Debate Rounds (5)
My opponent has stated: "Raising prices of ammunition won't work since it only makes it harder for the law-abiding citizen to be disarmed, making them easy victims for a criminal to attack."
There exists nil correlation between pricing bullets at a higher point and citizen disarmament. Bullets do not enhance gun capability or grant you supernatural abilities. This statement has zero strategical value to support your stance.
If they are law-abiding then they are putting their guns to practical usage, not indiscriminately attacking innocent civilians and blowing up offshore oil tankers. There isn't a need to disarm the innocents.
The remainder of the sentence, "making them easy victims for a criminal to attack" has absolutely no connection to the first portion of the sentence thus rendering it digressive.
Con proposes making your own ammunition and selling it at a lower price point; once again, I reiterate that my initial point was used solely as an analogy.
Criminals don't care about the law you say?
Then why do I not see any convicts committing mass-murder in broad daylight?
Why do I not see prostitutes walking around the streets asking people for money?
They have a sub-normal acknowledgement for law and punishments that could be beset upon them such as eviction or imprisonment, but they are, to some degree obligated to comply to law or to be sentenced to life in prison where they cannot commit any more crimes and felonies.
Their aim is to commit a crime and get away with it.
They do disregard some laws and commit them discreetly but if laws are enforced to a greater extent such as making broad daylight permeate twenty-four-seven (an analogy), then the amount of mass-murders and genocidal attempts that would occur annually would be greatly reduced.
No more Sandy-Hook or Dark Knight Rises shootings.
Con brings up governments whose 'political theories' don't coincide. Politics have some association to law but it can be resolved. In every country, the laws are quite similar, no drinking booze until you're over 18 (can range from 16-22), no driving until you reach a certain legal age and no job application until you reach a set age. The only deviation from one country to another is bi-laws such as no painting your garage door purple or no smoking on thursdays. I neglect to even consider them because often they are foolish and nonsensical. Of course politics will differ from a capitalistic government to a communist regime or a liberal government to a conservative one. Political leaders also have very different viewpoints and standards and the side in which they wish to defend may not always coincide with another party's objectives.
Con states: 'Every time a state has lowered the restrictions on guns, crime is lowered.'
Cite the statistic.
Con states: 'When states enacted concealed and open carry, crime rates dropped at least 15% the first year in almost every state. '
Cite the statistic, and also take into account that we are referring to crimes on a global scale.
Con states that criminals kill by their will.
As an aforementioned point, they have some acknowledgement for crime and they try to carry out their felony either with no suspicion or with minimal suspicion and reduced punishment.
Abraham Lincoln and JFK were both assassinated during the dead of night and both assassins were tried - their punishments would have been magnitudes stronger if the murder was committed during broad daylight, where forensic evidence would not be necessary due to the plethora of eyewitness accounts.
Once again, law deters criminals.
It's directly proportional; we further restrict the law, the crime rates go down.
I disagree. If you were to raise prices that high, a lot of the population would not be able to afford it. If they are not able to afford, why carry around a handgun that costs nearly a box of ammunition? This means criminals (Who don't care about the law anyways) would be able to prey upon more people since they have no fear of possibly being harmed by a person who might defend themselves.
It may have said that, but you forget we are debating an actual world. The civilians would be able to since the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms. If people can't buy them, they can make them. You saying they can't means creating a fantasy setting.
You have and they occur in gun-free zones where people can't defend themselves: Columbine, Virginia Tech, a kid that went to my school brought a gun to the school he transferred, assassination of JFK, etc. They do ask for money. It is just not in public since they know it would be easier for cops to spot them.
Really? Then explain to me if they want to commit crimes, these ones didn't get away: Boston Marathon, Arroua Movie Shooting, and recently the Seattle one.
Well, if you could make that work, you would rewrite history. But since criminals already break laws that say those are illegal such as drunk driving, stabbings, bombings, rape, than what makes restricting guns so special to stop crimes, but not these?
Here is one of the hundreds of citations, this one coming from Harvard:http://theacru.org...
For reduced crime:http://marquettewire.org...
Abraham Lincoln's assassination was caught by as many witnesses as it was in daylight, since Booth jumped onto the stage and JFK's assassination was in daylight, the only reason for hard evidence was Oswald was sniping in a building.
The citations he enlisted were not official documents are do not come from reliable and trustworthy sources.
Since much of his remarks revolve around the analogy that I proposed in Round 1, they are all not be acknowledged.
Nonetheless I will in fact address a prompt that he brought up in Round 3.
My opponent stated that people can make bullets or armaments without consulting a gun/bullet manufacturer. Only highly skilled blacksmiths who have access to jacketed lead and lead core plated with gilded metals can construct a viable metal bullet. Criminals rarely ever have served for their nation or have been part of an imperials or national army. Thus they don't have the ingredients and constituents to make a 'good' bullet, nor do they have the experience or expertise to do so.
Otherwise, I choose to extend my arguments for time's sake.
Con obviously is trying to persuade people to skip the arguments in which I have debated against merely for votes. Not only do they refuse to try to accept and try to argue against what I disagreed with, they seem to dismiss their own arguments.
How are they not official documents? Both were by heavily credible places. The NRA one had dozens of links that they used, governmental records to back them up, along with sidenote. The Harvard one may be a different site, but the article and study is still on the page with it being quoted in the website. The concealed carry one was a newspaper. It may not have links, but a quick search would have confirmed them.
Actually, you really don't. If you keep your shells, you can easily get a block of lead, trim the round down, and create the gunpowder. You do not need a highly skilled blacksmith to do so. People have done this on their own for at least a couple hundred of years.
Now if you choose to continue the argument, don't try to persuade viewers to ignore statements that I commented on and actually argue when I prove it wrong.
According to this statement, my opponent posits that convicts have been bearing lead-plated bullets for a few hundred years into the past, which is an egregious statement.
More technically advanced bullets were introduced in the 1800s and at that time, iron was much to sparse and commercially impractical to produce or meld on a large scale. 
Lead cores for bullets were logically introduced long after guns and bullets were globally commercialized, ergo rendering Con's arguments baseless and illogical.
Note to voters: I was dismissing Con's arguments because I had declared previously that the pricing of bullets at a higher price point was merely an analogy used to burgeon my argument.
I'd also like to point out that some of my opponent's sources actually backfire on the premise he is trying to defend.
For instance, my opponent sourced the following link to support his claim of reduced crime after gun control laws were enacted in Wisconscin, reducing crime rates.
This is absurd! He is trying to disprove the effectiveness of concealed weapons laws and yet he sources a citation that establishes a correlation between gun control laws and reduced crime!
Once again, I'd like to say that I disregarded a segment of my opponent's points because I had previously established that my argument was for analogous purposes and that it should not be taken in a literal sense.
Other than that, I choose to extend.
DonovanMGwinn forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: For a debate that should be straightforward, this was confounding. Con's case is mostly faulty claims with few warrants - the sole links he provides need to have some explanations behind them rather than just a given assertion. Pro's case isn't entirely clear from the outset, and I'm still confused as to what he's actually arguing here. If the bullet argument was analogous as he says, then I lack a solid case here, since it just seems to be for the concept of gun control laws rather than anything actual. I don't find either side very persuasive, as most of the discussion derails almost immediately, and both sides make unwarranted, unsourced assertions to support their central points. So the only way someone wins my argument vote is if I buy their set of arguments with no basis solid basis for doing so. I'm not going to weigh assertions against one another. As such, I'll merely put up a conduct point for Pro due to the forfeit, and leave it at that.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.