The Instigator
raskuseal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Gun Control

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 1 vote the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 360 times Debate No: 83582
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

raskuseal

Con

Over the past months, the debate over gun control has taken bounds through media; after the sandy hook shooting this trend is more easily observable. The Obama administration is now slowly moving closer and closer to gun restriction and confiscation, but is it a rational move?
Today, out of every 100 Americans, an estimated 88 people own guns; which takes the figures well into the millions of people; yet arguably the vast majority of whom are law-abiding citizens.
More Freedom Means Less Crime:
Much like any other matter in our social life, Freedom to bear arms leads to more peace and security and it does not necessarily mean that every single person has to have an AR-15 for this to happen but precisely this freedom to bear arms alone guarantees less crime. Statistically speaking, in nearly every city more gun freedom means and has meant less crime. This is an undeniable, irrefutable and an unquestionable fact that the "anti-gun" media never stops to address.
The example of this is very easily observed in the southern states like Texas, where some of the least restricting gun control laws are prevalent and not so surprisingly they have very low violent crime rate.
For example after the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years.
Also see point 5 for the case for Switzerland"s gun control.
The issue of guns and gun control could not any simpler if people only understood the above fact. When we reflect on facts and statistics many of our arguments actually settle by themselves. In this case we can easily refute the notion that views guns as an "evil" piece of machinery, which is thought to be evil in the hands of regular citizenry and good when used and monopolized by the government, the military, and criminals.
On the other hand where there is more restrictive gun control laws there is much more crime. States like New York and Illinois have some of the worst crime rates not only in the US, but in comparison around the world. The city of Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the United States yet it has become one the centers of overall crime in the US and deadliest Global cities! The harder gun control laws get, the higher crime rate soars. So the question must be asked: has the imposed gun restriction reduced crime? The answer is absolutely not. The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011.
For any wise reader, who is able of some rational thinking, the above mentioned facts and examples should be enough of an argument to the end this debate, but let"s not cease here as I have nine more points to cover.
Hayd

Pro

Disclaimer

I am writing this at 1 in the morning after a crazy psychedelic and philosophical experience at a party with some friends, I’ll leave it at that. So I apologize beforehand for grammar and other weird stuff.

Con never established the BoP. Since he presented arguments R1, and the debate is two rounds long, and I was challenged to this, I will respond directly to his arguments and not provide my own.

If I can successfully negate all of Con’s contentions, I win this debate.

Rebuttal

Starting off, Con claims that 88 of 100 people own guns. This claim goes unwarranted and thus has no impact.

Con’s argument is that more freedom will result in less crime. Con claims that cities where there is more gun freedom there is less crime, and that this is an undeniable, irrefutable and an unquestionable fact (and then does a little taunt at anti-gun media, which has no impact but is still cute).

Con then says that because of Texas’s low gun control, they therefore have very low violent crime rate (Con gives no source for this argument and it goes unwarranted). This is interesting because Texas has the second highest murder rate from firearms of all the states. [1] This is awkward for Con, for his argument no longer has any impact.

Con then brings up the after Georgia passed a law requiring a gun in every home, the crime rate dropped. This argument has no evidence whatsoever, and therefore has no impact. But there is evidence that Georgia has the fifth highest firearm murder rate in the country. [1]

Con then mentions Switzerland, but then never brings it up again…

Con then says that the notion that people view guns as evil in the hands of citizens and good in the hands of the government (Con also brings up criminals but gives no explanation of this, so it has no impact). But I don’t see what this has to with whether there should be gun control, seems just to be another jab at an invisible enemy.

Con then says that New York and Chicago have the some of the worst violent crime rates in the world, and then suggests that this is because of gun control. This is absolutely false, because there are thousands of factors that can be a reason for why there is a high crime rate, such as how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, state culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability and hundreds more upon hundreds more. Con does not establish why gun control is the cause of this. Causation is different from correlation, which Con fails to understand.

Chicago also doesn’t have a bad violent crime rate.


As you can see, Chicago is actually well below the national median in so far as per capita. [2]

Conclusion

I have effectively negated each and every one of my opponent’s points. My opponent had more than enough character space to post his next nine points in this round, yet chose not to. I don’t know why yet, but I do know it will only cause problems for me in the debate hence forth.

