The Instigator
whiteflame
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
NarutoUzamaki
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
whiteflame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,655 times Debate No: 45450
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (63)
Votes (4)

 

whiteflame

Pro

This is a relatively common topic, I realize, but I'll try to provide a spin to it. I am a supporter of some methods of gun control, and I feel they're worth defending. As such, I will take the Pro side of this debate, and argue, as the resolution states, that gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime.

Rather than define the terms, as that would make this a broad debate about all forms of gun control and thus allow me to invite and then avoid a great deal of arguments, I will explain what I support in terms of gun control.

This would not include a gun ban.

Rather, this would include the extension of current national regulations on automatic weapons to assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles. Purchases of these weapons would require the submission of fingerprints and photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax. All of these weapons must be registered with the federal government, and currently owned weapons will be required to be registered within a 5-year period. The tax would also apply to the transfer of such guns, though in this case it would be paid by the person transferring the weapon rather than the receiver. The receiver, however, would have to go through the remaining processes in order to legally own the weapon.

Obviously, this means I'm supportive of registering guns. This would be a general requirement. Any new guns purchased will be registered automatically at time of purchase, and any weapons transfers would also require registration of the weapon. Again, those who currently own their weapons would be given a grace period of a few years to get their guns registered.

I am also a supporter of universal background checks, effectively closing the gun show loophole that currently allows private gun sellers to avoid this entirely. I would, however, subsidize these background checks for private sellers, making the process as cheap as possible in order to make it simple for them.

I invite anyone to debate these. I would argue that this policy is net beneficial. You may disagree with all or part of it, but anyone who does so must provide citations for their arguments, as baseless assertions will not be enough to win this round. If there are any questions about the case, I would prefer that they be posed in the comments section so that we don't waste time in the debate itself.

I have set it to 5 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments.

The structure of this debate will be as follows:

R1: Acceptance only
R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal
R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation
R4: Rebuttals, new argumentation
R5: Rebuttals and conclusion
NarutoUzamaki

Con

I accept and I am against gun control and I think it does not reduce anything.
Debate Round No. 1
whiteflame

Pro

Alright, well I appreciate my opponent's acceptance, and I look forward to a stirring debate.

As the policy I've suggested has three related but distinct pieces, I'm going to start off by providing reasons why gun control measures such as these are good on the whole, and then I'm going to get into each of them specifically and provide argumentation for why they are effective.

I'll start by quoting some statistics.

From the date of the Newtown shooting at the end of 2012 to the end of 2013, 12,042 people have been killed by guns.[1] These are caused by a combination of accidental shootings and violent crime, though the reality is that 60% of gun deaths occur due to suicide. I'll get into each of these issues separately.

Accidental shootings

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Guns in the home are correlated with higher risk, as the likelihood of being involved in an accidental shooting, homicide, or suicide attempts increases by 22 times due to their presence. These are far more common than their usage in self-defense as well. States with more guns, on average, are 9 times as likely to die due to accidental shootings.[2] As my case reduces levels of gun ownership, this would be linearly improved,

Suicide

Essentially, guns make suicide too easy. They're far more likely to occur in the homes of gun owners, especially among adolescents. People who committed suicide in a given year were found to be 17 times as likely to have lived in homes with guns than people who did not.[3] States that perform background checks and have higher restrictions have lower suicide and homicide deaths.[4] What's more, states with lower gun ownership "had similar rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as similar rates of suicide that did not involve firearms, like hanging and poisoning. But the number of people who died by shooting themselves was almost four times greater in the high-gun states."[3] Even those with experience and training in using a firearm could benefit from additional restrictions.[5] Veterans who commit suicide use a gun 70% of the time.[3] Therefore, increased background checks to remove guns from individuals with psychiatric illnesses could stand to reduce these rates.

Homicide

This is a bit more involved. I'll start by talking about mass shootings, then move to individual crimes that simply involve the usage of guns.

Now, why would this reduce mass shootings? Reducing the availability of legal avenues of acquisition would be likely to reduce incidence. Of the 143 guns possessed by these people, more than " were obtained legally.[6] This is true whether we're talking about workplace or school shootings.[7] If my opponent would like, I can cover specific instances in my next post. These often included assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles, though any gun would have a higher likelihood of being denied to them, especially due to psychiatric evaluation being more often taken into account.

Individual criminals that utilize guns as a means to an end will also have less access. They will have far fewer no loopholes through which to acquire their weapons legally, so anyone with a criminal background will often be denied based on background checks. Access to the most dangerous rifles would be made more difficult and more expensive. Most of those who engage in criminal activities are poor.[8] A tax on certain guns makes them less likely to purchase them, since that will make the cost untenable for many. That means reduced access to the most destructive firearms.

