Gun laws should remain unchanged despite the recent events in Aurora, Colorado
Debate Rounds (3)
Now that I got all that out of the way, please allow me to construct the basis for my arguments. In America we have many debates over this very topic. To make it clear, I honestly feel that Gun laws should be changed and I have three reasons why. If my opponent feels that I need more I will be happy to provide more reasonings but lets look at these first three reasons and their analyzation of the resolution.
1st contention- This is not the first incident this country has had a problem with guns.
there have been a number of occasions where guns have taken the life of an innocent bystander. The very factor that guns are able to get into even the hands of a child shows that gun laws arejust too loose. I understand that there will always be problems with guns here in America, but why not attempt to reduce the number of incidents with guns?
2nd Contention- The current problem in Aurora Colorado ought to be an example.
The factor this murderer had the ability to just walk into the theatre, murder 12 people and injure 50 others like it is nothing ought to say something to the government. We as the moral characters we are should see that very tragic event as an example there is a problem with gun laws.
3rd Contention- Stricter gun laws cause for less reasoning to carry guns everywhere.
We have all heard of the argument that guns are tools for defense. The only problem with that argument is that guns are also tools to attack. If we make it an obligation for stricter gun laws we will wind up seeing less reasons to have these "tools" for "just in case".
Thank you for taking the time in seeing my arguments I invite my opponent to start his arguments for this debate.
I'm going to just get to it and counter my opponents arguments for more gun control.
Your first point made is a very true statement, this is not the first incident of gun violence, and sadly it will not be the last. No amount of gun control will stop crimes committed with a gun. Moving on to the children getting hold of weapons, when you say "The very factor that guns are able to get into even the hands of a child" are you talking about a gun left out in the open and an unknowing 5 year old pick it up? Or are you referring to teenagers living in the cities getting guns from a dealer and committing crimes? With the first scenario, no law will prevent those kinds of incidents. Unfortunately it's either the stupidity of the parent leaving a loaded firearm out of its case at a level a child can reach, or some sort of distraction causing the parent to leave a loaded firearm in the open. Those are just careless accidents in the privacy of one's home. With the second scenario,we don't need to focus on preventing kids in the cities from getting guns, but instead try to raise the standard of living in this country so that kids in the cities aren't forced to live a life of crime. If we can put together an economic recovery plan, not as many people will be forced to resort to crime.
Now, with your second point. Yes, the shooting was senseless and horrible and nothing like this
should ever happen again. But the sad part about reality is that something like this is bound
to happen again. James Holmes' guns were all registered to him. All of the guns were legal. He cleared the background checks. There was no evidence that he was going to go on a shooting rampage. He didn't have any psychological problems in the past which would have prevented him from purchasing these firearms. But, if he had an incident that hinted at psychological issues before he attempted to buy those guns, he would've been turned down and the disaster would've been averted. Nobody knew his mental state was going to detiorate the way it did. It's just one of those things that is unpredictable and unpreventable. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate, but there was nothing anybody could've done to prevent this tragedy.
With the final point, yes, you can enact stricter gun laws and tell people that there is less reason to carry firearms. You can tell people that statistically speaking that they are safer than ever before. This doesn't mean that they will listen or believe you. It comes down to a fact of feeling secure. If people feel safer with their Glock, Beretta, Sig or any other handgun resting in its holster under their shirt, then they are going to wear it wherever they go.
I appreciate that you are taking time to debate this topic, as I find it an interesting one. The ball is now in your court.
Now onto business....
First point: I would like to apologize for my very vague statement, when I said child I meant teenagers. Now my opponent brought up a very intellectual point in the factor that we need to raise the standard of living in this country so that kids in the cities aren't forced to live a life of crime. In order to cause this standard to upgrade, we must make stricter gun laws not make an economic recovery plan. Let it be known that our government has been working on economic recovery for centuries. When we make stricter gun laws we could make it more difficult for teenage kids to get their hands on guns.