[1] https://www.fbi.gov...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
raskuseal

Con

Unlike what the liberal media wants you to believe, UK crime rates is another primary example in making argument against gun control " England introduced one of the most draconian gun control / ban policies in the western world, thereafter it is routinely on the top two of the most violent countries in the developed world and is significantly more violent than America!
Note: I will reiterate that by stating "more guns means less crime" some people automatically assume it means that everyone should have a gun. That is not true; when we are talking about gun freedom and less crime, not everyone must have a firearm in order to lower the crime rate. What makes a society safe is the very freedom given to each and every individual to bear arms. This very notion in turn perpetually deters criminals and crazy individuals from committing crimes.
US Violent Crime Rate on the Decline with More Guns
In recent years, Americans have been buying guns at a record number. This is in spite of the fact that violent crime rate in the US is on a sharp decline according to the FBI"s very own study.
Courtesy of FBI:
"When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level."
US violent crime rate fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000. This was during an era when gun laws in the United States generally became much less restrictive.
So why is such a massive media mobilization and attacks against firearms from the media and the government? Is it because of they are taking advantage of the American people"s emotion over rational and Facts, using the recent tragedies?
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn"t do it. I sure as heck wouldn"t want to live in a society where the only people who have guns are the police, military, and criminals.
The 2nd Amendment: Gun Ownership is protected by the Constitution
Most anti-gun advocates do not realize that unlike people in many other countries that have had their firearm forcefully taken away, the second amendment to the bill of rights is an unchangeable and unquestionable authority above the President and the Congress. Others rightly argue that because this is a right to self-defense, it is even above the Constitution; a God given right, it should never be taken away from the people regardless.
Let"s note that the Founding Fathers were not government elitists or presidents who were elected by corporate interest lobbying millions of dollars funneled to their campaigns. They were exceptionally wise men who studied the history, governments, cultures, and societies that went before them and wanted nothing but the good and prosperity of the people and their republic; that is exactly why they were ready to sacrifice their lives in defense of liberty and freedom from the British Colonialism.
Therefore, any governmental restrictions on guns imposed on American citizens is unconstitutional and would literary mean an attack on the Constitution. We have to recognize that the Constitution of the United States has been one of the greatest human rights legislation in history: an exemplary manuscript that gives power to the people over the government or corporations. It has led a nation into freedom and prosperity; while forcing its government and its branches to remain faithful to its citizens. We have to repeat this: we need to understand that the Constitution as a whole is exactly what gave rise to the greatness, freedom and prosperity of not only America, but many other nations who have mimicked it as an example.
The Second Amendment:
"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."
The Founding Fathers were very clear about this:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples" liberty teeth and keystone under independence" From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference " they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." " George Washington" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States)
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves" and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms" The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." " Richard Henry Lee " American Revolutionary Led the American Declaration of Independence
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American " The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." " Tench Coxe, 1788.
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." " James Madison " (Founding Father and the 4th President of the United States)
7. Guns Save Numerous Lives by Far and Large
Self-defense is the very basic right of each and every individual, not just in the US, but around the world people should be able to protect themselves and their families. It is easy to see the lives supposedly lost to "bad guns" through the corporate controlled and biased media, but do we ever see thousands of other lives saved by firearm ownership? No, because it supports gun ownership, something liberals and enemy"s, both foreign and domestic, don"t want to let people know about!
Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck, stopped him. "I"ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.
Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. "Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead," " columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo.
"We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year," " Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles.
"We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don"t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it"s not a trivial number."
It is reported that more than 200,000 women use guns in the US for protections from rappers, robbers and thugs. Now the question is this: are we going to take that away from the bit by bit, bullet by bullet through restrictions and legislation after legislation?
6. Banning Guns Does Not Mean Criminals Won"t Get Them
"If guns are outlawed only outlawed will have guns"
It is foolish to assume that any type of gun control proposition would mean criminals would turn their guns in or would not access guns. As a matter of fact they will more easily monopolize guns in a nation where guns were previously an individual right; gun sales and trafficking will most assuredly become easier only for criminals. Again, historical examples in banning drugs and alcohol point to this very fact. Simply look at the mess the "War on Drugs" has become in America. Gun control only means that the guns will be taken out of the hands of million law-abiding American, most of whom use them for protection, most of whom have never even shot a live target, never mind a human, and they go right into the hands of the criminals. While criminals will never turn their guns in, it is always the regular citizenry who will be left defenseless.
For example Mexico imposes some of the most strictest gun control laws, yet over 50,000 people die in the hands of criminal on yearly basis.
Another great example is the gun control laws introduced in Australia, which caused a massive spike in nearly every crime rate category.
5. Switzerland: A Low Crime, High Gun Ownership Modern Country
The gun example of the country of Switzerland is so great and telling that we had to make it as a single point in our top 10 gun freedom list. The Swiss government not only does NOT impose any gun restrictions on their population but they literary demands that every household have a gun. And did you know that the Swiss government actually trains every adult on guns when they purchase a weapon.
So how do crime rates fair in Switzerland?
With all the guns available in the hands the Swiss people and based on the points above it should be an easy guess. Switzerland is the safest country in the modern world; one of the safest in the world.
4. Knives and Bats Kill More People: Guns are also Inanimate Objects
It is yet another evidence against any gun control laws that bats, knives and other inanimate objects are the cause for the loss of many more lives than the use of guns. Therefore it is absolutely irrational to impose any type of gun control on the population.
Statistically Americans are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat than a rifle. But that is besides the point that an inanimate object does not kill, it is a criminal that kills.
"To blame a gun for man"s decision is to foolishly attribute free will to an inanimate object."
3. Dangerous Psychiatric Drugs Not the Inanimate Guns
In almost every shooting there has been another undeniable trend; every single one of the recent crazed shooters have been one some sort of psychiatric mind altering drugs promoted and sponsored by the corrupt media. This trend is most noticeable in the Aurora massacre, Colorado and Sandy Hook shooting. It is astonishing how the corporate media quickly points figures at the guns but not the crazed individuals who has been having his brained chewed by these dangerous drugs, which most TV stations proudly sponsor. Nearly every major school shooter has been on prescriptions drugs!
2. Governments Cannot Help the Victims
Many still are under the delusion that if guns are confiscated government will protect them against criminals. Again, case after case historically we have witnessed that not to be true. When a government strips the regular citizenry from their right to defend themselves, they will almost always put innocents directly into the lion"s den;- defenseless. Most 911 emergency calls are responded no quicker than 5 minutes. An insane criminal (on dangerous anti-represented and other mental drugs of course) in most cases will have finished his dirty act in less than a minute, or at least caused enough damage to make it an unfortunate tragedy.
1. Defense against a Tyrannical Government
One of the greatest and most widely misunderstood facts about the Second Amendment is that some still tend to think that it was including for "hunting". The Second Amendment was NOT put in the Bill of Rights for hunting!; the Second Amendment gives the regular citizenry the right to defend themselves, against thugs and criminals but more importantly it was put firmly in place by the wise founding fathers to protect the people against the rise of any tyrannical government; whether a single dictator, a government tainted by lobbyists, a government directed by corporate interest of banks and financiers.
It is important to realize that every tyrant in our recent history aimed to

