The Instigator
Dgamer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ssosme
Con (against)
Winning
7 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...
Ssosme
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 401 times Debate No: 81361
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Dgamer

Pro

Hi, I would like to debate on weather gun control should be legal. I'm Pro, so I'm arguing that gun control is needed. First round is for acceptance.

Good luck to whoever takes the challenge!
Ssosme

Con

I accept this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Dgamer

Pro

Good Morning to whoever is reading.

So, I'm Pro, and I know that gun control is needed in our country. The United States have the highest homicide with guns rate, with 67.5% of homicides done with guns. It also has the highest gun ownership. And the only reason the U.S. has a huge access for guns is due to the business industry that is making money. This industry is the reason why gun laws aren't stricter.

Think about what gun control can do for us. In 2011, 8583 persons used guns to murder people. That's moore than 2/3 of all U.S. Murders. What we need, is better background on those that buy guns, as well as reduce gun shops in our country. With it, we can reduce the unecessary violence that plagues our country.

Thank you.
Ssosme

Con

I would like to start my argument with thanking my opponent for posting on time and creating this debate. Now lets begin.

See here, you posted 67.5% homicides done with guns. Says where? You never sited your source. Also, how do you think taking away guns will help? It will simply disarm the law-abiding citizens. News-flash, criminals won't follow the law. If we make guns illegal, do you think that will stop the criminals from getting a gun? Totally absurd to say. Did you notice that meth is illegal almost nation-wide of the united states? Yet people still get meth through meth labs and you know guns can easily be made.

Our founding fathers weren't blind to this. They under

In Kennesaw, Georgia they made it a legal requirement for everyone to own a gun. Guess what happened? Crime dropped 89% compared to the 10% state-wide. What does this show? Well it shows us how if Criminals know that if people have guns they won't attack them, because their life is at risk. No this is not a very small town at all. After they enforced this law, "the city's population in 1998 was recorded at 14,493 - a sharp increase over the 8,936 residents recorded in the 1990 census."

"What we need, is better background on those that buy guns, as well as reduce gun shops in our country. With it, we can reduce the unnecessary violence that plagues our country."

"A quick review of Michigan gun laws shows that law abiding citizens wishing to own a gun for self-protection are strongly regulated and actively discouraged. First, they have to take and pass the Michigan Basic Pistol Safety questionnaire. Then they have to apply for the Ten Day Handgun Purchase Permit to buy the gun and make sure they find and buy the gun of their choice within 10 days, otherwise they have start the process all over again. When they make their purchase, they have to fill out a Michigan Pistol Sales Record form and make sure the pistol has a valid firearm Safety Inspection Certificate. " - mic.com

We already have really strict gun policies and we have to take long tests to get our carry permits. Guess what, criminals. If they want to get a gun, they can simply steal one/black market one then they can shoot up whatever place they wish. They won't bother wanting a carry permit if they are criminals. We would simply be putting more restrictions on the LAW-ABIDING citizens.

Also you say we need to reduce gun shops. How will this help? Criminals are going to get their guns either way. Like I have been saying over and over. Criminals are simply what they are. People who break the law. We would simply be hurting our society if we enforced these restrictions and going against what our founding fathers planned for us. Also, if we take away gun shops we would be hurting our economy. People with families own gun shops, if we take away gun shops we would be taking away their rights to run their free business. Do you really wish to hurt our business owners, just to make them more vulnerable and lose their one job to put bread and food on the table?

In conclusion. Stricter gun laws won't help our society, but only harm. Because criminals are law-breakers. Period.

[Sources]
[1] http://rense.com...
[2]http://mic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Dgamer

Pro

Criminals stealing guns isn't a problem. By reducing the amount of gun access, it will be much harder for criminals to find a gun, and if they do find one, they quickly be noticed and reported to the authorities.

As for the gun shop issue, I've never said to completely eliminate gun shops. We only said to REDUCE. REDUCE means to diminish, and gun shops will be around. Only there should be a tiny bit less than the amount that currently exist, and those that exist, will be much more stricter than right now. You said that people have to obtain a permit to even buy a gun, let alone get permission to use it, but there is no checking of criminal background.

You also said that criminals will get access to guns in their own way, but that is a different issue. We are talking about gun Violence, and crimes, and very few guns that are stolen are actually used for crime. According to PBS, only 10 to 15% of stolen guns are actually used in crime. That means that the rest are legal guns bought from one of the 124,000 retailers of guns in our country.

I would also like to state, that new, modern issues, like drug crimes, bring new utilization in guns, making guns more dangerous than when our founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Think about the cost of gun violence in our country. each gun death costs about $6 million in total cost, and injuries cost about $583,000. We need a reduction in gun violence in our country, and the only logical way, is by reducing access to guns.

Thank you.

Sources of all info that I presented-
http://www.motherjones.com...
http://www.pbs.org...
http://www.deseretnews.com...
Ssosme

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and being reasonable. I personally have enjoyed this debate and wish him luck!

You do realize that in a closing argument you cannot bring any new evidence into the debate only summing up what you have said. Just something to keep in mind in future debates. Because now if I make a response to your "new" evidences you might have a counter argument. So if you plan to do things like this, I recommend you make these longer rounds. So, going along with debate rules, I will not bring new evidences but only sum up my debate and give a quick conclusion.

In conclusion fellow voter. I recommend you favor cons side today for these reasons.

I have clearly shown to you that when guns are increased into society, that it actually made crime drop 89%! The problem with Pro's argument is that he hasn't displayed any examples of strict gun laws helping society. Only stating the murders with guns and fire arms and the costs.

I have stated that when reducing gun shops in our local cities and towns will take away local family owned stores, making our economy drop and only make it difficult for others when they need to feed their family. Leaving only a few shops to remain. What pro has failed to explain is how this would be fair to the gun shop owners who run businesses and the ones who will keep their business. He has not explained to us the new plan, only stating what he thinks will work with no back up to it, or how he wishes to fix this problem.

Fellow voters, I have stated the facts, shown you cities and towns that have used increased guns into homes and dropping crime and I have shown you solutions. For all these reasons I ask that you have a con ballet.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Dgamer 1 year ago
Dgamer
By the way, thanks for reminding me to put my sources. I'm so stupid.
Posted by Dgamer 1 year ago
Dgamer
I just realized, I forgot to put my sources. Damn. Well, anyway, I'll just post them later on.
Posted by Ssosme 1 year ago
Ssosme
Sorry about my 3rd paragraph. It glitched for some reason and erased it. Don't worry it is pretty much the same as I will state later in my argument in round 2 :)
Posted by Ssosme 1 year ago
Ssosme
Ok, sounds good.
Posted by Dgamer 1 year ago
Dgamer
Gun Control-Restricting access to guns and gun ownership.

No specific country, but if you want, U.S.
Posted by Ssosme 1 year ago
Ssosme
I would also like to ask what you define Gun Control and whether you are talking about Gun Control in a specific country.
Posted by Ssosme 1 year ago
Ssosme
I would like to debate you, but it says I do not follow your criteria. I ask that you can please give me permission to debate you on this topic?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sarai.K82 1 year ago
Sarai.K82
DgamerSsosme
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: While I tend to agree with Pro's side of the equation, I felt that con presented a better case for opposing gun control in this particular debate.