The Instigator
utahjoker
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Pro (for)
Winning
26 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 9 votes the winner is...
LaL36
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,850 times Debate No: 28561
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (22)
Votes (9)

 

utahjoker

Con

First round is acceptance followed by one round of giving your best case the opponent must prove that there should be gun control while I prove that there shouldn't be.
LaL36

Pro

I accept. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
utahjoker

Con

With guns turning into the biggest debate in the United States questions have surfaced on what to do and I will argue nothing should be done. I'll be giving three main reasons for my argument, it is a right, the truth about guns, and real solutions to gun violence.

First it is a right, more specifically a constitutional right. In the 2nd amendment it states that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It shall not be infringed that is pretty strong words, it doesn't state that is should be regulated, controlled, or even managed instead it states that it shall not and will not be infringed. If the Constitution is the law of the land than this is the law and it will stand.

People have a large misconception about guns and the truth must come before action. First of all guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns doesn't make someone a killer just like how a hammer doesn't make someone a house constructor. Time for the real numbers the fact is 99.9% of all guns in the United States are not used in violent crimes because most gun owners in the United States are good law binding citizens. Only 4% of guns used in crimes are obtained legally because making guns illegal doesn't stop gun crime because if someone is willing to kill a group of people or rob someone that obtaining an illegal gun is then crossing the line, I don't think so. When a mass shooting occurs when the shooter is stopped by a armed civilian the average number killed in the shooting is 2 while if the shooter is stopped by the police the average killed is 18. Police officers can't stop crime they just come and clean up the mess, it takes civilians to have save streets. Truth can set you free and save.

I find it ironic that those in Washington calling for gun control have security officers that carry guns. If they feel so strongly about gun control why don't they set the example and have their security officers give up their weapons, but they won't because they know if something bad happens they want guns to protect themselves, then why can't a civilian do the same with their own life. This is how you stop gun violence let people get guns because bad people will always find a way to get guns, take marijuana for example it is illegal in 48 states, but it is the largest cash crop in the United States because is someone wants something all it takes is a call from a shady character and sell in the black market. Gun control doesn't stop bad people from getting guns it only stops good people from getting guns. If you want schools to be save than let the teachers have training and have a gun in class so that if something horrible does happen they can protect the students. Because in Connecticut where the shooting took place was a "gun free zone" , but this is a hollow promise because to a killer it will says "target practice." Time to give good people guns to stop the evil in the world.

Vote Con because in the world evil will always exists and it needs good to fight it, but it needs to be a fair fight.

Sources
http://beforeitsnews.com...
http://www.law.cornell.edu...
http://www.drugscience.org...
http://www.wnd.com...
LaL36

Pro

Despite a lot of misconception, including my opponents argument, having gun control does not directly contradict the second amendment. Gun control- The regulation of buying, selling, and using guns. meriamwebsterdictionary.com

Additionally, I feel the second amendment is not such a good argument for numerous reasons. 1. In general, if the law is bad it should be taken away despite what it said before. If an amendment were to say murder should be done to blacks (just an example I'm not racist) it should still be taken away. Bottom line, a law should be determined bad or good through logic and reasoning and not what a piece of paper says. 2. Time periods have changed. I am not aware of any shootings that occured when the second amendment was made. to a much lower extent, what happened at sandy hook elementary is like 9/11 in regard to the fact, that they are both wake up calls. 9/11 showed that security checks should be made prior to anyone entering a plane, so too here gun control should be implemented. I am not suggesting that there should be complete regulation but, something needs to be done. When a mass shooting occurs, there needs to be changes of some sort. That is my opening statement in to refutations:

"First of all guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns doesn't make someone a killer just like how a hammer doesn't make someone a house constructor."

People are going to have a much harder time killing people without using guns just like a house constructor will have a harder time making houses without a hammer so this sentence is irrelevant.

"Time for the real numbers the fact is 99.9% of all guns in the United States are not used in violent crimes because most gun owners in the United States are good law binding citizens."

This does not matter. It is still an undeniable fact that unnecessary shootings have occurred and gun control would definitely stop this. Also, something a little off topic if guns were completely prohibited, there would be no need for guns. If a robber doesn't have a gun why would you need a gun?