Alright, with that, I'll move into defending the specific pieces of my case.

Why the restrictions on assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles specifically?

Well, first we have to understand why a automatic weapons is problematic, since that's the basis for deciding this. Let's take an example. The M4A1 is fully automatic, and can fire 950 rounds per minute. In other words, it dispenses death very quickly. It can kill dozens of people in the span of a few seconds.

So why the two I've chosen? The fact that they show up a lot in mass shootings isn't a coincidence.

"What makes these weapons so deadly? They are civilian copies of military weapons designed with features that make them more lethal."

This includes altered grips to increase the pace of shooting and accuracy, barrel shrouds to be able to fire more without releasing the handle, and a threaded barrel for silencing and suppressing muzzle flash.[9] These have all been used extensively by mass shooters, and are commonly available traits of assault rifles. What's worse, semi-automatic weapons can be converted to automatic weapons with ease, removing restrictions on fire rate per trigger pull.[10]

This policy would dramatically reduce new purchases of guns by criminals, who would have to then engage in the more extensive process of background checks. In case anyone needs proof, we only need look at the assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. It reduced gun murders in 1995, the year after it went into effect, by 6.7%.[11] It reduced use of assault weapons in crime by 2/3s.[12] The reason is quite simple actually:

"Criminals prefer new guns if they can get them. They get rid of ones that can be traced to a crime and, like anyone who works with a tool, they often prefer the best and latest models. Over time, a ban that dries up the supply of new weapons pushes shooters to more readily available options."[11]

The policy's weakness actually was mainly with its loopholes, resultant from a weak definition of what was to be banned. There would be no such problem in my case.

Now, why gun registries?

Two reasons. One, it will provide a system to locate gun dealers. Tracking guns gets a whole lot simpler, and sourcing them, in particular, is dramatically improved.[13] Two, it creates opportunities for individuals to realize that they have to keep their guns more responsibly, securing them to prevent children from accessing them and thieves from stealing them. Those guns can be traced back to them more easily, so they would be more responsible for the outcome.

How about universal background checks?

This will help law enforcement spot gun traffickers. It's a method of prevention that will stop some loss of life. Currently, private sales don't require these checks, and thus online and gun show sales are often unregulated in this regard. It is estimated that background checks have prevented almost 2 million criminals and dangerous individuals from buying guns, and as such, this actually has received the support of a large majority of the country.[14]

I pass it back over to Con.

1. http://www.slate.com...
2. http://nyagv.org...
3. http://news.discovery.com...
4. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
5. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
6. http://www.motherjones.com...
7. https://www.vpc.org...
8. http://www.nationaldialoguenetwork.org...
9. http://articles.baltimoresun.com...
10. http://www.motherjones.com...
11. http://www.usatoday.com...
12. http://crim.sas.upenn.edu...
13. http://www.minnpost.com...
14. http://www.usnews.com...
NarutoUzamaki

Con

For the record I would like to sa I am not as good as you think. Also my skills are lacking so I decided to join the debate to see what the other side says and me myself use to be for gun control till I realized it would not help so now I would like to say thank you for this debate. Please no google docs because I cannot copy and paste and I will have to use a few rebuttals so type your argument here.

Rebuttal 1



From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Guns in the home are correlated with higher risk, as the likelihood of being involved in an accidental shooting, homicide, or suicide attempts increases by 22 times due to their presence. These are far more common than their usage in self-defense as well. States with more guns, on average, are 9 times as likely to die due to accidental shootings.[2] As my case reduces levels of gun ownership, this would be linearly improved,



You said states with many guns have a high chance of crime rate going up. A study has been shown that states with a all out gun ban has more crime than U.S and also U.S is not the number 1 hotspot for crime. Matter a fact crime rate has made a decrease. It is the parents fault for keeping their children with a gun in there hand. Parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership but the cause of ' homicide school shootings and sucides after' is the fault of the parents. True gun ownership needs to be improved but the government gives permits to people that are trusted and has the right to wield guns.




Rebuttal 2

Essentially, guns make suicide too easy. They're far more likely to occur in the homes of gun owners, especially among adolescents. People who committed suicide in a given year were found to be 17 times as likely to have lived in homes with guns than people who did not.[3] States that perform background checks and have higher restrictions have lower suicide and homicide deaths.[4] What's more, states with lower gun ownership "had similar rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as similar rates of suicide that did not involve firearms, like hanging and poisoning. But the number of people who died by shooting themselves was almost four times greater in the high-gun states."[3] Even those with experience and training in using a firearm could benefit from additional restrictions.[5] Veterans who commit suicide use a gun 70% of the time.[3] Therefore, increased background checks to remove guns from individuals with psychiatric illnesses could stand to reduce these rates.


About making sucide easy you said guns make it too easy. House knives are used for sucide and it makes it easy because a,l you gotta do is stab yourself which would not even take minutes and should we put a strict law to that? Also things like hammers make sucide easy and should we put a restriction on what type of people who should use hammers? (3) Backround checks are made to see if a person does not have a permit to have a gun but this has nothing to do with the government controlling all guns.




Rebuttal 3
This is a bit more involved. I'll start by talking about mass shootings, then move to individual crimes that simply involve the usage of guns.

Now, why would this reduce mass shootings? Reducing the availability of legal avenues of acquisition would be likely to reduce incidence. Of the 143 guns possessed by these people, more than " were obtained legally.[6] This is true whether we're talking about workplace or school shootings.[7] If my opponent would like, I can cover specific instances in my next post. These often included assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles, though any gun would have a higher likelihood of being denied to them, especially due to psychiatric evaluation being more often taken into account.

Individual criminals that utilize guns as a means to an end will also have less access. They will have far fewer no loopholes through which to acquire their weapons legally, so anyone with a criminal background will often be denied based on background checks. Access to the most dangerous rifles would be made more difficult and more expensive. Most of those who engage in criminal activities are poor.[8] A tax on certain guns makes them less likely to purchase them, since that will make the cost untenable for many. That means reduced access to the most destructive firearms.



People can steal guns and come in gangs. Even making the guns expensive people like mafias who are highly intelligent can come in grup gangs and out number the cops and steal the guns. Not all criminals are poor and if you got that from the web it could be a assertion. And handguns can be destructive in there own way also those guns are very acurate and powerful also. Criminals can be smart and find ways to snatch guns so making the price expensive wont change anything.


Rebuttal 4
This will help law enforcement spot gun traffickers. It's a method of prevention that will stop some loss of life. Currently, private sales don't require these checks, and thus online and gun show sales are often unregulated in this regard. It is estimated that background checks have prevented almost 2 million criminals and dangerous individuals from buying guns, and as such, this actually has received the support of a large majority of the country.[14]


Back round checks could help but it cannot stop criminals from obtaining a gun, yet we should have them but they wont stop criminals from taking a gun. Criminals will take a weapon no matter what. They could have knives, hammers, and bombs and still cause havok.





Opening argument

Guns can decrease crime harvard studies showed that with guns crime decreases but the facts to prove my point is not asserted
- There has been a decrease in crime lately in some points most of it has to do with guns decreasing crime

- Most citizens need to have guns. Reason why because criminals can have knives and since laws are stricter criminals can attack at random. Now people who would have a gun criminals would be scared.


Guns are not the only major issue of crime. Terrorist who bomb planes and kill almost 3000 people is very serious and there needs to be stricter laws on that. And by placing a stricter law to take guns away from others and taking controll is going against the second amendment which gives the right for all who needs a gun for protection to have one in need.



Sources
http://guninformation.org...
http://www.studymode.com...
http://www.buzzle.com...;
http://www.veteranstoday.com...
http://www.bostonmagazine.com...

http://www.breitbart.com...
http://gunssavelives.net...
http://www.chacha.com...

Debate Round No. 2
whiteflame

Pro

I'm not trying to assume your skill level. I simply presented my case in the best way I knew how, and left it to you to respond as you will. We can both always learn something new.

R1:

I'm not sure Con understands this argument. I'm not saying that crime rates increase in states with higher gun ownership. I'm saying death due to accidental shootings, homicide, and suicide attempts are up in these states, and I've provided a link to prove that (my [2]). In fact, the same link states that crime levels are pretty much constant. I'm not sure which study you're using to prove that crime rates are higher in the U.S. with gun bans, but since I'm not implementing one, it hardly matters. It doesn't apply to my case. It also doesn't matter whether or not the U.S. is a "hotspot for crime." The reality is that over 30,000 people died from gun usage in 2013.

Con says it's the parents' fault. How does he plan to solve for this? Does he offer a counter-proposal? I don't see one. He even admits that "parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership," something that would require the gun control he so vehemently disagrees with. And, once again, I'm not taking away the right to wield guns, at least not that of anyone who can pass a background check. But more on that later.

R2:

Con mishandles this argument. First off, you'll note that suicide rates are higher in homes with guns than those without, he never responds to that. Second, note that states with background checks and higher restrictions on gun rights also have lower suicide and homicide rates on the whole. That's with these deadly "house knives." Third, I didn't claim that I'm solving for all of suicide. I don't see why I would have to in order to yield benefits in reducing the amount of suicide. Fourth, knives and hammers are still a whole lot less effective when committing suicide than guns. It normally only takes a single trigger pull, versus multiple attempts at slashing or pounding. The damage caused by these two items is often treatable as well.

As for the point about background checks and what they're meant to do, Con is mistaken. Background checks are meant to check the eligibility of the buyer, not just whether or not they have a gun permit.[1] No, they're not meant to control all guns, but they are meant to control for people who have criminal backgrounds and psychological problems.

R3:

"People can steal guns." This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold much water. First off, as I stated, more guns are likely to be locked up and kept that much further from the hands of intruders. Second, this still requires an extra step, forcing these criminals to break into houses known to contain guns without their own to start with. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the risk of injury or death dramatically increases, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. Third, even you buy this wholesale, it's not a reason to do nothing. People break the law. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. As for gangs and mafias, again, we can't solve for every kind of criminal getting any guns. These groups will have a harder time of it, but I don't doubt that they will sometimes manage to get guns. That just puts us back in status quo, which is what Con is arguing for. I don't doubt that some criminals "can be smart," but fewer will be able to acquire guns, and next to none of them will be able to do so legally.

I didn't say that all criminals were poor, and no, that was not an assertion, it was sourced from Maurice Ward, a Juvenile Justice Program Administrator for Washington State (my [8]). If my opponent would care to provide a competing link, he may do so.

I realize that handguns are destructive (though, I would say that Con's only hurting his case by stating this), and background checks and registries would still solve for this. They are not as destructive as assault or semi-automatic rifles (my [9] and [10]).

R4:

Cross-apply my points about acquisition. As for knives, hammers and bombs...

Knives aren't nearly as effective at mass slaughter, partly because it's just not as deadly, but also because you can't kill someone at range without losing your weapon. Hammers are even less effective, relying on blunt force trauma to kill the victim and therefore heavy, powerful swings. Someone can far more easily run away from a person wielding either of these things than someone with a gun. Bombs are effective, but often more dangerous the maker, difficult to build, store and transport, and, most importantly, banned. We track people who buy bomb materials for a reason.

Onto Con's arguments

"Guns can decrease crime"

I will note that Con is hedging his bets on one study while ignoring all of mine (my [4-6]). He also uses a highly correlative study that does little to explain why more guns = less crime. They're not controlling for other factors like improved law enforcement, poorer neighborhoods, or drug usage. But this one is.[2] Another Harvard study used survey data from the CDC, with over 200,000 people polled in telephone surveys, to determine if homicide rates were higher in states where households have more guns. And they controlled for a lot:

"...several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption..."

And found quite a bit:

"...states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."[2]

It even provides some causal analysis:

"These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent."[2]

As for Con's point that "Most citizens needs to have guns" to scare off criminals, let's look at another Harvard study.[3] This study weighed the various risks of having a gun in a home, which may look familiar (accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation) and compared them to the benefits of deterrence and thwarting crimes. Homes with women and children are less safe, since they tend to be murdered at home. It concluded that guns re more often used to threaten intimate people than to protect against intruders. My previous studies show the increased risk of suicide, and so does this one. What's more, on deterrence:

"...there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in."[3]

In other words, the benefit Con states is practically nil.

Con mentions terrorism. I don't think my burden in this round is to solve for terrorism. We can also solve for terrorism while implementing these gun control policies. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Lastly, the Second Amendment:

1) I would argue that guns were deemed legal not to secure personal liberties, but to provide for the state"s collective defense. Hence the mention of militias in the Amendment.
2) The USSC recently ruled on this, stating that there was room to restrict or ban "dangerous or unusual weapons," which I would argue include assault and semi-automatic rifles.
3) Con seems to agree that background checks are beneficial and somewhat necessary for parents with kids who are "unstable or misbehaving," so he apparently agrees that this Amendment can be abridged, even if he disagrees with the amount of abridgment.

1. http://www.cnn.com...
2. http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...
3. http://sbcoalition.org...
NarutoUzamaki

Con

Con says it's the parents' fault. How does he plan to solve for this? Does he offer a counter-proposal? I don't see one. He even admits that "parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership," something that would require the gun control he so vehemently disagrees with. And, once again, I'm not taking away the right to wield guns, at least not that of anyone who can pass a background check. But more on that later.



It is the parent's fault I am not saying homicide should be legal I am saying and defending the point of guns that if a child is not a normal child do not have a arsenal nearby. Gun control is not needed in order for that it is responsibilty that counts. Backround checks are made by the government and it is like stop and frisk. Backround checks have nothing to do with striter gun laws.

