The Instigator
Conceptua
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
That1PoliticalKid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

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: 11/5/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 220 times Debate No: 96737
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Conceptua

Pro

First round is acceptance only, no new arguments in the last round.

I will be arguing that guns should be more heavily restricted in the United States. Let's have a good debate :)
That1PoliticalKid

Con

I accept. This is my second debate with you and I hope it goes well. It is an honor to debate you, and I wish you luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Conceptua

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate :) Most of my debates on here have ended in forfeit by my opponents, so I'm glad to have someone who hasn't forfeited (in our other debate). I hope you will be able to finish this debate!

First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders.

With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease.

1. http://www.iep.utm.edu......, primarily the philosophy of John Locke
That1PoliticalKid

Con

Ok so first of all, I believe guns should continue to be sold in America, except perhaps not in big and busy cities. I think guns should continue to be sold however because shooting someone is a crime, so if owning a gun is a crime, it won't matter because they will be committing a crime anyways if they plan on hurting anyone. Secondly, the economy would be damaged because a lot of hunters would lose their job/ hobby and thousands of gun stores will o out of business. Another reason I have is because banning guns will cause events similar to prohibition or perhaps worse. If you take something away from someone, they are going to want it back. Also, people will probably illegally use guns to prove their point just as bootleggers did. Also if a person is going to kill someone, and they can't use a gun, that they will just kill them with something else like a bow or a knife or an ax or even run over them with a car. My final reason is because guns are used for defense. If a criminal gets a gun illegally, how are you going to defend yourself? Here is an example:

Smith was in the front of the store when Price and the other man entered just before 5 p.m. wearing women's stockings over their heads. Judy Moore was in the office in the back. Price pointed a gun at Smith and pushed him. Smith pretended to have a heart attack and fell to the floor. Then Price went into the office and confronted Judy Moore. Price's accomplice stayed near the cash register. Terrified, Judy Moore began screaming. "I thought I was going to die, I really did," she said. Price seemed to be looking for something in the office. When he didn't find it, he went back to the front of the store. He found Smith waiting. Price again pointed a gun at Smith who by then had pulled out his own weapon. Smith fired at both men, hitting Price in the head and his accomplice in the left shoulder, Lehn said. Price fell to the floor, and his partner fled. Seconds later, Jerry Moore, who had heard the ruckus from outside, rushed in. While police responded to a 911 call from Judy Moore, the fleeing suspect showed up at Winona Memorial Hospital, according to police. He arrived at 6:10 p.m., was briefly treated for his wound and left at 6:25 p.m. -- before police, summoned by hospital staff, could arrive. Police intend to charge him with attempted robbery -- and also felony murder because of the death of Price during the commission of a felony. (Indianapolis Star)

From

Those are my reasons why I believe guns should not be taken away. Thank you for reading
Debate Round No. 2
Conceptua

Pro

First, I would like to address this statement by my opponent:

"I believe guns should continue to be sold in America, except perhaps not in big and busy cities."

This is Con conceding the debate, as this advocates a restriction on guns not currently in the status quo. You don't even have to read the rest of the debate to vote in my favor, but not to be a bad sport I will go over all the other arguments as to why we shouldn't be restricting guns.

I am only advocating a restriction on in sales here, so holding a gun is not a crime. This defeats my opponents argument about holding guns being crimes. Also, if someone is planning to carry out a crime with a gun, they could be stopped if someone catches them with a gun which actually makes this a good thing.

As for the economy and hunters argument, there are two reasons why that argument fails. First, just because we are restricting the sale of guns does not mean we can't sell to hunters. Second, I established that the government should value safety and equality above all else. That means that if we can maintain those values by implementing gun restrictions, the economy doesn't matter because equality and safety are much more important for the government than the economy.

People who have guns might want their guns back but you haven't explained why the government should care. I'm arguing for maintaining equality and safety. A few mad people is unimportant with that in mind.

Con mentioned that criminals don't need guns to commit crimes, but guns are the easiest weapons to threaten and kill someone with. Imagine a criminal threating you with a knife or an axe. The same intimidation factor isn't their because there is a lot you can do to respond, like run, or something else if the victim is athletic enough. Guns are just pull the trigger and your seriously wounded, if not dead. It makes a lot of sence to restrict guns over those other things.

The rest of Con's argument goes over why we need guns to defend ourselves if a criminal gets their hands on a gun illegally, which consists of a confusing and out of context anecdote where someone committed a felony. Guns are in fact not a very good weapon to defend yourself with. Guns are used as self defense in less than 4% of shootings, and people who are carrying a gun in an encounter are 4.5x as likely to be shot[1]. Guns in the home are statistically more likely to be used for suicide than for self defence, which makes owning one making you actually less safe than people without one.[1]

Thanks for the good debate :) Vote Pro.



1. http://theweek.com...
That1PoliticalKid

Con

Ok, because of misunderstanding, I thought that you wanted to ban all guns. so now let me change my thesis to the fact that guns should remain being sold in America. Also, a study done by a Chicago crime lab shows that out of 70 inmates at a prison, only 2 of them bought a firearm legally. That means that 2.9 percent of criminals actually use legal guns. This proves my point that even if gun stores closed, crime would not go down much if any.

pro also mentioned that a person could run away, however, if there are still guns to criminal disposal through the black market, statistics will not change, and criminals will continue to use guns therefore not allowing you to run.

As for the suicide statistic, the person is likely to commit suicide in a different way if they can't buy a gun.

Another thing pro has said is that "just because we are restricting the sale of guns does not mean we can't sell it to hunters." my question is, doesn't that mean that America would still sell guns like regular? most guns sold are sold for hunters.

Now finally I will emphasize the fact that as I said before, the decrease of guns will cause prohibition all over again as people will be rioting in the streets. people will be very mad that they have lost some of their rights even though the crime rate will not decrease as the statistics I put said.

Based on what you have read, I would highly recommend you vote for me (con) because it is the right of people to carry weapons, and that right should not be limited or depleted. Thank you for reading and I hope you vote for me!

P.S. An ax is pretty intimidating.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ChaseE// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources) Reasons for voting decision: It was a very even debate, but overall Con wins because their statistics seemed more... impending, for lack of a better word. Pro caught onto Con's error and exploited it, but really only defended his first position, whereas Con was able to show more reasons against gun control. But overall, solid debate. I liked it a lot. You guys were awesome. But I'm voting Trump. ;)

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made in the debate by both debaters. No specific points are assessed, and the general reasoning applied is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Conceptua 1 month ago
Conceptua
I should have made this debate four rounds.
Posted by Conceptua 1 month ago
Conceptua
I copy and pasted my argument from my other debate but my opponent was not active and forfeited the debate so I hope you do not mind. I will keep using the argument until someone debates well against it and then I will make a better one. So I hope you debate as good as you can.
No votes have been placed for this debate.