The Instigator
MrBrooks
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
18 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 6 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,763 times Debate No: 21883
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

MrBrooks

Pro

Debate: I will be arguing that the United States needs more gun control, my opponent will be arguing that the United States needs less gun control.

Structure of Debate
R1: Acceptance.
R2: Pro's opening arguments, Con's rebuttal to Pro's opening arguments.
R3: Pro's response to Con's rebuttal, Con's opening arguments.
R4: Pro's rebuttal to Con's opening arguments, Con's response to Pro's rebuttals.
TUF

Con

======FRAMEWORK======

1. Both debaters will remain respectful towards each other; Arguments will remain un-abusive.

2. Manipulating an opponent arguments as semantics shall not be permitted in this debate.

3. Pro will be advocating Gun control, While Con will be Advocating No gun control.

4. A forfeit should conduct in the loss of the debate, or at the very least, a conduct point.







I accept this debate and Look forward to my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
MrBrooks

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and look forward to a spirited discussion.

Firstly I will be addressing the legality of gun control and the logic and meaning behind the text of the second amendment of the US constitution. 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."

Many interpret this text to mean that it is an inalienable right for every individual to own a firearm. This is incorrect, the second amendment gives people the right to collective security and the right to form state militias. This right is exercised through the National Guard in each of the fifty states, which serves to counter federal military power and to protect the citizenry from tyranny. [1]

This is why it is constitutional for counties and states to enact gun control legislation, because it is the duty of the state governments to organize and carry out the collective security of the people. Individuals cannot afford the ordinance, supplies, and defensive systems that are required for a practical and pragmatic defense against a tyrannical federal government or foreign army. Thus, we must consider the spirit of the second amendment and what it means, as well as how it applies to modern society.

Does every individual need a weapon when the needs of collective security are already met? The answer to that question is no, because not only is there no point in it, but a heavily armed citizenry can actually be a detriment to the public health and collective security of the states. An armed citizenry with access to military grade weapons would be capable of forming paramilitary groups, which if left unchecked could substitute civil discourse with forceful discourse to influence the government and terrorize the populace.

Of course we do not interpret the constitution to allow for independent militias to form on our soil, we recognize that it would be disastrous to interpret the constitution in such a way. Unfortunately that same argument in regards to arming citizens is ignored. Some political parties and advocacy groups assert that it is the right of every citizen to own a firearm, because they choose to interpret the constitution in the same literal sense that we as a nation recognize to be absurd in relation to the right to form militias.

In lieu of the fact that personally bearing arms meant for the contribution of the collective security of society is impractical and dangerous to the public health, we can agree that ownership of a weapon for this reason is not legitimate and that we should work against the proliferation of firearms in society. Not only do we need more gun control to achieve this goal, but we need a national plan that supersedes any local legislation. We must recognize on a national level and codify it into law that there are only three legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership.

1)Personal Defense.
2)Hunting.
3)Competitive shooting and similar gun based sports.

By recognizing the legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership we can limit the types of weapons that people can own to two categories; handguns with magazines not in excess of 10 rounds for self-defense, and hunting rifles and non-combat shotguns for hunting. With legislative recognition of legitimate civilian firearms, we can rule out the legality of certain weapons, such as assault rifles.

Successful gun control will require a national plan and initiative, because of the nature in which illegal guns are obtained. For the purpose of this debate we will recognize an illegal weapon as the following; a class of weapon outlawed by legislation in the district that it resides in, or an unregistered or stolen registered weapon.

