The Instigator
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Bobbyhanson47
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun Laws should be Stricter

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 5 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,559 times Debate No: 29366
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Magic8000

Pro

I will be arguing that more gun restriction will help prevent crime.

Rules:
No Forfeits
No Fallacies
No Insults
72 Hours to Post
8000 Characters Max
3 day Voting Period
Start your arguments in round 1
Bobbyhanson47

Con

Since you have left the actual terms for winning said argument completely open by not specifying any sort of terms that i need to prove wrong. I will start my argument by stating that a gun is a mere tool like a hammer. A good doesn't kill people by itself just like a hammer doesn't. However A hammer could be a fairly efficient killing tool in the right context but it also has a lot of valid day to day uses such as building. Like a hammer I could use a gun to kill people and it would do a fairly good job of it ,but there are many day to day recreational uses for guns also. I assume you created this debate in slew of recent events and were planning on talking about assault weapons. Now you might be asking how I validate the need for a 30 round clip and a red dot sight on my Ar15. Its simple really a gun is a tool and it is very multipurpose. I choose to use my Ar15 to hunt coyotes and sell their hides for 25 bucks a pop. This stimulates a lot of my extra income just like a hammer or any other tool used to complete a job does. If you were to restrict guns you would be restricting the livelyhood of many People. If you are merely talking about banning guns outright and not just restricting them then I must say it would not remove guns anymore then outlawing marijuana removed it from your local highschools or proabition stopped moonshiners. People will always break any restriction a government implements so why remove guns from hard working honest people when the very ones your scared of would not be affected. Removing guns would not stop criminals it would merely stop the only people able to protect themselves from doing so.

Please specify what exactly you want done about gun laws your debate is very vague.
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Pro

"Since you have left the actual terms for winning said argument completely open by not specifying any sort of terms that i need to prove wrong."

I will be arguing that more gun restriction will help prevent crime.

"Please specify what exactly you want done about gun laws your debate is very vague."

Bans on high cap magazines, bans on assault rifles, close the loopholes, universal background checks, and registration.

A hammer could be a fairly efficient killing tool in the right context but it also has a lot of valid day to day uses such as building.

You can't kill as many people with a hammer as with a gun. Killing with a close range weapon such as a knife, club or hammer has its limitations.

* You must get close. This may be impossible under various circumstances.
* Getting closer reduces the odds of surprise.
* It's much harder to kill someone stronger or taller
* The victim may be around friends.
* The victim could call out for help.
* The crowd may help the victim
* In a struggle, the murder may get harmed
* The struggle would leave evidence of the murderer.

Firearms eliminate all these restrictions

*You can kill from afar
*Greater odds of surprise.
*Can easily kill bigger and stronger people.
*It would scare away crowds and cause more death in the crowd.
*Almost no chance of struggle

there are many day to day recreational uses for guns...Now you might be asking how I validate the need for a 30 round clip and a red dot sight on my Ar15. Its simple really a gun is a tool and it is very multipurpose. I choose to use my Ar15 to hunt coyotes and sell their hides for 25 bucks a pop. This stimulates a lot of my extra income just like a hammer or any other tool used to complete a job does.

Do you really need a military assault weapon to kill coyotes? It can easily be done without an assault rifle.

"If you were to restrict guns you would be restricting the livelyhood of many People"

You can use this argument for the possession of anything.

"I drive to work in an old WWII tank, if you were to restrict tanks you would be restricting the livelihood of many people."

"I use sarin gas to kill gophers, if you were to restrict sarin you would be restricting the livelihood of many people."

"anymore then outlawing marijuana removed it from your local highschools or proabition stopped moonshiners"

It's much harder to make a firearm. You can grow marijuana and make moonshine from what's natural in the earth. Not with firearms. You must admit, if marijuana were legal, more people would be doing it.

"People will always break any restriction a government implements so why remove guns from hard working honest people when the very ones your scared of would not be affected. Removing guns would not stop criminals it would merely stop the only people able to protect themselves from doing so."

Let's draw a parallel between gun laws and sexual assault. No matter how much you try to restrict it, it still happens. Does this mean we should not have any laws prohibiting sexual assault? Same with firearm restrictions. If an action is performed with a gun that is illegal, they can be punished. Thus decreasing the motivation.

With all gun regulation being proposed, none limit the rights of the people. Citizens who are capable mentally to own a gun will still be able to do so. The most liberal gun legislation only would confiscate military-grade weapons. Most proposals actually allow for the "grandfathering" of military weapons. It wouldn't stop only the people from being able to protect themselves.


