The Instigator
Cadeneatsbacon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Superizer
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 300 times Debate No: 93011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Cadeneatsbacon

Pro

I am in favor of gun control. Currently buying weapons is very easy. Too easy. People on terrorist watchlist can obtain fire arms easier that a family can adopt a child. A ban of any type of dangerous assault weapon for any one and a strict background check policy for purchasing any type of firearm would drastically lower the amount of violent crimes in the USA. If you take a look at Italy, a heavily populated country like a small scale USA, has had gun control fire years and there's crime rates is much much lower than the rate in USA. Also, the Orlando massacre that killed 49 people and injured much more would have been a lot less devastating considering the reload of assault weapons vs manual reload types of guns. There gunman could have been taken down and arrested much faster and more safely if he Had not used a assault weapon. Gun control has been been implemented and the results were great. Gun control is safe.
Superizer

Con

Gun Control is bad because many of recent amounts of mass shootings would've played out very differently if someone there had a gun and shot the killer(s) many lives could've been saved easily. Also 'coincidentally' 92 percent of mass shootings took place in gun free zones including the Orlando Shooting, you don't see people shooting each other at Bass Pro Shops and other stores that sell guns.
Debate Round No. 1
Cadeneatsbacon

Pro

The reason most mass shooting have happened in gun free zones is because that is where a lot of people are (night clubs, movies etc.) Yes, police should carry guns to protect people in situations like such but if gunmen could never get ahold of military grade assault weapons there would be no need for anyone to pull out a gun and shoot another person. Gun control has worked again look at Italy. Why do you think it would be any different for America?
Superizer

Con

Gun control works in Europe because they have had strict gun laws for the past few centuries and guns aren't widely present, but in America, one in three people own a gun and if they pass strict gun laws, murderers and criminals will get a hold of guns very easily while law abiding citizens will have no gun and would have no defense.
Debate Round No. 2
Cadeneatsbacon

Pro

It has to start sometime. If it doesn't the shootings will only get worse and worse. And on top of all that we are basically giving guns to everyone. No background checks what so ever. It doesn't make sense to feed a fire if you want it extinguished so why are we feeding guns into the criminal world. Terrorist. Drug dealers. And mass murderers can all get guns as easy as a man can buy bread. The beginning might be a little bumpy but if no one will enforce laws they will never work. When our founding fathers placed the second amendment they were thinking of the single shot rifles that they used in their day not weapons made specifically for killing groups of people quickly. The Constitution was written to be changed to evolve along with society to be American. Just think fire a minute. Put yourself in the shoes off one of the victims of mass genocide. Seeing a person come in to a place you thought was safe and murder. Bam! Bam! Bam! Killing your friends and possibly you in seconds wouldn't you wish he wasn't able to shoot of that many rounds at a time. It's dangerous. I don't know about you but I don't exactly like it when people get slaughtered like cattle. Gun control is necessary. It needs to be implemented. I know violence can't be stopped but it can be slowed just like the rate of fire of the weapons we give away. Gun control is the gateway to a violence free nation.
Superizer

Con

It won't work, criminals will eventually manufacture their own guns in the future if this happens and then law abiding citizens will have no chance of survival. Stats show that guns are the most effective means of defence and calling 911 will take time for the police to get there. Stats also show that gun control hasn't worked in the US and most gun violence occurs in states ruled by anti gun leaders (Northern Illinois, Florida, New York, etc.) and Switzerland, the nation where guns are supported by the government, the gun violence is one of the lowest in the world; Honduras, a country with strict gun laws has the highest crime rate in the world. Crime rates also go down without gun control, the murder rate has actually fallen 22% since 2004, when the federal assault rifle ban expired. Just because the technology goes up, doesn't mean the constitution goes away. In conclusion, it would be a big waste of the government's money to start a whole movement to take away the American people's guns and it wouldn't work because they would find a new weapon and then that weapon would need 'control' and it would be a never ending cycle.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ubermensch-Tsoa// Mod action: Removed<

3 point to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: In depth analysis by universities have proven that reduction in control would reduce gun violence. Con brings some important topics and pro included fallacious claims.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters and compare them to come to a decision. Merely stating that some unknown analysis has proven something (much of which is likely outside of the bounds of this debate), that Con brought up unknown topics of unknown importance, and that Pro made unknown fallacious claims is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: nevedarkwolf// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Though I would like to personally agree with con, pro has the better argument and has more proof towards his/her side. I would like to offer some statements though. One cannot use the second amendment in this situation because it is already being construed since regular people can't have tanks or nuclear weapons. Not saying they should but isn't that offending the 2nd amendment. For those whom want gun control, you need to know what the guns are. Orlando shooting was with a semi-automatic sig sauer and a glock. thus he had to press the trigger almost a few hundred times in that one incident. the rifle was no worse than the pistol, just had 30 bullets instead of 17. Also, banning guns because their dangerous will only keep guns from the good people. Look at the ban on drugs. We banned drugs yet they're everywhere. Just a thought. My vote goes to Pro for having a more compelling argument and affirming the burden of proof in the fact that there needs to be something.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter merely restates the decision and goes on to explain his views on a number of topics that were probably discussed in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Amedexyius// Mod action: Removed<

7 point to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I believe, as any left wing or centre-moderate leaning person would, that gun control is an absolute necessity for the progression and stability of a nation and the security of its people. As well as the argument and simple logistics, pro overwhelms the entirety of con's argument.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't exxplain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter seems to decide the debate largely based on their own views of the topic, and fails to specifically analyze arguments made by either debater. A generalized statement that one side overwhelmed the other is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
Interesting debate
Posted by Masonh928 5 months ago
Masonh928
I agree w/ con; however, I'd have to vote that Pro had better arguments and grammar/spelling, notwithstanding I still believe gin control is ineffective.
No votes have been placed for this debate.