The Instigator
Mray56
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Alexervin239
Pro (for)
Losing
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mray56
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 619 times Debate No: 58566
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Mray56

Con

First round will be acceptance.

2nd: Arguments/rebuttals
3rd: Arguments/rebuttals
4th: Final arguments/conclusions

Good luck to my opponent, whoever they may be.
Alexervin239

Pro

I accept the challenge. I look forward to my opponent posting his first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Mray56

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

My argument will be simple and to the point. Gun control doesn't work. I will provide my reasons and statistical data. I will also provide the positives to the right to bear arms.

Introduction

In the US the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The framers and those who amended the constitution had a reason for doing so. Instead of banning all guns we, as a nation, need to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and take the guns away from the criminals and the civil disobedient. Democrats and other anti-gun ideology argue that it’s the guns fault if someone is shot. Pro-gun advocates will argue that it’s the person behind the gun that’s at fault. Banning guns will cause a spike in violent crime and an incentive to attack others against their will. Guns allow people to rightfully defend themselves against an attacker. Taking away that right will only lead to more violence.


Gun control will result in more violence

There are 30,000 gun-related deaths a year in the US. If gun control was passed those 30,000 will turn into knives or bats. People will not stop themselves from killing someone when they don’t have a gun at hand. People will resort to other methods utilizing knives, bats etc. The UK is one of the most Gun free countries in the world yet Britain is the most violent country in Europe. Britain is also statistically worse than the US and South Africa.

In the US roughly 50% of households have a gun. This statistic acts as a deterrent to home invaders. If this statistic were to drop we would see a rise in home invasions/robberies.

Not sure if you live in the US but two of the most democratic cities with imposed gun control, Chicago and Detroit, are the most violent cities in the US with some of the highest crime rates. Both of these cities are Gun free zones. Well its simple, if you take the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens then the civil disobedient folks will take that to their advantage.

http://www.infiniteunknown.net...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...;

Mass shootings in gun free zones

Mass shootings are more likely to occur in gun free zones. Most mass shootings in the past 20 years have occurred on school campuses (gun free zones). Schools became popular for mass murderers around the time when Gun Free School Zones act of 1994 was passed. Most of all mass school shootings have occurred after 1994.

To stop these mass shooting we need to propose legislation that will allow schools to hire armed security guards. This will not only create jobs but keep school zones safe and act as a deterrent for mass murders. We need to keep the guns away from the mentally unstable.

If guns were banned, people and the mentally unstable will find ways to inflict harm on the masses. Let’s look at china. China is a strict gun-free zone. Yet we find many mass stabbings. A man in china killed 33 people on a knife wielding spree. He injured over 120. That spree is just one of many. Please see the links for more.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

http://www.american-partisan.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Gun control not really gun control?

The framers of the US constitution implemented the rights to bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from being too powerful and controlling of its own people. Philippine’sDictator Ferdinand Marcos, imposed strict gun control almost immediately after he took office. Those who didn’t turn their guns into the nearest police station/military based would receive the death penalty. Like most dictators the purpose of these strict gun control laws are to weaken the power of the people so more power will be held to the central government. You can see this throughout Stalin and Hitler’s time as dictators. Putting guns in the hands of the people will not only protect them from other people, but from an oppressive government as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Gun ban in the US

A gun-ban in the US will be impossible. There are over 300 million guns in the US, including both registered and non-registered. Taking 300 million guns off the street will be an impossible task. Due to the American gun culture, people will not abide to any form of legislation that will take away peoples guns. Gun culture in the US is the stronger than any country. Some might argue that we should implement a gun-buy back. People will not be willing to sell their guns. People won’t sell their drugs, even when that’s 100% illegal.

Illicit drugs in the US have always been illegal, exceptions for some drugs. People will always find a way to acquire them and use them. The law abiding citizens will abide by the law while those who don’t will find ways to obtain guns.


s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" />

Alexervin239

Pro

I will begin my argument by asking my opponent to define what kind of gun control we are debating as he began the debate and this makes a large difference on the outcome of the debate and the points argued. For the purposes of this debate, we will argue gun control in general.

The argument I will present will show statistically why gun control can and has worked if implemented correctly.

Opening Statement:

To determine the constitutional burden of any such gun control law we must first establish what we are talking about when we use the term "gun control" as the supreme court has come down both ways largely depending on the restriction in question. There are many gun control laws that have been found to be constitutional, like keeping felons and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons. While there are also gun control laws that have been deemed unconstitutional, like laws requiring the weapon be disassembled at all times and the ammo kept in a different room than the weapon. Pro-gun advocates like my opponent, the NRA, and the RNC would have you believe that on the issue of gun violence in general, the person behind the gun is entitled to the entirety of the blame and the weapon used deserves none. In reality, they share the blame.

Gun Control will result in less gun violence:

My opponent does not specifically cite his first statistic about the number of gun-related deaths per year. But he does show that the United States has a problem with gun violence. He then makes his first point by assuming that someone whom cant obtain a firearm will simply use a knife or bat and not only continue out their originally planned crime, but kill as many people with a knife or bat while doing so. This is simply an irrational line of thinking and is not the case. Quoting the conclusion of a study done from 1981 to 2010 by the Boston University School of Public Health looking at the correlation between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates."[1]

Again, I ask my opponent to cite his statistics. I would like to receive an actual peer reviewed study that shows that the supposed fact that 50% of American households have a gun prevents home invasions. My opponents claim that the United Kingdom is statistically worse that the United States and South Africa concerning violent crime is flat out false. The British definition [of violent crime] includes all "crimes against the person," including simple assaults, all robberies, and all "sexual offenses," as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and "forcible rapes.[2] This explains the disparities shown in my opponents sources. A look at exact numbers shows that in the U.S. you are nearly 4 times more likely to be murdered than in the U.K. [3] The U.S. burglary rate is also 184.3 per 100,000 higher than the U.K.[3]

As for the notion that guns are a deterrent to home invasions and that statistics will lay on the side of the homeowner, I cite this studies conclusion, "Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."[4]

The rates of murder in Chicago and Detroit don't prove that gun control doesn't work, they underline the need for stricter federal regulations. The study I am about to cite looks at where the guns used to commit these murders in Chicago, Illinois are purchased. "More than half of these guns " nearly 10,000 or almost 58 percent " originate from outside the state of Illinois. More than 3,000 guns come from Indiana, and another 1,000-plus come from Mississippi".[5]

So its not very simple at all. If you have a city with tough gun-control regulations but a state or surrounding states with lax gun-control regulations, it undermines the gun-control regulations put in place by that city because weapons can simply be procured in other city/states around it and brought in.

Guns in Schools:

The idea that when a shooting is going on and everyone is in shock, we need more guns in the area that could just as easily be used to kill even more people, accidentally or not just doesn't make sense. For example, how do we know that the armed guards you are proposing are immune to mental instability? So now, with armed guards, we could have a situation where the person going on this rampage is highly trained, knows the layout of the school, the schedule of the employees, exactly where children will be at certain times, where the closest exit is, etc. The same applies to arming teachers.

Furthermore, Columbine had an armed guard. Something I would like to point out is that I can see you have put no thought into the cost of these armed guards. How many per school? Lets say they make $50,000 per year. There are 67,000 elementary schools in the United States.[7] If we hired 6 guards per school, that's about 400,000 guards. That's 20 billion dollars a year just for elementary schools. That's not including junior-high or high schools. Then what stops the gunman from just shooting up the soccer game down the street?

The point is, the solution to gun violence is not more guns.

A point you don't address when you make knives seem just as deadly as firearms is the skill needed to successfully use a knife in a manor which inflicts as much permanent damage as a firearm in the same situation. Then what about your range of motion with a knife vs. a gun? For a knife attack to be of any success the target must be within arms length. This then greatly restricts the effectiveness of a knife as a mass murder weapon. A knife may kill many on a subway, but how will it fare on an open campus where students are much more spread out and a firearm would allow one assailant to kill many people with relative ease. There's an old saying, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Your "Gun control not really gun control" argument is not at all supported by the source you cited. Furthermore, we have democratically elected leaders to protect us from tyranny, armed combat where people lose there lives is never the first option. No one in the United States Legislature or myself is proposing enacting a police state and forcing all people to give up there weapons or receive the death penalty. That's just ridiculous and has no merit within this debate.

Final Rebuttals and Closing Argument:
We are not debating an all-out gun ban. We are debating gun-control. There is a large difference. Do you mean you will not abide by gun regulations or can you somehow speak for everyone who owns a gun? A gun buy back would be a start, but again, do you mean you won't sell your guns or do you have some ability to speak for the majority when you make these claims?

Your last point makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "People won"t sell their drugs, even when that"s 100% illegal." Your now comparing two separate markets that are absolutely nothing alike. Guns are not addictive like most drugs are. Gun buyers don't continue to buy guns regardless of the price unlike drug addicts who will pay anything due to their immense addiction to them. If criminals don't follow laws, then why do we have laws? Why make murder illegal when criminals don't follow laws? Gun-control laws can and do work when implemented correctly.

Sources:
[1] http://ajph.aphapublications.org...;
[2] http://www.politifact.com...
[3] http://rayrayallday.com...
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[5] http://www.citylab.com...
[6] http://www.dailykos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mray56

Con

My argument is clear. Guns should be accessible to law-abiding citizens rather than the civil disobedient. My view on gun control in general is a ban on all assault weapons and other high caliber weaponry while imposing strict regulations on the registry and sale of handguns.

Rebuttals

“I would like to receive an actual peer reviewed study that shows that the supposed fact that 50% of American households have a gun prevents home invasions.”

There is no study on this particular statistic because this is just common sense. My opponent fails to recognize that this can be a deterrent for home invasions. People will always think before entering a home given that every other home is armed with a firearm.

You quoted that homeowners are more likely to be involved in a fatal or non-fatal accidental shooting. This statistic may indeed be correct, however, the assaults and suicide attempts do not correlate with whether or not firearms are accessible in the home. If someone wanted to commit suicide they will find ways to do so. Just like the homicide theory. People will find other ways, just because they don’t have a firearm at hand doesn't means they will not commit those acts.

My opponents claim that the United Kingdom is statistically worse that the United States and South Africa concerning violent crime is flat out false.”

I had stated that the UK is the most violent country in Europe. Including non-violent crime, statistically there is more crime in the UK for every 1000 people than the US. Taking into consideration that the US population is far higher than the UK, crime rate is shown per 1000 people.

http://www.ons.gov.uk...

“The rates of murder in Chicago and Detroit don't prove that gun control doesn't work, they underline the need for stricter federal regulations. The study I am about to cite looks at where the guns used to commit these murders in Chicago, Illinois are purchased. "More than half of these guns " nearly 10,000 or almost 58 percent " originate from outside the state of Illinois. More than 3,000 guns come from Indiana, and another 1,000-plus come from Mississippi".[5]”

My point exactly. Since an all out gun ban is off the table this will be likely to happen all around the US. Considering that there are around 300 million guns, an all out gun ban is not feasible to be successful. You take the guns away from the law-abiding citizens then they will be unable to defend themselves. Criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms, whether firearms are heavily regulated or banned.

“The idea that when a shooting is going on and everyone is in shock, we need more guns in the area that could just as easily be used to kill even more people, accidentally or not just doesn't make sense. For example, how do we know that the armed guards you are proposing are immune to mental instability?”

There will be a psychological test and other testing done prior to employment. Your statement says clearly that everyone is or will be mentally unstable one point in their lives Is simply not true. It seems you can’t distinguish between the mentally stable and the mentally unstable, the good guys and the bad guys. Those who are mentally unstable are usually diagnosed at a young age due to birth defects or problems during their childhood. A physiological test should scrape out the unstable.

Arguments

Like I have stated in past rounds, guns are used to deter many crimes and have resulted in less crime all together. A study done by Department of Economics, Quinnipiac University had shown that states with shall issue CCW laws had less crime than states with stricter gun laws. Found that ‘shall issue’ laws resulted in a 7.65% drop in murders and a 5% drop in rapes. “Research suggests that individuals would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew that many others may be carrying concealed weapons.”

http://www.tandfonline.com...

Also more studies have shown that gun control doesn’t reduce murder rates.A Study conducted by Harvard Universit, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France had low murder rates. The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world.

http://www.law.harvard.edu...

Final Arguments

The availability of obtaining firearms will result to more murder rates/attempts is a common misconception with no evidence or statistics backing the claim. Sounds reasonable to a lot of gun control advocates, but this is simply not the case. The US has more than 300 million guns, with a black market in these already developed. It will be impossible to find a reasonable piece of gun control legislation that will actually be successful. Gun related crime is 100% on the person behind the gun. Guns don’t talk, don’t move, don’t shoot randomly. People don’t blame knives when someone Is killed by one.

Alexervin239

Pro

Alexervin239 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mray56

Con

Unfortunetly my opponent has forfeited this round and apparently cancled her account.

I will extend my arguments
Alexervin239

Pro

Alexervin239 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Christian_conservative 2 years ago
Christian_conservative
Gun control is the worst idea since abortion
Posted by Mray56 2 years ago
Mray56
Please excuse the links at the bottom of my first argument. The pictures did not go through i guess.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
Mray56Alexervin239Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by texans14 2 years ago
texans14
Mray56Alexervin239Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Mray56Alexervin239Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Mray56Alexervin239Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF