The Instigator
Donbuster
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Duke_of_Oklahoma
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun control vs lack of the same

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: 11/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 39963
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Donbuster

Pro

Though it has certainly quieted since Sandy Hook, gun control is still possibly the issue that is most inflated and polarized in congress. Many politicians cannot voice their true opinions on this topic, for feel of complete ruin. Should we or should we not have limits on the right to bear arms/ should that right exist at all, I will be holding the opinion of heavy gun control/ no right to bear arms. The first round constitutes acceptance, and no arguments should be made in that time. Please try to stay relevant (I will call you out for straw man arguments), and cite examples, w/links when possible, I will do the same. The format will roughly be of a simplified lincoln-douglass debate, meaning that I get an initial argument, the con gets a cross examination, then proceeds with their initial argement (same post), I have a cross examination and rebuttal (same post), against has a rebuttal, I have a 2nd rebuttal, against has a 2nd rebuttal.
Duke_of_Oklahoma

Con

I'm up to the challenge. I'm against gun control.
Debate Round No. 1
Donbuster

Pro

Gun control is critical to maintaining controllable and ordered population, without proper measures, the world is one of chaos, where the survivors are the ones who got the biggest gun first. This is what America is dissolving into, what we must prevent. Other nations do a much better job at controlling their population, and with little exception, they do so not by increasing the number of firearms in their society, but by reducing them. The concept that civilians can own what was once, or even still is, military grade arms is ridiculous. Why do we allow such things when the create the potential for such atrocities as the Naval Yard Shooting, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Arora, and Oak Creek .Though one could say that weapons are needed to defend yourself and your family, weapons would not be nearly so necessary if they were not readily available. We cite the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights as giving us the right to bear arms, but the amendment in fact reads: "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." Note the "Well Regulated" bit, as well as the enigmatic wording of the amendment. To my interpretation, it reads as giving you the right to bear arms if you are part of a well regulated militia, this is made clear/ confirmed in the Kansas Supreme Court ruling “Salina v. Blaksley”. The meaning of the wording here is unclear, perhaps intentionally so, but the US Supreme Court has stated on multiple occasions that the 2nd amendment allows use of firearms for self-defense within the home (Parker v The District of Columbia), and that there are limits to this right (District of Columbia v. Heller). Lower courts have also made significant rulings stating that the government may regulate the right to bear arms, what level of government this right applies to is dependent on the individual ruling (The State of Arkansas v Buzzard). It is also important to note that, in the time of our founding fathers, when those words were inscribed, muskets, revolvers, and basic rifles were the only firearms, weapons that are hard to aim, slow to reload, don't always kill or even incapacitate an enemy in a single shot, and, assuming a one-on-one fight as seen in self-defense, generally ineffective compared to a blade of any sort. Today's arms are a much greater threat to others, and are more freely available. We treat our modern weapons, guns that can kill a dozen unarmed men with ease, well before they can get close enough to pummel you into submission or wrest it from your hands, as if they are as much a risk as those that are now antiquated. Let us compare countries with strict gun control laws to the United States and other countries with relatively few regulations.

NOTE THAT DEBATE.ORG DID NOT LIKE SOME OF MY FORMATTING (TABLE) AND THE DEBATE SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDED CHARACTER LIMIT (I thought it was a word limit like most things on this site, not character limit), AS I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO REWRITE THE DEBATE, I HAVE POSTED A PORTION ON GOOGLE DRIVE.
https://docs.google.com...
I have no problem if you desire to be particularly verbose, to the point of emulating this, as I truely love the concept of an extended debate. reading the chart and my conclusions about it are nessisary to understanding the rest of the debate.

What we attempt to do in the US (make arms easily accessible to defend oneself) clearly does not work, with the exceptions of Switzerland, and possibly Singapore, we are the least restrictive in terms of firearm control, and we have, by far, the highest number of gun murders, by far the highest number of gun murders per 100,000 population, and, with the exception of Switzerland, have the highest ratio of gun murders to overall murders. If you look, more than 2/3 of our murders are committed with firearms, a higher rate than any country other than Switzerland, which, remember, requires all citizens have fully automatic weapons in their home.
If guns were not so readily available to citizens for reasons of self-defense, the need for self-defense would be significantly less. This is proven by comparing Switzerland and South Korea. Switzerland undeniably has the least stringent gun control out of all of the listed countries, and South Korea the most. Despite having several times the population of Switzerland, South Korea has less than a quarter of the gun murders that Switzerland does, and the percentage of gun murders vs. total murders in South Korea is 42 times less less than that of Switzerland. Perhaps we should make attempts to gradually reduce the amount of firearms in our society over the course of ten years or so, then reevaluate what can be done to protect our citizens. If we insist upon giving our citizens the right to shoot for hunting or other sport, we should determine what weapons are suitable for such uses. You do not need an assault rifle to hunt, nor should we let people claim they do in order to acquire high powered weaponry. Similarly, high-capacity magazines are not necessary for any legal use that I cannot think of, if you are unable to incapacitate game within the few shots that standard magazines hold, then the issue is in no way the number of rounds you can shoot before pausing to reload. If we want to prevent mass-shootings, or reduce the damage and deaths once they begin, there are three schools of thought

1)
Arm everyone, teach teachers/ others in positions of authority how to defend themselves and their charges, post armed guards in public areas.
Or
2) Restrict certain “high risk” weapons and accessories, and restrict carrying of firearms in general
Or
3) Find a scapegoat, and pretend that we do not have glaring issues in our arms legislation

There are several major issues with the first approach, it does not actually solve the problem! Most people of a sound mind will not shoot another human being, even if they pose a threat, unless they undergo very significant training, and even then, people still have doubts, and could hesitate at the wrong moment, very few have the nerve to kill one who is perceived as one of their own, for instance, in WWII, only 15-20% of soldiers fired their weapons at enemy soldiers, and this is percentage is inflated by groups who cannot pretend to fire their weapons, or intentionally miss, such as tank gunners. Keep in mind too, that these men underwent full military training, and many went into more than one battle without firing, battle hardens people, and still they would not shoot. How, then, can we expect our teachers to kill without a moment’s hesitation in a situation like Sandy Hook? The people doing the killing, on the other hand, are not in a sound state of mind, and have little enough apprehension to massacre our children, our future. Arming teachers, or even older kids (High School age) is not the solution, for their arms would only be a source of more loaded ammunition for the shooter before he leaves himself vulnerable by reloading. Armed guards, on the other hand, would either have to be so numerous as to have a presence in every room, or would be ineffective, as, by the time they could identify the disturbance, figure out its source, and actually get to the area affected, multiple people most certainly would be shot. The second school of thought is to restrict those items that are the greatest threat, and to, perhaps, disallow other, less deadly threats from being carried in public, or transported anywhere other than the place where it is intended to be used. Critics of this idea state it as being a violation of the right to bear arms, as granted by the 2nd amendment, but this is patently false, as again is proven by Salina v. Blaksley, Parker v The District of Columbia, District of Columbia v. Heller, and The State of Arkansas v Buzzard. Other criticisms are that criminals will not follow these restrictions, and will still find ways to get weaponry, and that we will be unable to defend ourselves if our police officers are not as heavily armed, or if we are unable to carry weapons ourselves, or that existing weapons will still be a threat, how can we ban things that people already own without searching homes and taking peoples possessions? I will address the second concern first, which is buyback programs, which have often proven effective, especially in other countries on the list above. Imminent domain could also be used to make the buybacks mandatory, as the supreme court has in fact ruled that public benefit is reason enough to acquire property, and that, because it is not necessarily restricted to public occupation, the laws governing eminent domain do not necessarily apply only to land, but can apply to any privately owned property or possession, as long as public benefit can be proven. I would consider efforts to make mass shootings less likely, common, and destructive, public benefit no matter what definition of the word is used. If we reduce the number of handguns, automatic, and semi-automatic weapons in our society to only what is needed by our police force, and that which can only be used for sport, public safety will increase dramatically, and, as a result, reduce the perceived (and false) need of these weapons for self-defense. As pointed out previously, these weapons pose more of a risk to the owner as additional ammunition for those being defended against, or in the case of a misfire or poor aim then they do the potential risks that they attempt to defend against. Overall, firearms are not as needed as the NRA would have us believe, nor do they in any way make us safer. Finding a scapegoat, while the safest and most common political solution, of course, does nothing unless we are stupid and arrogant enough to assume that the current regulation is the most effective at keeping us safe in all possible ways.

Duke_of_Oklahoma

Con

Duke_of_Oklahoma forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Donbuster

Pro

well then, I see no reason to expand on my previous arguments, especially since I was so verbose in the last post (going nearly double the character limit w/google docs), as such, I will not continue the argument. I await a cross examination, rebuttal and counterargument
Duke_of_Oklahoma

Con

Duke_of_Oklahoma forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Donbuster

Pro

Donbuster forfeited this round.
Duke_of_Oklahoma

Con

Duke_of_Oklahoma forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dr.Intellegent 3 years ago
Dr.Intellegent
Gun control is a big issue and should be controlled.
No votes have been placed for this debate.