The Instigator
Rasputin45
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
GunsbelonginAmerica
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun control is a good contributor, if not a necessary factor, to keeping homicides at a lower rate.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Rasputin45
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 51156
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Rasputin45

Pro

Due to me not being on time with my argument on the Gun control debate with the user Gunsbelonginamerica, I am re challenging him to this debate.
I will accept all and any argumentation, no matter how bad.
Definitions
Gun: Weapon used to fire bullets with the intent of wounding or killing.
Control: Moderate to extreme regulation of weapons. This can include licenses, tests, required homing in police stations or a ban altogether.
Contributor/Factor: helping hand in
Good: Useful
Homicide: Killing another human being (with a gun, in this debate).
If you accept in round one, we can proceed with a three round debate.
Thank you.
GunsbelonginAmerica

Con

I'm not going to be extremely formal, I'm just going to prove your points wrong. Gun control has not been proven to lower the rate of homicides, whether it be with guns, knives, bats, hammers, even bathtubs. For example, in the United Kingdom, a universal handgun ban was implemented in the entire country in 1997, but it didn't stop people from using pistols to kill people, as stated by you is the only reason guns are used for, to kill people. Which you're wrong about, by the way, but I'll explain later. Also, in Ireland and Jamaica, which instilled a gun ban in 1972 in Ireland and 1974 in Jamaica, gun crime and crime rates also rose, not leveled out or decreased at all.

Your definition of control is also wrong, as the full definition of control as a noun is:
6.the act or power of controlling; regulation; domination or command: example: "Who's in control here?"
7.the situation of being under the regulation, domination, or command of another: example: "The car is out of control."
8.check or restraint: "Her anger is under control."
9.a legal or official means of regulation or restraint: to institute wage and price controls.
10.Statistics. control variable ( def 1 ) .
And as a verb, it's: .
1.to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
2.to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions.
3.to test or verify (a scientific experiment) by a parallel experiment or other standard of comparison.
4.to eliminate or prevent the flourishing or spread of: to control a forest fire.
5.Obsolete . to check or regulate (transactions), originally by means of a duplicate register.

This basically means that to control is to take weapons, or arms, from the individual, which, as you should know as an American citizen, is against the Second Amendment right. If you don't know the second amendment, I'll post it here word for word: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns are not only used for killing, as a person who has used guns for almost my whole life, killing has only been a part of it for a fraction of the time, and human death has never been a part. Shooting as a sport is one of the safest recreational activities one can be a part of, and one of the most fun.

Let me ask you a question: What's the difference between a person who is trained in pistol combat carrying concealed and a police officer, fresh out of the Police Academy? I will answer this for you: Priceless and the most important period of time, and nothing else. When an intruder enters your home and intends to do you or your family harm, what's the most important, that you have the means to defend yourself or that the police reassure you they will be there in less than an hour? Because I think the difference really is whether they're going to be cleaning up several bodies, instead of just the ones who intended to do harm.

Thank you.
Bummer you didn't use sources for your argument.

Sources:
-http://2.bp.blogspot.com... Shot 2012-12-22 at Saturday, December 22, 9.26 PM.png
-http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...
-http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Rasputin45

Pro

Well, it looks like I lost control of the debate. Bad puns aside, I am a bit pissed off with your first argument.
One, you give a dictionary definition of the word 'Control' even though I was defining it in a certain context.
Two, I should have made it clearer that you were only meant to accept in round one.
Three, you claim me to be an American citizen, "as you should know as an American citizen." I am not.
Four, you're bummed that I didn't show sources. One, why do I need to show my sources when I haven't given an argument yet. Two, in your orginal debate, you didn't show any evidence, let alone sources.

There are two extremes at both ends of the debate. One side says that Guns need to be banned altogther, the other say that there should be no regulation at all. South Korea is one of the most restrictive countries in the world when it comes to Guns. Those not serving in the military or police are not allowed to own firearms and hunting licenses are issued but the guns must be kept at a local police station. 2.6 out of every 100,000 inhabitants are killed in intentional homicide.
In Honduras on the other hand, 800,000 guns are in the hands of the public, 650,000 of which are unregulated. Honduras has 91.6 people die in every 100,000 due to Homicides, and Honduras noticed.
"
Anyone visiting a city in Honduras will immediately notice armed guards in virtually every establishment including restaurants, grocery stores, and everyday businesses.[10]"No Weapons Allowed" signs can be seen in certain places reminding patrons to leave their firearms at home when conducting business with them. Besides the common frisk when entering a building, some establishments have gone as far as installing metal detectors to make sure visitors are unarmed when entering. Rise in crime has brought some politicians to think the best way to protect citizens is from entirely banning firearms from civilians." This shows the extremety of the gun violence in Honduras, and if countries like USA decide to let the citizens have free reign over their guns, then problems may arise.

Does this mean we should ban guns altogether? Not necerssarrily. If we look at Japan, they have a 0.3 homicide rate in every 100,000. "The only types of firearms which a Japanese citizen may acquire are rifles or shotguns. Sportsmen are permitted to possess rifles or shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in their hands." Many countries in the world don't ban guns, some are considering, but in america it seems unlikely that people would be happy with the removal of their guns.

The conclusion is that when you let people run loose with firearms, problems occur, and that many countries in the world today are good examples that gun control works, and that not having it increases likliness of homicides.

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

Con

GunsbelonginAmerica forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rasputin45

Pro

In this round I am going to do some refutations of the contender's first argument.

"Guns are not only used for killing, as a person who has used guns for almost my whole life, killing has only been a part of it for a fraction of the time, and human death has never been a part. Shooting as a sport is one of the safest recreational activities one can be a part of, and one of the most fun."

Yes, Guns are used for shooting activities, but that doesn't change the fact that it is designed for killing. In a 2005 nationwide gallup poll of 1012 adults, 67% of them said they have their guns for protection against crime, 58% for hunting. This means that many owners intend to shoot animals and other intend to shoot humans if necerssary. Of course, this is only showing the legal side of things and cannot be used to support of oppose the proposition.

There are other shooting sports (E.G Archery) and you can shoot as a sport without owning your own gun, entrusting the weapons you use to a group of people (shooting club) to keep safe. This brings me back to south Korea where you can own a gun for hunting or shooting but it must be kept locked up at a local police station.

As for shooting being the safest recreational activities, the opponent must realise that almost every other recreational activity is safer. Football, Tennis, Video Gaming, watching a movie, READING, Fencing and even some recreational drugs to an extent.

"a person who is trained in pistol combat," If you had to train before you get a gun licence, like you would a car licence, that would come under regulation.

"When an intruder enters your home," he would be an inefficient intruder if you are at home. On 'Home Security Statistics' one of the facts was "Usually occur in the daytime when occupants are at school or work" and another was, "
Choose an unoccupied home with easy access, the greatest amount of cover and the best escape routes." If you are scared about your house being broken into then you have to get house security.

"to defend yourself," there is more than one means to defend yourself, others are better in the way that they aren't fatal. Even then, does this mean that we should let people go completely unregulated with their guns?

"Thank you.
Bummer you didn't use sources for your argument."

http://www.justfacts.com...
http://www.safeguardtheworld.com...

How do you like me now?
GunsbelonginAmerica

Con

I really do think you have lost control. Why are you debating with me if you're not even an American citizen? And this is a debate, not an argument, but you probably don't know the difference. Defining control or any other words merely for the context that is most beneficial to your argument is precisely why you're inevitably going to lose. Also, did you really mention Korea? Really? While we're at it, why don't you mention Syria or any northern country in Africa?

You mention training before you get a car, and people driving cars, notice I said PEOPLE driving cars still kill people, does that mean we should ban cars, or how about gas, so that the cars don't work anymore, because that's what's happening. You might not ban the gun, but trying to ban everything you need to use it is the same damn thing.

"He would be an inefficient intruder if you are at home". Are you serious? To me it sounds like you're validating robbery. "If you are scared about your house being broken into then you have to get house security", sometimes the best security IS a gun, especially if the intruder has a gun, and it's several intruders.

You say there is more than one way to defend yourself, okay, I understand this. Let's put you in a ring with nothing but a knife, a revolver with 6 shots, and an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and see which one you choose when there are 6 lions thrown into the ring, armed with razor-sharp claws and teeth the size of your hand. Choose wisely.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, making a LAW to ban magazines or guns, IS ONLY GOING TO AFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. That was not an angry context, I capitalized so you could read it. I don't think you understand the concept of a law, so I'll define it for you.
1. a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other
2.a. See statute law a rule or body of rules made by the legislature
b. See bylaw a rule or body of rules made by a municipal or other authority
3.a. the condition and control enforced by such rules
b. ( in combination ): lawcourt
4.a rule of conduct: a law of etiquette
5.one of a set of rules governing a particular field of activity: the laws of tennis

This means, in Layman's terms, that you break a rule, you get punished for it. You murder someone, with anything, including your bear hands, you go to prison, a law doesn't prevent crime from happening. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and creating such a law that bans guns is only going to make it easier for the bad guy. So, in the words of the actors and actresses in the "Celebrities Call for Gun Control", enough. Enough with using fake statistics, which was funny by the way. Do you know how a poll works? It adds up to 100%, and last time I checked, 67+58=/=100, it actually equals 125, so I would check your sources again.

I hope you learned something from this, and you learn that what you're advocating is wrong, and it will only lead to more death and destruction if you continue.
Debate Round No. 3
Rasputin45

Pro

All I want to do this round is do a rebuttal of Con's latest argument, oh wait a minute, I meant debate; no that doesn't sound right.

"Why are you debating with me if you're not even an American citizen?"
I knew it, I bloody knew that you would say this. Why am I not allowed to debate a topic I understand, or learn about a topic just because it doesn't affect my country.

