The Instigator
ilde34
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
policydebategod
Con (against)
Winning
15 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,953 times Debate No: 773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

ilde34

Pro

I think we should have more Gun Control laws.There are too many deaths in this country because of guns. In this year there were 7,910,100 crimes comitted, about 700000 were comitted with guns. There have been too many suicides because of guns. Also school shootings people! Innocent kids died because teenagers easily obtained guns! And this is why we should get rid of guns. We need too have compassion, we should have gun control laws that prohibit civilians to own guns, but the police and armed forces should be allowed to have them. With these laws murder rates will go down, according to www.justfacts.com there were 10,615 murders with firearms. Also there have been far to many accidents. Because of laws alowing us to carry guns, many children have died. In the case of Sandra Smith a 9 month old baby crawled up her dad's bed were there was a gun and shot herself by accident when playing with it.

When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection.

In my opinion guns are to over-rated! We think we need guns for everything that involves protection, but guns have only brought trouble and disgrace into our nation.
policydebategod

Con

- When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection.
+ Tazers are nothing compared to guns. A person will shott you as you are trying to taze them. If you are trying to protect yourself from a person with a gun a tazer will do nothing to save you.
- Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves.
- The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this.
- Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one.
- In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.)
Debate Round No. 1
ilde34

Pro

Indeed your points are valid. But I said that we could modify tazers so they could be like guns. The person Could shoot from long range stoping the attacker without you killing them.

When you say anybody could get a gun illegaly, I say it will be harder because they know that guns will be harder to get because the govt. could check every dock for guns,and the TSA would certainly not allow guns to be transported into the U.S. illegaly. And if you see somebody with a gun, people could inform the police and know that they are comiting a crime. I'm sure that if you say people can still deal drugs and stuff, it will be harder for people to deal guns, they are easier to see.

It is true that criminals could attack with any other weapon but the purpose of gun control is not to get rid of all crime but to decrease it. For example if you have a cold and you take medicine to get rid of it, that wont stop it from cmoing back but it relieves and reduces the cold.

The second amendment states "A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I don't know if this is all new to you but we don't use a militia anymore. We have police departments as well as armed forces paid for a run by the government, not civilians like a regular militia. Also our founding fathers never thought of guns that could wipe out an entire class of chldren in mere seconds. Back then they had single loading muskets and pistols that took 5 minutes to load.

Maybe you should change your name ( no offense intended) because if your going to call yourself "policydebategod" you should rebuke and debate every single argument not just 2 or 3 and add a new fact.
policydebategod

Con

When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection.
+ Tazers are nothing compared to guns. A person will shott you as you are trying to taze them. If you are trying to protect yourself from a person with a gun a tazer will do nothing to save you.
- Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves.
- The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this.
- Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one.
- In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.)

- I said that we could modify tazers so they could be like guns. The person Could shoot from long range stoping the attacker without you killing them.
+ It is unreasonable to think that the people will accept and use tazers in a gun's stead. Guns are generally more effective and popular so people would not get rid of their guns to accept a gun like tazer. This is an unreasonable plan because the only people who would even consider using tazers in stead of guns are concerned citizens and criminals would still have and use guns.

- When you say anybody could get a gun illegaly, I say it will be harder because they know that guns will be harder to get because the govt. could check every dock for guns,and the TSA would certainly not allow guns to be transported into the U.S. illegaly. And if you see somebody with a gun, people could inform the police and know that they are comiting a crime. I'm sure that if you say people can still deal drugs and stuff, it will be harder for people to deal guns, they are easier to see.
+ Guns are makeable in the united states, people can steal guns, people will keep guns, criminals will sneak guns across borders like they do people. Guns will never go away. If we allow citizens to have guns then they can fight criminals with guns. Its fighting fire with fire. You're just fighting fire with firewood.

- It is true that criminals could attack with any other weapon but the purpose of gun control is not to get rid of all crime but to decrease it. For example if you have a cold and you take medicine to get rid of it, that wont stop it from cmoing back but it relieves and reduces the cold.
+ My point was that criminals would have guns and citizens would be reduced to fighting their guns with a sharpened pencils. This would increase crime because criminals would obtain guns and civilians would be defenseless. Also citizens will want to protect themselves and commit the crime of obtaing a gun making civilians criminals.

- The second amendment states "A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I don't know if this is all new to you but we don't use a militia anymore. We have police departments as well as armed forces paid for a run by the government, not civilians like a regular militia. Also our founding fathers never thought of guns that could wipe out an entire class of chldren in mere seconds. Back then they had single loading muskets and pistols that took 5 minutes to load.
+ People have the right to keep and bear arms because if not then others could infringe on their rights including crmiinals. Eliminating the 2nd ammendment is what you are talking about.