Con mishandles this argument. First off, you'll note that suicide rates are higher in homes with guns than those without, he never responds to that. Second, note that states with background checks and higher restrictions on gun rights also have lower suicide and homicide rates on the whole. That's with these deadly "house knives." Third, I didn't claim that I'm solving for all of suicide. I don't see why I would have to in order to yield benefits in reducing the amount of suicide. Fourth, knives and hammers are still a whole lot less effective when committing suicide than guns. It normally only takes a single trigger pull, versus multiple attempts at slashing or pounding. The damage caused by these two items is often treatable as well.


I never said that guns dont increase sucide your saying that since we have guns it is easy to kill eachother. And so? If the person wants to die let him be. In certain cases their nees to be sucide which are during

- school shootings.


And knives dont even take a minute and you can still kill yourself should we take control of knives. Also people kill themselves with cars should we have stricter laws





People can steal guns." This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold much water. First off, as I stated, more guns are likely to be locked up and kept that much further from the hands of intruders. Second, this still requires an extra step, forcing these criminals to break into houses known to contain guns without their own to start with. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the risk of injury or death dramatically increases, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. Third, even you buy this wholesale, it's not a reason to do nothing. People break the law. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. As for gangs and mafias, again, we can't solve for every kind of criminal getting any guns. These groups will have a harder time of it, but I don't doubt that they will sometimes manage to get guns. That just puts us back in status quo, which is what Con is arguing for. I don't doubt that some criminals "can be smart," but fewer will be able to acquire guns, and next to none of them will be able to do so legally.

I didn't say that all criminals were poor, and no, that was not an assertion, it was sourced from Maurice Ward, a Juvenile Justice Program Administrator for Washington State (my [8]). If my opponent would care to provide a competing link, he may do so.

I realize that handguns are destructive (though, I would say that Con's only hurting his case by stating this), and background checks and registries would still solve for this. They are not as destructive as assault or semi-automatic rifles (my [9] and [10]).



Hnadguns are destructive and I am not hurting my case. You said that guns should have a stricter purpose. Hand guns are very accurate and can kill and people need them in their households. Criminals do not obey laws they can still find a way to break through doors. People could send and make bots and break open the door with heavy explosive bombs. And what if those criminals robbed a bank with 1,0000000000 in it they would be able to afford bombs.




"...states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."[2]



I have nothing o refute with




I think I was a poor represenative and I feel like I might go back to my old self defending gun control
Debate Round No. 3
whiteflame

Pro

Alright, I'd like to thank my opponent for providing some refutation, but before I get into some refutation, I'd just like to say that I don't think he's a poor representative of the viewpoint. If he wants to change his stance after this debate, I'd be flattered, but I'd rather that he aim to explore his views more thoroughly than completely shift them as a result of this debate.

Now, into some rebuttal.

"Gun control is not needed in order for that it is responsibilty that counts."

And yet responsibility hasn't been sufficient. Parents still acquire guns even if their "child is not a normal child." All we need to do is look at Newtown, Connecticut, where Adam Lanza got his guns from his mother, shot her, and then went after Sandy Hook.[1]

"Backround checks are made by the government and it is like stop and frisk. Backround checks have nothing to do with striter gun laws."

Since they're done at the time of purchase, no, I would say they're not like stop and frisk. And since, as I stated earlier, 2 million criminals have been denied access, they're not ineffective either. But they're most certainly stricter gun laws. Not sure what you're getting at there.

"If the person wants to die let him be."

So now you're supporting suicide? I find this a difficult argument to stomach. Tens of thousands of people a year commit suicide, many with severe mental illness that could be treated.[2] Those lives could be saved and lived well. That's not to mention that thousands of teenagers are among the people doing so.[3] I have no problem with the idea of euthanasia, but I don't think we should be supportive of an individual's right to end their own life when they are not in their right mind.

And knives dont even take a minute and you can still kill yourself should we take control of knives.

I mentioned this before, but knife wounds are far more likely to be treatable as they are usually more shallow (kind of hard to beat the force of a bullet entering your body). If you need support, I can provide some:[4] It talks about how most forms of suicide with a knife are unsuccessful. Even wrist slashing is not a very effective means of committing suicide, since most cut laterally across the wrist, which results in limited bleeding and damage. Even if they cut longitudinally, it's not a sure death, since the flow of blood and still be stemmed and their lives saved.

But it's generally ridiculous to suggest that knives should be restricted since their purposes in daily life are incredibly broad, especially in cooking. Limiting access simply isn't practical to any extent.

"Also people kill themselves with cars should we have stricter laws"

I think you would be even more upset if our gun laws looked like our car laws. Let's make a list of what restrictions and added costs there are on car usage:

1) The earliest age someone can even legally get behind the wheel is 15 and requires extensive driving training and testing.
2) Cars have major health requirements, especially vision.
3) There's a need to renew your license every 2-3 years.
4) You require a different license for different classes of cars.
5) Cars are registered, and the title and tag are required at each point of sale.
6) Cars require liability insurance.
7) The car has to be safety tested every 2-3 years.
8) Gasoline is taxed heavily (imagine if that were bullets).
9) Cars have trigger locks that prevent children from climbing in and starting themselves

I'd say that my suggestions are less onerous, but whatever floats your boat.

"Hnadguns are destructive and I am not hurting my case."

Hence I am for universal background checks and registration, regardless of the gun type. They're still not as dangerous as assault or semi-automatic rifles.

"You said that guns should have a stricter purpose."

I don't think I said that, though if I did, make sure to quote me specifically on it next time.

"Criminals do not obey laws they can still find a way to break through doors.:

This is still an extra step, requiring breaking and entering on their part without a gun, entering a home that is somewhat likely to have one. At the very least, breaking down the door does nothing to actually harm the inhabitants. Having access to a gun before breaking into the property is another story entirely.

"People could send and make bots and break open the door with heavy explosive bombs."

Again, bombs are completely banned, and acquiring the materials puts normally puts you under intense scrutiny from the NSA. They're also usually more expensive and difficult to make. I'm not sure where they'll get these "bots," but they sound awfully expensive if they're going to break down doors, not to mention difficult to build.

"And what if those criminals robbed a bank with 1,0000000000 in it they would be able to afford bombs."

Banks tend to have security guards and steel-reenforced safes. Without guns and powerful tools, they're not going to get anything near that amount of money.

Alright, as there is no more refutation, I leave to my opponent to finish out the round.

1. http://www.businessinsider.com...
2. https://www.afsp.org...
3. http://www.aacap.org...
4. http://dmmoyle.com...
NarutoUzamaki

Con

So now you're supporting suicide? I find this a difficult argument to stomach. Tens of thousands of people a year commit suicide, many with severe mental illness that could be treated.[2] Those lives could be saved and lived well. That's not to mention that thousands of teenagers are among the people doing so.[3] I have no problem with the idea of euthanasia, but I don't think we should be supportive of an individual's right to end their own life when they are not in their right mind.


Sucide is wrong but benificial. What if a mass murder came to a school and shot up to 20 kids and commits sucide. There wold be a benifit because when the guy kills himself we dont have to see him anymore.



I mentioned this before, but knife wounds are far more likely to be treatable as they are usually more shallow (kind of hard to beat the force of a bullet entering your body). If you need support, I can provide some:[4] It talks about how most forms of suicide with a knife are unsuccessful. Even wrist slashing is not a very effective means of committing suicide, since most cut laterally across the wrist, which results in limited bleeding and damage. Even if they cut longitudinally, it's not a sure death, since the flow of blood and still be stemmed and their lives saved.


You can survive a bullet so the same concept goes with knives which makes knives easy to kill yourself with

Hence I am for universal background checks and registration, regardless of the gun type. They're still not as dangerous as assault or semi-automatic rifles.


Yes they are it is just that it is not fastly pace but it is accurate and can kill in a shot. Even in some video games handguns are strong.


Again, bombs are completely banned, and acquiring the materials puts normally puts you under intense scrutiny from the NSA. They're also usually more expensive and difficult to make. I'm not sure where they'll get these "bots," but they sound awfully expensive if they're going to break down doors, not to mention difficult to build.


You can get bombs in other countries why do you think a terrorist tried detoning bombs during 2010. And sochi olympics can have terrorist and terrorist can get bombs from other countries. People in Al- quda have bombs and are thougt to get one.




Argument


Citizen have there rights to own a gun and it is there right. People wont obey the laws and they wont listen they would either try to assisnate the person incharge of gun control. But the second amendment gives them a right for their possesion. Lets say if there was a murder and he had a knife you would not even be able to trigger your gun. Gun control wont help crime rate will go up and crime ate wont go down. Crime still roams around.


Ok next round I will explain my citing. What was I thinking after hearing all your arguments it quite persuaded me.






Debate Round No. 4
whiteflame

Pro

Alright, given that this is the last round, I'd like to sincerely thank (not to my other thank yous weren't sincere) my opponent for engaging with me on this debate. I really do appreciate his arguments, even if I fervently disagree with them.

with that, I'll launch into some crystallization, which will include rebuttals of my opponent's arguments from last round.

If you'll recall from the start of this debate, there were three basic reasons why I believe that the gun control measures I've espoused will be beneficial.

The first of these was accidental shootings. Con provides some argumentation on this, but in each case, he's just said that the onus should be elsewhere. I've explained why this is unimportant to the debate, and why these measures would reduce the amount of accidental shootings (and therefore injuries and deaths) regardless of where the onus is placed. As he has provided no additional arguments here, every single one of those shootings is a reason to vote for my side.

The second was suicide. As soon as Con admits that "Suicide is wrong," this should be an easy place to vote Pro, especially since, in R3, he admitted that guns do increase suicide rates. That's tens of thousands of people a year dying unnecessarily. He argues that a mass murderer committing suicide is beneficial, but never provides any reason to believe that even one of these cases of suicide would otherwise become a mass murderer. These suicide cases are almost all innocent of any crime, and their deaths are tragedies that weigh heavily on their families and friends, plain and simple.

He says that an individual can survive a bullet and that knives are still pretty easy to kill yourself with. I've already made all of the arguments I'm going to make here, but just to summarize, I've shown that killing oneself with a knife is significantly more difficult and time consuming, allowing ease of intervention and higher survival rates than those with guns. The fact that one can survive a bullet doesn't make it less deadly.

The third was homicide. I went over mass shootings, individual homicides, criminals brandishing guns to commit their crimes more easily, and murders in the home of women and children. None of these were specifically refuted by Con. In fact, the most Con manages to do is provide some mitigating reasons why some criminals will be able to acquire guns. He provided an assertion of their effects in deterrence that I've proven false, and has repeatedly argued that other weapons are just going to be used instead. Since he's no longer arguing them in this round, he apparently concedes that knives, hammers and cars are very different monsters, the former two found extremely lacking in deadliness, and the latter being massively regulated in ways that guns are most certainly not.

The only thing he continues to argue here are that bombs will be used. I've already put out a number of rebuttals to this regarding the difficulties in manufacturing, transport, and detonation of the bomb, how they're less safe to utilize, that they're already banned, and that those seeking to make them will be tracked closely. I've also argued that just because people are likely to defy the law doesn't make the law unimportant, and in this case, I think that comes across easily. Just because some people are likely to acquire bombs doesn't mean we want to make it easy or legal for them to do so.

But he argues this further, bringing it back to the realm of terrorism. Again, as I stated earlier, I don't have to argue that my policy ideas are capable of preventing terrorism, something that will remain just as potent following implementation as before. Terrorists have tried detonating bombs (though I'm not sure which situation he's referring to in 2010), though I'm not aware of terrorists attacking the Sochi Olympic games, nor am I aware of terrorists distributing their bombs to random people in this country who would otherwise go out and shoot people. I'd say that even if that's the case, the benefit is that those bombs are being removed from an organized group and given to people who are unlikely to use them successfully. That's a net win.

Those are the three main points, and I think it's pretty obvious that and how I am winning them. But several more have come up over the course of this debate. Recall my points about the ability of assault and semi-automatic rifles to distribute death. The best response Con comes up with is that handguns are good at killing too. I think I've proven that handguns are ineffective by comparison, and that I'm still at least partially solving for handguns with registries and universal background checks, both of which remain mostly untouched by Con.

And speaking of those two pieces, Con has completely dropped my point throughout these rounds that these will allow us to track down gun traffickers, effectively cutting off any sort of back-alley system for criminals to acquire their guns. He hasn't argued in the slightest that registries will encourage individuals to keep their guns more responsibly, reducing theft and accidental shootings.

So there's a lot going to for my side in this debate. How about for Con's side?

Well, he's got rights. He hasn't argued specifically how rights are denied by the laws I'm suggesting, nor how these perceived violations are harmful. He hasn't stated why these expansions of gun control demonstrably reduce rights from their current position, given that background checks currently exist and there are many other gun control measures already in place on a federal level. I've already made it clear that the Second Amendment doesn't afford the rights he thinks it does, how the USSC has stated that it isn't inalienable, and how his own argument seems supportive of certain measures.

He inserts a new argument in this round, stating that:

"People wont obey the laws and they wont listen they would either try to assisnate the person incharge of gun control."

Several responses. One, it's not one person who's in charge of gun control. These would be laws passed by the legislature, signed into law by the president, and enforced by the ATF and FBI. That's an awful lot of people to assassinate! Two, they'll have a much harder time doing this if they have a criminal background, since they won't be able to buy a gun following its implementation. Three, I highly doubt this would happen. As I mentioned earlier, there is currently gun control in our laws. Why is this specific increase going to suddenly force people over the edge into a murderous rampage?

All he leaves us with is that crime will still exist. I admit, I'm not ending crime with this policy. That would be a great thing to claim, but it's impossible. The fact that I cannot control for all of crime doesn't make my argument net harmful. Con asserts that crime rates will go up, but never warrants or sources that argument. It's simply not true.

So, that's a rather long summary, but that's what happens in 5 rounds of debate. I think it's simple to see that voters should side with Pro given these arguments, especially as I appear to have persuaded my opponent as well! I look forward to his concluding arguments, and leave the rest to him.
NarutoUzamaki

Con

I think we finalize the result I a now for gun control and I think your arguent was better
Debate Round No. 5
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
Gun control did work, just look at what has happened in Australia over the past two decades. It didn't take a long time to impose gun control laws in the country of the Port Arthur Massacre and it worked, ironically it was the conservatives who did it, not liberals!

In addition also, Americans might dismiss that Australia has a different culture from US but that would only be smokescreen. It doesn't matter whether they have a different sets of rules or not, what matters is that the US needs to look up to Australia on how it has enacted its gun control laws quickly!
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I think it's needless to say, but we disagree on quite a it if what you've stated here. Much of that conversation (gun free zones, stand your ground, and Chicago as an example of gun control laws), though there was some engagement on the Second Amendment. If you want, we can have a debate to that effect.
Posted by Conservative101 3 years ago
Conservative101
It's shameful to see an pro-gun guy like Naruto go down like that, but it is what it is.

I always will be against gun control for a number of reasons. There's the 2nd Amendment and all, and the right to stand your ground which I'll always support. If a criminal comes into your house and aims a gun at you, how will you defend yourself and your family? If you don't have a gun you're defenseless, but if you do you can save your life and many others. Guns are more powerful than any knife or karate kick. Tasers are short-ranged, and won't save you if a criminal is on the other side of the room threatening you with his pistol. It's common sense.

May I also point out that Chicago has strict gun-free laws and also has the highest murder rate in the country. Gun control laws have always proved to make the murder rate rise.

Proof: http://www.justfacts.com...

How about the Columbia Mall shooting in Maryland (a gun-free zone) last month?

I do agree that death by arms in the nation is high, but what will gun control do? It will render you defenseless. Criminals are not going to obey the laws. Gun control: Citizens defenseless, criminals armed.

http://www.google.com...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Always glad to see RebelRebelDixieDixie render his completely objective, thoroughly critical analysis of a debate with his highly nuanced, well-warranted decisions...
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
The reality is that any solution will be far from completely effective. Violent crime is practically guaranteed to be a problem among human beings going far into the future, no matter what we do. So, given that outcomes will never be perfect, I think our best option is to ameliorate the harms. We have to do so in a somewhat reasonable fashion, not banning access to basic necessities. But we can't just do nothing, so we have to affect outcomes by shifting the onus onto an item regularly and easily used for it's killing potential. I think it's entirely reasonable, then, to conclude that restricting gun ownership and increasing accountability are easy ways to reduce death tolls.
Posted by kaister 3 years ago
kaister
Actually many countries don't sell guns. The only time you see guns would be with the defence force. Other than that...maybe toy guns.

That being said, it is not guns that kill but people. There is no denying it. Some one has to pull that trigger. So what if guns are made unavailable? One can easily get a knife. Bans knifes? You have bear hands. So do we chop of everyone's hands?

There are many other solutions given to control and prevent human violence but many come not without compromises. The most common one of all is privacy and even then. Even if it is strictly for security purposes. We then have corruption going beyond just security purposes. Spying namingly. Which then becomes a public control tool and a political one.

So it's a bloody big mess. Until humans learn to pull their sh*t together and behave properly. This problem is here to stay with or without guns.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Yes. But I would argue that guns are a dramatically different monster than alcohol. If you want, I can spell out this argument for you completely.
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
the_streetsurfer
Did people get drunk during the prohibition?
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Sure, I just sent you a friend request. Just accept that and send me a message.
Posted by richardk84 3 years ago
richardk84
Excuse me "Whiteflame", I am new here, is there some way I could private message you possibly?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
whiteflameNarutoUzamakiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: One of the very few debates that changed my mind. But with arguments, sources, and S&G, the Pro made an outstanding case that was very well researched and very convincing. I am still afraid of the crime in my city (Memphis, TN) and will carry a handgun when I turn 21. Living in the fourth most dangerous city in America, having been shot at on multiple occasions, and simply fear of being robbed will force me to have a gun until effective gun control is passed.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 3 years ago
AdamKG
whiteflameNarutoUzamakiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was superior in every aspect including spelling and grammar as con had occasional errors in that area as well. I am happy that NarutoUzamaki is now for gun control as it shows he is a truly reasonable person.
Vote Placed by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
whiteflameNarutoUzamakiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in the comment section.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
whiteflameNarutoUzamakiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was convinced with pros arguments so pro gets the points and pro also used more reliable resources than con so pro also gets points.