The Instigator
AMcCormack21
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
fauziinsan
Pro (for)
Losing
2 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 1 vote the winner is...
AMcCormack21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 52277
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

AMcCormack21

Con

I am against gun control because it is simply unconstitutional. It goes against one main right of our country, which is the right to bear arms. President Obama has once again crossed into an unconstitutional territory and we are losing individual rights. We are on the socialist path that china, vietnam, and russia took not too long ago.
fauziinsan

Pro

first of all, lets see how lethal gun is. We know that gun is the most effective way to defend yourself and attack the other, its easy to carry, easy to use, and etc. Obama clearly knowing the capability of the gun is, if it falls into the wrong hands, it will be a disaster. some of the point of gun control is require background checks for all gun sale strengthen the background check system for gun sales, yes, maybe it slightly harming our privacy, but it isnt significant, if you see the purpose of the gun control is.
Debate Round No. 1
AMcCormack21

Con

It isnt significant??!! He is slowly removing one of our key rights that sets our country apart from others. Yes the gun is lethal but planes and buses are as well, so are we going to remove those from our lives too? No way!!! Cliffs can kill people, so does that mean Obama will call for people to remove cliffs? Not a chance!! Just because something is lethal does not make it right to enforce a ban on it. It takes 32 Advil" Tablets to kill a human being, and they are still legal. Smoking is lethal, but that too takes away rights given to us by our founders. I do agree that killing is wrong but people are not just killed with firearms but also with knives, and other common household products, but our country will never place a ban on a simple knife. Even if our country removes firearms, there are always people who can get their hands on some black powder, steel, iron, and wood, and if that person has any woodwork/mettalurgic knowledge then they can create a firearm to kill a person. I do agree killing is a horrible act to commit, but just because guns are removed, does not mean that killing will just come to a halt. Plus most people who own firearms are either protective citizens who need to defend themselves against criminals or they are shooters who go to firing ranges on their spare time.
fauziinsan

Pro

look at the purpose of the gun first, like i stated before, its a thing to defend yourself and attack the other, bus, plane,cliffs, and smoke doesnt have same purpose. it ridiculous if you compare gun with that. Gun control isn't banning the right to have a gun, its only for safety check like background check like I stated before. Gun is easy to use, ease make people didn't think carefully, especially gun, just pull the trigger and you won .now I give you some fact "A 1992 report in the New England Journal of Medicine shows an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates, finding that individuals in a firearm owning home are close to five times more likely to commit suicide than those individuals who do not own firearm" and gun-involved homicides is the biggest factor, it proof that there's many people who shouldn't have a gun but somehow they have a gun . The purpose of gun control is to reduce the gun violence, with the background check and etc and it will be more difficult for people who have criminal mental to have a gun. and when it happen, it must be reducing the gun violence Many people believe such a system exists today; it does not. Along with such a system, we need to improve the databases used in connection with such checks.
Debate Round No. 2
AMcCormack21

Con

While what you stated is true, certain guns are banned and restricted from certain areas. In NYC a gun must be concealable and have proper registration. While i do oppose drug dealers strolling down broadway with a rifle in hand, i must state that this is once again going back to the concept of taking away rights. A person might keep a shotgun in their house in the rural backcountry but in the city, having a shotgun ready for annintruder in the umbrella rack is a crime
fauziinsan

Pro

look, the government bring up this sentence because of the chaos that brought by the gun lately. We clearly knowing how lethal and easy gun is and how harming if it fall into the wrong hand. Yes, we still can buy the gun, but of course it will be more difficult than before but again look what this policy bring, it will make the probability of misuse will be lower than before. And your argument that saying taking away rights, it wont be significant.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 23dan2324 2 years ago
23dan2324
Don't worry it's just a-tard being a flamer
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
travis18352
AMcCormack21fauziinsanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: there were a few instances where con used more than one punctuation mark but con made more convincing argurments by mentioning that cars, smoking can be just as dangerous as guns. nobody used any sources.