- Maybe you should change your name ( no offense intended) because if your going to call yourself "policydebategod" you should rebuke and debate every single argument not just 2 or 3 and add a new fact.
+ Maybe if you had made some arguments in stead of harms and inherency I could rebut your arguments. As you can see Im using line by line but Im starting to get non topical so my disads and kritiks are good enough.
I now stand ready for crossexamination @$$hole
Debate Round No. 2
ilde34

Pro

ilde34 forfeited this round.
policydebategod

Con

WELL TIME TO VOTE. I HOPE YOU VOTE CON. I THINK THAT I DELIVERED THE BEST POINTS. AND I HATE TO SAY IT BUT I THINK THE ROUND WAS FORFEITED INTENTIONALLY.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnwooding1 8 years ago
johnwooding1
Capt.Herp I am only left to assume that you made up these 'links' you mentioned earlier. I will continue to assume this until you actually do post your supposed 'links'.
Posted by johnwooding1 8 years ago
johnwooding1
Capt.Herp could you please post those links you mentioned earlier I wish to look at them
Posted by Capt.Herp 8 years ago
Capt.Herp
I can make a .22 out of a car antenna, johnwooding1. It's called a zip gun, and hoods have made them for decades. Additionally, street crime in England has gone up (I can list links if forced to) since handguns (and for all intents and purposes, most other kinds of guns) were banned there. How could this be?

Because bad guys can get anything they want, and WILL DO SO, while honest people like you and me are afraid of doing something against the law.

Might as well just paint targets on citizens' backs so that the bad guys will know who to rob.
Posted by johnwooding1 8 years ago
johnwooding1
Before you read this please excuse me if I have misspelled anything

Stashu18 you have no right to call anyone who supports gun control ignorant. Yes people do kill and guns will only help them do so. And to Capt.Herp, gun control doesn't give power to those who do not obey the law it, does the opposite it takes power away from them because they cannot obtain any weapons.

You lose
Posted by Capt.Herp 8 years ago
Capt.Herp
The meaning of the term "militia," when the Constitution was written, was "every able-bodied male citizen." They had no National Guard back then, sorry.

Gun control gives power to those who don't respect laws, and penalizes honest citizens who obey them.

You lose.
Posted by ilde34 8 years ago
ilde34
Ok guys don't call me ignorant! you NEED TO READ CAREFULLY. WE CAN MAKE A NEW AMENDMENT OVERRIDING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, AND WE SHOULD. I said that we DONT have a militia , and we don'tuse one, I wasn't in favor of it either. Our founding fathers said we needed guns because they had a civilian-made militia, now we have the armed forces. The 2nd amendment is obsolete wether we made it or not.

Besides I would say your the ignorant stashu18, our GDP is the average income of all the americans, and the gun industry doesn't affect it. If we didn't have a gun industry it would affect our economy slightly but we woldn't be broke.
Posted by robertc 8 years ago
robertc
If more guns for more people make things safer then why don`t the gun rights people argue for the police to pass them out at airports?
Posted by Stashu18 8 years ago
Stashu18
ok the person in favor of gun restrictions is completely ignorant and should not debate anymore to say that we dont need a militia because the government has an army is just not right what if are government become repressive and to harsh and starts useing martial law we as citizens would have no way to defend ourselves
also to say it took 5 mins for someone to load a gun back in the 1700s is moronic a good riflemen could get 3 shots off in one minute and with pistols it was faster
and to think that we wouldnt be able to get guns and putting your faith in the government to stop them coming into the country please that would be to expensive and with our GDP going down due to the lack of a gun industry our government couldnt afford it
and the story about the baby that is not because the gun was unsafe its because the the gun was handled in an unsafe way the gun should have been put away the baby should have been watched and the gun should not have been loaded

GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE
Posted by jlholtzapple 8 years ago
jlholtzapple
In the Constitiution we as citizens have the right to bear arms--which means it is OUR choice whether or not we want to carry guns!

GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE DO!
if you take away our guns then they are going to use knives? Pardon me I thought this was a free country--not a Communist counrty
Posted by johnwooding1 8 years ago
johnwooding1
Guns only breed violence even if used for hunting they only cause harm. We must be sticter on gun control
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Cindela 8 years ago
Cindela
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by johnwooding1 8 years ago
johnwooding1
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by Capt.Herp 8 years ago
Capt.Herp
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by Luigi_Umberto 8 years ago
Luigi_Umberto
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by ilde34 8 years ago
ilde34
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 8 years ago
clsmooth
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by hjfrutwiufy 8 years ago
hjfrutwiufy
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by Stashu18 8 years ago
Stashu18
ilde34policydebategodTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lithobolos 8 years ago
Lithobolos
ilde34policydebategodTied
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