety courses, obtaining a permit, paying the processing fee, or waiting a 2 day period to receive their firearm. The real criminals who have the intention of using firearms to commit illegal actions are buying a gun in some alley from the back of some guy's trunk. No aspect of gun control will prevent criminals from obtaining or using firearms. Background checks do very little good in preventing an individual from getting a gun; it only unnecessarily makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens. In 1999 Benjamin Smith was unable to pass a background check barring him from legally purchasing a firearm. Three days later he bought two handguns off the streets and went on a rampage killing two people and wounding nine others. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots USA Today reported that many of the people who scrambled to gun stores were "lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need." They were actually infuriated by the fact that they had to legally wait 15 days to purchase the gun. Two other common misconceptions about potentially successful methods of gun control are either creating gun free zones or banning guns all together. Gun free zones create a false sense of peace of mind and security. If gun free zones stopped shootings, no one would go 60 mph in a 25 mph zone. The only people a gun free zone stops is a law abiding, gun carrying citizen who could stop a crime from happening rather than a maniac going on a shooting rampage. Banning guns is just as useless as the previous proposed method. If the federal government were to seek to outlaw guns, it would have as much success as has the drug war if not worse.
Another reason the idea of outlawing guns is absolutely ludicrous is because it is our 2nd amendment right and it was written into the constitution for a very good reason. The real reason for the 2nd amendment is not known by most people. The 2nd amendment is in place to ensure that the citizenry of the United States always has the ability to exercise the explicit right to overthrow the elected government by force of arms. Citizens arm themselves to assure that they have safety from a government that takes away rights individually until forced to live in a police state. If such events were to happen and the civilian populace was unarmed, the government would be free to do anything it wants due to the civilians not being able to resist. Legislators need to realize what a threat gun control is to liberty and the fact that even though our rights are guaranteed by the constitution, it does not enforce anything. Guns do. As James Madison had said "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." This shows how we have the security of knowing we are safe from tyranny as long as we are armed. If you take a look at history you can see that history repeats its self. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao took the guns. Each a leader of a powerful nation that fell. As Ben Franklin has said "Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns" which clearly ended up being the truth as seen by the aforementioned leaders. Gun control is used to keep the oppressed from rising up. If the Jews were armed during the Holocaust or slaves in the United States had guns, they would have had a fighting chance. Not only does gun ownership protect the American populace from its own government, it protects us from foreign nations as well, which is best exemplified by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's statement "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Confiscating guns is robbing the people of security.
Prior restraints on rights are unconstitutional. The courts have ruled that an individual cannot use his freedom of speech to create panic but yelling fire in a crowded theater. Even so, no one argues that all the people attending the movie must have their mouths taped shut. The proper response is to punish the person who does commit the crime rather that placing prior restraints on innocent movie-goers. Likewise, the people should not have prior restraints on exercising their Second Amendment rights, rather persecute if the abuse that right.
I believe that a large majority of people who oppose guns are not educated on the positive aspects of the tool and how it can be used for saving lives instead only of taking lives. A lot of the people who are pro-gun control are the people who don't have much knowledge or experience with guns and have only formulated opinions on them through the media. Most of which is biased and only displays firearms negatively. Many people have grown a fear of firearms through television and movies. When only seeing guns being wielded by bad guys in movies and seeing a news report of a shooting right after, guns are often associated with crime at a very young age. I believe that upon learning about statistics and analyzing the benefits instead of solely focusing on the negatives, one will more than likely change their mind. Unfortunately the facts and statistics that show the true nature of guns are not reported on new networks. Instead countless hours of air time is given to anti-gun lobbyists who are obsessed with gun control.
As someone who desires to be a police officer in the future I would want most citizens to acquire a gun license and carry a gun. The statement "A gun in your hand is better than a cop on the phone."(Unknown) holds true as the national average police response time is about 10 minutes. If someone tries to break in to an individual's house, he can only call the police and wait for help. Now let's be realistic; no burglar needs10 minutes to break into a house. Therefore the homeowner must be able to defend themselves and their family if such a situation arises. Owning a firearm and knowing how to use it is the best defense one can have in such a situation. In many instances a gun doesn't even need to be discharged to deter a criminal; simply presenting a firearm can scare off an intruder. What many people don't know is that police cannot protect"and are not required to protect"every individual.
Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime and protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives. Guns sales over the past 20 years have sparked, however firearm related homicides are now committed 39% less. People have used their firearms to protect themselves against assailants around 2.5 million times a year.
The one and only thing a criminal is concerned with is not getting caught. That means that a criminal will avoid gun control precautions such as background checks, licenses, waiting period, etc. These forms of gun control prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and the ones they love when necessary. Not only does it make it tougher to acquire a firearm it is also unconstitutional. Gun control is a form of unconstitutional prior restraint and it needs to be recognized as such. Guns protect us from criminals, psychopaths, governments at home and overseas. Some of the people who bring forth the opposition are not well aware of the widespread failure of such implementation of legislation in other countries and thus conclude that gun control is the only option. Guns are used 80 times more to save a live than to take a life and that alone should teach us alone the real value of firearms.