My Argument

Gun control has been shown to work.

"The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." -The International Crime Victim Survey
[1]

It's shown to work in Australia [2]

"This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows."

Gun death rate

Japan 0.07 /100,000
United Kingdom 0.25 /100,000
Germany 1.10 /100,000
Australia 1.05 /100,000
Israel 1.86 /100,000
United States 10.2 /100,000 [3]

As you can see, the ones with the most gun control, have the lowest homicide rate


[1] http://www.unicri.eu...
[2] http://www.factcheck.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bobbyhanson47

Con

It's much harder to make a firearm. You can grow marijuana and make moonshine from what's natural in the earth. Not with firearms. You must admit, if marijuana were legal, more people would be doing it.
The fact that you claim that making a firearm is any harder then making moonshine is a bit of an uneducated statement. The operation of distilling whiskey requires thousands of dollars in equipment as does gunmaking. You can cut costs in gunsmithing similar to the way you can in distilling. It is all doable I make guns in my garage with nothing more then a cnc machine and woodworking tools. Also before it became possibly to legally obtain cannabis for medical and recreational use up to 70 percent of it was imported from other countries. So all you would accomplish is take guns away from law abiding citizens and put more money in the cartels pocket. Also has to the difficulty of building guns in your own home look at the french resistance during world war 2. They managed to build makeshift guns under a regime much more difficult then the one you propose. They were also very succesful with them against a professional army.

Let's draw a parallel between gun laws and sexual assault.
You don't agree wtih my comparison of a hammer to a gun yet your stating that a gun should be banned because it is similar to sexual assault? Yes we should have laws against sexual assault yes we should have laws against murder but a law against the tool? If guns and sexual assault are the same thing should we ban ducktape since it is many of the possible tools used for sexual assault similar to how guns are one of the possible tools for murder?

Gun control has been shown to work.
This arguement is invalid for the simple reason that there are to many variables aside from gun control from country to country. Yes it may have worked in Australia but if failed in Washington D.C. if you just want to debate by throwing up poor country examples of an invalid arguement this debate isn't going anywhere.

Gun death rate

Japan 0.07 /100,000
United Kingdom 0.25 /100,000
Germany 1.10 /100,000
Australia 1.05 /100,000
Israel 1.86 /100,000
United States 10.2 /100,000 [3]

As stated above a list of countries as different in their culture as they are in their gun laws is not an arguement at all. Anyone with any credibility knows they must pinpoint their findings in a controlled environment for them to have any grounds in an intelligent debate.

Arguements
Now that I have found out what laws you wish to impose and the country you want to impose them in I will now bring up the second amendment. It clearly protects "the right of the people to bear arms". America was founded by a bunch of terrorist armed radicals revolting against a government they thought was wrong. You may claim that the founding fathers did not realize the degree that weapons would evolve. However they made provisions within the constituion to add and change amendments. I personally believe that the founding fathers would stand by said right today. They were raised in a different way surrounded by guys similar to me. I am just a good ole boy who enjoys shooting assault rifles and hunting coyotes in my free time is it really anyones right to piss on what the founding fathers were nice enough to protect for me? The United States was built on freedom and this is one of the freedoms that the founding fathers thought important enough to protect and if we are to restrict gun laws this won't be the america we grew up in it won't be the america the revolutionary war was fought for. By changing ones right to own guns you would be changing a fundemental right htat this country was built on.
Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Pro



The fact that you claim that making a firearm is any harder then making moonshine is a bit of an uneducated statement. The operation of distilling whiskey requires thousands of dollars in equipment as does gunmaking. You can cut costs in gunsmithing similar to the way you can in distilling.”


I was referring to skill


“It is all doable I make guns in my garage with nothing more then a cnc machine and woodworking tools."


Is it something an uneducated criminal or insane person can do?


Also before it became possibly to legally obtain cannabis for medical and recreational use up to 70 percent of it was imported from other countries. So all you would accomplish is take guns away from law abiding citizens and put more money in the cartels pocket.


How many would be using it if it were legal nationally? That’s the point. How much is imported says nothing about how many use it. Con is very vague here and provides no source. How much of the marijuana was confiscated before being used? How much was actually used? If guns are brought in illegally this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any gun laws whatsoever. If marijauana is imported, this doesn’t mean we should legalize it.