Criminals are able to obtain illegal weapons despite gun control laws, because they can easily purchase these weapons in states or counties with lax gun control legislation and bring them into the cities, where gun control is stricter. Criminals will often simply buy guns from gun shows held outside the cities with tight gun control legislation, or buy guns illegally from gun dealers with federal firearms licenses. By making it harder for firearms to be purchased on a national level, and by removing firearms from the market by buying them back from the populace, we can drive up the cost for illegal firearms and eventually make them unaffordable to the average criminal. [2]

Furthermore, we should increase the size and funding of the ATF. The ATF is responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, yet it only has 1,800 agents to monitor an estimated 77,000 gun dealers. Currently it would take 22 years for the ATF to inspect every federally licensed gun dealer. There is a very clear problem here, when the organization tasked with monitoring this form of commerce is woefully undermanned and underfunded. [3]

The most important thing is to have a national gun control plan and to enforce it. Attempts to institute meaningful gun control have been undermined by governmental incompetence, and the giving in to gun lobbyists. With a strong ATF and a national policy leaning toward gun control, we can finally bring gun violence down to an acceptable level.
I thank my opponent, and look forward to his rebuttal.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2]http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://gunvictimsaction.org...
TUF

Con

=====REBUTTALS======

Okay so as con, I feel it is my duty to prove that gun control is bad in all cases, and that it limits our freedom. The pro's goal in this debate, then is to prove that gun control is inevitably a logical choice, that doens't inflict on our rights and freedoms.

"Does every individual need a weapon when the needs of collective security are already met? "

Sure why not? I see no logical reasoning that should limit us from gun use. What happens when 'collective security' fails? What do we have when we can't get to the phone in time, to call the police? What happens when they show up late? A gun may be next to the only option of survival. Guns can be used to provide self defence and security, and are a fail safe in case the world ever turns corrupt. We have rights, not only constitutionally to bear arms, but instinctually. Every human has the right to protect him or herself, and if a gun has the ability to do this, then I see no reason as to why we should ban them or regulate them.

"Some political parties and advocacy groups assert that it is the right of every citizen to own a firearm, because they choose to interpret the constitution in the same literal sense that we as a nation recognize to be absurd in relation to the right to form militias."

I would have to argue here, that this is not the viewpoint that is shared nationwide. It is a privilige granted by the US constitution. What reason do we have to doubt the US constitution on this issue? Even you concede that hunting, self defence, and sport use of guns would be practical use of firearms. So then we must assume that you yourself agree that banning or regulating guns would be harmful, and extremely un-beneficial. More on this next.

"We must recognize on a national level and codify it into law that there are only three legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership.
1)Personal Defense.
2)Hunting.
3)Competitive shooting and similar gun based sports."

This argument in and of itself, proves that gun laws are silly. How are we supposed to keep firearms for self defence, hunting, and sport, while having are rights to bearing them revoked? If we cannot keep a firearm, then we cannot use a firearm, for any of your three reasons above. Also I would like to ask, if not one of those three things, really what else does a human have the need for a gun? This argument is abusive as it almost demands that I advocate gun control in a world where civilians use guns to perform acts of crime. No, as pro, your goal in this debate should be to prove that Gun control is harmful in all situations.

"With legislative recognition of legitimate civilian firearms, we can rule out the legality of certain weapons, such as assault rifles."

I have to question whether or not the legitimacy of this argument bears any sense or reasoning. An AK47, or any other assault rifle, have the same potential of causing human death as an single handed firearm does. The question of this debate isn't which guns should be allowed, and for what specific uses, the question you should be trying to answer is whether it is moral or logical to even use them at all.

"By making it harder for firearms to be purchased on a national level, and by removing firearms from the market by buying them back from the populace, we can drive up the cost for illegal firearms and eventually make them unaffordable to the average criminal."

We cannot do this, because this simply will not deter criminals from crime. Just as people have the ability to buy and sell illegal narcotics and drugs, people will still have the ability to purchase firearms. The national level will be irrelevant, as such purchases can be made benificial to others at an international level.
We are taking away the guns from the innocent, the ones who have more need for them, and placing them inadvertantly right into the hands of the criminals. Security measures when breaking into ones home, now become empty and meaningless to any criminal.

======MY CASE======

OUR RIGHTS

Given that this debate is a challenge on what ought to be rather than what is, I am arguing that owning and operating fire arms are rights indivually granted to us. These are god-given rights, not just constitutional ones. Guns are something that most people are supportive of, from all parties, Even democratic ones. Are gun rights more than just some political issue? What significance to they play in our lives? Statistics show that people own guns for the following reasons: 67% say protection against, another 66% own them for target practice (sport), and 41% own them for hunting.
http://www.justfacts.com...

Guns make people feel safe. Every individual has the right to feel secure. Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Guns enable those rights to better be established, as they help us to protect each one of those qualities.


RESPONSIBILITY

Rights should be taken away when someone violates their privileges. That way we can take away the guns from those who have justifiable reasoning to take them. An alternative to taking guns away, would be to regulate who recieves them. Those who complete gun safety courses can take psychiatric exams before gaining the privilege to own and potentially use their firearm. Taking away guns from those who own them with moral intent, is abusive to our nation and it's people.
We as humans deserve the right to protect ourselves. Removing guns will just add to the problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org...;


Removing guns is not the answer anyway. Practically any item can replace a gun and prove to be just as harmful. People will find other ways to use weapons to commit crimes, even if they cannot get guns internationally. Removing guns is not the answer, it is strengthening the criminal justice department to better seek out criminal behavior on learn effective ways to stop it in advance.

http://ricksparks.blogspot.com...


MORE LAWS RESTRICTING FREEDOM

Gun control is putting our personal freedoms at risk. We who live in America pride ourselves on being a free country, but are slowly losing our grasp on that freedom. The more laws that are made, the more freedoms that are violated. We should be looking to protect the remaining right we do have, rather than seeking out to destroy the foundation of what our great country was built on. Taking away gun rights is limiting or nations and state soveirngty.
We cannot let the act to take away guns, be a vehicle taking us down the path to communism. We need to realize that the constitution, the bill of rights, was made to enact and justify our freedoms. We need to stay strong in ourselves, and protect our freedoms. Limiting our rights should be a crime worse than any.

Every day we lose more and more of what little freedeom we have left, as each new law is passed. Let us protect what is left that belongs to us, such that we can create a better country with what we have.

======CONCLUSION=====

I feel that I have succesfully fulfilled my burden as Con in advocating against gun control policies.

I would like to note that my opponent more or less agrees in several of his arguments that gun control is unneccesary for a few reasons. This means we must look to the fact that guns are essential means for protection, as my opponent points out.

We cannot take away gun rights because we are giving guns to the criminals, and furthering the problem.

So we must look to my three main points when evaluating this round.

1. Our rights will be violated by removing guns.

2. We as humans have the burden of responsibility, that should define our use or possesion of guns.

3. And finally, we need to stop limiting our few remaining freedoms. In order to remain fully free, we should hold on to the freedoms that are most important.

It is for all the reasons I have stated above, that I urge to to vote in negation to the resolution. Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 2
MrBrooks

Pro

COUNTER-REBUTTALS (Number corresponds to Op's Rebuts in num order)

1) People do have the right to protect themselves, I will concede this point. That right ends where another person's rights begin, however. Constitutional rights have limits on them; the classic example being that I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, because it may cause a panic and get people hurt. The same is true in regards to the right to bear arms. If certain firearms serve no purpose other than to cause harm, or provide unnecessary firepower, then it is a sound and logical choice to ban them since they have the potential to cause great malice without serving a practical and benign need to the everyday citizen. Your rights end here, because it is a danger to the public health to have such weapons at large in society.

You also alluded to home defense, and I will address this. The presence of a weapon in the home, instead of increasing home safety, actually leads to a higher chance of someone in your home being the victim of gun violence; whether it be from domestic violence, a curious yet unfortunate child, or the escalation of force a criminal might use if you pull a gun on him. Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military. [1]

2) I do not doubt the US constitution on this issue, I only doubt the interpretation that certain elements of society make of the second amendment. If we were to interpret the second amendment in the most literal sense, we as citizens would be allowed to own and operate any piece of military equipment we could afford. Recoilless rifles, grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc. The list of destructive weapons that would be allowed to enter society goes on, but it's a moot point because fortunately we're smart enough as a society to not take the wording in the constitution literally. We recognize that there are some legitimate circumstances where private citizens have the right to own firearms.

Now in regards to the second part of your statement, I would like to reiterate that my position in this debate is that I want more gun control, not that I want to ban firearms outright. So we must establish that gun control does not equal gun prohibition, and that I am not arguing for gun prohibition. The three categories I listed are legitimate purposes for firearms ownership, and I will explain why.

-Personal Defense: Firstly I'd like to point out that not everyone should be entitled to own a handgun for self-defense. In most situations ownership of a handgun will actually bring more harm than good to your household, however, there are certain situations where handgun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is practical and has sound reasoning. One example that comes to mind is a shop owner, who must personally carry over $10,000 in cash from his safe to the bank once a month. This man should be allowed to carry a handgun while he performs this task, because he is putting himself at a great risk when he carries so much money on his person. [1]

-Hunting: Hunters often play a vital part in keeping the population of certain species of animals at an acceptable level. Thus hunters should be able to continue playing their part in conservationism. Furthermore, hunting firearms are designed for hunting animals and not killing people, therefore the rate of fire on these weapons are slower than military grade weapons and the bulky size of many of these rifles make them impractical for close quarters fighting. [4]

-Showmanship Shooting and Other Sports: The weapons used in showmanship shooting are very similar to hunting firearms, and to the people that participate in these sports, this is their livelihood. Since these weapons pose little danger to the public health, and the trade is a livelihood to many showmanship shooters, this is a legitimate reason to own a firearm.

4) Even those with a rudimentary knowledge of firearms know that there is a huge difference between an assault rifle and a handgun. The 9mm rounds used in handguns are not capable of piercing the protective body armor that police officers wear, and handguns are not capable of sustaining the same rate of fire as an assault rifle, nor do they have as many rounds per magazine. Assault rifles are weapons designed specifically for combat, the ammunition is designed specifically to destroy vital organs and end life. Handguns are designed as personal defense weapons, and can be concealed on an everyday person for purposes of self-protection in cases where it is warranted. To say that a handgun has the same potential of causing human death as an assault rifle is absurd.

Furthermore, I will reiterate once again that the centerpiece of my argument is that we need more gun control and not gun prohibition.

5) We can easily do this, because it follows simple market principal. If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals. As I stated in my opening arguments, it is painfully easy to obtain illegal firearms. Criminals can simply go to gun shows and exploit a law, which allows gun shows to sell weapons without licenses or background checks. Barring that they can purchase weapons directly from people with federal firearm licenses illegally. By simply changing the law and regulating gun shows and strengthening the ATF so they can inspect federal firearm license holders more efficiently, we can drastically reduce the supply of illegal firearms. [2][3]

REBUTTALS

1)Rights

As I stated in the counter-rebuttals, your rights end where another person's begins. The only reason gun control legislation can pass is because the courts and the constitution recognize this crucial fact. If we give you the ability to easily obtain an assault rifle to defend your home with, we're also providing that same easy access to the people that are willing to turn around and sell these guns to criminals for a profit. Not controlling the proliferation of dangerous weapons into public is a danger to the public, because these weapons will be used by criminals to commit crimes. If these dangerous weapons provided some benign use to the public, then it would be a risk worth taking, but they are not and so it is only logical to prohibit their sale.

2)Responsibility

It is good to see that my opponent agrees that gun control is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal element of our society. Unfortunately he seems to consider knives and rocks to be as deadly a weapon as firearms. Crime will never cease, there will always be crime. It is crime that involves gun violence that is the main issue here, for that is what we seek to curtail by enacting further gun control legislation.

3)Freedom

My opponent suggests that regulating firearms will lead us down the path to communism. This is absurd. The constitution does not give you the right to endanger the lives of others, and that's what we'd be doing if we had no gun control. Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs. This is the America without gun control, and the America my opponent seems to want. Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out. Then we'll have to give the police even bigger weapons I suppose, perhaps we'll just settle for replacing their police cruisers with tanks. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea.

[1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...
[2] http://gunvictimsaction.org...
[3]http://www.nytimes.com...
[4] http://www.huntinginvirginia.net...
TUF

Con

=====REBUTTALS=====

"If certain firearms serve no purpose other than to cause harm, or provide unnecessary firepower, then it is a sound and logical choice to ban them since they have the potential to cause great malice without serving a practical and benign need to the everyday citizen."

This doesn't make sense. So your saying you agree that people need self defence and thus guns are justified, but then go on to contradict yourself by saying that we shouldn't allow them because they have the potential to cause harm. So I could say that they have the potential to cause good, by using them for self defence. We won't always be able to count on the police force in time, so why ban guns from citizens, when that may be their only lifeline?

"The presence of a weapon in the home, instead of increasing home safety, actually leads to a higher chance of someone in your home being the victim of gun violence; whether it be from domestic violence, a curious yet unfortunate child, or the escalation of force a criminal might use if you pull a gun on him."

Gun laws require that in order to obtain a fire arm in your home, you must have a safe to safely store them in.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This deters children from entering, criminals from entering, etc. The only person who should know the combination should be the owner of the gun. So this argument cannot be looked to as a child cannot harm themselves in this scenario.

"Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military."

In order to own a gun, an individual must complete basic gun courses in order to purchase one.
http://corneredcat.com...

You must show proof of completing the courses neccesary to own a gun as well, among having several other things. Gun laws are strict, and not so easy that any one and their kids can purchase one without the neccesary requirements being completed. People who own gun have a basic understanding and knowledge of how to operate them. Thus we would be giving the government too much power if they are the only ones who own guns. The reason we have gun laws in the first place is to prevent government intrusion. Just like in the revolutionary war, owning and operating guns will prevent government from transforming into a dictatorship.


" If we were to interpret the second amendment in the most literal sense, we as citizens would be allowed to own and operate any piece of military equipment we could afford. Recoilless rifles, grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc."

Okay so I get that in this point you are trying to say that the constition can be taken literally. This point is irrelevant however. We all have a basic understanding of what the constitution is saying when we can bear arms. Manipulating the meaning of the constitution is semantics. Most citizens operate with basic weapons that can be used for protection; Handguns, small semi-automatic weapons, etc. If you want to get literal, I could easily say that the government owes me a pair of bear arms, seeing as we have the "right to bear arms".
http://www.google.com...

Point is, let's not get to literal with this. We understand the constitution and it's moral values on society.


"I would like to reiterate that my position in this debate is that I want more gun control, not that I want to ban firearms outright"

I am sorry, but I feel like this is a little unfair. I would not have accepted this debate if I would have known you would be making these types of arguments. The thing I find unfair about this, is that you don't give the voters a choice in whom they vote for. You could easily play both side of the fence arguing this way, by saying "Well all arugments fail. I never said I dis-agreed with this, just that there should be exceptions". So you then put you opponent in a trap. I will argue on further, however, I would like the audience to please ignore these types of arguments. This is all with the utmost respect, mr.Brooks.

-PERSONAL DEFENCE

So you do claim that a person has a right to self defence, and you give an example of why they should use guns for self defence. But you start out saying that not every one has this right. I would like to why, and your reasoning behind other people going about their daily lives, and why they are not entitled to the same obligations as the shopkeeper.


-HUNTING
Agreed on all points. Argument says nothing about why we should add more gun control policies :)


-SHOWMANSHIP

Here you contradict your whole argument. You say that guns used for showmanship are absolutely no harm, thus they can be kept. What makes them less harmful than a normal fire arm? The can go off, or cause harm just like any other firearm. If these kind of guns can be kept, then all guns should be kept.