Have I left anything out? I'd like to know what you think if you are anti-gun. What are your reasons for believing anti-gun legislation is the solution.
AlternativeDavid

Pro

I feel as though Con is blinded by his biases, so I will attempt to debate this completely objectively.

"If this method were actually effective, then illegal drugs would not be an issue"

Con fails to make any connection between guns and illegal drugs so I can safely assume this claim is false.

"Vilifying gun owners by imposing gun restrictions make it tougher for registered, law abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms and does nearly nothing to prevent real criminals from acquiring them."

Con has failed to provide any sources for this claim so I can also safely assume it is false.

"As Alex Jones had said "When strict gun control laws are prevalent, the fear of getting shot goes away and criminals tend to flourish."

Wikipedia says that Alex Jones is "an American radio host, author, conspiracy theorist, and documentary filmmaker[1]"
Here's a video a 42 completely wrong predictions made by Alex Jones [2]. He has made multiple claims that Obama is going to nuke everybody, shut down the internet, and kill 50% of the population with a controlled bird flu to instate martial law. Alex Jones is not a reliable source.

"Individuals who go through the legal process and apply for a gun permit care about their own preservation of life."

What Con is saying here is that nobody buys guns for anything other than self-defense. This is obviously false. There are many sports that involve guns such as target shooting, skeet shooting, and hunting, [3].

"A true criminal isn't taking gun safety courses, obtaining a permit, paying the processing fee, or waiting a 2 day period to receive their firearm."

A lot of non-criminals don't even take gun safety courses which is why there are lots of accidental killings/injuries. [4]. The accidental homicide rate among children is horrifically high. Between 1999 and 2012, 259 children under 15 died because they had careless parents that didn't keep the weapon in a safe place. If Con tries to claim that in a population of 300 Million that isn't a lot, then I will claim that Con is a sociopath.

"No aspect of gun control will prevent criminals from obtaining or using firearms."

This is absolutely not true. Japan has the highest gun restrictions in the developed world, and it had only two gun related deaths in 2006 [5]. There are 126 million people in Japan. There are 314 million people in the USA. Comparatively, we should be having five or six per year with higher restrictions, not 11,000 [6]. Is one example not enough? I'll happily provide more. Australia has 0.1 gun deaths per 10,000 people every year. In 2010, Germany had 158 gun deaths. In the last 14 years, the highest amount of gun deaths the UK has seen in one year is 52 (2004) [7].

"The real criminals who have the intention of using firearms to commit illegal actions are buying a gun in some alley from the back of some guy's trunk."

Again, not true. 49 out of the 61 mass murders in the USA since 1982 have been done with legal firearms []8]. Clearly criminals aren't getting as many guns from the black market as Con would have people believe. Think about how many people have been stopped because they could not obtain a legal firearm.

" In 1999 Benjamin Smith was unable to pass a background check barring him from legally purchasing a firearm. Three days later he bought two handguns off the streets and went on a rampage killing two people and wounding nine others. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots USA Today reported that many of the people who scrambled to gun stores were 'lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need.'"

These were both claimed without sources so I can safely assume they are false.

