The Instigator
difintur79
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Pro (for)
Losing
6 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...
difintur79
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,698 times Debate No: 29840
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

difintur79

Con

Someone please convince me that the govt. should institute gun control legislation.
Taking and banning weapons from the citizens.
LaL36

Pro

I will give it my best shot. Okay, as we all know there was a terrible shooting at sand hook elematary. I am not going to be cheap and state a source just to get source points, you all know that happened. Another guy opened fire in a movie theater when the dark night was in theaters. There was another shooting in Oregon, the list goes on and on. To summarize, basically, there has been a lot of shootings and action needs to be taken.
http://www.infoplease.com...
http://www.boston.com...

These links also show more examples of shootings.

The point is, the only way to stop shootings from happening is gun control. I am not advocating for complete gun control, but there needs to be some sort of regulation whether that be how much guns, what guns they buy, how much ammunition they buy, I don't care. But gun control of some sort needs to be implemented to stop these shootings. I await my opponent's response and I wish him luck!
Debate Round No. 1
difintur79

Con

I apologize for my delay, ideally this should be restarted due to my absence.
Thanks for taking up this discussion.

Yes I've heard about the shootings, and no doubt they are terrible. Senseless murder of innocent lives.

But these events shouldn't sway us into believing that American citizens are not responsible enough to own weapons. Even high powered ones. Taking guns from the good guys is not going to solve the issue. Does the US have problem with drugs? Are they legal? If the govt. takes the guns from people, bad dudes will find a way to get guns again.
What if another world power invades one day? With the cuts to defense Obama is making we're not in good shape. The fact that Americans owned guns discouraged the Japanese from invading in WWII. Guns are an important part of this country. Without them we are helpless to the tyranny of the govt. and forces abound. Eg. If a russian comes into my home with a automatic combat rifle I don't want to go at him with my bolt action hunting rifle. If he comes to kill my family I want to match his firepower. Take away the powerful weapons and you are servants of the world. Yes I own an "assault" rifle, but this rifle will be used only to stop assaults.
LaL36

Pro

"Taking guns from the good guys is not going to solve the issue."

I agree that's why gun control is for good guys and bad guys.

"If the govt. takes the guns from people, bad dudes will find a way to get guns again."

Maybe. But some won't. It's like saying murder should be legal because some people will get away with it.

"What if another world power invades one day?"

That is why we have the army.

"The fact that Americans owned guns discouraged the Japanese from invading in WWII"

Unestablished and unproven point.

"Guns are an important part of this country."

Unestablished and unproven point.

"If a russian comes into my home with a automatic combat rifle I don't want to go at him with my bolt action hunting rifle. If he comes to kill my family I want to match his firepower."

When was the last time that happened in America? My argument however, are cases that are continually occurring such as the shooting in Sandy hook. More people have died from these shootings than a
Russian. Also I don't know why you used Russian. America is not at war with them.

"Yes I own an "assault" rifle, but this rifle will be used only to stop assaults."

Uh hello? Have you not looked at the sandy hook shooting and all the other shootings I mentioned. They seem to contradict your statement.
Debate Round No. 2
difintur79

Con

Alright do you think that bad people are going to give up their weapons? Bad guys don't follow laws, they don't care.
Sure the govt. can run all the background checks they want, but a black market for these guns will soon arise.
The good people will be the only ones who turn their weapons in, if that. Alright, if this happens what will happen next? I used the example of drugs in the previous argument. Are drugs illegal? There's a dealing spot I pass everyday.
It's not like murder, how many people die in car wrecks each year? http://www.cdc.gov...
Poisoning? The only way to overpower an evil person with a gun is with a good person with a gun.

Yes we have the army, but for how long? How long will America be respected for it's powerful military. You would have to live under a rock to not see that things are changing quickly for America. With the defense cuts made - http://www.politico.com... - "another $500 billion in additional cuts that would be required to take place through a meat- axe approach, and that we are convinced would hollow out the force and would inflict severe damage to our national defense for generations"

Are guns an important part of America's heritage? I would not be able to conduct this conversation with you had not our forefather's split from the mother country, and our military continue to fight for our freedom using guns. See the guys who wanted to control us had guns, if we didn't how could we have maintained our nation?
Without guns we would both, not be free men.

