The Instigator
MrSykoCat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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 2 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 46790
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

MrSykoCat

Con

No to gun control. If you are for it (and have a half decent argument) then feel free to debate. If you are here to be illogical, stubborn and unwilling to adhere to rules then leaves this website. This is not a place for you. I have my arguments prepared, and will be waiting for a response.
Romanii

Pro

This looks fun.

I will be arguing that at least some gun control would be beneficial to society.

I look forward to a good debate.

Back to Con.
Debate Round No. 1
MrSykoCat

Con

Well, I agree with you in the aspect of some gun control. What I mean by "no to gun control" is no to unreasonable and unproven (sometimes disproven) methods of doing so, as that can and eventually will lead to permenant gun bans. It's one of the liberal agenda's, which becomes apperant after reading the fine print and applying logic. I would support the NRA's point of view, after all, they have people there that are very experienced with firearms and have been defending the second amendment for quite some time now. By the way, on the subject of the second amendment,I know your probably gonna try and use the "it's outdated" argument. So I'll provide a counter argument from that standpoint for now. "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms" -Thomas Jeffreson

No free man shall, ever. The Flint Lock musket and the cast iron cannon was the high tech weaponry of the day, I know that. But war, crime, and the human desire to get ahead -sometimes by unjust and illegal means- hasn't changed science the early stone age. Men and women need to defend themselves, however likely or unlikely the need to may be. To strip this right away from people is un American and unjust. The founding fathers would have agreed. Some technical aspects of the second amendment may be out dated, I don't know for sure, but what it stands for couldn't be more relevant today. Just a small while back, citizens IN THE UNITED STATES were having their firearms stripped from them by a corrupting local government! And to make it worse, right after a hurricane, the time when they needed them most! Do you see what's happening here? Now, I'm not trying to be paranoid when I argue this, but America is losing the moral code it has thrived on for hundreds of years. And gun "control" is contributing to it, big time. It's not more, corrupt laws we need right now. It's enforcement of current law that has the true potential to stop this.
Romanii

Pro


Thanks to Con for his argument.


"Well, I agree with you in the aspect of some gun control. What I mean by "no to gun control" is no to unreasonable and unproven (sometimes disproven) methods of doing so"

Well, then Con needs to define exactly what gun control measures he considers "unreasonable and unproven", or I don't really have much to work with...



"[Some gun control measures] can and eventually will lead to permenant gun bans"

That is a conjecture. Con will need to provide some sort of evidence or his assertion will not be accepted. Gun control laws do not automatically lead to permanent gun bans.



"The founding fathers would have agreed"

The Founding Fathers also agreed with slavery. It's not that I don't respect their opinions; they were all brilliant and deserve utmost respect. However, they lived over 200 years ago, and times have changed.
Now, Con has already anticipated my usage of this argument and has provided a counter-argument:



" war, crime, and the human desire to get ahead -sometimes by unjust and illegal means- hasn't changed science the early stone age. Men and women need to defend themselves, however likely or unlikely the need to may be. To strip this right away from people is un American and unjust."

I agree that people who want to defend themselves should have the right to do so.
However, remember that I am not arguing for a total gun BAN; I'm arguing for gun CONTROL.
One Gun Control law I support would be making the possession of assault rifles and other heavy artillery illegal altogether, as such firepower simply isn't necessary for "self-defense".



"America is losing the moral code it has thrived on for hundreds of years. And gun "control" is contributing to it, big time. It's not more, corrupt laws we need right now. It's enforcement of current law that has the true potential to stop this."

Con needs to provide some proof of this. I agree America has seen better times, but I see no link at all between Gun Control laws and America's prosperity.

We are in dire need of gun control. Never before have we seen such frequent rate of mass-murder in our country, and it needs to stop here and now.