Second point: My opponent proved my second point. Lets look at exactly what my opponent states, " James Holmes' guns were all registered to him. All of the guns were legal. He cleared the background checks. There was no evidence that he was going to go on a shooting rampage. He didn't have any psychological problems in the past which would have prevented him from purchasing these firearms. But, if he had an incident that hinted at psychological issues before he attempted to buy those guns, he would've been turned down and the disaster would've been averted. Nobody knew his mental state was going to detiorate the way it did. It's just one of those things that is unpredictable and unpreventable. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate, but there was nothing anybody could've done to prevent this tragedy." My opponent highlights that James Holmes got all of his weapons legally. Allow me to also highlight that James got these weapons legally but also walked in and shot these innocent bystanders with no hesitation or difficulty. we must, I repeat we must use this as reasoning to make the process harder. If we don't even make the attempt to make it more difficult how can we expect a change? I suggest that my opponent gives a detailed process on how events like this can happen less often. I agree evnts like his will happen no matter what we do. But would we want 2 or 3 events like this a year? or rather 2 or 3 events like this a month?
Third Point: My opponent states that people are going to do what they can to stay safe whether that means holding their weapon in their cars or pants. Gun laws becoming a tad stricter does not mean a no gun zone. It means more regulations to stop possible events like this from happening. The con side is not against weapons, the con side is only against the abuse of weapons.
Once again thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. This is definitely an interesting topic, I now give the floor to my opponent.
First point: My opponent challenged me to give a "detailed process on how events like this can happen less often." I will address preventing shooting sprees in my third point, but I have a detailed process on how to prevent most of non shooting spree crimes. My opponent stated that "In order to cause this standard to upgrade, we must make stricter gun laws not make an economic recovery plan." Raising the standard of living means that the government needs to cease reckless spending immediately and stop forcing Americans to pay more in taxes, which any halfway decent economist would know that raising taxes actually hurts the economy and the government, not the other way around. When people have less money, the tend to spend less money and instead hoard it, which halts economic growth and causes even more problems. In order to raise the standard of living and prevent kids in the cities to resort to crime in order to survive, we need to bring the troops home from the middle east and stop fighting this pointless war. (I don't want to really get into that entirely different topic, just stay with me) Doing so will save the government tons of money that can be diverted to begin paying down the enormous debt. Doing so allow the government to reduce taxes on Americans, giving them a little more breathing room financially. To really help out America we need to end the Federal Reserve. (Right now Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill is meeting with much support which is a solid start, but not enough). The Federal Reserve has lent more than $16 trillion to foreign and domestic corporations. The problem is that the United States only grosses $15.9 trillion per year. We are living beyond our means. If we end the Federal Reserve this spending ceases. Since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created by the Congress, the value of the dollar has declined by 95% while factoring inflation because they just print more and more money without anything backing it up, which drives down the value and lessens the buying power of the dollar. Ending the Fed will cause the value of our dollar to rise by 90%, as Dr. Paul has repeatedly stated. When these families are given more buying power because of the end of the Federal Reserve, there won't be a need to take a gun, run down to the convenient store, and rob it for cash or food.
Second Point: My opponent stated in his first argument that, "The factor that this murderer had the ability to just walk into the theatre, murder 12 people and injure 50 others like it is nothing ought to say something to the government." You are right, this should say to the government that we need to remove gun free zones. That movie theater in Aurora, Colorado was a gun free zone, which as the name implies, means that nobody except law enforcement are allowed to have firearms in that designated area. We are talking about hundreds of people at this movie theater in the Midwest, a very pro-gun area. What do you think would the chances have been that a citizen(s) armed with a handgun would've stopped that mad man before he inflicted as much carnage as he did? What I'm saying is that if the gun-free zone wasn't established, it is likely that atleast one civilian would've had the power to stop this tragedy in its tracks. You also mentioned that "We as the moral characters we are should see that very tragic event as an example there is a problem with gun laws. I think that one incident does not mean that we have a problem with gun laws. Now, if there were 2-3 sprees per year or per month as you suggested, then yes, something clearly is not working. But the last shooting spree that I was able to research of this magnitude occurred back in April of 2009, nearly 3.5 years ago in Binhamton, New York where Jiverly Antares Wong, 41, killed 13 and injured 4.
Third Point: My opponent challenged me to give a "detailed process on how events like this can happen less often." Well the truth is that, you don't need a complicated plan to prevent a shooting spree. Keep the current laws, except for the gun free zones. It's simple. Let the people carry their firearms wherever they go. If people were allowed to have their firearms in that movie theater, Holmes would've been dead in minutes, instead of walking around the theater like he has all day hosing down unarmed civilians with lead.
For my closing argument, all I will say that we shouldn't overreact to an event that doesn't occur often. Before we rush to Capitol Hill to start drafting tighter gun laws that will do little to help, let's just take a step back and examine what happened. James Holmes passed his background check because he was healthy. He only recently became ill. That is not a failure in the system that is currently in place it is something that is out of our hands and something that laws cannot prevent. Our current system sufficiently prevents ex-cons and the mentally sick from purchasing firearms. While this was tragic, it's just one of those things that was unpredictable and uncontrollable.
I'd like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate for the first time. I had a lot of fun exchanging views and ideas with you and I hope we can do it again in the future. You had a lot of good points and knowledge to back your ideas. To all of the victims and their families in Aurora, Colorado, you are in my thoughts and I hope that all of you are able to recover from this senseless tragedy. To those who lost loved ones, I send my deepest condolences for your loss, as I cannot imagine what you are going through. I hope that you can soon turn the page and be able to go back to a sense of normal eventually.
Lets start with the first point. In the first clash we see a conflict of interest in how we should develop a better standard. I say through stricter gun laws, while my opponent basically is saying, lets allow everyone to have a better financial setting through an economical recovery plan. Notice how my opponent never refers to the point I made against his solution which was our government has been trying to make a financial recovery for centuries. To expand on the reasoning behind my point, Our nation is under a huge debt towards trillions of dollars. The best way to treat the problem is to find a solution that is effective and cheaper. Making stricter gun laws to protect the people is the best way to decrease problems with murder period (not just killing sprees). I understand people are going to need guns. The con side is not against guns were against the abuse of those guns.
On to my 2nd point. My opponent mentioned the gun free zone as an argument to show that this wound up putting our innocent victims in harms way. If we make stricter gun laws this would mean making more security and better training in any gun free zone. If we allowed people to just bring their guns to a social setting we give way to a massacre being set up between two notorius gangs such as the bloods and the crips. Loose laws cause more problems, it's almost like living in a world with no rules. My opponent also brought up the number of sprees. I apologize again for being vague, when I said horrible events such as the one in the theatre, I am including all the homicides involving guns (not just killing sprees). And on a side note allow me to highlight that since the killing spree in April of 2009, the government set up more policies to protect innocent bystanders hence the reasoning behind there not being a killing spree in 3 years.
In my 3rd point I sent a challenge to my opponent asking for a detailed procedure that will decrese murder. His solution was a wild wild west solution. He says lets have everyone carry a gun. This solution is the absolutely worst thing we could ever do. If we just let every body posess a gun how are will we differentiate the good guys from the bad guys? Or worse, a gang, mob, or crew could easily set up a massacre. while my opponent sets up a solution that might help in one possible time he would wind up killing more innocent bystanders because their is such thing as genocide and mobs and crews that will kill like breathing.
So to our great audience an possible prestigious judges I give you these voters.
-My opponent's solutions are not using utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest amoun of people). He wants everyone to have a gun putting more lives in danger. And he wants everyone to be financially set which would be great if our nation wasn't already in trillions of dollars of debt.
-My opponent is looking to short term goals while I look toward short and long term goals because my plan would work effectively and immediately when we enforce them.
-I push out detailed ideas through my analyses to give solution while my opponent's solution is honestly barbaric and will put us in the "wild wild west" where everyone has the chance to shoot anyone.
When you vote, remember those innocent victims of that horrible killing spree and ask yourself, would those victims have been safer if security was better prepared? When you vote, Ask yourself would you honestly be comfortable going into a theatre where there are 2 or 3 crew legally holding a gun while your only holding one gun by yourself? When you vote, Ask would you put your children in a society where guns is top priority?
Thanks again for your time, I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate him i also look forward to debate him in the future and once again my heart goes out to all the victims whose life was taken, to the victims injured, and to the people of Aurora as my opponent said I hope you all find a state of normal.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.