"Two other common misconceptions about potentially successful methods of gun control are either creating gun free zones or banning guns all together. Gun free zones create a false sense of peace of mind and security. If gun free zones stopped shootings, no one would go 60 mph in a 25 mph zone. The only people a gun free zone stops is a law abiding, gun carrying citizen who could stop a crime from happening rather than a maniac going on a shooting rampage. Banning guns is just as useless as the previous proposed method. If the federal government were to seek to outlaw guns, it would have as much success as has the drug war if not worse."

I find this argument to be extremely flawed. As can be seen on this graph [8b] (a graph from source 8), states that have higher restrictions on guns have fewer gun deaths. States with little to now gun restrictions have more gun deaths. Correlation is not causation but it is very suggestive. Especially with these kind of statistics. This other graph [8c] also shows that the most gun deaths are in states with relaxed gun laws. Obviously, gun regulations do work. Also, I cannot believe that Con just equated driving to owning a weapon. Cars do not have the primary purpose of killing. They are a useful tool.

"Another reason the idea of outlawing guns is absolutely ludicrous is because it is our 2nd amendment right and it was written into the constitution for a very good reason...The 2nd amendment is in place to ensure that the citizenry of the United States always has the ability to exercise the explicit right to overthrow the elected government by force of arms."

For an aspiring police officer Con has a terrible grasp at what the 2nd amendment states.

The second amendment states "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."[9]

I'd like Con to show me where to sign up for this "well regulated militia". Does it exist? Nope. Until it does, the right to bear arms does not exist. Let's just assume that the well regulated militia part is not there, for arguments sake. When the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were added to the constitution, the founders could not have possibly know about fully automatic rifles and high powered sniper rifles. They were talking about muskets. An M16 has the ability to fire 800 rounds per minute [10]. That would be unfathomable at a time when a skilled musketeer could shoot maybe three/four rounds per minute. New bullets are also much more lethal than musket balls.

I argue that the second amendment should be repealed because our current setup of guns could not have been imagined by the founders. Also, it says "right to bear arms". It does not specify which arms. This should make it legal for a normal citizen to have an armed nuclear warhead and mustard gas. Is that a world anybody wants to live in? It would be pure chaos.

"Citizens arm themselves to assure that they have safety from a government that takes away rights individually until forced to live in a police state"

Have fun taking out an F-32b fighter jet with your shotgun. Also, those tanks might be a little hard to bust with your pistol. The idea that guns are necessary to overthrow the government is ludicrous.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

For all I know Con's name is James Madison. There's no source here so I can safely assume the real James Madison did not say that.

"As Ben Franklin has said 'Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns'"

Read above

"If you take a look at history you can see that history repeats its self. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao took the guns. Each a leader of a powerful nation that fell."

Sorry, I'm having trouble not seeing China on a map. Should I cut it out? Also, Stalin was long gone when the USSR fell. The fall of the USSR had nothing to do with guns. Command economies don't work as well market economies. By the way, "itself" is one word.

To add on, most countries that have fallen, fell before guns came into existence. The Roman Empire didn't fall because they confiscated guns. The Aztecs didn't fall because they confiscated guns. The Ottoman's didn't fall because they confiscated guns.

"If the Jews were armed during the Holocaust or slaves in the United States had guns, they would have had a fighting chance.

Nope. Slaves outnumbered white people in the south. They did have a fighting chance. Also, how could you expect such a small portion of the populace to fight the government?

"Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime and protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives...People have used their firearms to protect themselves against assailants around 2.5 million times a year."

I'd like proof of this claim.

"Guns protect us from criminals, psychopaths, governments at home and overseas."

I wasn't aware that people were now taking trips to North Korea to fight them with their pistols. I feel safer already.

I'm out of space, so I will target more of Con's claims in the second round.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(radio_host)
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
[3] http://www.nssf.org...
[4] http://www.nytimes.com...
[5] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[6] http://www.cdc.gov...
[7] http://ivn.us...
[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[8b] http://img.washingtonpost.com...
[8c] http://img.washingtonpost.com...
[9] http://constitutioncenter.org...
[10] http://fas.org...
Debate Round No. 1
cal352

Con

The connection that I was making between guns and illegal drugs was the fact that there are strict laws and punishment in place to prevent individuals from acquiring or distributing drugs and yet almost half of all those incarcerated are in prison for drug related crimes. If the anti-drug legislation has been so unsuccessful then how does one expect anti-gun legislation to be successful. When someone wants something like drugs, guns, or other contraband laws won't stop people from getting what they want. There has to be alternate methods of preventing drug abuse or in this case gun related crime.

(Removed pasted statement for space- refer to statement #2)
Pro seems to put off a majority of arguments made in order to avoid addressing them. The previous statement does not need sources but rather needs to be looked at logically. If a criminal were to seek firearms then they would most likely buy a firearm through illegal trade. I have not ever heard of a gang member have a gun permit and license and walk into a gun store to register his gun and go through a background check. In what world does that make sense? When gun restrictions go past the usual background checks and go into wait periods, ammunition limits, several unnecessary permit requirements, having to report the exact location of where the firearm and ammunition will be located in the house, it not only becomes unnecessary but invasive.

"What Con is saying here is that nobody buys guns for anything other than self-defense. This is obviously false. There are many sports that involve guns such as target shooting, skeet shooting, and hunting, [3]. "

What I meant by "Individuals who go through the legal process and apply for a gun permit care about their own preservation of life." is the same thing I said in the previous statement. Those who care to acquire guns legally usually are not the ones who intend to use guns for illegal activities.

Con's statement: "A lot of non-criminals don't even take gun safety courses which is why there are lots of accidental killings/injuries. [4]. The accidental homicide rate among children is horrifically high. Between 1999 and 2012, 259 children under 15 died because they had careless parents that didn't keep the weapon in a safe place. If Con tries to claim that in a population of 300 Million that isn't a lot, then I will claim that Con is a sociopath."

Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Actually the number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58% between 1991 and 2011 even though the population and gun ownership has continued to increase. A major proponent of the anti-gun campaign is unfortunately cases in which children have been involved in an accidental or intentional firearm related death. Although it does not take away from the anguish of such events, it is fortunately much less likely to occur than the media coverage suggests. Twice as many children are killed playing football in school (due to head injuries, heatstroke, etc.) than are murdered by guns. A child is more likely to die in a car crash, choke, or drown. A child is at a 2,000x greater risk from getting hit by a car, 130x greater risk from choking on food, and 7x greater risk of drowning than getting shot. Hopefully you understand that this statement doesn't make me a sociopath as I am only stating the other side of the seemingly biased facts you gave.

Con's statement: "This is absolutely not true. Japan has the highest gun restrictions in the developed world, and it had only two gun related deaths in 2006...."

If you want to compare gun restriction and gun crime then I think "Wadduphomedawg " in the comments section has taken care of that point but I will expand on that after his statement which I pasted here:

"Japan, has no borders. Australia, has no borders. This makes it incredibly difficult to smuggle in firearms. Even though these countries for the most part have always had those statistics.
Perhaps looking at this as a cultural issue rather than a gun issue can contextualize it better.
Let's look at Germany; a very impressive statistic indeed, but Sweden(i'm sure you're aware) has a very low gun homicide rate also, but they have a very high gun ownership in europe. Why don't they have this issue?
Now let's contrast this with brazil. Which has banned firearms but has a higher firearm death rate then both Sweden and America.
So let's look at this for what it really is - a cultural issue. It's been proven many times that more guns =/= more death. Rather, it's the culture and people who make up the nation that cause this."

In addition to his statement countries that have imposed strict gun legislation such as Australia, United Kingdom, and Germany have rising crime rates and have took a turn for the worse. USA Today reports that since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%. The United Kingdom also has a very strict ban on guns however the overall rate of violent crime is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. The UK has approximately 125% more rape victims and 133% more assault victims per 100,000 people per year than the United States does. Another nation that has very strict laws on gun control that have also failed to prevent crime is Germany. Even with the restrictions a 17 year old German high school student murdered 15 and wounded 9 with a single 9mm pistol. The pistol was owned by his father and was owned illegally proving that even a child was able to acquire a gun in a nation with such strict laws on gun control. On the contrary Iceland has one of the largest gun ownership rates in the world and yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. We must not fall into the trap of restricting guns with the belief that it will lower crime rates.

Pro's statement: ", states that have higher restrictions on guns have fewer gun deaths..."

Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime and protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives. Guns sales over the past 20 years have sparked, however firearm related homicides are now committed 39% less. People have used their firearms to protect themselves against assailants around 2.5 million times a year. The best example of the correlation of a drop in crime and gun ownership is in the city of Kennesaw, Georgia. Although their approach was a bit extreme in 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes. After the law had passed the crime rate had dropped by more than 50% with 89% decline in burglaries.

Con's statements: "I'd like Con to show me where to sign up for this "well regulated militia".
" the founders could not have possibly know about fully automatic rifles and high powered sniper rifles. "
"Also, it says "right to bear arms". It does not specify which arms."

The 2nd amemndment absolutely does not state that there must be a militia for the right of the citizens to bear arms. The constitiuion does not require a militia. Maybe have another read sometime.

You are correct the founders could not have possible known about full automatic rifles and high powered sniper rifles which aren't just in the hands of the people, they are in the hands of government agencies. Being that I had stated in the previous argument "The 2nd amendment is in place to ensure that the citizenry of the United States always has the ability to exercise the explicit right to overthrow the elected government by force of arms." Now what sense would it make for the people to have muskets that "could shoot maybe three/four rounds per minute. ".

Con's statement: "Have fun taking out an F-32b fighter jet with your shotgun. Also, those tanks might be a little hard to bust with your pistol."
" The idea that guns are necessary to overthrow the government is ludicrous. "

I don't think you understand how any type of war works.
If there ever is a need to overthrow a tyrannical gov't i'm sure a population of unarmed citizens can fix things. We can just blog about it right?

Can't fit enough to paste pro's arguments but it's the last two statements:

Just cause those countries have recovered doesn't take away from the point. Why should we ever risk the country falling in the first place? No one was talking about the Roman Empire, Aztecs, or ottomans. I specifically stated "Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Read before you reply.

No one mentioned traveling overseas to fight people with guns. The statement I made was meant that guns are a cruticial tool in preventing disruption of life at home by settling disputes and securing freedom overseas. I doubt I have to explain that but if you still don't understand the statement then just ask yourself why does the Military need guns; or do you not support our military having firearms either?

Sources: (Didn't feel like properly citing all of them so half of them are direct links)

Jones, Alex. "18 Little Known Gun Facts That Prove Guns Make Us Safer." N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. 1 Apr. 2014.

Gun Control: An Essay Against Additional Gun Laws. N.p., 5 May 2010. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.

"Gun control." World of Health. Gale, 2007. Student Resources in Context. Web. 1 Apr. 2014

"Justices deny review of gun-rights appeals." CNN Wire 24 Feb. 2014. Student Resources in Context. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.

Draper, Robert. "Inside the Power of the N.R.A." N.p., 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.

http://www.cnn.com...

http://listverse.com...

http://americangunfacts.com...

http://gunowners.org...

http://topics.nytimes.com...
AlternativeDavid

Pro

"The connection that I was making between guns and illegal drugs was the fact that there are strict laws and punishment in place to prevent individuals from acquiring or distributing drugs and yet almost half of all those incarcerated are in prison for drug related crimes."

I understand that Con cited a mess of sources at the bottom. However, I am not going to go through all of Con's sources. Therefore I will consider this to be uncited and I shall disregard it.

"If the anti-drug legislation has been so unsuccessful then how does one expect anti-gun legislation to be successful."

Why does Con assume that gun regulations are inherently anti-gun? We set regulations on cars/planes/food/houses to help keep people safe. That's what gun regulations are intended to do, keep us safe.

"When someone wants something like drugs, guns, or other contraband laws won't stop people from getting what they want"

I want a Chevrolet Camaro, but I can't afford one because I'm only 16. Laws have been pretty good at keeping me from breaking into a Chevrolet dealership and stealing one.

This statement by Con makes it seem like everybody is out breaking all of the laws that they can.

"Pro seems to put off a majority of arguments made in order to avoid addressing them."

Like?

"The previous statement does not need sources but rather needs to be looked at logically. If a criminal were to seek firearms then they would most likely buy a firearm through illegal trade."

Did I not show that 49/61 of all mass shootings since '82 have been committed with legal firearms? Also, every claim made requires sources. I will not research all claims to ensure their validity.

"I have not ever heard of a gang member have a gun permit and license and walk into a gun store to register his gun and go through a background check. In what world does that make sense?"

One major problem is that most states do not require a background check at a gun show [11]. "Known as the 'gun show loophole,' most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks."