Debate Round No. 2
MrSykoCat

Con

Thank you for finally posting our response. First off, I would like to point out the last thing you said, "We are in dire need of gun control. Never before have we seen such frequent rates of mass-murder in our country, and it needs to stop here and now". And I completely agree with you! It does! However, have you ever taken into consideration why the gun related crime rates are so high? Or the people you may be supporting when you argue for gun control? The media likes to point out in exhaustive and irrelevant detail what criminals were doing, and how they did it. See Total Biscuit, The Cyinical Brit's YouTube video, "Video games and violence". He explains very well how and why the media is actually an an accomplice in the gun related crime rates in the particularly in the US, and also particularly but not limited to school shootings. I seriously recommend that you watch his video before you post your counter argument, as it contains a lot of very relevant information on this topic, even though it is mainly focused on how gun related crimes ACTUALLY correlate with video games.
As for a link, I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make one using an IPad, so you'll have to look it up on YouTube for yourself. Inconvinient, right? Moving on now. You have also stated that; "One gun control law I support would be making the possession of assault rifles and other heavy artillery illegal altogether, as such firepower isn't really necessary for self defense". Well... First I think you need a serious touch up on what your actually talking about when you say "Assault rifle" and "Heavy artillery", as this statement alone proves you DEFINITELY don't really know your definitions or terminology. Artillery, according to definition is; "Mounted projectile firing guns or missile launchers, mobile or stationary, light or heavy, as distinguished from small arms". A good example of this would be the Howitzer, or "Big Bertha" as it was nicknamed (Source: Wikipedia). I, however, am not here to argue over the usefulness of artillery for home self defense and/or sporting purposes (unless a LOT more people than I think would consider blowing up their home and effectively commiting suicide upon invasion as "Home and Self defense". Then I might have a case). Now as for the definition of assault rifles, all that really is is a semi automatic rifle with a pistol grip. Gun control advocates like to demonize this type of rifle because of 1: Agressive appearances 2: Typically high magazine capacities (30 rounds is standard for AR-15 type rifles, which is probably the weapon your thinking of when you hear "Assault rifle". I'll get to that later). And 3: Assault rifles just so happened to be the weapon of choice of certain criminals. All of these are seriously flawed. Reason one, controlling rifles based on their looks is just plain bullsh*t. You can't determine the usefulness of a weapon by it's looks, period. Some airsoft "guns", like those imitating the look of an actual Vietnam war era M16 A1 for instance, may appear more threatening than a simple youth youth rifle made by Henry's, while in reality that seemingly harmless youth rifle could have deadly consequences if used improperly, while the airsoft rifle really posses much less of a threat; a bruise at worst. Hopefully you get the point I'm trying to get across with this example. Reason two is flawed because of, well, why? Restricting magazine (NOT CLIP, MAGAZINE! Get your terminology right if you haven't already!) size doesn't solve anything, and people may need magazine size a larger magazine size for certain activities (for instance, it is reassuring for you to have extra amunition in your magazine in your home is invaded). If the laws worked under the flawed logic that if you make something illegal, you will get rid of it, then asking this sarcastic question would make perfect sense; "Hey, if we make guns illegal, that will take them off the street, right? Well then in that case, we should make meth and cocain illegal too!" If you have a normal thought process, than you should be able to see what I'm getting at here. And the third reason they are demonized, because certain criminals used assault rifles is also very, very flawed. Why? Take for instance the guy (I forgot his name) that killed the first theater audience members for the movie "The Dark Night Rises". He used an assault rifle to do this, and there for people justify banning assault rifles without even knowing what they are. But you see, the f*cking problem with this is that anybody could've f*cking done this WITHOUT AN ASSAULT F#CKING RIFLE! A ruger 10/22, a Remington 870, a colt 1911, a Berreta M9, it doesn't fuc*ing matter. All an assault rifle is is a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip! I don't think the term assault rifle should even be used as it implies that it is used to assault people. Now, what use would a currently legal assault rifle be of to a home owner that a non-assault rifle would have a much harder time pulling off? 1: These weapons were designed to be fired in CQB (Close Quarters Battle) situations. That gives a home owner an instant advantage over, say, a deer hunting rifle for too many reasons to even begin with, so if you want to know why, you have plenty of gun sites that look at this from an unbiased technical standpoint. So don't just claim out of the blue that my points are invalid due to a lack of proof. 2: These weapons are much better and cheaper to use rifles for target shooting. The biggest round that's actually used in any assault rifle that you've probably ever ever heard of (especially given that you are NOT anywhere close to being a gun expert, and that your only likely source of information is the media) is the 7.62x39mm cartridge, used by the AK series of rifles. FYI, the caliber of the round is actually just the measure of the diameter. This supposed "High powered deadly cartridge" that your calling a ban for is actually less powerful than your typical deer cartridge (like the .270). As for high capacity magazines? You need to provide some serious evidence that banning these will solve anything. You need to provide some serious proof that banning anything would solve any of our problems, and you also need to do some very, very serious research on firearms in general. If you are to have any validity in what your saying at all, then you need to educate yourself as much as you can in your spare time with basic gun facts and knowledge. After all, why would we want people making laws about what firearms that we can and can't use that don't even know the basics in firearm mechanics, shooting techniques, safety, or even anything at all? I say that people that don't even know what they're talking about when it comes to guns or gun laws shouldn't even be talking about what they should be in the first place. And by the way, I'm still sticking by the idea of stronger enforcement of current law regarding firearms, as you haven't provided even one example problem with them. All you've done is criticize me with being somewhat vague and sticking by what the founding fathers said despite the fact that some of them were actually anti slavery (Thomas Jeffreson being one). Anyways, I'm running low on the characters this is gonna let me type, so I can't provide a counter argument for every thing you said. But I believe I have provided one for the issue at hand now, which is the most important, so that'll have to do. Anyways, I look forward to your (hopefully) well researched next post. P.S. Yes, I know I did jump around a bit in this post. But I put too much time into posting this already, so I'm not gonna make major changes to it. I'll try to be more organized next time around.
Romanii

Pro

Thanks to Con for his argument.
I apologize for the delay last round.