"Only 4% of guns used in crimes are obtained legally"

Refer to what I said above.

"making guns illegal doesn't stop gun crime because if someone is willing to kill a group of people or rob someone that obtaining an illegal gun is then crossing the line, I don't think so."

Irrelevant. If there was gun control it would still make gun crimes to down because that 4% you mentioned will be taken away. Also, gun control will stop the currently illegal way of acquiring guns which is known as straw purchasing where criminals use friends to get them guns or run under an anoymous name. http://www.pbs.org...

"When a mass shooting occurs when the shooter is stopped by a armed civilian the average number killed in the shooting is 2 while if the shooter is stopped by the police the average killed is 18. Police officers can't stop crime they just come and clean up the mess, it takes civilians to have save streets."

You are disregarding the fact that that person will not have a gun in the first place that will also reduce the number of people killed.

"I find it ironic that those in Washington calling for gun control have security officers that carry guns."

Completely irrelevant. And also that is like saying police shouldn't have guns. This is a clear exception. I am not aware of that many security guards killing innocent people and even if there were, security guards gun rights should no be revoked. Rather they should be more careful who they hire.

"This is how you stop gun violence let people get guns because bad people will always find a way to get guns,"

That is a clear contradiction. If people always will find a way to get guns, how will it stop gun violence?

"take marijuana for example it is illegal in 48 states, but it is the largest cash crop in the United States because is someone wants something all it takes is a call from a shady character and sell in the black market."

Marijuana is so much different. First of all, it is much easier to attain because it grows in some people's backyard. Second of all marijuana doesn't directly kill someone like a gun. Not a good example.

"Gun control doesn't stop bad people from getting guns it only stops good people from getting guns."

The law applies for both people I don't know what you are talking about. Even though it might stop it completely, gun violence will definitely be reduced.

"If you want schools to be save than let the teachers have training and have a gun in class so that if something horrible does happen they can protect the students."

Or they could just get a security guard (sigh). 1. If you want schools to be safe lets implement gun control so that the shooter doesn't have a gun in the first place (sigh). 2. What you are saying is once again irrelevant. Teachers who are trained to become official officers is different. 3. You whole argument about good people having guns protects people is completely screwed up because all the people in the school could have attained a gun but they did not and many kids got killed. The obvious solution is gun control.

"Time to give good people guns to stop the evil in the world."

Good people are permitted to get guns and yet the world is evil.

"Vote Con because in the world evil will always exists and it needs good to fight it, but it needs to be a fair fight."

Gun control would have stopped the shooting at sandy hook elementary. Gun control seems to be a good fight because the only thing that allowed the shooter to get a gun, were his gun rights.

As for sources, I have only used one and I feel that was more than enough. My opponents sources were not for factual purposes but rather for arguing purposes. The rest were just irrelevant side facts such as the one for the second amendment. No sources were needed. I felt con just used that to show he had more sources.

Closing statement: My argument has went unrebuted whereas I addresesed, and in my opinion dismantled, every argument of my opponent. I urge a vote for pro. I would like to thank my opponent for debating and the voters for reading. I would like to also say to all the victims of the shooting RIP. I am Jewish but for all of you spending Christmas with your families I would like you to be grateful for that because others are not as fortunate as you.
Debate Round No. 2
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
Nothing I said to you was supposed to be about gun control. You just used that to dodge the argument. I was saying how your vote was an obvious votebomb.
Posted by hosslay 3 years ago
hosslay
Lal36 is pointless. and no I have not failed at anything with you. I am just done watching blab on and on about nothing and yes we will debate gun control rite now. and give me something better than a deff. of gun control and how good people can get guns because that stuff was pointless.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
@utahjoker no we have not i was just arguing on the stupidity of his vote and that it was a vote but in order to dodge the argument hosslay kept going off topic.
Posted by utahjoker 3 years ago
utahjoker
@LaL36 and hosslay why don't you guys do a gun control debate you seem to have done in the comments
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
No it is not a fact I have made various points about gun control. In case you are new that is the debate. Obviously you are done with this comment page you are getting failing miserably and getting embarrassed in the process because you couldn't respond to a single thing I said to you.
Posted by hosslay 3 years ago
hosslay
You failed to make a point about gun control and thats a fact. But im done with this comment page. If you want to debate we will.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
@1historygenius I used PBS.org and meriamwebsterdictionary.com
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
"This is what I am talking about all you wanna do is ramble on about pointless matters."

