Gun Rights in all locations should be legalized.
Debate Rounds (3)
I, the instigator, will prove my positiion that gun rights whould be legalized in all locations.
First round only for aacceptance.
No plagaurism unless to prove a point.
Take debate seriously; No trolling.
Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point forfeiture.
(But, shouldn't be allowed to people with a criminal record)
First of all, I would like to clarify that I said that gun rights aren't allowed to people with a criminal record.
Thank you, for accepting this ineresting debbate.
I believe that everyone should have gun rights except for people with criminal records. I believe this because some people may need defense or a source to defend themselves or other people from potential danger. For example, if someone gets robbed, or harassed in an extreme way, they should have some way to defend themselves. Other than the possible fatality of the person responsible for the conflict in the first place, this will show that guns are no different than other forms of self defense, such as baseball bats or golf cllubs.
To support the reason for the negative connatation towards the criminal records, there can be a slight possibilty that someone who has been convicted of a crime can use a gun for harassement, threats, and even death to others that may hav cause his prison sentence in the first place. For example, if a specific person told the police about a crime someone has commited, that prisoner may be looking for revenge.
Even if we have a ban in guns for citizens in America, will it still control the crime rates? I know we are just talking about the United States, but I will compare to other countries: Canada has a high crime rate, yet has the same amount of gun control as Japan. It depends on the country and the people in the country. In this argument, statistics prove very fallible and thus cannot be used in this argument. We can debate through sheer logic.
What you should think about is this question: If we ban guns, how will citizens have protetion? And even if they do, will that even decrease the crime rates anyway? And I do not see how criminals breaking laws is that hard to believe, much less a complex question that requires a paragraph of an answer. Regardless, I should think a crime is easier to commit when you know the victim is unarmed. And, do you think that if guns were to become illegal criminals would stop trying to get guns? It is far easier for a person to obtain a legal gun than an illegal gun. But, if it came down to where guns would be illegal, I have reason to believe criminals would get guns somehow if they really wanted to.
And also, you do understand that if guns become illegal, criminals will still have access to guns. If the gun they possess is legal, they can always get another one through the black market.
If statistics show that you are more likely to shoot yourself than defend yourself, let me pose a question for you. Do you think a suicidal person would not kill themselves just because they did not have access to a gun? Let me remind you: There is more than one way to skin a cat. So, the issue of a suicidal having access to guns is solved. There would be no gap in the amount of suicides if we were to take guns away. Therefore, I rephrase your argument into "With you being more likely to jump off a bridge than anyone even breaking into your house let alone you being the active defender it is hard to justify the statements regarding protection." As you can see, jumping off a bridge has nothing to do with guns. Even then, an innocent human life was saved when someone decided to own a gun and defended themselves with that gun. You may not value that human life, but I do.
I await my opponents argument.
People need a form of self defense.
So you need self defense. Are you really going to carry a gun around with you wherever you go? Are you really expecting to be robbed at any moment? Guns are bulky, useless to carry around. Knives are more practical. At this point, you'll realize that having a gun in public is really only good for one thing; and that's if you are anticipating using it. Therefore, allowing guns in public only enables criminals. Long story short, guns in public = criminal activity 9 times out of 10.
Ok, so allowing guns is more useful for having at home, ready for a robbery. This makes more sense, but there are still problems. Stats show that introducing a gun into the home is more likely to make it more dangerous, not more safe.
--- In Jackman's experiment, where boys aged 8-12 were placed in a room with 1 hidden gun, and 2 hidden water pistols, 1/3 of all the groups had pulled the trigger of the real one. These kids are not young, or stupid.
--- Any time a gun at a human, that human is 80% more likely to be the person holding the gun, than anybody else.
If you want a safer home, then it's been shown statistically that you should NOT have a gun in it.
Ok, so let's say you are a responsible gun owner, you lock your gun in a safe. This is the bare minimum I would accept of somebody with a family.
THEN IT'S NOT PROTECTING YOU. The gun is useless in the safe unless you can open it in time... But if someone is coming to kill you, the chances of this are nil.
Now finally, what are you protecting yourself from? Nobody is coming to kill you. If someone is robbing you, even if you have a gun, I would recommend just giving them the money. You don't need to risk your life over something like a robbery. If someone breaks into your house, they want your TV, not to gun your family down. Just call the police, they should be there quicker than the assailant can leave. Once again, you are risking your life trying to combat the robber.
Now finally, I want to talk about an armed society. Why do you think this is a good idea? Untrained people carrying guns everywhere? All paranoid they will need them? I don't know why you think this will lower the crime rate, when the crime rate should obviously rise.
"What you should think about is this question: If we ban guns, how will citizens have protection?"
Again, what are you protecting yourself from? Are you really paranoid you'll always be robbed? Even if this is the case, the police force is there for a reason. If someone is robbing you, just give them what they want. 999/1000 times you will not get hurt. I would rather give the money than risk my life being a hero.
Ask yourself a different question. If everybody has guns, what's stopping them from using them for reasons you would not find acceptable?
Statistics are not useless, they are very useful. According to http://www.numbeo.com..., Canada is notably safer to live in than the states, for ANY crime. I imagine if it was homicide specific, this would go down even further. Australia is even further down the list for crime rate, and they are an exemplary example of gun control.
In general, Neither Canada or Australia suffers massacres AT ALL. There are rare occasions, for example, Australia has had one massacre since the gun ban over 15 years ago. The US has AT LEAST ONE YEARLY. The stats are in heavy favor that you are safer if nobody has guns.
"And also, you do understand that if guns become illegal, criminals will still have access to guns. If the gun they possess is legal, they can always get another one through the black market."
--- At several times the price (Did you really think the black market was cost efficient?) Nobody will pay tens of thousands for a gun unless they are an organized crime syndicate, and they will just import their guns.
Guns are one of the worst things you can sell on the black market, since nobody depends on them. Anyway, gun CONTROL also focuses on getting rid of these guns as well.
"Do you think a suicidal person would not kill themselves just because they did not have access to a gun?"
No, but that is the wrong question. It doesn't consider the important factors. Let me ask you the correct question:
--- Do you think that if a person contemplating suicide owned a gun, they would be more likely to follow through than those who do not own one?
"There would be no gap in the amount of suicides if we were to take guns away."
This is a logical fallacy. You've shown that suicide is still possible without guns, but you've made no comment on the suicide rate based on gun ownership.
According to http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com... Canada has a lower sucide rate than the US, and Austrailia is FAR lower than both Canada and the US.
Of course, this does not necessarily prove my point, because a lot of factors cause suicide. However, I do propose that a country with more guns has a tendency towards higher suicide rate.
Good gun control can exist, and I believe it's an undeniable and obvious fact that a country that has NO guns is safer than one where EVERYONE has them.
I want to screw thank my opponent for creating such a stupid wonderful debate.
"Nobody will pay tens of thousands for a gun unless they are an organized crime syndicate, and they will just import their guns."
First of all, most criminals will do anything in order to commit a crime. Motivations include the death of a relative or friend can result in more physical harm to another. For example, if someone kills someone's loved one, they may feel the urge of vengence. In the T.V. show, "Lie to Me," the fifth episode, "Unchained," the wife of a the victim of a murder, attempts to kill the murderer during his parole.
Guns are made to kill. And guns will be here as long as there are evil people in the world. The outlawing of guns will not eliminate the presence of guns. In fact, the outlawing of guns will strip away the first aid protection of law abiding citizens. This means the criminals will still have guns, but more importantly, the people will not have guns. They will not have protection. If a gun law stating there are to be no guns is passed, here's what's going to happen:
Citizens will not have guns.
Criminals will have guns.
Which makes criminals all the more dangerous. You see, laws do not affect law breakers. I mean, if someone breaks into your house trying to murder you, you can't just call 911 at gunpoint! Like I said, guns can still be accessed from the black market, thousands of dollars or not, criminals still have motivations to absolutely get a gun no matter the cost.
So, I need to know, do you agree that if we take away guns, citizens will not have protection?
And, do you agree that, if we take away guns, criminals will still break laws?