They managed to build makeshift guns under a regime much more difficult then the one you propose. They were also very succesful with them against a professional army.


Improvised firearms aren’t as accurate or as good as professionally machined ones. You can’t kill as many people with them either. Again, just because people can break the law and make them, doesn’t mean we should have no laws.




You don't agree wtih my comparison of a hammer to a gun yet your stating that a gun should be banned because it is similar to sexual assault?


Con quotes what I said out of context and straw mans my argument. I wasn’t saying we need to ban guns because they’re similar to sexual assault, I was responding to Con’s claim that


People will always break any restriction a government implements so why remove guns from hard working honest people... “


My point was, just because people will break government restrictions is not a good reason to permit less gun laws.


Yes it may have worked in Australia but if failed in Washington D.C. if you just want to debate by throwing up poor country examples of an invalid arguement this debate isn't going anywhere.


D.C.’s ban was different. The ban did in fact lower crime for quite a while [1], but Australia’s laws are much more strict [2].


As stated above a list of countries as different in their culture as they are in their gun laws is not an arguement at all. Anyone with any credibility knows they must pinpoint their findings in a controlled environment for them to have any grounds in an intelligent debate.


Con is now just using ad hoc reasoning. This is a baseless assertion, Con gave no sources to show it would be different according to the culture. Con also completely blows over the study from the ICVS and the fact that when countries get stricter gun laws the crime lowers.


Arguements


Now that I have found out what laws you wish to impose and the country you want to impose them in I will now bring up the second amendment. It clearly protects "the right of the people to bear arms".


As I’ve shown the gun laws proposed don’t infringe on the people’s rights. Arms can still be restricted, we can call tanks, sarin, nukes, fighter jets, and RPGs as “arms”, but do we have the right to own those? Furthermore the interpretation of the second amendment by historians are much different than yours


"Consider, for example, the term 'people' in the First Amendment¨Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . . '[180] If it is hard to construe the word 'people' in the Fourth Amendment to be anything but a reference to individuals, it is equally difficult to construe the term in the First Amendment as anything but a collective right. Clearly, the idea of the people assembling contemplates a large [Page 231] number of people and not a single person assembling.
"Thus, linguistically, the term 'people' in the Second Amendment might be interpreted 'either way.' Standing alone, the phrase 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' could apply to individuals or collectively to 'the people.' But, unlike the use of the word in the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment ties the term 'people' to a collective entity, the 'well regulated Militia' which is 'necessary to the security of a free State.' This understanding is also supported by the original wording of the Amendment, which referred to the 'body' of the people. Linguistically, the Amendment can easily be read to concern the 'body'of the people. The Amendment does not say, 'individually armed citizens, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . . ' The Amendment explicitly refers to the 'militia,' a collective organization and a specific kind of militia at that one that is 'well regulated.' It is hard to imagine individuals being 'well regulated' by the government. They are only 'regulated' as a group." -
Paul Finkleman "'A Well Regulated Militia': The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective" Chicago-Kent Law Review Symposium on the Second Amendment vol. 76, 2000: 195



Conclusion



*All of Con was pure assertion.


*Con makes various spelling and grammar mistakes.


*Con ignores my main argument and straw mans one of my arguments.




[1] http://content.nejm.org...


[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...



Thanks!

Bobbyhanson47

Con

Bobbyhanson47 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
You can't expect your opponent to start arguing until you have at least attempted to meet your BOP. Agreed with bladerunner that a good model would help.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Pro, you should probably put the basis upon which the debate is formulated: will Con be expected to defend the concept of gun ownership as a right in general? Are you advocating only for slightly more controls, or sweeping ones? It seems unfair as presently formulated.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
lol, when I did this I was multi tasking and went way too fast! I meant stricter
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
lol, when I did this I was multi tasking and went way too fast! I meant stricter
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
What do you mean by stickier?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Magic8000Bobbyhanson47Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's rules included no forfeits. Thus, Con loses on arguments and conduct. Game over! Pro also provides the only sources and flaws in Con's S&G were notable.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Magic8000Bobbyhanson47Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
Magic8000Bobbyhanson47Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never used sources, so sources goes to Pro as he did use sources. Conduct to pro because con forfeited.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Magic8000Bobbyhanson47Tied
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: F.F. In R1 Pro wrote as rule #1, No Forfeits
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Magic8000Bobbyhanson47Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Also, con lacks sources and has poor spelling and grammar