The Instigator
ProAmercian
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rcrobot
Pro (for)
Winning
12 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 3 votes the winner is...
rcrobot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 53654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

ProAmercian

Con

Taking away guns fro americans will only cause MORE gun violence.GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK. for example chicago has very strict gun control laws and yet still has the most gun murders in the unites states. Taking away guns is taking away the right to protect yourself.If you are against guns and ever find yourself in a dangerous situation YOU will wish you had a gun.
rcrobot

Pro

To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way.

I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited.

I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons.

My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. I ask my To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way.

I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited.

I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons.

My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. In this case, we first need to determine whether or not the increased murders in Chicago are CAUSED by the increased gun control. There are many other factors that distinguish Chicago from other cities in the US, such as culture, the urban environment, the closeness of facilities to each other, etc. It is also a possibility that the strict gun laws were created BECAUSE the murder rate was high, not the other way around. I ask my opponent to demonstrate that this is a causation, not just a correlation or coincidence.

This concludes my argument. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
ProAmercian

Con

"criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law" Exactly criminals will get guns regardless of the law.Which is why banning assault weapons will have NO effect on gun murders in america.I agree that people should have backround checks before getting a license to carry or own a firearm to make sure they have no criminal history and no mental illness.
rcrobot

Pro

Although it is impossible for the government to completely eliminate the ownership of assault weapons, that is very different from claiming that banning them will produce no effect at all. For example, it is much more difficult to get ahold of cocaine than cigarettes, because cocaine is not legal while cigarettes are. You can walk into a convenience store and buy a cigarette, but you can't buy a bag of cocaine. Yes, people still obtain and use cocaine, but it takes more effort than just walking into a store and purchasing it, and users have to take the risk that they'll get caught. The same can be said about assault weapons. The government can't eliminate all assault weapons, but they can reduce the number of assault weapons by strictly enforcing the law.

If banning something had no effect on how many people obtain it, then street signs wouldn't exist because not everybody follows them. Laws are made knowing that they will be imperfect, but they are created anyways because some effect is better than none. If a person wants an assault weapon, but knows that they'll be punished if they get caught with it, then they'll be less likely to illegally purchase one. Not everybody will follow that logic, but some people will.

In summary, the goal of banning assault weapons isn't to eliminate them, but to reduce the number of people who have them.
Debate Round No. 2
ProAmercian

Con

ProAmercian forfeited this round.
rcrobot

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited this round by not responding within 30 minutes, I'd like to summarize the points I've made during this debate.

1. Simple weapons should be legal for last-resort self-defence, while assault weapons should not.
2. Hunting weapons may remain legal.
3. Chicago may or may not have higher murder rates solely because of strict gun laws.
4. Enforcement of gun laws should be very strict, with several additional policies to prevent illegal ownership or usage.
5. Banning assault weapons will reduce the number of people who own dangerous weapons, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

As this concludes our debate, I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate, and all readers, regardless of their vote, for taking the time to read the arguments from both parties.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Imhellspawn2 2 years ago
Imhellspawn2
ProAmercianrcrobotTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources so that counts as a tie and the con fortfieted
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
travis18352
ProAmercianrcrobotTied
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: nobody used sources and con forfitted a round
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
ProAmercianrcrobotTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit