The Instigator
debateroftheages
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
skier96
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control

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: 10/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 295 times Debate No: 81741
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

debateroftheages

Pro

I've limited the words to 1,000 to keep things nice and simple, not too complicated.

We've heard the arguments for and against it all before, and it's constantly the same thing, "constitutional rights" this and "safety" that. Well now I've decided to settle it. I'm not a US national but I have done my research, so I have solid facts.

I believe that gun control needs to be enforced. It needs to happen because of the countless mass shootings we've seen, the unnecessary violence, the psychological effects of simply owning a gun. Research has shown that 97,000+ people are sho0t in the US every day. That's a daily average of 268 people. Research has also shown that, due to strict gun control laws in Washington DC, the murder rate remains at approximately 69 per 100,000 people. Contrarily, Indianapolis' high murder rate at 1,152 per 100,000 people indicates loose or non-existent gun control laws. Evidently, violent crime rates depend on each state's gun control laws.
skier96

Con

Well first of all, you have to look into how many of the deaths were caused by suicide. Not all of those deaths are from homicide. Also, the murder rate is roughly around 3.59 per 100,000 as you can see in this link: http://www.factcheck.org...

Texas also has one of the loosest gun laws and has the lowest crime rate in the country. This is due to a criminal knowing that there's a high chance that wherever they're trying to commit their crimes, the victim has a gun and can protect him or herself from truly becoming a victim.
Debate Round No. 1
debateroftheages

Pro

I was referring to homicide rates in the respective states, not both homicide and suicide. Generally, the amount of murders depends on a state/country's gun control laws. Take Ireland for example. The Irish police force does not carry arms except for a special division of the force, which only uses said arms in extreme circumstances. As a result of this and its tight gun restrictions, Ireland has an extremely low gun crime rate. In fact, owning a firearm in Ireland is illegal under the Firearms Act. Conversely, Spain has a high gun crime rate due to its ratio of firearms to population. There are 7 guns per 100 people in Spain, compared to just 3 per 100 in Ireland. As a result, there were 257 gun-related homicides in 2014 in Spain compared to just 53 in Ireland. Thus it is safe to assume that gun-related homicide rates are dependent on a country's gun control laws.

Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...
skier96

Con

That source clearly shows "total number of gun deaths" which could mean from suicide, accident, and homicide. Not solely homicide. Also, addressing the police, the poverty rate of Ireland is 8% while the poverty rate here in America is 15%. There is a clear correlation of people in poverty committing the higher crimes compared to those that are well off. Judging by this, it seems necessary for all American police to carry a gun due to its higher crime rate (with or without guns).

You're also comparing a country that has a smaller population that many single states in our country. The population of Ireland is roughly the same as the population of South Carolina. It's much easier to regulate gun control in a country that small and would be impossible to do here.

US by state population - http://www.infoplease.com...
Ireland population - http://countrymeters.info...
Debate Round No. 2
debateroftheages

Pro

While the poverty rate in America may be higher, surely if guns were more tightly regulated, there would not be as many gun crimes? This would reduce the need for police and even normal citizens to carry arms. What about mass shootings? If civil gun ownership was made illegal, citizens carrying arms would immediately be breaking the law and the police would be able to make an arrest much sooner. And, while the US Constitution's 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, which is more important in the long term - a "right ", or the safety of the general public?
skier96

Con

Although we do seem to have a mass shooting problem as of lately, when was the last time you've heard of a mass shooting in Texas? The recent states: Colorado, Connecticut, and Oregon have had the mass shootings. They also happen to have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Criminals will be criminals. A law passing saying that there will be background checks or that guns are illegal all together won't stop them. They can easily buy them off of the black market or bring them in from another country. Also, mass shootings only happen in areas where guns aren't allowed like schools or movie theaters. We protect our president, sporting events, and government buildings with guns. How do we protect our schools? We don't. That's the answer. We call someone with a gun to come help us, and by that time, it's usually too late. Having teachers and staff trained for using a gun would make our schools much safer in the long run.
Debate Round No. 3
debateroftheages

Pro

If guns were outlawed entirely except for police and those protecting the president, anyone other than those two groups seen owning a gun would be immediately arrested. This would reduce the amount of shootouts and make everywhere a whole lot safer. Also, technically by condoning gun ownership you are implying that it's ok to murder someone, even if they have a gun. Murder, as I'm sure, is illegal in the United States and therefore makes the homicide rate stay the same. By outlawing guns, gun ownership would be illegal and the gun homicide rate would go down dramatically.
skier96

Con

What you are describing is a "in a perfect world" instance and simply would not happen in our country. The countries you see with very strict gun control are a fraction of the size of America. Land and population wise. And I'm sorry, but your "by condoning gun ownership you are implying that it's ok to murder someone..." comment is quite ignorant. Do you condone stabbing another person with a hunting knife? Or do you condone excessive eating by owning silverware? "Technically," gun ownership does not correlate with murder.No I don't condone murder in most instances. We have "stand your ground" laws that I do believe is an instance where resorting to shooting an intruder is acceptable. Your family is the most important thing and if someone comes in with a gun/knife/bat or anything else, what would you want to do? Be proactive or wait 5-10 minutes before an officer shows up? Which by then could be too late.
http://www.justfacts.com...
Debate Round No. 4
debateroftheages

Pro

debateroftheages forfeited this round.
skier96

Con

skier96 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I don't even know why it's an option to limit the debate to 1,000 characters per round. It makes it impossible to get in a decent argument unless the matter is super easy to debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.