The Instigator
legalscholar21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
handywandy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun control legislation and deterring crime

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: 4/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 963 times Debate No: 32350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

legalscholar21

Con

I have a firm conviction that gun control legislation is not only an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, but it isn't a deterrent towards criminals. In the recent massacre on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, the shooter Adam Lanza who killed 26 people; 20 defenseless children, and 6 courageous teachers. This event was one of the most catastrophic events that has ever occurred in the history of America. But gun control legislation would not have stopped Adam Lanza from doing what he did. Everything he did that day was illegal. He stole his mother's gun, he killed her, stole her car, broke into the school, and caused destruction to 26 lives. He knew what he did was illegal, but still did all of those illegal acts anyway. So how will gun control legislation help the law abiding citizen who is responsible with practicing their rights? The legislation will not stop criminals from the commission of a crime because committing crimes is what they do. The only people that this legislation affects is the law abiding citizens who are being restricted. I along with many others in this country share this belief and also that if there were armed guards at the school, then the number of lives taken on this terrible day would have been substantially lower due to the fact that they would have had the capability of protecting themselves opposed to being entirely destitute.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a well known crusader who has spent millions of his own money on gun control efforts, called the NRA's idea for armed guards in schools "a paranoid vision of America."
But teachers appear to disagree with Bloomberg's assumption. Almost 90% said an armed police officer would improve safety in their schools, not make them less safe, according to the survey. (Sperry)

The statistic speaks for itself, and already school districts and towns have passed budget plans to keep kids safe in the school by using security guards and other security alarming systems. This money is well spent for the safety of the children attending schools all across America, and this perception is a real deterrent for criminals. A criminal will not try breaking into a school when multiple security guards are guarding the schools with firearms or alarming systems make it much more of an obstacle to complete their unjust attempt of committing a crime.

Sperry, Todd. "Survey: Teachers Don't Want to Carry Guns, Do Support Armed Guards." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
handywandy

Pro

Saying that gun control legislation does not deter crime is simply ignorant. My opponent could never logically argue the fact that if rocket launchers were legal for citizens to own that they wouldn't be used in criminal activity. While his point is accurate in that everything the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut did was illegal, including stealing his mothers assault rifle, if assault rifles were prohibited then he wouldn't have had a gun to steal in the first place.

"How will gun control legislation help the law abiding citizen who is responsible with practicing their rights?" my opponent asks. The simple answer is that gun control legislation will for the most part get these guns off of the streets. I will not be naive and say that banning assault rifles will mean people will have no way to acquire them, because this simply isn't true. I also will not claim that banning assault rifles will solve our problem and prevent any further shootings, because it won't. But all it can do is help. The simple fact is that other than for hunting, there is no logical reason to own an assault rifle. One might say that they need it for "self protection", but unless a homeowner is facing a team of intruders in their home all armed to the teeth, a shotgun or pistol would do the job just fine. Seeing that there is no absolute need for these guns, why allow them to fill our streets and arm people who use them in mass shootings?

My opponent's ideas for solving this problem sound perfect, in theory. However, the implementation of armed guards at schools across our country is something that will never happen for one simple reason, money. Obviously 90% of teachers approve of something that will make them safer every day, but when teachers are being laid off because of financial troubles our country faces today, what makes you think we can afford to station armed guards at every school in our country?

The sad truth is that there are crazy people in this world who are capable of terrible things, and no one solution will be able to prevent their sick plots against children or even movie theater occupants without costing more money then our country is able to currently spend. Banning assault rifles would not fix the problem, but it would help. Getting as many guns like this off the street is the first step to solving the problem we face.
Debate Round No. 1
legalscholar21

Con

Well to start replying to my adversaries statement "My opponent could never logically argue the fact that if rocket launchers were legal for citizens to own that they wouldn't be used in criminal activity." This statement is irrelevant because the current legislation at hand is not based on rocket launchers, it is based specifically on assault rifles, and other various provisions that infringe the right to even obtain any firearm. Also regardless of if they are legal or not for citizens to use, criminals can still be able to obtain rocket launchers illegally and use them in a commission of a crime if they wanted to from the black market regardless of the fact of if they are legal or not. My adversary also places no evidence to support the fact of why they actually support their opinion on gun control legislation. My adversary states that gun control legislation will for the most part get these guns off of the streets, but then contradicts himself/herself by saying that he/she "will not be naive and say that banning assault rifles will mean people will have no way to acquire them, because this simply isn't true. I also will not claim that banning assault rifles will solve our problem and prevent any further shootings, because it won't." The statements by my adversary are affirming my conviction of gun control legislation having no significant affect on obtaining assault rifles illegally, as he/she clearly states that legislation will not stop this. I find another contradiction with the statement, "The simple fact is that other than for hunting, there is no logical reason to own an assault rifle". Owning an assault rifle for recreational purposes such as target shooting like many law abiding Americans do is a very acceptable and logical reason to obtain an assault rifle. Also, might I add that a document that our country bases all of it's laws on called the Constitution, states in the 2nd Amendment, "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" (1) It states clearly in the United States Constitution that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not matter that an assault rifle has more bullets than a pistol does, because it is the American citizens right to be able to obtain firearms, therefore legislation on this right to restrict your ability to obtain a firearm or the amount of bullets is unconstitutional. The amendment does not state what so ever a specific firearm that is to be obtained or not. And I for one opposed to my adversary find that placing guards at our schools is a very possible goal to reach. With 90% of teachers in America agreeing to this, I am sure instead of spending taxpayers' money on stimulus spending packages that do nothing but put the country in more of a deficit, which is a subject for another debate, this money can go towards having a few officers from police departments patrolling and guarding the schools. Our own president is an advocate for gun control legislation, but meanwhile has 11 armed guards with assault rifles protecting his children. If they are protecting his children, why shouldn't we have guards protecting our children (2)? In my point of view and evidently 90% of teachers in schools across the country share this belief of having guards at the school to protect our children. In conclusion, to be dismissive towards the statistics and facts of what is in favor of the general will of this democracy we live in is pure ignorance.

(1) http://www2.law.ucla.edu...
(2) http://www.buzzfeed.com...
handywandy

Pro

There are numerous issues I have with my opponent's argument and I will use this round to share them as well as further explain how gun control legislation deters crime.

First off, in my first round argument I used an example of gun legislation deterring crime in the form of rocket launchers being illegal. My opponent responded to that example saying "This statement is irrelevant because the current legislation at hand is not based on rocket launchers, it is based specifically on assault rifles, and other various provisions that infringe the right to even obtain any firearm.". Meanwhile, the topic of this debate is "Gun control legislation and deterring crime", at no point in time did he specify a specific gun control legislation that we were discussing. Being that said, my rocket launcher example makes perfect sense when discussing "Gun control legislation" as a whole.

Secondly, his comment on my argument "contradicting" itself when I stated that gun control legislation in the form of banning assault rifles would significantly reduce the amount of these lethal weapons, but it would not completely fix the problem, makes no sense. Obviously, people will always be able to get what they want in some form or fashion, but banning assault rifles will make it significantly more difficult and dangerous to obtain an assault rifle. This was the only point I was making and it clearly doesn't "contradict" itself.

My opponent then moved to refute my point that there isn't a logical reason for owning an assault rifle claiming that "Owning an assault rifle for recreational purposes such as target shooting like many law abiding Americans do is a very acceptable and logical reason to obtain an assault rifle." While in some fashion this does make sense, the fact that people need to own these dangerous weapons in order to shoot targets with them is ridiculous. Gun ranges could have specific licenses allowing them to keep assault rifles in stock for customers to use on a gun range, simple solution. The simple fact is that the tiny amount of benefits that come from owning an assault rifle don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects that these guns being sold over the counter bring to society.

Moving on, my opponent cites the 2nd Amendment to the constitution which states "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". The problem with using this Amendment as a reason to maintain the legality of assault rifles is that the framers of our Constitution who only had access to single shot muskets had no way of knowing what technology would be available to United States citizens in today's world. These new technologies are "challenging our Constitutional categories in really dramatic ways," says George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen. "And what's so striking is that none of the existing amendments give clear answers to the most basic questions we're having today." Rosen's new book "Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change" details how technological changes that were unimaginable at the time of the Founding Fathers are challenging today's lawmakers. The clear truth is that while the Constitution is the backbone of our Country's laws, it requires stretching to compensate for a changing society.

My opponent clearly makes my point when he says " The amendment does not state what so ever a specific firearm that is to be obtained or not.". Automatic assault rifles and other dangerous weapons (such as rocket launchers) are outlawed in today's society for the same reasons that I am arguing regular assault rifles should be outlawed, they are unnecessary for the average citizen and are extremely dangerous.

And now to my last argument, my opponent is blatantly ignorant to the economical problems the United States' education system is going through. He claims " I for one opposed to my adversary find that placing guards at our schools is a very possible goal to reach... money can go towards having a few officers from police departments patrolling and guarding the schools" Once again I will say, this idea sounds perfect. However, the amount of money it would cost to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy. President Obama has recently enacted a heavily scrutinized plan that will "provide $25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other education jobs." The amount of taxpayer dollars that this new plan will require is substantial to say the least, and any additional money added to the education budged unfortunately is unrealistic at this time. A Cleveland State University Economics professor claims that "having enough officers to fully protect schools would cost $23 billion", which is "half of what the federal government spends on K-12 education". Imagine that, wiping out half of the United States' education budget to fulfill what my opponent claims is "a very possible goal to reach", because we simply don't have enough money to add additional funds to our education budget. On top of this issue, even if we were to pay the bill and make our schools 100% secure, a shooter could simply move to targets such as movie theaters (which we have recently seen), or shopping malls. Unfortunately, we cannot have armed guards all over our Country, even though it is the ideal scenario from a security stand point.

Simply put, there is no sure-fire solution to our nation's security problem that isn't unrealistic economically. Outlawing these unnecessary weapons from society would not solve our problem 100%, but it would undoubtedly lead us in the right direction.

Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
http://www.newsnet5.com...
http://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 2
legalscholar21

Con

To begin, the topic of this controversial debate is gun control legislation and deterring crime. My adversary is attempting to defend his/her claim on this topic being a broad topic to discuss his/her irrelevant rocket launcher example. The topic is an implicit title of the debate and if reading the opening statements, it should be very clear what the specifics of the debate are precluded to be based on. Since in my opening statements starting the debate with the Sandy Hook Massacre, the gun control legislation that is currently taking place is explicit towards the provisions of what is to be legislated upon in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre. So therefore, rocket launchers being used as an example are an absolute absence within the provisions of our current legislation, and is an irrelevant example to use.
Furthermore, my adversary is attempting to clarify his/her statement of contradictory, but manages to contradict himself/herself even more. Stating that "Obviously, people will always be ale to get what they want in some form or fashion, but banning assault rifles will make it significantly more difficult and dangerous to obtain an assault rifle". My adversary is well aware that people will no matter what kind of legislation is passed, will be able to obtain an assault rifle, but still states that it will make it significantly more difficult to do. Well once again this type of legislation does nothing, but hurt the law abiding citizen who follows the laws. This only affects the criminals who already do not abide by the laws, hence criminals being labeled as criminals for the crimes that they commit, such as breaking a law of illegally obtaining an assault rifle, just like Adam Lanza had done.
I also had stated that there are multiple logical reasons to obtain a firearm when my adversary claimed that "other for hunting" there would be no logical reason to obtain an assault rifle. My adversary even admits that this makes sense, but claims that this fact to obtain them is "ridiculous". Well I find fault in this statement because an American citizen practicing their rights is not "ridiculous". These assault rifles are collectors items and used responsibly by a substantial majority of citizens and gun advocates, because they are fully aware of the immense power of this weapon's capabilities. "Gun ranges could have specific licenses allowing them to keep assault rifles in stock for customers to use on a gun range, simple solution". This is sure not a simple solution when the rights of law abiding Americans are infringed upon. "The simple fact is that the tiny amount of benefits that come from owning an assault rifle don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects that these guns being sold over the counter bring to society". How is it that an extraordinary amount of citizens obtain assault rifles, but very little crimes are done annually by them? The Federal Bureau of Investigations confirms statistics:

"There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles." (1)

A small amount of Americans are claiming assault rifles are a problem, but according to consistent crime statistics of much credibility, state otherwise. It states here that hammers, clubs, hands, and fists are more lethal than assault rifles. So does this mean we need to take hammers and clubs away because they cause a lot of crime? Of course we wouldn't because that would be an outrageous legislation considering hammers and clubs are used for various activities that are beneficial to society other than for crimes, such as hammers for construction purposes or clubs taking various forms as a golf club or a baseball bat. Hammers and clubs have various uses just as assault rifles have various uses. But hammers and clubs are not being legislated upon control but cause more crime annually than assault rifles do.

When my adversary states that the Framers of the Constitution "had no way of knowing what technology would be available to United States citizens' in today's world" is an uninformed assertion. Framers of the Constitution were well aware that as times change, everyone else in society changes. "The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change over time. But the application of those principles must evolve as society changes and as experience informs our understanding" (2). Of course it would be absolutely ignorant of anyone to have concrete laws that do not change overtime as mankind does. But the fact of the matter is the Framers of the Constitution developed core principles to uphold throughout our democracy. Being aware that legislation will take affect to adhere to the current situations of our times, the fact of the matter is that core principles are to be the foundation of the legislation. Therefore, the specific text in the 2nd Amendment is to not be altered, but the contemporary times that we are living in need to adhere to these principles for just and equal legislation. This does not make it okay to legislate against the people's will, because the Constitution allows flexibility within it's provisions.

Furthermore, to state that I am "blatantly ignorant" is an unnecessary statement due to the fact I am very aware of the economical situation of the United States' education system. The fact that our government pointlessly spends taxpayers' money for unnecessary entities, is a disgrace, and is so wrong. Examples of our country spending an astronomical amount of money on unnecessary entities is; The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it, the federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos, China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn"t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China, the U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly, and the list goes on (3). So my adversary likes to state that arming guards at schools when 90% of teachers across America want them, "the amount of money to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy". By seeing where taxpayers' money goes unnecessarily, when it should be going into a program to help our own country is opposed to others is not impractical. So supposedly, it would cost $23 billion to do this according to a Cleveland State University Economics professor, but our country has spent millions on frivolous entities and not the safety of our country? If the money was not put into other countries, pointless research studies on responsible drinking for prostitutes, and a soccer field creating recreation for people plotting attacks on our country their whole lives, we can substitute this money into our schools. And my adversary stating what would we do for shopping malls and movie theaters? That's simple, because we have police already patrolling these areas, but there are no police guarding schools leaving them the most susceptible to crime.

In my closing statements, I will state that gun control legislation does nothing to deter criminals from the commission of crimes, because breaking the law is what they do. This legislation infringes upon the Constitutions' fundamental rights.

Sources
(1)http://www.newsmax.com...
(2)http://www.democracyjournal.org...
(3http://endoftheamericandream.com...
handywandy

Pro

handywandy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cowboy0108 3 years ago
Cowboy0108
PLEASE READ:
For this debate, you both should know that the weapon used in the actual Newtown shooting was not what the government considers to be an assault rifle. He did have an assault rifle in his car though, but it was not used. Thus, outlawing assault rifles would not have affected the Newtown shooting whatsoever.

Note: My biggest fear is not the removal of Assault Rifles. It is if the removal does not work. What then, they will take away pistols, rifles, shotguns. Until when, there is nothing for the citizens to defend themselves with.
Note: Criminals will either keep their guns because they have no regard for the law or will acquire them illegally. Either way, law abiding citizens could not defend themselves.
Note: Requiring gun training should not be required. If you need to defend yourself, you will pull the trigger. Criminals do not have this training.

My first point was most important, my second was my second most important, and my third was just opinion. Use whatever you want for the debate but both sides should recognize point #1.
Posted by glassplotful 3 years ago
glassplotful
"gun control legislation will for the most part get these guns off of the streets" - Pro

Gun control legislation does not affect the demand for firearms. A willing and able consumer of firearms will find his product elsewhere, even if it means turning to the black market.

It would benefit Con to bring up the fact that prohibition of alcohol resulted in a spike in the general level of violence, gang membership, and gang violence in the 1920s. Prohibition of alcohol did not stem the demand, and willing consumers of alcohol sought out other means of purchasing it- namely via illegal bars ("speakeasies") primarily operated by gangs. The gangs profited- and what followed was a highly organized and dangerous underground crime network which plagued America until Prohibition was appealed. Although today's proposed gun control legislation does not outright prohibit gun ownership/sale, it still does not stem demand. It imposes limits on firearm consumers and thus shifts sales from the white market to the black.

It would also benefit Con to point to the War on Drugs and its massive annual toll on society each year. Because many drugs are illegal, drug consumers purchase their products from the black market, increasing the financial power of gangs. It would benefit Con to relate the current War on Drugs to a potential War on Guns if certain gun control legislation was passed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.