The Instigator
Raymond123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Andrew_UK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun banning

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2013 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 29957
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Raymond123

Con

Gun banning. Its been debated over for many years. But, when the Newtown shooter shot up the school, it turned many people to vote for the banning. I stand against them! When you take away our guns (assault or otherwise) what's stopping the government from banning alot more? If you ban the guns, it would create more problems then solve.
Riots and black market, just to name two. It would create another Civil War.
Andrew_UK

Pro

Riots? Civil War? What are you talking about? UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and many many other civilised countries do very well without guns. And none of them ever faced riots or civil wars, as you say, because of adequate gun control. What's stopping the US from introducing similar measures?
What's stopping the government from banning a lot more? Well, many things simply have to be banned, just because they are inherently so bad, that no reasonable justification can be possibly made to keep them. Controlled substances, for example, like heroin or cocaine. Explosives. Child pornography. Cigarettes and alcohol are effectively banned for the under 18s. The rationale behind banning them is that they are capable of causing sufficiently severe and irreparable damage, whether physical or emotional. They are not just banned at the whim of the government
There is a lot of reasoning being done, when the government devises a particular policy. In the case of guns, there is strong evidence, that countries with adequate gun control feature substantively lower homicide rates, while being similar in other respects. Take UK and US for example. In the US, the homicide rate is 4.8 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. In the UK, for example, this figure equates to 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 people. France is sitting at 1.1, Germany - 0.8, Netherlands - 1.1, Australia - 1.0. That's about at 4 times less than the US. http://data.un.org...;
Now, why on Earth would you put money on your personal feelings and beliefs rather than reliable statistical evidence, which leads to the only possible conclusion that gun control causes more violence. Substantially more violence. It did not have to be true, but it is, in light of empirical evidence. The finding is conclusive. If you want to reduce violence, you have to take away guns. And that's a pretty good reason to take them away, if you want to spare some innocent lives. In fact, by allowing guns, the government prima facie positively infringes on the right to life of every single individual, a very fundamental one. And it's no conjecture that the right to life would trump the right to guns in all the conceivable circumstances.
With regards to black market, well, I'd view it as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, there is black market for virtually every single thing. Explosives, drugs, child pornography, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, fake identity documents, etc. Should we just deregulate them all and yield to the criminals? Black market, while impossible to extinguish completely, can, nevertheless, be confined within its four corners, so as not to cause too much of a concern to the general public. It is not much of a concern anymore in the UK, because our law enforcement is doing a jolly good job at bringing the criminals to justice. US has an excellent law enforcement, capable of scoring just as high, or even better.
Debate Round No. 1
Raymond123

Con

America has grown from guns. When they take away our rights, whatever they may be, there will always be protests. Gun violence > Homicides > % homicides with firearms 39.5604 http://www.nationmaster.com.... We should not ban them, but strictly regulate who can buy them. In Montana and Texas, it is against the law to follow any government law about gun banning. New York as the strictest gun laws in the States: according to http://nymag.com..., Andrew Cuomo will regulate clip sizes, make you renew gun linsences, a harsher sentences for crimes that use guns (just to name a few).
Andrew's new laws are way to strict. Instead of banning them completely, we need to keep guns from mentally handicaps.
Andrew_UK

Pro

I concede that America has grown from guns. So what? Don't forget that you have also "grown" from slavery, racial segregation, and sexism. In fact, many other countries have. These things have, in one way or another, influenced our society. That does not mean we should keep them all, just because they are traditions. Our society has evolved to recognise that sometimes traditions are not the best way of devising normative policy. Our policies should be thought out, reasoned, discussed based on the available evidence.
In the case of guns, it is darn true that 39% of homicides are directly attributed to firearms. That's a lot in its own right!
It gets even more terrifying, when you take a look at the RECENT statistics with regards to MURDER.
The figure is almost 68% (!!!) of murders are committed with guns. That's more than two thirds. And the stats are for 2011.
http://www.fbi.gov...
I have quoted the fact that gun-free countries have substantially lower crime rates than the United States with its powerful gun lobby.
What else do you need to justify the removal of guns from ordinary people?
Debate Round No. 2
Raymond123

Con

Raymond123 forfeited this round.
Andrew_UK

Pro

Andrew_UK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.