"Handguns are designed as personal defense weapons, and can be concealed on an everyday person for purposes of self-protection in cases where it is warranted."

Hand guns have the same ability to stop a persons life as an assualt rife does. When used the right way, and fired at the right part of the human body, both potentially do the same thing. So again, if a person can have this type of firearm, then why not other legal firearms sold by gun shows and gun dealers.

"If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals."

Again, as I have said before, You are thinking nationally. We must think internationally here. Just like criminals can still obtain drugs, they can obtain guns through arms dealers throughout different countries. Or even create them, as drugs are created. Continuing use of guns is evident through continuing use of drugs. Banning or even regulating gun control will prove worthless.

=====MY CASE====

RIGHTS

"As I stated in the counter-rebuttals, your rights end where another person's begins. The only reason gun control legislation can pass is because the courts and the constitution recognize this crucial fact."

This argument works both ways. By not having and owning guns for self defence purpose we are susceptible we are allowing that principle to work against us. We can lose our rights by not having our own defence mechanisms.

RESPONSIBILITY


"Crime will never cease, there will always be crime. It is crime that involves gun violence that is the main issue here, for that is what we seek to curtail by enacting further gun control legislation."

Even you said early on in your rebuttals: your rights end where another person's begins. This means we have a certain responsibility to go along with the use of guns. Which you must agree with since you agree to owning guns for self defence.

FREEDOM

"Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs"

This is exactly why gun control is a horrible concept. It limits citizen protection from the exact scenario you are showing.

"Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out."

We have had the right to bear arms for about 200 years. My questions, how often do you see this happening with everyday life? Gun control is harmful because it is taking away our freedom before even allowing responsibility to take effect.


====CONCLUSION====

I have accurately refuted all of my opponents points, and he agrees with me that gun control is detrimental.
Please vote CON.
Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
MrBrooks

Pro

"I am sorry, but I feel like this is a little unfair. I would not have accepted this debate if I would have known you would be making these types of arguments. The thing I find unfair about this, is that you don't give the voters a choice in whom……"

Ah, I don't believe this is unfair at all. You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1. You also stated before the debate started that I am to argue for gun control. The definition of gun control is, "any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens."

Throughout this debate I have clearly defined the problems with the current gun control system in the United States, and I have clearly argued why we must have more and why it would be effective. I have also refuted your arguments in regards to the US having more gun control. I have also clearly laid out why certain guns shouldn't be prohibited, and why other guns should not. By giving examples of what guns would be okay and in what situations, I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles.

So I ask the audience to not ignore these types of arguments, because they are the core of the debate and my opponent seeks to detract from that. Furthermore, before my opponent says anything, this is not semantics, because gun control has a clear definition.

"This doesn't make sense. So your saying you agree that people need self defence and thus guns are justified, but then go…"

I am not contradicting myself at all. I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging.

"Gun laws require that in order to obtain a fire arm in your home, you must have a safe to safely store them in.
http://en.wikipedia.org......

This deters children from entering, criminals from entering, etc. The only person who should know the combination should be the owner of the gun. So this argument cannot be looked to as a child cannot harm themselves in this scenario."

Firstly, your source says nothing about the gun safes being required by law, and you used Wikipedia. Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense. [1]

So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home. This on top of the fact that the presence of firearm makes homicide and suicide between family members more likely in the home, shows that a firearm in the home is more likely to cause tragedy than prevent it.

"In order to own a gun, an individual must complete basic gun courses in order to purchase one.
http://corneredcat.com......

You must show proof of completing the courses neccesary to own a gun as well, among having several other things. Gun laws are strict, and not so easy that any one and their kids can purchase one without the neccesary requirements being completed. People who own gun have a basic understanding and knowledge of how to operate them. Thus we would be giving the government too much power if they are the only ones who own guns. The reason we have gun laws in the first place is to prevent government intrusion. Just like in the revolutionary war, owning and operating guns will prevent government from transforming into a dictatorship."

