The Instigator
KingHenrikLundqvist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 904 times Debate No: 37363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

Like always the opening round is for acceptance. I fully support strict gun laws, my opponent seems to be a avid gun rights activist so this will be a very heated debate between two polar opposites. Good luck to Deathbeforedishonour in this debate.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I accept, though I would like the definition of the term 'gun' to be as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

The definition of a gun:

gun
n. A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.
n. A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire.
n. A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver.[1]

1. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill

With stricter gun laws with multiple medical tests conducted can easily lower the risk of a mentally ill person that is more likely to commit murder because of a severe issue on in their life that they think in their demented mind that they need to take the life of that person and other innocents as displayed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting of 2012. If there was more thorough mental test before even getting a firearm would lower the risk.

2. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and would be criminals

With more thorough background checks into the person request a gun license would halt a would be criminal or even a concealed criminal. If they would conducted thorough investigations into the person they can find every single mishap and run in with the law. If they find history of abuse or neglect in their life this may predict a future criminal who might snap one day and become very violent with a "legal" firearm.

I have two more points for round three.

[1]https://duckduckgo.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Greetings, I would like to start by thanking my opponent for taking the time to debate this subject, and I hope it turns out to be a very good debate.

I will commence with three contentions. However, do note that I will be arguing against all forms of restrictions on firearms such as background checks, bans, buy backs, registration, etc.


Contention 1: Safeguard and defense against a tyrannical government

My first contention will be on the issue of the defense of liberty. A well armed civilian population is the biggest safeguard in case our government crosses the line and decides to become tyrannical. The founding fathers put in place the 2nd Amendment for this very reason, so that the masses of citizens of our country may use force in the case the state tries on override the Constitution and seize our natural rights. So essentially, the right to bear arms is in place to protect all our other rights.

History has proven every time a population is disarmed, the government almost always takes advantage of the chance and lays waste to its peoples rights. We see this in Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and Mao's China. Every time, the people were unable to resist the tyrants and because that many hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of governments. It is for this reason that we should not disarm the population, but rather, arm it with even more then it already is. There is nothing worse then a government with nothing to fear.

Contention 2: Gun Control is over all, inefficient and counterproductive

My second contention will be that gun control of any all kinds are counterproductive. I will prove this using national and international cases that show that gun control generally backfires where ever it is instituted.

Proof from the U.S.

1. In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate increased by 134 percent through 1996 while the nation murder rate dropped 2 percent [1].

2. Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the country and it ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime and murder. The robbery rate is at 70 percent more then the national average [2].

3. New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. and also have 20 percent of the armed robberies [3].
4. According to the federal government, gun buy backs have no effect [4].

5. Buy backs remove no more then 2 percent of the guns from the community. And the ones that were removed didn't resemble the guns used in crimes [5].

From the rest of the World

1. In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 320 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000) [6].

2. firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned [7].

3. Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population) [8].

4. Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity [9]. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20% [10].
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are: Firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and
home invasions were up 21%.

So as we can see from these facts from us and our gun controlist allies that gun control is very counterproductive. This should be no surprise however, common sense should tell us two things. 1) The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. 2) And criminals simply do not obey laws, and that means gun control would only be disarming law-abiding citizens.

Background Checks?

Background checks are inefficient. The majority of criminals that are in prison today because of gun violence did not buy their guns from a licensed gun dealer. As a matter of fact a 2004 survey says that approximately 1/10 of prisoners bought their weapons from a licensed gun dealer [15].

There is also another problem with background checks. The criteria for stripping people of their 2nd Amendment are unfairly broad. They put pot growers, hubcap thieves, and guys who got into a bar fight 20 years ago in the same pile as violent predators. It's just absurd.


With these problems it is no surprise that a 2000 study by criminologists Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found no evidence that background checks had an impact on homicide rates [16].


Contention 3: More guns, less crime

My third and final contention will be that more armed citizens there are the less crime there will generally be in any society, including the U.S.

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Often
the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed [11].

