The Instigator
Crazyguy760
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lit.wakefield
Pro (for)
Winning
11 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 3 votes the winner is...
lit.wakefield
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,360 times Debate No: 29635
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Crazyguy760

Con

This debate will argue the effectiveness and "need" of gun control. First round is acceptance. Second round is argument. Third round is rebuttal. Good luck.
lit.wakefield

Pro

I accept (:
Debate Round No. 1
Crazyguy760

Con

Thank you for accepting. I will begin with the effectiveness of gun control.
Gun control is seen effective in other countries such as Germany or Switzerland, but every country is different and every citizen is different also. Comparing the United States' statistics to another country's statistics is irrelevant, in my opinion, to the argument of gun control. In the United States, we see the lowest firearm murder rates in states that allow open carry or open carry with restrictions. This is a point that helps my case that gun control does not help in our country. Another point that gun control is not effective, is that, yes it is cliche, guns do not kill people, people kill people. The majority of mass shooting committed within the United States, has been committed by a person with a mental illness. We do not need to focus on the "unnecessary" guns, but the "necessary" improvement of our mental healthcare system.
Which brings me to my second argument, the "need" of gun control. Gun control is not needed because, for example I will use the Newtown massacre as an example, Nancy Lanza very well knew her mentally unstable son was living at home with open access to her guns. No gun safe and no mental help. That is my argument.
lit.wakefield

Pro

I realize that this is not my rebuttal statement, but I would point out that my opponent did not limit the issue of gun control to just the United States in his opening statement, and therefore cannot do so now.

In my opening statement I will provide some definitions that will be useful for the remainder of this debate:

Gun control-

Through legislation, the limiting of access to and use of weaponry and associated items such as ammunition. This can include regulating who is permitted to buy and use guns, when and where they are allowed to be displayed/used, the sale of guns and ammunition, as well as determining which guns are allowed to be bought and sold. Essentially any laws "controlling" guns.

My opponent will be arguing that gun control is ineffective and unnecessary. I will take the position that it is "needed" and certainly can be effective.

Need (vb)-
Something required or wanted [1]

Effective (adj)-
Successful in producing a desired or intended result

In this case, I will be be arguing that gun control laws are desirable/wanted/needed in order to produce the desired result of reducing shootings and unfortunate events.

My argument is that gun control is, in some instances, and can be helpful in keeping dangerous weaponry out of the hands of dangerous people such as the mentally insane. Also, citizens should not be allowed to have military grade weaponry, such as a GAU-19/A Gatling gun for example. In order to support my position, I must simply show that there "should" be at least some gun control given the definitions and explanation I have already provided. It seems self evident to me why mentally insane people should not be allowed to by guns. Unless my opponent can give reasons why this is not the case, I conclude that I will have won.

As for their effectiveness, I argue that they certainly have been effective at preventing dangerous people from acquiring guns. Simply because they have not been perfect in doing so does not mean that we should get rid them. Also, just one other example are laws that prevent people from openly carrying firearms.

As my opponent has taken the position that there should not be gun control, he must support the position that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who guns are sold to, and that even children and the mentally insane should be allowed firearms. He must also provide support for the position that gun owners should be able to do what they want with their guns wherever they want (for example, take one into a bank and make a withdrawal). He must also provide reasons why gun control is not effective and can never be effective.

In conclusion, I feel I have already met my burden of proof (assuming burden of proof is shared in this debate and not completely on my opponent who holds to the more radical position that there should be no gun control).

[1] thefreedictionary.com
Debate Round No. 2
Crazyguy760

Con

I will begin by stating that I have never once said there should be "no gun control", I have simply stated that it is ineffective and unnecessary. Gun control is something that should be in affect, to an extent. Taking guns away from innocent civilians that own the guns in order to defend themselves and their families, is unconstitutional. Our, the United States, forefathers created the second amendment so that the civilians of the United States could protect themselves if the government ever becomes tyrannical and needs to be overthrown, as the case of the Revolutionary War. The complete removal of weapons is absolutely absurd.
lit.wakefield

Pro

My opponent has provided no evidence for his assertions.

My opponent has said that he has never once stated that he believes there should be no gun control, and while this is true, he is "con" for gun control. I would point out that he has not even tried to rebut my arguments, nor has he provided any support for his statement that "[Gun control] is ineffective and unnecessary." At this point it's really irrelevant what his position is, as he has not provided support for any position at all, and he has not responded to any of my arguments.

He says that taking away guns is unconstitutional. In my opening statement I never condoned this action, and also the constitutionality of the action is irrelevant to our debate, as it deals with the effectiveness and need of gun control. Furthermore, "taking away weapons" doesn't even really fit the definition of gun control for this debate.

"Gun control is something that should be in affect[sic], to an extent" As far as I'm concerned, my opponent has pretty much conceded.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
lit.wakefield, debate 16kadams on this topic.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
Con seemed to forget his own resolution with statements like, "Taking guns away from innocent civilians that own the guns in order to defend themselves and their families, is unconstitutional."
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
Meh. I don't know how well I'll do anyway.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
lol, I was about to accept
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
Crazyguy760lit.wakefieldTied
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 proposes the intuitive example that a mentally insane person should not be allowed to own a gatling gun. Pro replies confusingly that we should have some gun control laws (presumably in this case) even though such a law would be unnecessary and ineffective?! Con does not support his assertion that banning the insane from having guns is unnecessary/ineffective. Con does not meet his burden of proof. Arguments to Pro!
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Crazyguy760lit.wakefieldTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made claims about statistics without sources. Con has a very short reply in R3 to Pro's argument . Most of all con concedes that there should be gun control, this is an auto win for Pro. Con should've been more specific in the debate title.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Crazyguy760lit.wakefieldTied
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: con had arguments all over the place, and his arguments were centered mostly around his own opinions as he failed to back up his arguments with any kind of sources... Pro though also gave sources that werent backed by any sources, so arguments went to the side that had the most organized and relevant arguments, and that side was pro.