Gun safety training is not the same thing as military training. You know, the military training you'd need to take part in a "well-regulated" militia. Again, the arming of the citizenry in a time of conflict in best left to the National Guard, which can properly train the citizens and integrate them into the state militia. Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us.
"So you do claim that a person has a right to self defence, and you give an example..."

The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one.

"Here you contradict your whole argument….."
I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.

"Hand guns have the same ability to stop a persons life as an assualt rife does. When used the right way, and fired at the right part of the human body…."

No, no, and no again. I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle. This is a clear absurdity.

"Again, as I have said before, You are thinking nationally. We must think internationally here. Just like criminals can still obtain drugs, they can obtain guns….."

Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up.

Opponent's Arguments

"This is exactly why gun control is a horrible concept. It limits citizen protection from the exact scenario you are showing."

This is why no gun control is a horrible concept. The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals.

Conclusion

I've stated my case. I have argued successfully for more gun control in the United States. I have given you examples where guns are necessary in our society, where they serve for more good than harm. I have also plainly spelled out what is wrong with the current gun control system today, and how and why it needs to be improved. I have refuted my opponent's arguments, sometimes more than once. I thank my opponent for a strong argument, and wish him luck in the voting period.

I believe my argument is stronger, and that you should vote Pro.

[1] http://www.vaultandsafe.com...
TUF

Con

====FRAMEWORK====

I will be going over rebutalls, before proceeding on to votes.



===== REBUTTALS=====

"You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1."

I agree with this, however I also agree that you have succesfully made arguments that have defeated your own case as you have argued pro control throughout this entire debate on several occasions. Thus I must assume that if you agree that some good control is good, there should be no reason why you should not think that ALL gun control is good.

"I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles."

To be honest, all me and the voters are going to see from this, is you conceding that gun control is okay. Which you have already done on several occasions. Thus since you believe that guns should be kept for some reasons, how are we going to regulate them so strictly, if we do not know most people's motives? Why complicate things and put any restrictions on gun control? Also what exactly are the restrictions were going to be supposedly putting on in the AFF world?

"I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging."

Glad you brought this up. You make gun control policies sound all fine and dandy, but you have yet to explain a situation of how we should enforce these policies. Even if you think we should restrict them to only certain people, how do we determine which people need guns? How do we determine which people are likely to have a home invasion? Given that the PRO requires BOP, and this is already the final debate round, all of the questions have gone un-answered. Even if the audience does buy your loopholey arguments that support the CON side, how are they ever going to see how enforcing gun laws is okay, if they don't even know how to enforce it, if you haven't given me or them, anything to look to?

"Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense."

Even if you agree that we should have gun safe, this in no way helps your case in the slightest. Your goal is to prove why we shouldn't have guns. We have hundreds of safety procedures in act that go along with our gun rights, but removing or controlling them is not the answer.


"So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home."

You can safely cross applt my resposibility Contention here. Every person has a basic right. Once that right is taken away, we lose it. But that doesn't mean we should never get the right in the first place. Responsibility means keeping the firearm a safe distance away from a child who may happen to wander upon a firearm. Also, even if not every state is confined to keeping weapons in safes, most laws require that a firearm not be loaded when being stored. If a firearm is not loaded, a wandering child should not have this problem. National law also requires that children be under direct supervision. So again cross apply my responsibility contention here as well.

"Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us."

I am sure thats what the british thought too during the revolutionary war. Independence can always be breeched when needed, there are plenty scenario's all over the world. India, Pakistan, The United States, etc. Guns enforce our freedom from government tyranny.

"The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one"

This claim is highly unsubstantiated for a few reasons.
1. You still have yet to offer a plan to carry this out.
2. Why is a shopkeeper getting guns over anyone else? What about lawyers, doctors, Contractors, or any one else for that matter? Are they not entitled to their own safety and rights? How are any of them less likely to be mugged then a shopkeeper?
3. This claim is unsubstantiated and lacks the evidence neccesary to be a proper argument. Thus it is a logical fallacy.

