Debate Rounds (3)
1.( Acceptance, Thesis )
2. ( Respond to objections)
3.( Conclusions )
I accept this debate to who ever accepts it.
I believe there should be formidable gun control all over the United States due to school shootings, movie theater shootings, and home invasions. I believe every American citizen should feel no need of protection while roaming around the community. Citizens should not fear those with guns. Heavy guns, guns that belong on the battle field. I as well believe in strong background checks for those that feel the need to purchase a gun. The world has knowledge to the school shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, United States. Sometime before 9:30 a.m. on December 14,2012, Lanza assassinated his mother. Around 9:35 a.m. he used his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle(a rifle in which only belongs on the battle field.) He shot his way through the locked glass doors
in front of the school, carrying high capacity magazines. 9:46 through 9:45 the shooting stopped after firing 50-100 rounds and reloaded only fifteen rounds from a thirty-round magazine. After the rampage, 20 children, 20 innocent children were found dead and as well as 7 adults. The killer was found dead as well, meaning this was caused for nothing. Now that the man is dead justice can't be served. And that angers me. The movie theater tragic: Gunman killed 12 in Colorado. In Miami a father was killed protecting his daughter from an home invasion. As we all suspect the criminals that killed the innocent people are mentally-ill. This is why I urge for strong background checks to all citizens that want to have possession of a gun in order to protect our citizens, our children of the future. I urge for reduction in ammo and weapons that belong only in the battle field and not in America's streets.
Thank you for anyone that is willing to accept this debate.
First off, I'll start with a quote from one of my favorite U.S. President's.
"It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."-Ronald Reagan
It is true. No matter what laws are put into place, people who wish to inflict harm on other human-beings will not be fazed by gun controller's. There will always be a way to purchase firearms.
I do admit that all tragedies my opponent has listed could have been at least delayed by gun laws, but not stopped.
I will now allow my opponent to explain more of his argument so I know exactly what he'd like to highlight in this debate.
-Despite the fact that military-style weapons are more dangerous, local police do not carry them, nor do they have them at hand. Police officers only carry a handgun and shotgun with them. So, there is no less or more protection on the streets even if military style firearms disappeared from everywhere but the battlefield.
"...not have anything to buy anymore"
-Even if assault rifles were banned, they'd still be purchaseable in other ways (e.g. black market). Also, if assault rifles no longer existed in the U.S., there's still a wide variety of firearms.
Vote for Pro
I do believe that if gun laws were to be put into effect, it would make history, but banning high capacity ammo and high standard rifles would have no affect on those who wish to cause harm on other humans nontheless.
Being so, as there sadly is a black market, a ban would make no difference.
Also, it costs money to make a new law, and it does require a lot of the Congress, President's, and Supreme Court's time that would be better used on other subjects.
VOTE FOR CON!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments were pretty flimsy. Pro only made arguments ad misericorium to how scary guns were whereas con made the common argument that this would not prevent gun sales... Conduct goes to con since pro did a very poor job of definitions and kept trying to switch around what he meant by gun control. First it was background checks then limiting ammunition, not very clear. Nevertheless, con made the best argument and thus gets the vote.
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.