The Instigator
Monarch2012
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
14 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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,184 times Debate No: 25150
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Monarch2012

Pro

For first, I'm on the Pro about " Gun control". The reason I'm on the side of is
related with the rate of criminal and with economic profits of when we accede to Gun control. First above all, we need to know about the rate of criminal which is emanated by guns. In 2005, In America, 11,346 persons were killed by firearms and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with firearms. That could tell us the possibility that if we make "Gun control" more hard to pass than before, might be, at least 10,000 persons wouldn't be dead, at least 300,000~400,000 persons wouldn't be harmed or be victims of a crime related with guns. That means, "Gun Control Regulations" being rigorous, We could have more producible manpower and this will make us greater than before. About, Economic aspects, The cost of making firearms and of managing "Individual Arms for self-defending or for hunting-guns" is too big. As you know, The cost of producing and managing all sort of 'bullets and guns" is enough big to support the other politics that would help the community you are in. In other words, "More regulations make more budgets, and it would be spent for supporting our community with some kind of welfare politics". And so forth,The security force wouldn't be put in the pot of fighting against firearm's crime or same vein of it. Like this, The force that could guard the city or politan would be a many so that the criminal rate would go down .
imabench

Con

2000 characters Ill make this quick

1) It can be argued that Gun Control doesnt effectively reduce crime
http://www.usatoday.com...
http://www.npr.org...
http://reason.com...
http://www.fff.org...

2) Gun Control doesnt take away guns that are already among the public, so if we pass the strictest gun laws ever seen it wont reduce the number of guns people already have

3) There will always be gun crimes because we cant tell whose crazy and who isnt. The guy who shot up the theater in Colorado wasnt a gang banger, he was a neuroscientist trying to earn his PhD. Gun control cannot stop crazy people because we cant tell who is crazy until its too late.

4) On of Pro's arguments is that with gun control less money will go into guns and that money can be used for other things. The market doesnt work that way though, limiting gun control doesnt help state governments have bigger budgets because its the gun companies spending that money maintaining guns and ammo, not the state.

5) The Pro's last argument is that gun control eases the burden on police forces, but issues with shootings and killings caused by guns does not make up an overwhelming amount of what the police devote time to. It is only a small fraction of what the police handle and since the effectiveness of gun control is disputed and limited, gun control wont make police forces have more time to handle other things.

6) There exists an entire black market specifically for the distribution of guns, and America is ground zero for this black market. Since criminals already operate outside the laws and there exists an entire market for weapons purchasing, gun control really hurts law abiding people who want guns for self defense much more then it limits criminals from getting guns for nefarious purposes.

Out of characters
Debate Round No. 1
Monarch2012

Pro





















Refutations against your arguments :
"Gun Control doesn't take away guns that are already among the public".

-> Laws to Laws. We, The nations, have enough power to retrieve the guns from public, which could be used for one's private purposes whatever it is and would be. The nations could set the laws for regulating the possession of guns either the Police do so.So, we could reduce the amount of guns persons already have.

"There will always be gun crimes because we can't tell whose crazy and who's not".

->This could be a reason that Why I continuously argue about the regulations of Gun Control. We can't figure out who is in the crime situation,and who will do criminal behaviour, and who will be victims of it. So for, We need " Regulations ". By eliminating the possibility of doing crime with firearms, We will be safe than wouldn't.

"It is the gun companies spending that money maintaining guns and ammo, not the state."
-> Company which will do the business whatever they want to do must have permission of state or the order of it.
So, state or government or the kind of 'govern' can restrain it. They(The governs) could control the situations and the companies which are producing and managing the guns or arms it can hurt persons.

"Gun Control won't make police forces have more time to handle the things"
->Truly, The police forces with armed-states in U.S.A are in the dangerous case that they could be hurt and even be dead for guns. because of it, They (might be usually, always) are in the armed-states with guns even with the body armour. U.S.A always in the menace of any kinds of terrorism including "guns fight". They can cope with any kind of armed-fight, so same to the case of "Colorado incident".

"Black market of guns' distributions"

-> Oh, I accept of it, obviously. But Governs do regulate of the individuals gun -possess, They couldn't get the gun for self-purposes. If they do so, That's the illegal and do against for law. Oh sorry, How can I rich the text bulk?
imabench

Con

1) Take away guns from the public
The second amendment entitles people to the right to bear arms, and taking them away would clearly be unconstitutional. Also the fraction of gunowners who will use guns to commit crimes is very low, so violating the second amendment to take away all guns would still only make things easier for the criminals since such an act would more impact the public instead of criminals

2) Ban all guns?
We cant turn the US into a nanny state to solve gun crime. There is a black market that allows people to easily get guns with or without the government's consent so banning all guns would not eliminate all guns in the US

3) States have bigger budgets
This one was dropped as the Pro instead focused on how states could use their authority to shut down gun companies, which wasnt the argument at all. Therefore my point stands that banning guns wont give states more money to spend on people

4) Police have more time to fight other crimes
This one was also taken the other way by the Pro. This point was that without guns the police could focus on other crimes, not whether or not cops would be killed. And again, criminals are the ones killing cops and these are the same criminals who have easy access to guns whether the state allows it or not.

5) Black Market
Ok I have no idea what the Pro's argument is on this one because I cant understand his grammar, I think though hes saying that the states can eliminate the black market through new laws, but thats not how it works at all. The black market is any trade of illegal objects or substances that operates around existing laws, and passing more laws without any kind of enforcement will have no effect on the black market, which will always exist whether the state wants it to or not.

Dropped arguments

Pro did not respond to my sources showing that gun control is ineffective that was presented in round 1

Vote Con

(to bold something, click rich text, highlight what you want, then click the B under Text)
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Monarch2012 4 years ago
Monarch2012
Hey Con. I couldn't get in the site that you linked for me to get inside.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
I meant to give con spelling/grammar too. My bad =p

It's not like you'll need that point anyway.
Posted by TheBossToss 4 years ago
TheBossToss
True, but I just like long long long explanations. I don't think they are complicated, but I just like to spell everything out so nothing can be attacked. I also elaborate. A lot. And use pretty words which take up lots of space. *Sigh* GLGL Imabench.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
"If you cant explain it simply enough, you dont know enough about it" - Albert Einstein.
Posted by TheBossToss 4 years ago
TheBossToss
Monarch, I will accept if you increase the maximum word count to at least 4,000. 2,000 is just too little, as my explanations are wordy. If that's fixed, I will accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
Monarch2012imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Con was the only one who gave a ref, that goes to him, both had good conduct. Grammar was better by Con, he even pointed this out in last statement.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Monarch2012imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to patch up the holes Captain Jack here stabbed into his arguments. Pro's arguments didn't resolve the issues of crazy people or the black market.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
Monarch2012imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to prove: a) Gun control would reduce crime. b) Gun control is feasible. Simple win for Con