The Instigator
ditzmister
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Untitled123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,302 times Debate No: 23336
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

ditzmister

Pro

Gun rights allow for the law abiding citizens of the united states to defend themselves. The issue is democrats thinking that guns should be outlawed completely, is idiotic in nature. Outlawing guns would only move crime to a different statistic, and the number of burglaries and gun homicides would go up. The true issue is gun education.
Untitled123

Con

I don't really understand my opponent's argument, but what I can gather is that by making guns illegal, gun homicides will go up? I ask my opponent to provide some sort of statistic or proof that this interesting theory of his holds. Continuing to his points on the number of burglaries increasing, I don't see how there could be a correlation between the number of robberies and the likelihood of someone having a gun at home.

Going on to present my points.

I believe that by allowing more guns without an adequate gun registry program behind it, it will be easier for 'dangerous' people to obtain firearms and commit crimes with it. By being tighter on gun laws, we're making it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, and making sure that only professionals and people that know how to use them (hunters etc.), would get guns.

Secondly, by allowing guns at home, children can make mistakes with guns and it could even be a hazard at home. Guns are currently much too easy to obtain in the US, and thus we should be tighter on gun laws contrary to my opponent's pooint.
Debate Round No. 1
ditzmister

Pro

By gun homicides going up I meant this; the gun homicides will begin to go up slightly afterwards, due people being unable to defend themselves. The number of robberies and burglaries will go up due to an ineffective deterrent against criminals. Criminals are cowards and don't like having a victim that will fight back. And if a criminal wants a gun, they will get it regardless of the laws, there is a big black market for guns that completely bypasses the law, therefore making stricter laws will only take guns out of the law abiding citizen's hands. If you had read my argument then you would have noticed that I mentioned gun education, I have been raised with guns and I have never hurt anyone with a gun, in fact I practice gun safety almost religiously. Gun education would take the some of the danger of having guns around the house when you have children, because they would know not to touch it etc. And unless someone has an insanity record, criminal record, or any other record, gun shops or dealers cannot refuse to sell so that is the biggest loophole.
Stats:
In fact, gun crime, like all crime across the US (and the UK, for that matter), is going down - you can see how much in the graph above.

The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year. Other key findings include:

• While gun crime is down in the vast majority of states, it is up in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire
Massachusetts, North Dakota, Connecticut and several of the smaller states
• If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man, woman and child in the state. There were 99 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 12% on 2009
• DC is followed by Louisiana (7.75) and Missouri (5.34)
• DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 255.98
• If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (129.87) and South Carolina (114.73) come above District of Columbia (99.25)http://www.guardian.co.uk...
these stats are decreasing due to the lift on the assault rifle ban.
If you look at Louisiana and even D.C. they have pretty strict gun laws.
Untitled123

Con

Since the second part of my opponent's argument is copy-pasted, I will only address te first half.

My opponent concedes that with stricter gun laws, people with records(insanity, criminal etc.) will have much harder times obtaining firearms, and thus will be less of a danger to the general public.

I would like to note that I have nothing against gun education and actually agree with it, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the US should have tighter gun laws.

According to my opponents logic at the beginning of his argument, I believe that the logic still applies if we were to say that every US citizen should be given a gun (loaded) upon graduation of high school, since it would act as a deterrent to criminals and criminals are cowards.
Wait what.?

I think a tighter gun registry would not actually encourage criminals to rob homes since whether or not they have a gun license is still up to chance.

What Side Con is trying to argue here is that a tighter gun registry would put less guns in circulation, know who has guns and who doesn't have guns, and make sure that citizens actually know about gun safety and education before they can purchase a gun.

All of these have gone unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 2
ditzmister

Pro

You obviously cannot read. What I am saying is that criminals will get guns no matter what, they are not going to do legal things with them so they will not obtain guns legally. Criminals are also gutless scumbags whom cannot do things by the law, so they must screw over others in order to obtain that which they seek. Seeing as they are cowards they will not attack a house that they know is defended and will not be robbed easily, its the beware of dog principle, if you see a beware of dog sign you are going to avoid that house. The same principle applies to the guns, if you know that the persons living in the house have guns, and know how to use them, then you are less likely to pick it as a target. Nowhere did I state that everyone should be given a fully loaded gun upon high school graduation, that is a horrible idea. I do not agree with gun laws that allow guns to be wielded willy-nilly, they should be just enough to keep them out of the wrong hands. Tighter gun laws would do nothing but take the guns out of the law abiding citizen's hands. And on the homicide rate I copy pasted that so you could see the raw material. As you can see D.C. has one of the highest gun rates. Now D.C. also has relatively tight gun laws. So if your theory is correct and restricting gun freedom would reduce the number of gun homicides, then why does D.C. have a high gun homicide rate. People killed each other pretty efficiently before guns, getting rid of them will not stop that, it will just move one stat, and increase another.
Untitled123

Con

Untitled123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ditzmister

Pro

ditzmister forfeited this round.
Untitled123

Con

Untitled123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ditzmister

Pro

ditzmister forfeited this round.
Untitled123

Con

Untitled123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Untitled123 4 years ago
Untitled123
i call dibs on this
No votes have been placed for this debate.