Is gun control necessary?
Debate Rounds (5)
Thank you Con for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic. Now, since he did not give any rules or guidelines to govern the debate, I suppose that I should just jump right into rebuttals, and then arguments. I'd like the voters to remember that even though the resolution is posed as a question, it could be rewritten as "Resolved: Gun control is unnecessary." This means that the burden of proof lies on Con, given that he instigated the debate.
Now, onto the rebuttals:
"...nor care if they have an illegal weapon."
The evidence seems to be contrary to Con's point of view on the subject. Since 1982, 49 of the 61 mass murders in the United States have been perpetrated by somebody using a legally obtained firearm . While a few people did obtain their weapons illegally, a vast majority went through a legal process to obtain their guns. Due to the fact that most people obtain their weapons legally, it can be inferred that a number of dangerous people have been stopped from purchasing guns through background checks and other systems in place to make sure that weapons don't get into the wrong hands.
"Criminals will find a way to get weapons NO MATTER WHAT WE DO"
Right. Restrictions on guns don't exist just for criminals. They exist for the jealous husband, the twisted teenager, and the angry driver that never intended to harm anybody, but having the gun gave them the opportunity.
"Making it to wear litterally the only citizens with weapons are criminals? Or make it easier to get weapons so GOOD PEOPLE are armed and able to protect themselves against armed assaults?"
While we're at it why don't we throw out the police force and the military? Just allow everybody to have a gun and fend for themselves! That won't be chaotic!
"And truly government backed gun CONTROL isn't about safety. IT IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT WANTING CONTROL OVER YOU! The point of the structure of our government is so that we, as citizens, still have control over our government and guns protect that ability."
The government could easily take control anytime it wants to. I have my doubts about a hunting rifle or a 22mm pistol being able to take down an F32A fighter jet. Unless of course rocket launchers, rocket propelled grenades, and thermonuclear warheads became legal as well. Is it not necessary that these be controlled to ensure everyone's safety?
"With guns, we stay American. Without, we become Socialists and Communists."
This is why the rest of the world makes fun of us. I am a socialist AND an American. How is this possible? Oh yeah, socialism is an economic system, not a nationality. Also, socialism and communism are not intrinsically bad. As of now, Denmark is one of the more socialist countries, and it is also listed as the country with the happiest population. Also, a side note: without socialism there would be no roads, military, police force, public libraries, public schools, etc. These are all paid for by the most socialist thing of all... taxes.
"With guns we are citizens. Without, we are subjects."
I'm sure that Con would agree with the statement that one cannot be a citizen if they are dead. Gun control exists to protect people. Giving everybody a weapon is a terrible solution. Many "responsible gun owners" don't even take gun safety courses which is why there are lots of accidental killings/injuries. . The accidental homicide rate among children is horrifically high. Between 1999 and 2012, 259 children under 15 died because they had careless parents that didn't keep the weapon in a safe place.
If people are dying due to non-criminals being irresponsible, then it's time to impose restrictions.
On to the new arguments
The legal processes that are currently in place have proven to be ineffective. As I showed above, an overwhelming majority of mass murders in the United States since 1982 were perpetrated by somebody who had obtained a gun with legal methods. Making is harder to get a gun would have been the first line of defense to protect those people who died.
Gun control works. Of the world's 23 most industrialized countries, the United States has a gun death rate at about 20 times the others'. On the other end of the spectrum is Japan, a country where there are incredibly heavy restrictions on gun ownership. In Japan, most guns are illegal and even the ones that are legal to own are difficult to obtain. Potential owners are required to attend an all day class and pass a written test. You must then pass shooting range tests. Then you must go to hospital and get a mental/drug test. Finally, there is a hyper intensive background check. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years . According to Con, this shouldn't work because criminals will still obtain guns, but in 2008 the United States had 12,000 firearm related homicides while Japan only had 11. After adjusting for population differences, Japan is moved all the way to a grand total of 27.5. This means that the US had 436 times as many firearm related homicides.
Not only does the US stand out on a global comparison [1b], but the South  stands out on a national comparison [1c]. The fact that region with the loosest gun laws has nearly twice the rate of firearm related homicides as the region with the tightest is pretty good evidence that gun control works.
I believe that more gun control is in fact necessary to prevent senseless killings not just in the United States, but also around the world. Evidence from not only our country, but also other countries shows that gun control not only works, but also works better than minimal gun control.
I'm going to ignore that ad hominem attacks and the irrelevant arguments about socialism, and just bring up a few coherent thing that Con stated.
"I was in fact NOT referring to previous incidents, but referring to FUTURE criminals"
How can Con possibly predict the future without looking at the past? I was referencing how current criminals are overwhelming getting their weapons legally. This means that regulations are clearly stopping many potential criminals from obtaining these weapons. Relaxed regulations help a little, but the tighter the regulations the better. That's why I referenced not only Japan, a country with as few as two firearm related homicides per year, but also the difference between the North and the South regions in the United States. Until Con has evidence that contradicts mine, my points still stand.
"but police response time is OVER 20 MINUTES in some areas of the United States. A 9mm responds a HECK of a lot faster!"