Let's close the loopholes.

"When gun restrictions go past the usual background checks and go into wait periods, ammunition limits, several unnecessary permit requirements, having to report the exact location of where the firearm and ammunition will be located in the house, it not only becomes unnecessary but invasive."

Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only. That purpose is to kill. If my neighbor is going to have a gun, I'd want the government to know where it's supposed to be kept in case he ever decides to shoot me. If it's not in it's place or it has obviously been moved recently, they'll know to make him a suspect.

"What I meant by 'Individuals who go through the legal process and apply for a gun permit care about their own preservation of life.' is the same thing I said in the previous statement. Those who care to acquire guns legally usually are not the ones who intend to use guns for illegal activities."

There we go. Con just admitted that people are up to no good are willing to get weapons legally.

"When gun restrictions go past the usual background checks and go into wait periods, ammunition limits, several unnecessary permit requirements, having to report the exact location of where the firearm and ammunition will be located in the house, it not only becomes unnecessary but invasive."

Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only. That purpose is to kill. If my neighbor is going to have a gun, I'd want the government to know where it's supposed to be kept in case he ever decides to shoot me. If it's not in it's place or it has obviously been moved recently, they'll know to make him a suspect.

"Twice as many children are killed playing football in school (due to head injuries, heatstroke, etc.) than are murdered by guns. A child is more likely to die in a car crash, choke, or drown. A child is at a 2,000x greater risk from getting hit by a car, 130x greater risk from choking on food, and 7x greater risk of drowning than getting shot"

These numbers should be 0x because kids shouldn't be being killed by firearms. Also, risk =/= amount of casualties. I believe that Con may have confused risk and uncertainty, which is an easy thing to do. "Risk, as first articulated by the economist Frank H. Knight in 1921, is something that you can put a price on. Say that you’ll win a poker hand unless your opponent draws to an inside straight: the chances of that happening are exactly 1 chance in 11.46 This is risk. It is not pleasant when you take a “bad beat” in poker, but at least you know the odds of it and can account for it ahead of time. In the long run, you’ll make a profit from your opponents making desperate draws with insufficient odds. Uncertainty, on the other hand, is risk that is hard to measure. You might have some vague awareness of the demons lurking out there. You might even be acutely concerned about them. But you have no real idea how many of them there are or when they might strike. Your back-of-the-envelope estimate might be off by a factor of 100 or by a factor of 1,000; there is no good way to know. This is uncertainty. Risk greases the wheels of a free-market economy; uncertainty grinds them to a halt." [12]

It's impossible to measure things like the risk of drowning/being hit by a car/choking. We know it might happen one day, but we cannot account for how likely these things are.

"If you want to compare gun restriction and gun crime then I think "Wadduphomedawg " in the comments section has taken care of that point but I will expand on that after his statement which I pasted here:"

As the information presented was not provided by Con, but from a comment, I will ignore it unless it's brought up again.

"In addition to his statement countries that have imposed strict gun legislation such as Australia, United Kingdom, and Germany have rising crime rates and have took a turn for the worse. USA Today reports that since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."

I mentioned this before but I'll say it again. I understand that Con cited a mess of sources at the bottom. However, I am not going to go through all of Con's sources. Therefore I will consider this to be uncited and I shall disregard it.

"Even with the restrictions a 17 year old German high school student murdered 15 and wounded 9 with a single 9mm pistol. The pistol was owned by his father and was owned illegally proving that even a child was able to acquire a gun in a nation with such strict laws on gun control."

I have something to say about this so I will pretend it has a cited source. The kid allegedly stole an illegally obtained gun from his father. This is not a failure by the gun regulations. This is a failure to follow the law by his father.

"Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime and protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives."

Proof?

"The best example of the correlation of a drop in crime and gun ownership is in the city of Kennesaw, Georgia... After the law had passed the crime rate had dropped by more than 50% with 89% decline in burglaries"

So the plan is to give everybody a gun? Brilliant. Now psychopaths won't have to try very hard to get a high powered firearm. One example of this working to reduce crime in a city of 30,000 people isn't enough to convince me that it should be a model for the nation. Give everybody in Jackson, MS a gun and see how that turns out. Unless gun training is a requirement, a lot of people will die either by accident or on purpose.

