The Instigator
VRiveraSantosNHS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
clallynhs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 38991
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

VRiveraSantosNHS

Pro

Tighter gun regulations are needed to prevent gun-related violence. Civilians will all ways and should always have the right to bear arms, although those who own a fire arm should have proper training and background check. A more in depth process to recieving a fire arm will limit the guns we put in the hands of those who are not qualified and those with criminal intentions. "California is an exampCalifornia’s rates of killings, robberies and assaults involving firearms were all higher than the national rates. But California had lower rates of armed robberies and armed assaults that year than Arizona or Nevada, which conduct
less stringent background checks for gun store sales and no checks at all for
gun show or private, person-to-person sales.le of a state that implimented a background check system and have seen positive results. The Golden State definitely has a lower rate of gun deaths — including accidents, suicides and homicides — compared with the nation and many other states, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.When prospective gun buyers stride into California gun stores such as Ron
Kennedy’s Canyon Sports in Martinez, they must swipe their driver’s licenses or
state IDs. That sets off a review process that runs their names not only through
the same FBI criminal database other states use but also almost 20 other
sources, from mental health records to DMV data. It’s a check more rigorous than
any other state’s."(Richman).

Workcited
Richman, Josh. "California's
Gun Background-Check System Could Be National Model." San Jose Mercury
News
. 05 Feb 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Oct 2013.
clallynhs

Con

There should be less gun control in the united states for many reasons. One reason is in the United States 40-45% of households owned a gun. Thats about 47-53 million people who have access to a gun. With these numbers how can you take their 2nd Amendment rights away by making it harder for them to protect themselves. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This quote is taken from the constitution so who are we to take away a constitutionally protected right. In 2008, 5,340,00 violent crimes were commited in the united states. Of these about 436,00 or about 8% were commited by offenders visibly armed with a gun. Guns only cause 8% of these deaths thats less then motor vehicles, poisoning, falls, suffocation, drowning, fir/burns or being struck by or against. In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the U.S., which makes up 0.5% of 123/706 fatal accidents that year.

Works Cited
Agresti James."Gun Control Facts". Just Facts. 9/13/10.Web10/11/13.
Debate Round No. 1
VRiveraSantosNHS

Pro

Gun Control has nothing to do with taking away citizens second amendment rights and nor did I say anything about doing so. Although times have changed since the Constitution was written and the laws have not effectively evolved with the times. Gun control is not about taking away all guns from civilian, but to limit the amount that are aquired by those who are unqualified whether it be for mental health issues or trainin g issues. The process in which you can legally buy a weapon should be more involved than it is today. It does not matter that guns cause only 8% of deaths, even one life taken by a gun in the hand of a ill qualified person is to many. "We can't stop every person who is determined to do harm, but common-sense measures can prevent tragedies. Expanding background checks will help create a uniform standard for all gun purchases and prevent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining powerful weapons" (Giffords).

Workcited

Giffords, Gabrielle. "Gun Rights Come with Responsibility." USA TODAY. 02 Jul 2013: p. A.10. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 18 Oct 2013.
clallynhs

Con

Gun control is wrong on several different levels. What happens when someone makes a mistake when in their life and they have a serious crime on their record and they cannot get a firearm that they feel they need to protect their family after they realize what they had done was wrong? How can we take their personal right to protect themselves away? If guns were banned whos to say the black market wouldnt start selling millions? What im saying is there will always be firearms around no matter how strict the laws on gun control are. " Studies have shown that locations where guns have been outlawed, neighborhood burglaries increased. We cannot rely on the police to deter crime. Remember: the police arrive after a crime has been committed." People who have crimes on their record will not be able to purchase weapons, sounds good, but what happens to the criminals who actually understand what they have done wrong and now cannot protect themselves by purchasing a firearm. People could also be discouraged from purchasing a gun do to this "rigorous" check.
Works Cited
Bentleym, Thomas. "Gun Control is Wrong on so Many Levels." April 8, 2013: N.P. The Times News. Web. 16 Oct 2013.
Debate Round No. 2
VRiveraSantosNHS

Pro

VRiveraSantosNHS forfeited this round.
clallynhs

Con

Many young kids are taught at a young age how to handle a gun and by restricting gun laws you will prevent them from learning this skill. Do not limit a child's education by controlling guns. like i said if you control guns more then the black market could eaisally sell millions but if we get less leanent on gun control we could protect our children as well by allowing teachers to carry weapons. Arming teachers with guns will result in safer classrooms and we will be able to defend ourselves from potential criminals.
Works Cited

Wogan, J. "Advancing the Debate: Should Teachers Carry Guns? "March 13, 2013 : Governing the States and Localties. 21 Oct. 2013.
Debate Round No. 3
VRiveraSantosNHS

Pro


Round 3 Response
In response to your point in round 2, the only people who would be discouraged to apply for a gun are those with criminal intentions. Again you allways come back to saying that gun control is about getting rid of guns, when in fact it is about putting tighter regulation on how to get them. Nowhere in gun control is the idea of banning guns. Your point about the black market is mute, only 10-15% of guns used in a criminal offense are stolen. those who have criminal records have lost their right to weapons, just like they lose the right to vote, and with 50% of criminals become reofenders that is just fine. Criminals have allways been restricted to buy weapons and that won't change with gun control.
workcited
"Hot Guns." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

Round 4 Response

First you wanted to put guns in the hands of criminals, now kids. With gun control kids will not be denied the right to learn how to use a gun although they would have to be past a certain age. Just like you have to wait untill you are 16 to start driving. You wouldn't give a five a ten year old a drivers license nor would you give them a gun license. Like I said in my round 3 response only 10-15% percent of guns used in crimes are from your so called "blackmarket". No matter how you try to spin it gun control is a obvious and reasonable solution.
clallynhs

Con

The reason i raised the point that EX-criminals would not have access to a gun is because after they servred their sentence in a correctional facility they should not be a danger to society anymore. So if they serve their sentence why cant they have the ability to purchase a firearm? As long as the correctional facility did their job then we should not have to worry about anyone purchasing firearms. What if the convicted felon was non-violent? why should they get their right to a gun taken away?
Works Cited

Uggen, Chris. "Restoring Gun Rights to Felons?" March 15, 2013:The Society Pages. 22 Oct. 2013
Debate Round No. 4
VRiveraSantosNHS

Pro

VRiveraSantosNHS forfeited this round.
clallynhs

Con

clallynhs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by VRiveraSantosNHS 3 years ago
VRiveraSantosNHS
Vote on the Debate
Posted by NeoVsMatrix 3 years ago
NeoVsMatrix
@con: when you go against societal rules, thereby breaking the social contract you agree to when living in that given society, you probably just have to eat up the fact that you lose certain "rights", if you break one or more rules. Banning ex-convicts from purchasing guns is a self-inflicted situation, they became felons, therefore they lost certain rights. Nothing wrong with that imo.
Posted by NeoVsMatrix 3 years ago
NeoVsMatrix
in regards to Con's latest argument:
The idea that gun control means the elimination of guns in a controlled environment, e.g. for educational purposes, is without any foundation. So is the idea that gun control infringes on the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns in general. Gun control does not mean to take guns away as a default. There will be no proper public discussion possible on the topic as long as gun right activists try to push the discussion in public towards that false paradigm "Gun control means you have to give up your gun".
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Regarding Con's argument:

"What happens when someone makes a mistake when in their life and they have a serious crime on their record and they cannot get a firearm that they feel they need to protect their family after they realize what they had done was wrong?"

I assume Con in essence is arguing that tighter gun control will eventually lead to ex-convicts being infringed of their right to bear firearm. I have two questions to this assertion.

1. Doesn't background check and gun control of the status quo already restricts some potential criminals from owning a gun?

2. Aren't constitutional rights and privileges promised to individuals under the premise that the individual has been acting with in the boundary of law? According to your argument, criminals should not lose their constitutional right to freedom and should not face imprisonment.

I would like to hear back from Con.
Posted by NeoVsMatrix 3 years ago
NeoVsMatrix
@ con: this is not the full quote of the second amendment to the US constitution.
I do not see how the amount of homicides - accidental or intentional - support the debate in it's core. If there are only 3 deaths by shark attacks a year in the US, noone argues the right of communities to close a beach for swimming during imminent shark sightings. So how does the sheer number of deaths impact the stand on gun control as a policy, or intrusion into a citizen's freedom ?
No votes have been placed for this debate.