I wasn't at the school when the man stormed the building, had I or someone else been there with a weapon do you think he would have gotten that far?? That is the problem. http://www.theblaze.com... I would like to ask you to read this, I'm not saying I go along with it or not, but it is something to chew on. The leaders we have now are failing, look at the past! Dictators who have wanted to gain total control of their people start by taking away their weapons. Before you call me a biased, radical redneck, remember this - history repeats itself.
LaL36

Pro

LaL36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
difintur79

Con

Why did you forfeit?
The 2nd amendment states that we as a people of the US have the right to own weapons.
This statement was not written so we could hunt, or plink at cans on Saturday. Those things are fine, but that amendment was put into place in order to protect us from a tyrannical govt. Read this if you wish - http://www.infowars.com... However you take this information, you have to admit it is interesting, why would the govt. be buying 174,000 hollow point shells? They said they are for target practice... you don't use hollow point shells for target practice. They are meant for the kill.
Criminals are also keenly aware of the prospect of an armed citizen and will almost always steer clear of potential victims who may be armed.
James Madison, while criticizing the governments of Europe: which "were afraid to trust the people with arms" and argued for "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over almost every other nation."
In 1942, Hitler made the following statement: "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."
The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once. If you choose not to defend yourself or your family, that is your absurd decision and I wish you luck. However, for those of us who choose to exercise our Second Amendment right"Remember the old adage: "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!"
In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law which required heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than in 1981.
Some of these quotes were taken from this site - http://www.americanchronicle.com...

We have rights, rights to protect ourselves. Which shouldn't have to have big brother (govt.) keep us under his eye. He shouldn't know everything. A personal right does not require registration.
LaL36

Pro

I apologize for the forfeit. I was really busy. I'm just asking because I do not know, is my opponent allowed to post another argument after I forfeit? Now I have to address two rounds with limited charecter space. That aside I will start with round 3: "Alright do you think that bad people are going to give up their weapons?"

That doesnt mean anything. Gun control should be implemented. I don't know how they are going to catch the guys and it is not my job to prove that. I just have to prove that gun control should be implemented.

"but a black market for these guns will soon arise."

Unestablished and unproven point.

"The good people will be the only ones who turn their weapons in, if that"

The idea of gun control is not that criminals should just give back their guns. I agree with you that this will be difficult. The idea of gun control is to prevent future criminals from getting guns. And gun control does not necessarily mean that people cannot buy weapons at all, it just means that their needs to be a regulation of some sort whether it be how much they buy, what guns they buy, etc.

"I used the example of drugs in the previous argument. Are drugs illegal? There's a dealing spot I pass everyday."

When a person takes drugs, it does not directly affect another person. But, drugs may make a person want to kill someone, another reason for gun control. Guns on the other hand, can and has affected other people directly based on the examples I have already provided.

"It's not like murder, how many people die in car wrecks each year?"

1. I do not know what "it" is. 2. Cars have a lot more benefits such as taking you wherever you need to go. 3. Then there should be a regulation of whose driving and making sure they are not drunk. Police are striving to stop drunk driving. 3. You are displaying bad conduct by indirectly vote pandering by being cheap and using a site to say the obvious fact "people die from car accidents".

"Yes we have the army, but for how long? How long will America be respected for it's powerful military. You would have to live under a rock to not see that things are changing quickly for America. With the defense cuts made"

My argument: There should be gun control because of instances I have mentioned that resulted in deaths.
My opponent's argument: These killings are bad but we should worry more about murders that have not even occurred yet.

None of these defense cuts have resulted in death of American civilians. So far I have proved that without gun control there has been deaths. You have not proved that there would be death of innocents with gun control. All you have given is a theory that the American army will get weak and we should have guns. The only way your argument can win is if there are more deaths from this scenario as opposed to the scenarios I have given. So as of now, this argument does not stand.

"Are guns an important part of America's heritage? I would not be able to conduct this conversation with you had not our forefather's split from the mother country, and our military continue to fight for our freedom using guns"

My opponent is referring to the military so this is completely irrelevant and I am disregarding it.

"Without guns we would both, not be free men."

Okay, in America, no one is completely free. You cannot steal, you cannot kill, you cannot park in a no parking area, you can't eat people, you can't rape someone, you can't plagiarize, I think you get the point.

"I wasn't at the school when the man stormed the building, had I or someone else been there with a weapon do you think he would have gotten that far??"

The fact is no one else had a weapon. They could have gotten a weapon if they wanted to but they didn't and kids died. Now let me ask you question: If their had been gun control of some sort, do you think that would have stopped at least some people from getting killed?

"http://www.theblaze.com...... I would like to ask you to read this, I'm not saying I go along with it or not, but it is something to chew on"

Both the voters and I could disregard this because this is not my opponent's argument therefore I do not have to refute. My opponent technically did commit plagiarism because he took someone else's argument in attempt to win votes for more convincing arguments and more reliable sources.

"The leaders we have now are failing, look at the past!"

Failing at what? You sentence doesn't make sense. What does the past have to do with now?

"Dictators who have wanted to gain total control of their people start by taking away their weapons. Before you call me a biased, radical redneck, remember this - history repeats itself."

1. What does this have to do racism and how does history repeating itself stop me from calling you racist? 2. Well obviously. It is not an act of taking away their freedom, it is just that they do not want to be over powered by the citizens. 3. You have not proved a single thing you just said. Why don't you use sources where it is necessary as oppose to using cheap sources for vote pandering purposes.

Round 4:

"The 2nd amendment states that we as a people of the US have the right to own weapons"

Okay I really hate this argument. Is the second amendment G-d's words? No. So why can't it be changed if there is a good reason? Second of all, the Second Amendment no longer applies to the US consitution. No members of The US National Guard use their personal firearm in service of the country, and this is because that practice is prohibited

"Criminals are also keenly aware of the prospect of an armed citizen and will almost always steer clear of potential victims who may be armed."

A citizen can get a gun I hope you know that. But people are still getting killed.

Your quote of hitler: You didn't explain it. It seems irrelevant.

"The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once"

True but if there is gun control, those criminals will not have guns. Also if the gun control is simply to be more strict on the background checks, that means civilians could still get guns, criminals can't.

"In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law which required heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than in 1981."

Once again unproven point. It doesn't matter, it is still an undeniable fact that there has been deaths from guns. And burglary is not the same as killing.
Debate Round No. 4
difintur79

Con

It's perfectly alright, I understand completely.
I am new here so I am just figuring this stuff out haha. I see where you are coming from. I will make this answer short in order to compensate.

My belief is that big government is bad, the amendments and orders set into place when the country was born were meant to limit the govt.'s powers. The men who founded this country saw examples of governments becoming too large and tyrannical. Take Rome for example, in the beginning of Rome's "nationhood" being a Roman citizen was an elite and honorable status. Eventually the rulers began to cut these regulations allowing just about anyone to become a citizen of the country. Good right? No, the Roman govt. began giving out much too many benefits and eventually reached the place were it couldn't give its people what it had promised. The world power fell apart.

This Roman government started small, the nation grew in many ways. The Roman government got big, the nation fell.
Turning back to the original point, gun control. How can this work exactly?
If someone is crazy enough to kill people they will find a way to do it with or without guns.
It doesn't take two pistols to mow down 20 something kids and unarmed teachers. (Which are in fact the weapons the maniac used, not an assault rifle). How much damage could a man do in a shopping mall with a 12in hunting knife before mall cops caught him? Most mall cops don't even wear guns.
Should we regulate the purchasing of knifes?
We as a people have a right to bear arms, and as I said before, a right does not require regulation.
Shootings have happened all throughout the history of this country, but they are getting more severe as we limit the areas decent people can carry weapons.
As the govt. continues to seep into every aspect of our lives we have to ask ourselves, is this the way of the great United States?
LaL36

Pro

I thank my opponent for his understanding. My opponent has barely responded to my arguments not just in this round, but all the previous rounds. Also, my opponent has made new arguments in the last round which isn't allowed. But he is knew so he shouldn't be penalized but I just wanted to point this out.

"My belief is that big government is bad, the amendments and orders set into place when the country was born were meant to limit the govt.'s powers. The men who founded this country saw examples of governments becoming too large and tyrannical. Take Rome for example, in the beginning of Rome's "nationhood" being a Roman citizen was an elite and honorable status. Eventually the rulers began to cut these regulations allowing just about anyone to become a citizen of the country. Good right? No, the Roman govt. began giving out much too many benefits and eventually reached the place were it couldn't give its people what it had promised. The world power fell apart."

My opponent's comparison is exactly the opposite of gun control. My opponent mentions how Rome stopped regulations and that is what made them fall apart whereas gun control is about regulation. As for when you said the father's found it too large I disagree because that is why America is not 13 colonies. And also, what does giving too much benefits have to do with gun control?

