The Instigator
JSmooth17
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
CreativeIntrovert
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Guns should be restricted and/or banned.

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 1 vote the winner is...
JSmooth17
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 42889
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

JSmooth17

Con

First, I would like to state that this is my very first debate on this website, so forgive me if I make any mistakes.
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.
CreativeIntrovert

Pro

Same here, just bored I guess. Okay, so...let's pretend that I am in favor of Gun Control!

Argument:

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.
Debate Round No. 1
JSmooth17

Con

Thank you for accepting this, and okay lets pretend haha.
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?
CreativeIntrovert

Pro

Assault weapons aren"t "Sport", there"s no conceivable reason to own an AR-15, a pump action shotgun, armor-piercing bullets or a high-capacity magazine. Firing a semi-auto at a piece of cardboard is no more "sport" than using a bazooka to play pool is "leisure." It simply appeals to the fraction of the population who dream of re-enacting Scarface"s last stand, every time they get a letter from the IRS.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
JSmooth17

Con

JSmooth17 forfeited this round.
CreativeIntrovert

Pro

CreativeIntrovert forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JSmooth17

Con

JSmooth17 forfeited this round.
CreativeIntrovert

Pro

CreativeIntrovert forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CreativeIntrovert 3 years ago
CreativeIntrovert
Sure, I'll do just that.
Posted by JSmooth17 3 years ago
JSmooth17
It's all good. Just try and defend your side of the argument as best as possible.
Posted by CreativeIntrovert 3 years ago
CreativeIntrovert
I'm just messing around really...sorry about that. Thought it would be a good way to spend my free time
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
I would accept this debate. I have too many going on right now and I will debate with you in the future on this topic if you wish.

Furthermore, define the amount of restriction you want to debate about in this debate, or else someone will take advantage of the definition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
JSmooth17CreativeIntrovertTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
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.