The Instigator
AlexTheDreaded
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Deanovan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun control

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: 8/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 60070
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

AlexTheDreaded

Con

In Chicago, handguns when handguns were banned in the 80's and 90's, the rate of crime went up. America isn't like Sweden, or Japan or Britain. It's a much larger country with far more conflicting ethnicity and minorities. 99% of gun-owners in the US are accountable, normal citizens who would use their firearms to defend themselves or other people. Firearms (legally owned) prevent crime. It's an incontrovertible fact.
Deanovan

Pro

Allow me to start by thanking you for the opportunity to debate. I hope to have a clean, fun debate, and may the best debater win.

The goal of this debate is for me to paint a picture of a world with stricter gun regulation, and prove why it is better than my opponents world with less/no gun control. Now lets move on.

Allow me to define one term very quickly:
Gun control: Increased regulation on firearms (including but not limited to: background checks, certain bans, etc.) (DOES NOT NECISARRILY MEAN A COMPLETE BAN ON FIRE ARMS.)

To continue, let me say this: Guns will NOT be completely banned in the USA EVER!!! The 2nd amendment forbids it. what it does not forbid: is REGULATION (aka control) What I will be arguing is that certain guns should be banned, along with certain attachments and oddities. I wont get into specifics, but things like assault weapons, master keys, basically anything that is not a hunting weapon, or a self defence hand gun. This is NOT a ban on all guns.

The reason we need these things is the unfortunate tragedies that is mass shootings (more than 4 people at a time). This has been happening more and more lately in schools (15 since December of 2012). That is an EGREGIOUS number of deaths. Now here is how Gun control will help. the majority of the killings have been students coming to school with guns taken from the shooter/students home. These are LEGALLY OWNED guns. Even though they are legal, they can still do massive amounts of damage. The way to solve this is to make it so the parents either dont own big guns, so the kid cannot shoot up a school, or they need to have a background check so they cannot own guns due to their mentally impaired child.

I know ive said it a lot, but Republicans like to ignore this part, so im just REALLY trying to emphasize it.

THIS IS IN NO WAY SAYING WE SHOULD BAN ALL GUNS!!! But if the parents of the school shooters had background checks/smaller guns, the damage can be lessened or eliminated.

the 2nd amendment was made in a time when the founding fathers only knew of a gun who could fire one bullet (only accurate at 100 yards or so) every 2-3 min. but the same law now protects guns that can kill 30 people in 10 seconds. this is scary and we need to lessen it as much as possible.

so my final question to my opponent is: When will you, and the rest of America, begin to prioritize an Americans right to live, over another's to own a gun?
Debate Round No. 1
AlexTheDreaded

Con

AlexTheDreaded forfeited this round.
Deanovan

Pro

Deanovan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AlexTheDreaded

Con

AlexTheDreaded forfeited this round.
Deanovan

Pro

Deanovan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AlexTheDreaded

Con

AlexTheDreaded forfeited this round.
Deanovan

Pro

soooo... did i win?
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kimber_TLE 2 years ago
Kimber_TLE
"... or they need to have a background check so they cannot own guns due to their mentally impaired child."

So now you're suggesting that background checks include the medical history of the prospective gun owners children? On what are you going to determine a child - or any person - should be disallowed a weapon? Let's read..

FROM: Congressional Research Service (CRS)
TITLE: Public Mass Shootings in the United States: Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy
DATE: March 18, 2013

Researchers and policy makers have questioned whether law enforcement can develop a profile of a mass shooter to help identify at-risk individuals before a shooting incident occurs. No effective mass shooter profile exists for law enforcement to use to proactively identify potential suspects. One researcher has succinctly noted that "the predictors [for mass murder] are invariably far more common than the event we hope to predict, and mass murder is very rare. Although mass murderers often do exhibit bizarre behavior, most people who exhibit bizarre behavior do not commit mass murder.
[...]
Aside from usually but not always being male, there are few other characteristics across mass murderers that would be reliable or valid for creating a general profile for individuals most likely to engage in a public mass shooting. This also holds true when examining individuals who carry out mass shootings in specific settings; for instance, "[t]here is no accurate or useful profile of 'the school shooter.'"
_____________________________________________________________

Do you know something the experts don't know?
Posted by Kimber_TLE 2 years ago
Kimber_TLE
"the 2nd amendment was made in a time when the founding fathers only knew of a gun who could fire one bullet (only accurate at 100 yards or so) every 2-3 min. but the same law now protects guns that can kill 30 people in 10 seconds. this is scary and we need to lessen it as much as possible."

Ignoring that your point has already been rejected as "frivolous" by SCOTUS (Heller), do research before spreading your water-cooler hype.

`58; The Ottoman Empire had 9-and-11 barrel cannon as early as the 1300's.

`58; The Ribauldequin was a late medieval "volley gun" with many small-caliber iron barrels set up parallel on a platform, in use during the 14th and 15th centuries.

`58; An unknown German gunsmith before 1600 crafted this oval-bore .67-caliber rifle that was designed to fire 16 stacked charges of powder and ball in a rapid "Roman candle" fashion. One mid-barrel wheel lock mechanism ignited a fuse to discharge the upper 10 charges, and another rearward wheel lock then fired the remaining six lower charges.

`58; The Cookson Repeater (a.k.a. Lorenzoni System), c. 1680: 12 shot, lever-action breech-loading, repeating flintlock.

`58; Lorenzoni Flintlock Repeating Pistol, 7-shot and 9-shot versions, c. 1680

`58; Puckle gun 1718- tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock with multishot revolving 11-shot cylinder. Could "fire 63 shots in 7 minutes"

`58; And we shouldn't leave out the 44-barreled mortar designed by A K Nartov and built in the St. Petersburg Arsenal in 1754:

`58; The rapid-fire, Ferguson Rifle, breech-load flintlock, patented 1721:

`58; Girardoni Air Rifle, c. 1780: 22 round magazine, .46 caliber air rifle. (Thomas Jefferson owned two, and gave them to Lewis & Clark for their journey)

`58; The Nock Volley Gun, c. 1780: seven 20-inch .60-caliber barrels, one in the centerline with the other six clustered and brazed around it like a handful of flowers.

Our Founding Fathers were visionaries; they k
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
I sometimes don't understand the gun debate. It's probably the same how people that were raised vegetarian don't get the idea of eating meat, but gun control is something very beneficial to me. I come from rural areas and now some people who shoot as hobby.

But they all need many over many legal documents and certificates, very specific lock-up-methods and have to renew their licenses regularly. They have guns but only because society has made sure they: know how to fire them and they know how to keep them.

In 20 years I not once felt unsave because I am not armed. Shooting is not self defense. Self defense is a instinctual reaction to being attacked, shooting is the active intention to cause coordinated harm or even worse uncoordinated.

To link patriotistic law interpretations and guns is the most ridiculous thing I have encountered. Countries are just countries and this unhealthy obsession with ones right to have every right has only caused harm. Patriotic Americans have been calling me Nazi since ever and I can just shake my head over these people makeing the same ideological mistakes with the same blind assumption that subjective self-protection is just.
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
If this is still around Friday night, I'll take it.
Posted by Sfaulkner 2 years ago
Sfaulkner
I do believe that there needs to be some form of gun control, however people have the right to bear arms.
No votes have been placed for this debate.