Recent history is filled with many chilling examples over and over again; where they take guns, state imposed tyranny brews shortly. Millions of innocent people have fall prey to their government, in the biggest cause of human lives called Democide.
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians under Turkish rule, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million innocent Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
"In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Top 6 Quotes " What did Tyrannical Dictators and Governments Have Said about Guns?
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don"t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" " Joseph Stalin " Russian Dictator
"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem" " Joseph Stalin
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." " Adolf Hitler
"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew"s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in "1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of "1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years." " 1938 Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews" Possession of Weapons)
"Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."." - Mao " Communist Chinese Dictator
"For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future." " Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag
Top 10 Quotes " What Did American Patriots Say about Guns and Liberty?
10. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." " Patrick Henry" Founding Father
9. "The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." " Senator Hubert Humphrey
8. "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property" Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary)
7. "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government" " Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary)
6. "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference " they deserve a place of honor with all that"s good." " George Washington" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States)
5. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them"" " Richard Henry Lee" American Revolutionary who Led the American Declaration of Independence
4. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States)
3. "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms "."- Thomas Jefferson" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States)
2. "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them"" " George Mason" (Founding Father of the United States " Most influential in institution of the Bill of Rights)
1. "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take It." "Thomas Jefferson" (Founding Father and the 3rd President of the United States)
The choice is clear here; It is FREEDOM or TYRANNY and disarmament is the first step towards tyranny " a recipe for disarmament of the citizens and/or their future children. If the Americans to support the rest of their freedoms they have to stand by and protect their second amendment, even if you as an individual personally does not like guns or does not like to be around them.

Sources:
http://infowars.com...
http://NaturalNews.com...
http://fbi.gov...
Hayd

Pro

Instead of defending his case, Con chooses to provide nine more of why there shouldn’t be gun control. Since this is the final round of debate, my opponent will not be able to defend his arguments from when I attack them. Also since this is the last round, per DDO standard rules, you really shouldn’t bring up any new arguments. Because of these reasons, I will waive this round.


Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by raskuseal 11 months ago
raskuseal
the newer debate is Gun Control (Improved)
Posted by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
oh, ok...
Posted by raskuseal 11 months ago
raskuseal
NOBODY vote on this. This was a mistake. See, I'm still partly new to making debates, so I had a mishap with how many rounds I should have. As you can probably see, I didn't have enough. So later, I am gonna challenge Hayde again, but with a better round format.
Posted by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
OH my, that's a lot of characters...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
raskusealHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins this round because he actually offered sources for his arguments... Where Con and Pro had strong arguments Pro's out do Con's because Con's do not have sources. On top of this, Con's strongest arguments came in a round where no new arguments are supposed to be brought up. Thus, Pro wins this debate