"I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise."

Not in the slightest. They all serve the purpose of protection. Didn't you say that protection was an okay way to use gun control?

"I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle."

A guns purpose is to stop someone life. That is the point of your own self defence argument. So what difference does it make on how that gun is used to complete that action. Contra-diction.

"Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up."

I explicitly cited drug abuse for this reason. Price doesn't matter. The people who will own and operate guns illegally are criminals. Price doesn't matter. Self defence is depleted when any sort of criminal owns a weapon and civilians do not. So you again contradict yourself.

====MY CASE====

RIGHTS:

ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND.





RESPONSIBILITY:

ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND .





FREEDOM:

"The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals."

I have already refuted this. WE have had gun control for about 200 years. While there is a couple cases here and there where incidents have happened, having them has proved to be much better as we have used them for selfdefences. Our average civil life with gun control is not a gun control, so we have no reason to believe that it will ever be after retaining these rights for so long.


====VOTERS====

I feel I have won this debate for the following reasons.

1. In order for my opponents gun control policies to be effective, he requires a BOP strategy of how to implement them. He has not done so, thus we have no alternatives, or evidence to alternatives.

2. My opponents arguments contradict his arguments. My opponent has conceded several occasions that guns ought to be held for self defence, hunting ans sports, yet also doesn't define who particulary gets these rights.

3. My opponent has dropped 2 1/2 of the arguments on my case. Thus we must look to those when evaluating the round.

I had great fun in this debate. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period, it's been a pleasure.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Protonichead 1 year ago
Protonichead
No need for gun control. Bullets are obsolete, and so are guns. No guns, no bullets, no gun control regulations. Hand held MTHEL mobile tactical high energy laser weapons will make bullets and guns obsolete. READ five star read on Goodreads - MERLIN 2035 NOLE Case File 5 on amazon.com
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
but Con wins.

Pro's plan was quite unfeasible, but I'd have to admire him for his passion.:)
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
Good debate to both of you.

@Mr. Brooks- Exactly one does not have to believe in what they are saying to debate. Lol im going to be debating offshore drilling as con, doesnt mean i actually think its right.

Overall for my RFD-

Conduct- Tie
S&G- Tie
Arguments- slight edge to con for presenting valid points where gun control is not necessary. Couldve deff brought up more guns= less crime but still maintained a stronger argument despite that.
Sources- Tie
Posted by MrBrooks 4 years ago
MrBrooks
Good debate. Was pushing the 8000 limit on every round. Got the last round in 10 seconds before deadline.
Posted by kiwipop 4 years ago
kiwipop
i just think theres too many people in the world who would abuse gun control..
Posted by MrBrooks 4 years ago
MrBrooks
Who says I believe in gun control?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I have never met a libertarian for gun control XD
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
MrBrooksTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro made some contradictions as pointed out by con, and con showed that it is a basc humant right for every human to protect him or herself.
Vote Placed by Mimshot 4 years ago
Mimshot
MrBrooksTUFTied
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: Pro conceded the resolution, then tried to change it. Con did a good job nonetheless.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
MrBrooksTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: In spite of Pro's eloquence, he committed a number of holes...whether by proposing an impractical plan (with variable factors on WHO should be reserved with guns that Pro did not substantiate), the risk of allowing certain types of guns that can still be prove harmful in certain scenarios, as well as odd statements...For example, despite agreeing that certain gun control might be useful, Pro uses sweeping generalizations about the population to support the notion of misuse. Good debate...
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
MrBrooksTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro never said how he'd implament gun control. and dropped many of the Con arguments
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
MrBrooksTUFTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
MrBrooksTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro dropped many important arguments that con put forth, also he had NO PLAN on how we would institute Gun control effectively. Also many arguments pro put forth contradicted his rebuttals or his actual arguments. Con wins here. He needed to bring up more guns less crime, I never saw that, but whatever. con won.