Debate Rounds (5)
1) First Round is acceptance
2) Second Round is only used to state why you have that position
3) For the rest of the debate it is for rebuttals
First it is 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 controlled, sanctioned 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 and Gun Control will not be implemented.
Many people are looking for blood and the misconception of guns has taken full force. 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 and that 4% will ether turn to illegal guns or just find legal ways to obtain them because if someone is willing to kill 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. 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. Truth about guns can make people open their eyes to what is really going on.
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. 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." People need to protect themselves from what is out in the world.
Stop the witch hunt against guns and started a witch hunt against evil people.
Wikipedia defines gun control as follows: "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." 
I agree with my opponent that some people should be allowed to own guns. The real issue here is whether "evil people" should be allowed to own guns. The reason gun control is good is because it would establish laws that would help prevent bad people from acquiring guns while ensuring the availability of guns for good people.
A simple example of a form of gun control that would be effective would be requiring background checks before people can purchase guns. This would prevent guns from getting into the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Another example of good gun control legislation would be the requirement of a psychological profile before purchasing a gun, thereby ensuring that the people who get guns are good people.
My opponent said it better than I could: evil people are the problem. The issue we face is keeping guns out of the hands of evil people. My opponent says gun control would be ineffective because of the black market. What my opponent fails to realize is that gun control could potentially target the black market. For example, one form of gun control would be establishing a branch of law enforcement that deals with keeping guns off the black market. This would be yet another form of gun control that helps prevent bad people from getting guns while still allowing good people to buy them.
Point is, gun control helps keep bad people from acquiring guns. Guns would nonetheless still remain available to good people. My opponent's arguments are thus not in contention with gun control. My opponent has not really provided any argument against gun control thus far.
p1) Keeping evil people from getting guns
p2) Mental ill people from getting guns
p3) My argument hasn't proved anything
p1) Keeping evil people from getting guns. My opponent brings up doing background checks while this isn't gun control, it isn't stopping people from getting guns it is just doing quick research on individuals. If the background check does bring up that the individual has a felony that isn't gun control because the person that has the felony brought it on them selves.
p2) Mentally ill people from getting guns. My opponent brings up that mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. The problem with this is that if someone is truly mentally ill they will be in a hospital or giving medication making them not a threat. One problem is that what would the government consider a mental illness. You see what the government considers a terrorist in the NDAA bill (http://www.ibtimes.com...) what would they consider a mental illness. Is it having an unpopular political opinion, religion, or having a different culture. This would be wrong.
p3) I haven't made an argument against gun control. I have if you read my argument I use statics, reasoning, and the Constitution. My opponent on the other hand just put a definition and said that crazy people shouldn't get guns. That is more of an invalid argument than if anything less valid than mine.
My opponent has not provided a single reason against requiring background checks. In fact, my opponent seems to agree that requiring background checks on people before they buy guns is a good thing. Under this logic, my opponent is essentially agreeing that gun control is a good thing.
If we had no gun control, there would be no background checks. And if there were no background checks, felons would be able to acquire guns with relative ease. Background checks make it more difficult for felons to acquire guns. This is why gun control is good.
FourTrouble forfeited this round.
Since this is the last round I will just give a few reasons why I have won this debate. I have given better evidence, I was able to give multiple rebuts to my opponents arguments, and my opponent forfeited.
FourTrouble forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.