"If someone is crazy enough to kill people they will find a way to do it with or without guns."

Unestablished and unproven point. Don't you think I will have an easier time killing 20 people with a gun or with a knife? After I kill the first person with a knife, everyone else will run and even try to take the knife away from me. And also, why do you think the army uses guns? Because it easier to kill more people with. I am not saying that Gun control will stop murders completely, but rather reduce them.

"How much damage could a man do in a shopping mall with a 12in hunting knife before mall cops caught him? Most mall cops don't even wear guns. Should we regulate the purchasing of knifes?"

I don't know if we should or shouldn't but all I could say is that it is not as necessary as gun control because guns are more dangerous than knives because 1. They are simply easier to kill more people with as I have mentioned before. 2. There has been more murders with Guns than with knives.
Also knives have more benefit for civilians like cutting food and opening things.

"Shootings have happened all throughout the history of this country, but they are getting more severe as we limit the areas decent people can carry weapons."

Unestablished and unproven point.

"As the govt. continues to seep into every aspect of our lives we have to ask ourselves, is this the way of the great United States?"

Wow your statement actually goes against the way of the United States. The United States make laws, elect people, and act, based on reason and not because of tradition. This is known as "The enlightenment"

I thank my opponent for a fun debate and I welcome him to the website. He actually did okay for his first debate I just would recommend not posting new arguments in the last round and try to address your opponent's argument. Vote Pro :)
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by difintur79 3 years ago
difintur79
Yeah this debate was a mess due to me as this is my first time haha.
I originally meant for the the debate to discuss banning weapons, not exclusively any type of "control."
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Hmmm...not the most organized debate. Perhaps I'm just fussier than proglib, lol.

This debate seemed to stress the number of arguments over the quality of the arguments. IMHO this contributed to a poorer debate.

I think PRO did a pretty decent job refuting most of CON's assertions. However, the Kennesaw, GA point was huge and substantiated. I even looked it up myself to see what I could find on it, and yes, gun advocacy is apparently responsible for a gigantic drop in crime in that city. Nice find. :)

I don't know what to make of it, but PRO did not refute it, and it was much more substantive than trivial points about Russians invading the US or other silly nonsense. That, and given PRO's one round !ff, will be enough for me to give arguments to CON.
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
Enjoyable debate!

Though Con's first debate, he made a decent showing IMHO.

However, he faced a fairly seasoned debater in Pro. I don't agree with all of Pro's arguments--for example, I would not have attacked the 2nd Amendment, myself. However, his attack is valid and I don't think Con countered well.

[My specifics on sources may change, as I like to reread debates, and sometimes change the details of the scoring.]
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
I'll try to vote this debate over the weekend
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Forfeit loses conduct.

It is appropriate to add arguments after a forfeit. If the opponent doesn't show up, that's his problem.

New arguments an be added in any round before the last.

Reading assignments do not count as evidence.
Posted by difintur79 3 years ago
difintur79
I appreciate LaL36's patience with me as this is my first debate. I realize I was unprepared, and didn't catch all the rules. I apologize for this. Maybe we can do a rematch sometime soon.
Posted by difintur79 3 years ago
difintur79
Sorry I forgot to add these in my response.

Criminals are also keenly aware of the prospect of an armed citizen and will almost always steer clear of potential victims who may be armed.

James Madison, while criticizing the governments of Europe: which "were afraid to trust the people with arms" and argued for "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over almost every other nation."

In 1942, Hitler made the following statement: "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."

The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once. If you choose not to defend yourself or your family, that is your absurd decision and I wish you luck. However, for those of us who choose to exercise our Second Amendment right"Remember the old adage: "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!"

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law which required heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than in 1981.
Posted by difintur79 3 years ago
difintur79
I'm so sorry this is my first debate and the site did not notify me when you posted.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
I call a forfeit
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
difintur79LaL36Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
difintur79LaL36Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Even with a forfeit in one of the rounds, Pro destroys so many of Con's arguments in a detailed manner. Just one excellent example: 2nd amendment is not written in stone nor delivered from on high.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
difintur79LaL36Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, as implied by the challenge, and accepted "Taking and banning weapons from the citizens." as the definition of gun control. Pro therefore had the burden to show that banning guns would be effective, and he gave no evidence and only attempted to put the burden on Pro that a ban wouldn't work. Con gave evidence that guns decreased crime, which Pro did not contest. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit. It is legitimate, and good practice, to add arguments after an opponent forfeit.