"And this is a debate, not an argument, but you probably don't know the difference,"
"a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong." - Google
"Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially the discussion of questions of public interest in parliament or in any assembly," I think it is you that doesn't know what each means and what each can be used for.

"Also, did you really mention Korea? Really? While we're at it, why don't you mention Syria or any northern country in Africa?"
Do you not understand the difference between North and South Korea? I take it you meant North Korea in the way you are reffering it to Syria. Anyway, this isn't about their political fundamentals, it is about the correlation between gun restrictiveness and gun homicides.

"does that mean we should ban cars, or how about gas, so that the cars don't work anymore, because that's what's happening."
...
Cars are not designed to kill people, guns are. Since the creation of cars, people have trying to make them safer. Since the creation of guns however, people have been trying to make them deadlier. Granted we have put a safety knob, but on cars we make the safety knob permanently on safe.

"To me it sounds like you're validating robbery."
Really? Because to me, It sounded like I was making the point that robbers tend to go to houses without people in them, so the argument for guns using robbers would be invalid.

"especially if the intruder has a gun"
And how did he get that gun? Legally? Here is a thought: If guns were illegal, it would be easier to know who is carrying a gun illegally; all those carrying guns.

"You say there is more than one way to defend yourself, okay, I understand this. Let's put you in a ring with nothing but a knife, a revolver with 6 shots, and an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and see which one you choose when there are 6 lions thrown into the ring, armed with razor-sharp claws and teeth the size of your hand. Choose wisely."
Urh! Don't you hate it when that happens! It's so common, especially in America. But seriously, what a strange situation.

"1. a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other
2.a. See statute law a rule or body of rules made by the legislature
b. See bylaw a rule or body of rules made by a municipal or other authority
3.a. the condition and control enforced by such rules
b. ( in combination ): lawcourt
4.a rule of conduct: a law of etiquette
5.one of a set of rules governing a particular field of activity: the laws of tennis"
Why TF did you have explain this to me? It had no purpose. Explain. EXPLAIN!

"a law doesn't prevent crime from happening."
So true, which is why I think that we should abolish all laws because they don't actually prevent crime, RIGHT?

"Do you know how a poll works? It adds up to 100%, and last time I checked, 67+58=/=100, it actually equals 125, so I would check your sources again."
The Joke is on you.
Here is the full table.
Protection Against Crime 67%
Target Shooting 66%
Hunting 58%
You see, some of the people said they owned the gun for more than one reason. One person used guns for all purposes, another for only two, another for one. I'll make it clearer in future if you want.

"I hope you learned something from this"
So do I to you.
"and you learn that what you're advocating is wrong"
You know, humility is a virtue.
"and it will only lead to more death and destruction if you continue."
And if you had used evidence to show this instead of dawdling on other things, I might have actually learned something.

Gun control has been proven to be a good contributor, If not a necerssary factor to keeping homicide rates low by the relationship between the gun restrictiveness and homicides; Countries like south Korea and Japan have higher restrictiveness and lower homicides while countries like Honduras had low restrictiveness (causing desperate measures to be taken place) and high homicides.

One note, the Con should not be allowed to post another argument in round 5 because he wrote an argument in round 1 even though he wasn't meant too. He shall say, "no round as agreed upon," and if he doesn't, i'll, i'll....
It doesn't matter because I know he doesn't think laws prevent crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.google.com...;
GunsbelonginAmerica

Con

GunsbelonginAmerica forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
You are assuming. I have not decided to post the argument yet, but I will later. You are not the only person who is busy.
Posted by GunsbelonginAmerica 3 years ago
GunsbelonginAmerica
You know that you can still post for round three, right? Or can you not read.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
So you have read my argument and still think you have utterly destroyed me? Ok then, that's your opinion.
Posted by GunsbelonginAmerica 3 years ago
GunsbelonginAmerica
I simply lost interest, and I have a life, I can't simply debate whenever I want. I proved you wrong, that's all I needed to do.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
This is the third debate in a row which has had the other forfeit. It is either I'm am too good a debater, or they lost interest.
Posted by Glock30Owner 3 years ago
Glock30Owner
Debating that gun control works is a loosing proposition. FBI statistics show that crime rates have fallen since the 1990s even as many states loosen restrictions on rearm ownership and carry in public.

There are over 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States and homicide is at its lowest point in nearly 40 years. There are an estimated 10-15 million carry permit holders in the United States and the rate of revocation is less than 0.9%.

Even the Obama Administration's CDC report of 2013 cited the dubious nature of gun control laws having any effect on crime.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Rasputin45GunsbelonginAmericaTied
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: While Pro may have made a few snide remarks, conduct points have to go to Pro as Con made some personal attacks as well as forfeiting two rounds. Arguments must go to Pro, as the arguments followed logically. Con dropped the points about gun control in Korea and Honduras which effectively awards Pro the win even if we forget the other arguments presented. Additionally, Con saying shooting is one of the safest sports needs serious statistical backing, as I refuse to accept this without published data. Source are tied and S&G are tied.