Guns should be restricted and/or banned.
Debate Rounds (4)
I am going against gun control.
The first round is for acceptance.
Good luck to whoever chooses to debate this with me. I wish you the best.
Gun Control is pretty accurate in my opinion.
More Guns Equal More Homicides. If you compared gun ownership levels with homicide rates, what would you expect to see? Fewer people willing to start a fight when everyone is armed? No correlation at all? Well, not exactly: according to decades of data analyzed by the Harvard School of Public Health, guns and homicides go together like Nicholas Cage and terrible movies.Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they"re more likely to kill you than if they don"t have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too. Of course, this doesn"t mean that you definitely won"t get shot in Massachusetts"just as it"s entirely possible that you"ll live ninety years in Arizona and never experience the slightest harassment. But statistically, the trend holds true.
There are several people who shoot for a sport. There are teams at schools and in communities that are dedicated to shooting. There are several teenagers who are going to colleges on shooting scholarships. If gun control is achieved, they would loose their scholarships, thus their education.
In the US constitution, the second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms. Taking away guns takes away this right, and it against the constitution.
Guns violence is also statistically proven to happen mostly in low income areas. Taking away guns, or restricting the ability to buy them, will make it so that these low income individuals would not be able to defend themselves against people who got their guns illegally, and wish to commit a crime with the weapon.
Chicago, Illinois has the strictest gun laws throughout the entire nation. However, Chicago, Illinois has the highest gun crimes throughout the entire nation. It is now twice as likely for you to get killed with a gun in Chicago than it was for a soldier in the Afganistan War. In the past five years, only around 2,000 soldiers were killed. In the past eight years in Chicago, around 4,000 people were killed, and 3,000 of them were killed with a gun. Of those 3,000 people, only 2% of the deaths were caused by rifles, and the other 98% caused by hand guns. This proves that with bans on rifles, they would only drop the crime rates with guns by 2%, if they're lucky enough to not have people get them illegally. Authorities have also proven that the shooting on Sandy Hook last year was done with no rifles. The shooter had left the rifles in his car, and only attacked with hand guns, thus proving that this could not have been avoided with stricter rifle control.
Speaking of illegal guns, I would like to point out that none of the weapons used in Sandy Hooke, Aurora Movie Theater, or in the Columbine shootings were licensed or owned by the shooters. This proves that if guns were restricted and/or banned, the shootings still would have occurred. People will always find a way to get guns.
If you look at where all of the shootings took place, you will find that they were in places where somebody would not have a gun to use against the shooter. If there were more guns in the hands of responsible citizens, then shooters would be less likely to preform a shooting because of the fear of getting shot back at. When was the last time you heard of a shooting at a NRA convention?
I would also like to state that guns are tools. They are objects and are incapable of human emotion or activity. This means that a gun does not kill a person. People kill people, and a gun was just a tool in the process. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that pencils misspell words or that cars make people drive drunk.
Guns are also not the only problem. On December 14, 2012, a man in China stabbed 24 people to death. This goes to show that even if guns are completely removed from America, there are other ways to hurt people. We should be focused on trying to stop violence in general rather than focus on just a small part of a big problem.
This is my statement for round 2. What is your reply?
Plus, arming everyone won"t help...Of course, we could just as easily go in the opposite direction. If everyone was armed, no mass shooter would stand a chance, right? Not exactly. When Mother Jones crunched the numbers, they found that successful interventions by armed civilians had occurred in only 1.6 percent of all mass shootings since 1980. In other words, it happened a single time in thirty years. In two other cases, armed civilians managed to subdue a killer after the shooting had already happened, which you could argue is still a good thing. But plenty of less-fortunate people who tried to get involved have only wound up adding to the casualty list. In 2005, for example, Brendan McKown and Mark Wilson both tried separately to confront an armed shooter. McKown was blasted into a coma, while Wilson was instantly killed. The trouble is, you might be an ace down the range"but when you"re in the middle of utter carnage, it"s another thing altogether. That"s why one of the few possibly successful interventions"at the end of the 2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting"came from an ex-cop. The last big myth about owning enough firepower to rival Pablo Escobar is that it"ll protect you when the government comes. It won"t. A psychopathic Federal Government would have the entire US Army at its disposal, along with enough firepower to destroy the planet several times over. The best anyone making a "last stand" could hope for is to get out alive, instead of re-enacting the finale of the Waco Siege.
Not to mention, more guns is also equal to more suicide. It might sound far-fetched, but look at the evidence: according to this report in the Boston Globe, States with high levels of gun ownership have a suicide rate almost twice as high as those with low ownership levels. Even more worrying, people who committed suicide were found to be seventeen times more likely to live with guns at home than not. Now, you might assume that gun owners or gun owning States are more likely to have mental health issues, but research shows this isn"t true.
JSmooth17 forfeited this round.
CreativeIntrovert forfeited this round.
JSmooth17 forfeited this round.
CreativeIntrovert forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Not a very good debate, though the lack of a third round certainly didn't help. Most of Con's arguments go unaddressed. The idea that a ban would not help, the second amendment, the point about Chicago, the stabbings, and harm to low income peoples remain unaddressed, and the rest of Pro's arguments are mitigatory or completely wrong. Much as I agree with his side, no, homicides have not gone up with more guns in the U.S. Con has his share nonfactual statements. The stabbing didn't take 24 lives, it took none - that would actually be a point for Pro if he took it. Con doesn't mention that many of those school shootings still involved legal gun purchases, and that in several other cases, they did acquire their guns legally themselves. Chicago is a very localized example compared with a national or state ban. And since most assault rifles are really expensive, it could be argued that their existence is harmful to the poor who cannot afford them. Con wins by lack of response.
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.