I worked hard on that debate only to see my work might get undone because you don't know how to vote.

"You don't even know what a militia is."

How did you come to this conclusion?

"you had no facts"

Here are just a few off the top of my head: 1. My definition of gun control. 2. My explanation of how good people can acquire guns. 3. My explanation of straw purchasing backed up by a source.
You want facts? It is a fact that your vote was a vote bomb.

"you do not deserve any more than what I gave you."

1. I proved I did have facts so your reason for decision is screwed. 2. I pointed out spelling and grammar mistakes by my opponent and you still gave him the points. 3. You gave my opponent more points than he deserved because you awarded him better conduct and your reason was because he had facts when these are completely unrelated.
As you are criticizing about facts, you have gotten several of your facts wrong therefore you a hypocrite.

"If you think you can win a debate on this with me then lets do it."

I welcome you to. But I feel since you are failing miserably to defend your vote, I think you will have trouble defending gun rights.
Posted by hosslay 3 years ago
hosslay
This is what I am talking about all you wanna do is ramble on about pointless matters. All you care about is winning. I did read your debate and your facts were in short supply. You don't even know what a militia is. A militia can be made up of neighborhoods, a group of civilians, the army or any organized group. so you had no facts you threw in opinions over facts on a real life situation such as this so you do not deserve any more than what I gave you. And I will vote any way I see fit. If you think you can win a debate on this with me then lets do it. If not, then rest your fingers and leave this matter alone. Thank you.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
A very biased and unfair bonus. If you continue to vote that way you will have your voting rights revoked.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
utahjokerLaL36Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter hosslay VB
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
utahjokerLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have preferred it if Pro has offered more evidence and less analysis but it matter in the end. Con basically shoots himself in the foot by making this only a two round debate, all his arguments ended up being refuted.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
utahjokerLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was essentially a single round debate, which doesn't give the Instigator any time to refute Contender arguments. The Contender made good points about how illegal guns are obtained, that an amendment doesn't address a "should" argument and that reducing guns would still reduce crime, even if nominally.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
utahjokerLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources?
Vote Placed by Firewolfman 3 years ago
Firewolfman
utahjokerLaL36Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Better conduct to la, as he did not provoke quickly when some mistakes were clearly seen from con, (minor errors but still errors,) and therefore I give point to la for tolerance. Spelling and grammar to pro was decided by word as copying and pasting showed more errors from utah. Reliable sources to con, as more sources were seen from con then Lal36.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
utahjokerLaL36Tied
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: Agreed with Roy this needed more rounds, and sources (particularly for con) to be related specifically to the arguments made. Con made a pretty stereotypical case against gun control. He did prove to me that most guns are not used illegitimately, but did not show the how of why not having gun control undermined gun violence, which was pro's main case. Pro presented reasonable counter-arguments to this, however, did not present a compelling substantive case for gun control. The issue was that pro had the burden of proof, and attempted to meet it with various assertions that gun control will change things. Pro clearly had the stronger argument because it was responsive and contained meaningful clash. It was enough to be convincing on the balance of probabilities, but I can't help but feel I'm being really generous here because I wanted to see some meaningful engagement from con. In future, pro should definitely be a lot more explicit about why they meet their BOP.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
utahjokerLaL36Tied
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: This was one round of real debate. Don't ever do that. Pro made some poor arguments, but they could not be refuted because Con did not give himself a round to do so. It was left to the reader to imagine how Con could have responded, but in fact he couldn't respond. Therefore, bogus or not the arguments stand. Con should have won, but he shot himself in the foot. Sources must be linked to specific arguments. Con didn't specify what sources supported what specific claims, so they don't count. It's not the job of the reader to complete the reading list and make arguments. Either number the refs or put the links right after the sentence each supports.
Vote Placed by hosslay 3 years ago
hosslay
utahjokerLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more facts and pro had more opinion than fact
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
Ron-Paul
utahjokerLaL36Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used no sources.