Also, I would like to request Con to put some spaces between the paragraphs of his argument for the purposes of easier readability by both me and the voters.

"...have you ever taken into consideration why the gun related crime rates are so high?... See Total Biscuit, The Cyinical Brit's YouTube video, "Video games and violence". He explains very well how and why the media is actually an an accomplice in the gun related crime rates in the particularly in the US"

The video was very interesting. However, there have been psychological studies done over long periods of time showing that the violence in the media really has nothing at all to do with gun-related crimes [1]. The media has become a scapegoat, pinned by people who are just looking for something to blame society's troubles on.
The real problem lies in the over-availability of guns to the public.
Gun control is the solution.

"I think you need a serious touch up on what your actually talking about when you say "Assault rifle" and "Heavy artillery", as this statement alone proves you DEFINITELY don't really know your definitions or terminology. "

Haha sorry, I was kind of rushed and didn't have time to double check my word choice. I think I meant "and other automatic weaponry", rather than "heavy artillery"...

"...especially given that you are NOT anywhere close to being a gun expert, and that your only likely source of information is the media..."

I see that Con has used quite a bit of gun-related jargon in his argument. However, deciding the specifics of which guns will be banned and which ones will not is not the purpose of this debate.
We are debating whether or not gun control in general would be beneficial to society as a whole, and it is unnecessary to be an expert in all the various kinds of guns in order to be able to make good decisions on the topic of what gun control measures are effective in preventing mass-murder.

"the laws worked under the flawed logic that if you make something illegal, you will get rid of it"

This is a valid argument. Making overly powerful guns illegal will not make them go away completely. However, it is sure to, at the very least, decrease their availability, and that is much better than doing nothing.

"All you've done is criticize me with being somewhat vague and sticking by what the founding fathers said despite the fact that some of them were actually anti slavery"

No one cares if some of them were anti-slavery. That is beside the point. The POINT is that times have changed and the opinions of people from over 200 years ago are no longer relevant.
As for Con being vague, he still hasn't really solved that problem. He said he supports SOME gun control, but he still hasn't clarified exactly what that "some" would entail.

Back to Con.


SOURCES
[1] http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 3
MrSykoCat

Con

MrSykoCat forfeited this round.
Romanii

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
MrSykoCat

Con

MrSykoCat forfeited this round.
Romanii

Pro

Extend all arguments.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MrSykoCat 2 years ago
MrSykoCat
To: Tyler3923

Okay, what's your problem? I'm completely new to this, so cut me some damn slack. This is one of the first debates I ever started, I expected to lose and be horrible at it. And secondly, an assault rifle IS just a rifle with a pistol grip, according to my father. I consider him a reliable source because of 1: 4 years in the Marine Core 2: extensive knowledge (at least compared to me) and 3: technical knowledge of firearms. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Then so? That would still make assault rifles excellent home defense and sporting weapons. These were originally designed to be reliable, versatile and fast weapons, many with stopping power to match. If you miss your first shot (be that at a paper target or home invader) with say, an AR-15, you can give a follow up shot very quickly. They're also much more comfortable when when cornering (something most shotguns lack) and much easier to shoot than your typical handgun (I have trouble shooting even a little Beretta PX4 with any accuracy at all, let alone a bigger 1911 which a lot of people preffer for home defense). In short, it makes vast amounts of sense to use an assault rifle, wether under my description or yours, for home defense. Although, I will thank you for providing me that link. I'll read it right now, in fact.
Posted by tyler3923 2 years ago
tyler3923
Despite being a gun rights advocate, I would have voted for pro in this debate. While he didn't do a very good job arguing his position, con did horribly. For future reference, maintain a professional demeanor, do not swear during the debate and lastly... never again refer to a semi automatic rifle as an "assault rifle." An assault rifle implies the capability to fire more than one round per trigger squeeze.

For an example of how to argue your side next time...

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Is any form of gun control available for discussion, or do you have a specific type in mind? Also, does this only apply to a specific country?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
MrSykoCatRomaniiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't vote for either side. Both of you need to watch your logical fallacies, because they're everywhere. Con used so many straw men that it would take me the rest of this space just to list them, setting up his opponent's stance well beyond what Pro actually stated. The few arguments that actually hit at Pro's were mitigating at best. Pro set up a very threadbare case with so little to it that I'm hardly certain what he was supporting, and I barely see anything in the way of points to support his arguments. There are several red herrings in his arguments as well. So, why the points? Conduct goes to Pro because of the forfeits and some very condescending language from Con, not to mention multiple statements by Con that he didn't have to post sources and that Pro should just look them up. S&G also goes to Pro for the WALL OF WORDS. I'm tempted to give Pro sources as well due to the aforementioned conduct issues on that end, but with no sources of note, I can't give Pro those points.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 2 years ago
Cheetah
MrSykoCatRomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF