The Instigator
josiah.norman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
truthiskey
Pro (for)
Winning
7 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 1 vote the winner is...
truthiskey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 80391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

josiah.norman

Con

Hello those who are reading this I came here today to debate the subject of gun control. Gun control: generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. They vary greatly around the world. The problem with gun control is that it does not work. In the United States we have close to 8,000 deaths a year caused by guns each year but in Mexico ( a country with restricted gun laws ) they have near 28,000 deaths a year. 98% of the time the first law indicated by a dictator is to disarm the public. That is the reason why the 2nd amendment was made so that the leaders of this country could never gain to much power, that is also why we do not allow presidents to stay in office for over 8 years.
truthiskey

Pro

I tank the negation for this challenge and look forward to a hard fought debate.

In this debate, we are debating gun control which the negation correctly identified as what "generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms." However, since the negation did not specify any level or type of gun control, he is forced to defend ALL forms of gun control.

Contention 1: Enemy Terrorists
Firstly, it is preposterous that we sell guns to people who openly are going to use it to kill us. In the world of the negation (no gun control whatsoever) , we can sell guns to enemies of the country that we know will do harm with it. Also, the CIA came up with a reports saying that even arming allied terrorist RARELY EVER works, so why should we arm or enemies.

Contention 2: Mentally Ill
By definition, the con is defending the right of the mentally ill to have guns. The mentally ill cannot be trusted with guns because they are incapable of handling them and may have outbursts. Adam Lanza, the man who perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre was mentally ill. In fact, the NYTimes reports that Lanza's mental illness went largely untreated before the shooting. There is no reason to support giving guns to the mentally ill.

Contention 3: Guns that explode and kill the carrier (without warning or prior knowledge of the fact while buying the firearm)
By definition, the con is defending the sale of these as well. If hypothetically these existed, the con would have to defend why we should sell them. The reason to regulate (ban) the sale of these is obvious: they are literally murdering and deceiving the user.

Contention 4: Children/Babies
How can you trust children/babies with guns. One could accidentally fire one and kill somebody.

Contention 5: Children/Babies selling firearms
Technically not allowing children to sell firearms is a method of regulating the sale of firearms. Is the con defending child labor. And is he also suggesting that a 1/2 month old can handle and sell guns.

Refutations:

"Hello those who are reading this I came here today to debate the subject of gun control. Gun control: generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. They vary greatly around the world."
So far, I agree.

"The problem with gun control is that it does not work. In the United States we have close to 8,000 deaths a year caused by guns each year but in Mexico ( a country with restricted gun laws ) they have near 28,000 deaths a year."

I have a couple of problems with this analysis:
1. Source needed.
2. Limited sample size
3. Doesn't take into account other causes. With such small sample size, this analysis needed to have no other plausible explanation for these deaths.
However there are quite a few:
a.Instability. It's literally a civil war between the cartels and the federal government. [3]
b.Corrupt government[4]
to name a few

"98% of the time the first law indicated by a dictator is to disarm the public. That is the reason why the 2nd amendment was made so that the leaders of this country could never gain to much power, that is also why we do not allow presidents to stay in office for over 8 years."

Problems:
1. SOURCE NEEDED
2. Gun control does not necessitate the disarming of the population.

I don't think that any of Con's counterarguments stand and the Pro has provided a strong case.

All in all, in order for con to win, he has to show why all forms of gun control possible are bad.

Looking forward to the response of Con!

VOTE PRO!

Sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com...
2.http://www.nytimes.com...
3.http://www.bbc.com...
4.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
josiah.norman

Con

I'd like to thank the opponent for accepting this challenge, he is a very skilled debater. I'd also like to apologize for sources, this is my first debate so I did not know. I will not make the mistake again

Laws Do Not Apply To Criminals
We"ve all heard this one many times, but a point of contention that just won"t go away must be quite convincing to some. Gun laws are all founded on the principle of making a nation safer by limiting its civilian population"s access to guns, but laws against murder and violence do not apply to those who have given up on life and intend to die while killing as many people as they can. Laws against theft do not apply to a person who intends to steal something. The sole thing the criminally-minded care about is not getting caught. Some are reformed in prison, but in large part, those who want to break a law are not going to feel remorse when they are caught. Give them a chance and they will do it again.

From this perspective, it is difficult to fathom the logic of enacting newer, stricter gun laws on an already lawful society. Most of us obey such laws. Sale of guns is forbidden within the city limits of Chicago, an ordinance that went into effect in 2010. For the year 2013, the city"s murder count is 374. There were 432 in 2010 and 500 in 2012. The FBI has named Chicago the nation"s murder capital. Thus, the city ordinance did nothing to reduce its murder rate.

None of this is to imply that in areas of well-armed civilians, the violent crime rate must go down. That is not true. The highest crime rates in 2012 were in the South, where gun ownership is at its highest. But this fact as well corroborates that any imposition of gun control does not address the issue of gun-related crime.
Maybe In A Perfect World . . .

Let us disentangle ourselves from the trees and take a look at the forest. Because there is no national gun registry, the exact number of guns in civilian hands in the US cannot be determined, but a conservative estimate places it"as of 2010, when the gun-buying craze was just reaching its peak"at 270 million weapons. This was about 89 guns per 100 people, the most heavily armed civilian population in the world. Yemen was second with 55 per 100, and Switzerland third. As of 2013, Serbia is second.

Another estimate, conducted by Congressional Research in 2012, places the total number of weapons in US civilian hands at 310 million as of 2009. By today, that means almost 1 gun for every single citizen, including infants. What would gun control even mean at this point? Assume this federal law: from 2014 on, no more assault rifles. Those who already own one may keep theirs, but such weapons will disappear from gun stores and pawn shops. Have we controlled much of anything? There are still at least 3 million assault rifles out there.
In a perfect world, gun control would mean going house to house throughout the nation and taking away every single firearm, including muzzle loaders. That would be impossible. Regardless of its constitutionality, gun owners would either fight back until there were a nationwide civil war or simply hide their weapons and claim they have none. Since most of those in the US are unregistered, no one knows who has what. Owners could always claim they destroyed those that are registered.
Thus, to debate gun control is a futile exercise. They cannot be controlled"not anymore. The continuation of buying and selling them cannot make the situation any worse because criminals will never again have to go far to find one.

"By definition, the con is defending the right of the mentally ill to have guns. The mentally ill cannot be trusted with guns because they are incapable of handling them and may have outbursts. Adam Lanza, the man who perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre was mentally ill. In fact, the NYTimes reports that Lanza's mental illness went largely untreated before the shooting. There is no reason to support giving guns to the mentally ill."

Problem: in many states ( Arizona, Georgia,Idaho,ect...) the mentally ill are not aloud to have any ownership of a gun until 5 years after discharge and frequent visits from the police. so it not a mater of gun control for the mentally ill but it is for the state to decide.

"Guns that explode and kill the carrier (without warning or prior knowledge of the fact while buying the firearm)
By definition, the con is defending the sale of these as well. If hypothetically these existed, the con would have to defend why we should sell them. The reason to regulate (ban) the sale of these is obvious: they are literally murdering and deceiving the user."

Problem: before owning gun you must sign a form that recommends gun training, if a weapon is well handled ten the weapon will not "explode" unless putting your bullets in the cartridge in an incorrect way.

"How can you trust children/babies with guns. One could accidentally fire one and kill somebody."

Problem: guns are only aloud to be bought by an 18 year old and up then it becomes the problem of the person who let the gun come into the hands of a child thus it is not the gun dealers fault or even the fact the we aloud to have guns. it is simply the actions of the owner of the gun that should be judged in this situation

Source information.
http://www.ncsl.org...
http://listverse.com...
truthiskey

Pro

Key
-- distinguishes a speaker change from me from him
** distinguishes him quoting me form round 1
== distinguishes a speaker change from him to me

--
"I'd like to thank the opponent for accepting this challenge, he is a very skilled debater. I'd also like to apologize for sources, this is my first debate so I did not know. I will not make the mistake again"
==
No problem. Thanks for the timely response!
--
"Laws Do Not Apply To Criminals
We"ve all heard this one many times, but a point of contention that just won"t go away must be quite convincing to some."
==
Just because an argument has been around for a while doesn"t mean that it"s a good argument.
--
"Gun laws are all founded on the principle of making a nation safer by limiting its civilian population"s access to guns..."
==
Not necessarily, since gun control is defined as "laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms.", not all forms of gun control do this. For example, by the definition agreed for for this debate, requiring all guns sold from here on to be functional and non-self-destructive is a form of gun control. Con needs to remember that we are debating about gun control in general and not about adding additional legislature on gun control in the US (However, if the Con wants that debate, I"ll be happy to debate him on that in another debate). Since I will use this explanation quite a bit, I will refer to it as Explanation 1.
--
"...but laws against murder and violence do not apply to those who have given up on life and intend to die while killing as many people as they can. Laws against theft do not apply to a person who intends to steal something. The sole thing the criminally-minded care about is not getting caught. Some are reformed in prison, but in large part, those who want to break a law are not going to feel remorse when they are caught. Give them a chance and they will do it again. From this perspective, it is difficult to fathom the logic of enacting newer, stricter gun laws on an already lawful society. Most of us obey such laws. Sale of guns is forbidden within the city limits of Chicago, an ordinance that went into effect in 2010. For the year 2013, the city"s murder count is 374. There were 432 in 2010 and 500 in 2012. The FBI has named Chicago the nation"s murder capital. Thus, the city ordinance did nothing to reduce its murder rate."
==
Problems:
1) Murder count reduced overall
2) Doesn"t explain the disadvantage of gun control (why not just implement gun control anyways since, my opponent pointed out, it doesn"t increase murder by gun)
--
"Let us disentangle ourselves from the trees and take a look at the forest. Because there is no national gun registry, the exact number of guns in civilian hands in the US cannot be determined, but a conservative estimate places it"as of 2010, when the gun-buying craze was just reaching its peak"at 270 million weapons. This was about 89 guns per 100 people, the most heavily armed civilian population in the world. Yemen was second with 55 per 100, and Switzerland third. As of 2013, Serbia is second. Another estimate, conducted by Congressional Research in 2012, places the total number of weapons in US civilian hands at 310 million as of 2009. By today, that means almost 1 gun for every single citizen, including infants. What would gun control even mean at this point? Assume this federal law: from 2014 on, no more assault rifles. Those who already own one may keep theirs, but such weapons will disappear from gun stores and pawn shops. Have we controlled much of anything? There are still at least 3 million assault rifles out there.
In a perfect world, gun control would mean going house to house throughout the nation and taking away every single firearm, including muzzle loaders. That would be impossible. Regardless of its constitutionality, gun owners would either fight back until there were a nationwide civil war or simply hide their weapons and claim they have none. Since most of those in the US are unregistered, no one knows who has what. Owners could always claim they destroyed those that are registered. Thus, to debate gun control is a futile exercise. They cannot be controlled"not anymore. The continuation of buying and selling them cannot make the situation any worse because criminals will never again have to go far to find one."
==
Again, Con does not show why all kinds of gun control are bad using our agreed definition. Cross-apply Explanation 1. Also, it is important to note that most kinds of gun control don"t involve rounding up guns.
**
""By definition, the con is defending the right of the mentally ill to have guns. The mentally ill cannot be trusted with guns because they are incapable of handling them and may have outbursts. Adam Lanza, the man who perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre was mentally ill. In fact, the NYTimes reports that Lanza's mental illness went largely untreated before the shooting. There is no reason to support giving guns to the mentally ill."
--
Problem: in many states ( Arizona, Georgia,Idaho,ect...) the mentally ill are not aloud to have any ownership of a gun until 5 years after discharge and frequent visits from the police. so it not a mater of gun control for the mentally ill but it is for the state to decide.
**
"Guns that explode and kill the carrier (without warning or prior knowledge of the fact while buying the firearm)
By definition, the con is defending the sale of these as well. If hypothetically these existed, the con would have to defend why we should sell them. The reason to regulate (ban) the sale of these is obvious: they are literally murdering and deceiving the user."
--
Problem: before owning gun you must sign a form that recommends gun training, if a weapon is well handled ten the weapon will not "explode" unless putting your bullets in the cartridge in an incorrect way.
**
"How can you trust children/babies with guns. One could accidentally fire one and kill somebody."
--
Problem: guns are only aloud to be bought by an 18 year old and up then it becomes the problem of the person who let the gun come into the hands of a child thus it is not the gun dealers fault or even the fact the we aloud to have guns. it is simply the actions of the owner of the gun that should be judged in this situation."
==
All of the solutions to my contentions to my contentions that Con provided are forms of gun control. See explanation 1 for the definition of gun control.

I look forward to Con"s response

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
josiah.norman

Con

josiah.norman forfeited this round.
truthiskey

Pro

Extend all args. Award me the point for conduct. Disappointed that we couldn't have a full debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mrPrime 1 year ago
mrPrime
josiah.normantruthiskeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: gg