A study found that 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed[12].

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year[13].

So, I think we can see that there is no real reason to suspect gun control will do any good good. It has failed in other parts of the world and here in the U.S. and the statistics prove this. However, there is one thing that my opponent mentioned that seems to be throne up every time there is a discussion about gun control, school shootings. Let's look at 2 more facts: 1. Most schools are 100% gun free zones. 2.Over an eight year period, instates without “right to carry” laws, there were 15 school shootings; however, in states that allow citizens to carry guns, there was only one [14],
I will now await my opponent's response. Thank you.

Sources

[2]Index of Crime by State, FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2000, p. 79, Table
5
[3]Under the Gun, Wright, Rossi, Daly, University of Massachusetts, 1981
Debate Round No. 2
KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

Rebuttal One:

Con has made a wrong choice for bring up the so called "banning of weapons" in the People's Republic of China during Mao Tse-tung time as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China.

Rebuttal Two:

Less regulation is better? Does that even sound right? Allowing it to be easier to get a gun would allow criminals to gain the gun faster.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Rebuttal 1

At this moment I would like to apologize, I can't seem to find any information concerning Chinese gun control from 1935. However, this in no way refutes my case. After Mao, there were no guns available to the Chinese population except for a few hunters. When the Tianamen Square Protests broke out what happened? The Communist Party of China used brutal force to break up the pro democracy protesters. Were these students armed or able to abtain arms? No, they were massacred by their own government. When the Soviets came to power they disarmed their people and what was the result? Forty-nine million people were murdered. Hitler disarmed the Jews, communists, socialists, and homosexuals, and what happened to them? Eleven million Germans were murdered by the Nazis. None of these people were able to defend themselves, none of them were. Gun Controlists such as my opponent say that the government is there to protect us, but no it's not. Without a armed population to safe guard against tyranny, tyranny will always have a possibilty of gaining footholds within the rings of power. That is why it is necessary to make it as easy as possible for people to own guns [1].


Rebuttal 2

My opponent has no evidence to back his statement up. As a matter of fact I gave evidence to disprove that claim. Only 1/10 of prisoners in prison today that have been convicted of violent armed crime gun their firearms from federally licensed gun dealers, and I have provided overwelming amounts of pier reviewed data to suggest that gun control not only is ineffective, but makes crime a whole lot worse. But this isn't a suprise, government is bad at restraining people from owning and using items that it finds harmful. just take the failed prohibition of alcohol and what we can now safely call the failed prohibition of drugs. Neither worked or have worked in ending alcohol or drug abuse, so why should we expect the government to do anyless bad a job on reducing firearms? However, let us not forget that criminals do not obey laws and that the only people who can stop a bad guy with angun is a good guy with a gun.

I would like to thank my opponent for debating this, and those reading for reading this.

Have a nice day/night.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 3 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
utbergk, would you like to debate the subject? :)
Posted by utbergk 3 years ago
utbergk
While I don't agree with Con, Pro gave very poor arguments and had no debate at all! It was a one man show.
Posted by KingHenrikLundqvist 3 years ago
KingHenrikLundqvist
Con wanted to debate Gun control so I let him. Im not huge into the issue so.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
KingHenrikLundqvistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: pretty much dropped all the arguments in the final round....
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
KingHenrikLundqvistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 was significantly more thorough; Pro had many drops. However, Con's example of MD seems to me to be false. MD does claim to have tough gun laws, but they were passed this year--I was on the floor of the MD House when the vote occurred. Con's crime stats were from 2000; clearly, it seems hard to blame high crime in 2000 on a law passed in 2013. I just wanted to note this; it is important to verify claims. I didn't factor it into my decision.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
KingHenrikLundqvistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a beat down. Pro exhibited little effort and the arguments he put out Con thoroughly dismantled. I wish this would have been argued better from pro, because it would have been a good topic. Con also had more reliable sources .
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
KingHenrikLundqvistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 won hear by being able to hold all his arguments while Pro's fell apart. In addition, Con had far more sources to back him up.