Do you agree that, if we make guns illegal, criminals will still have guns because of their habit to possess illegal things?
The criminals will have guns. We will not. This is a frightening concept when you consider that gun crimes usually result in more fatalities than knife crimes. And so, even though the criminal did it, the gun allowed more damage to be done.
And I do not see how criminals breaking laws is that hard to believe, much less a complex question that requires a paragraph of an answer. Regardless, I should think a crime is easier to commit when you know the victim is unarmed. And, do you think that if guns were to become illegal criminals would stop trying to get guns? It is far easier for a person to obtain a legal gun than an illegal gun. But, if it came down to where guns would be illegal, I have reason to believe criminals would get guns somehow if they really wanted to.
No matter how you slice it or dice it:
Criminals will always have guns. Even if they spend thosusands of dollars.
Civillians will not have guns to protect themselves, and the few civillians that do protect themselves will be killed or abused.
The ban of guns will not only decrease the defense in civilians, but will also make the urge to kill more motivational. If nobody has one particular thing, the urge to get it can increase even more. For example, would you rather do a particular task with a rare non-used, (Guns per say) item? Or a overly-used, (Knives or other weapons per say) object?
Scottsdale, Arizona is ranked one of the top cities with the lowest crime rate, and get this: It has almost NO gun control.
"Scottsdale, AZ tops our list mainly due to the low number of violent crimes."- http://www.areavibes.com...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
Plano, TX is also a top ranking in the top 10 cities with lowest crime rate. And: It has little to no gun laws! Surprise, surprise!
Third on the list is Virginia. You will see that here, as crime rate goes up, so do gun laws, little by little.
So, really, as long as we exist, guns will too. And we will never be rid of them. But these statistics show that towns with no gun laws are generally safer than ones with gun laws.
I'm not sure how to take this... But I guess I'll take it as a joke?
"First of all, most criminals will do anything in order to commit a crime. Motivations include the death of a relative or friend can result in more physical harm to another."
--- Statistics say that most criminal acts are not preemptive. They are descisions made on the fly. I can assure you that nobody would go out of their way, paying for a gun off the black market, for a crime they weren't sure they would do yet.
--- I can assure you that giving people these guns is going to increase the rate of impulse crimes.
"In the T.V. show, "Lie to Me," the fifth episode, "Unchained," the wife of a the victim of a murder, attempts to kill the murderer during his parole."
"here's what's going to happen:
Citizens will not have guns.
Criminals will have guns."
--- Actually, it's more like:
Citizens will not have guns
0.1% of criminals have guns. They will pay the extreme amounts of money or succeed importing the guns in order to have them.
Again, this is gun CONTROL we're talking about. If it is done correctly, CRIMINALS WILL NOT HAVE GUNS. If they do, then the gun control has failed. You are making a mental effort to ignore the very basis of gun control.
You probably think gun control cannot work. Let me refer back to Australia, where ONLY 1 MASSACRE HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEIR GUN BAN OVER 15 YEARS AGO.
"You will see that here, as crime rate goes up, so do gun laws, little by little."
--- Ok, so let's compare state to state. Using http://www.deseretnews.com... And https://www.census.gov..., I've created this list.
State . . . . . . . . . Rank in gun control . . . . Rank in crime index
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Massachusetts . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
California . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
The average rank of these states is approximately 24, which is close to 26, the average rank of all states.
This suggests there is no correlation between gun control and danger to people in the states.
Your claim is false, giving people guns does not make the crime rate go down.
Now, onto my big point, gun control does not exist in america. Even in California, strictest in the country, they restrict guns to people with permits, and these permits are lax. This is still very easy for criminals to get, and is not gun control. There is not a single american state which shows an example of good gun control.
Just to conclude, here are the facts I've thrown through this debate.
-In US states alone, the ease of attaining a gun does not correlate with crime rates in that state.
-Out of the first world countries, the US has one of the highest murder rates.
-Introducing a gun into a home will make the home less safe. Children have a high chance of firing a gun they find.
Long story short, I see no reason or statistics to believe that arming everybody with guns would make anybody safer.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.