"The 2nd amemndment absolutely does not state that there must be a militia for the right of the citizens to bear arms. The constitution does not require a militia. Maybe have another read sometime."

"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."[9]

Let me translate this into modern English. "A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free country, so citizens' rights to own guns shall not be taken away."

There is no well regulated militia. We can't cherry pick from the sentence.

"I don't think you understand how any type of war works.
If there ever is a need to overthrow a tyrannical gov't i'm sure a population of unarmed citizens can fix things. We can just blog about it right?"

For all Con knows, my name is David Patraeus. I will say this again, have fun taking out an F-32b fighter jet with your shotgun. Con has also completely dropped my point about nuclear warheads and mustard gas.

"Just cause those countries have recovered doesn't take away from the point"

Red China did not/has not fallen. They are going through a power shift, but in no way did they fall.

"No one was talking about the Roman Empire, Aztecs, or ottomans. I specifically stated "Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Read before you reply."

Sorry, I didn't realize that it was illegal to bring up new countries.

"Do you not support our military having firearms either?"

That's irrelevant. Of course I support the military having guns. I'm against untrained civilians having access to weapons of war.

----------

I notice something from Alex Jones in the sources. I thought I showed how unreliable he is.

Finally, how am I supposed to tell the difference between a criminal wanted for killing ten people, and a normal gun touting citizen?

[11] http://www.governing.com...
[12] http://www.amazon.com...
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
cal352

Con

Unfortunately ran out of time due to having lost power so I won't even post the part of the argument I had completed, it will be posted next round.
AlternativeDavid

Pro

To be fair to Con, I will not post an argument here. Thanks for a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by hsif 2 years ago
hsif
"Japan, has no borders. Australia, has no borders. This makes it incredibly difficult to smuggle in firearms. Even though these countries for the most part have always had those statistics.
Perhaps looking at this as a cultural issue rather than a gun issue can contextualize it better.
Let's look at Germany; a very impressive statistic indeed, but Sweden(i'm sure you're aware) has a very low gun homicide rate also, but they have a very high gun ownership in europe. Why don't they have this issue?
Now let's contrast this with brazil. Which has banned firearms but has a higher firearm death rate then both Sweden and America.
So let's look at this for what it really is - a cultural issue. It's been proven many times that more guns =/= more death. Rather, it's the culture and people who make up the nation that cause this."

Would getting rid of Africans and Latinos help?
Posted by Wadduphomedawg 2 years ago
Wadduphomedawg
"No aspect of gun control will prevent criminals from obtaining or using firearms."

This is absolutely not true. Japan has the highest gun restrictions in the developed world, and it had only two gun related deaths in 2006 [5]. There are 126 million people in Japan. There are 314 million people in the USA. Comparatively, we should be having five or six per year with higher restrictions, not 11,000 [6]. Is one example not enough? I'll happily provide more. Australia has 0.1 gun deaths per 10,000 people every year. In 2010, Germany had 158 gun deaths. In the last 14 years, the highest amount of gun deaths the UK has seen in one year is 52 (2004) [7]."

Japan, has no borders. Australia, has no borders. This makes it incredibly difficult to smuggle in firearms. Even though these countries for the most part have always had those statistics.
Perhaps looking at this as a cultural issue rather than a gun issue can contextualize it better.
Let's look at Germany; a very impressive statistic indeed, but Sweden(i'm sure you're aware) has a very low gun homicide rate also, but they have a very high gun ownership in europe. Why don't they have this issue?
Now let's contrast this with brazil. Which has banned firearms but has a higher firearm death rate then both Sweden and America.
So let's look at this for what it really is - a cultural issue. It's been proven many times that more guns =/= more death. Rather, it's the culture and people who make up the nation that cause this.
Posted by Republican-Man 2 years ago
Republican-Man
Well, this is an ambiguous resolution. Why not specify a certain gun control policy to debate? It seems like that would be a whole lot easier to interpret than more gun control/less gun control.
Posted by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
Wow. Very good rebuttals from Pro. I'm interested in seeing the outcome of this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
cal352AlternativeDavidTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was a bit rambling, and Pro rather tore it apart piece by piece. Con had the BoP here, and I don't think Con fulfilled it. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.