Con's solution to high gun deaths is more guns. That's an awful solution. Evidence from around the world clearly shows that fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. Keep in mind that Japan did not ban guns. People can still have them for self-protection. Nobody is arguing that guns be completely banned, but strict control is definitely necessary.
"GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT SAFETY WHATSOEVER! IT IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL OUR LIVES"
As has been already established, if the government wished to take over our lives and instate martial law, they could have easily done it already.
Con has yet to disprove anything I have stated, and has only insulted me.
2. Actually, if you want to talk about low gun crime rates, ask Sweden. 1 in every 2 citizens in Sweden are well armed, and Sweden has the LOWEST gun crime rate in the world. Strict control is once again, not about safety. It is about controlling what the American people have and what they can do with their money, their lives, and their choices. Notice all of said money, lives, and choices are the people's choices. Not the governments. We should keep the government out of our decisions on what we can own or spend our money on. It is common sense. If you are in a room of 10 people, and 1 is a criminal and has a gun, he has no threat if he wants to start shooting. Now imagine a room of 10 with everyone in that room having guns and there is 1 criminal, will that criminal even think about getting his gun out? Didn't think so. Also, there was a county in Georgia in the 1980's that gave every woman a handgun. Murder rates and rape rates both went down 87% and that was the county with the highest murder and rape rates in the state. Wall of facts right here, baby!
3. And as established, I fully accept, the government has the power to take over our lives. But the point is, if they disarm us we can't fight at all. They want us alive because what good is it to control dead bodies. If we have guns we can fight and die. Then they will have nothing. If we don't have guns we will be oppressed and die inside. I get that the government could easily kill us all, but they don't because they need us alive. So the way they have to take control is take away our ability to attempt to defend ourselves. I know we won't be successful, but at least if I die fighting for my rights, I died for a cause and they have no one left to oppress.
Summary - This debate could continue to go back and forth, you being stubborn, me prove you wrong again. But I understand you'll never understand true freedom, so know I'm speaking to the voters. Please take my argument into real and non-bias consideration and realize how an armed body of good people really could help this country be a BETTER and SAFER place from crimes like assault, rape, robbery, and murder.
Thank you for your time, and God bless America.
1. Until Con provides actual evidence that restrictions of guns don't inhibit criminals from obtaining one, he has no argument. One cannot make an assertion without using evidence. The only indicator of the future is the past, and without using the past, Con is just making things up.
"To disarm a good citizen when we know criminals will have guns either way? Or arm good citizens to defend themselves in a timely manner to an armed attack by a criminal."
First I'd like to restate an earlier contention of mine that Con seems to have ignored: "Restrictions on guns don't exist just for criminals. They exist for the jealous husband, the twisted teenager, and the angry driver that never intended to harm anybody, but having the gun gave them the opportunity."
I already showed the number of young children that die every year due to irresponsible "law abiding" gun owners. How does Con intend to fix this without imposing higher levels of control? We cannot just sit back and do nothing.
2. I established in my opening statement that the South United States has the loosest restrictions on gun ownership, and the highest rate of gun violence in the western world. This town is obviously a statistical anomaly, and cannot be used as real data unless there are more instances of this occuring.
I find it funny that my opponent mentioned Sweden. Sweden has very high regulations on gun ownership. Allow me to list some of them :
-One must have a license
-One must be 18 or older
-One must pass two thorough background checks, one mental, one criminal
-Engaging in violence or having a violent upbringing usually results in a revocation of the license
-There is a list of all people with a license to own a firearm
-License holders are only permitted to own ammunition that fits their gun
-Potential license holders must join a "shooting club" for six months in order to become adept as using their weapons
-Potential license holders must pass a test
Also, believe it or not, the regulation of Swedish guns is categorized as "restrictive". Clearly gun control works.
3. This is some serious conspiracy theory stuff. I'm not even going to entertain it any longer.
So far Con has not refuted any of my major contentions:
1) The region of the western world with the highest rate of firearm related homicides is the place in the US with the most relaxed restrictions
2) Higher levels of control are necessary to protect children from irresponsible parents
3) High restrictions on gun control work very well in Japan, and thanks to Con's failed contention, I now know that they work in Sweden too (by the way, I got a kick out of the fact that Con referenced a socialist country)
I'd also like to remind Con that I'm not advocating for the banning of all weapons. I am arguing that there should be higher controls such as background checks to ensure that weapons aren't falling into the wrong hands. Con's arguments about defending oneself don't belong in this debate because guns are certainly necessary for that. We should just be more selective about who gets them and what they can do with them after that.
No we do not agree, extreme gun control appears to be the only thing that works. Nowhere has Con proven that it doesn't. I believe that guns should be attainable, but regulation should be very heavy. I do support background checks, but I support the Japanese method of regulation which I am sure Con would find repulsive. Con can look through my round one arguments again to find that.
"Britain has extreme firearm control and they have 2,000 more murders than us a year (out of a crime per 100,000 citizens)"
Um, no, this isn't even close to being true. Per 100,000 The United Kingdom has a gun death rate of roughly 0.25 every year . That's one in every 400,000 people. The USA has a gun death rate of roughly 10 per 100,000  That's one in 10000. The rate of guns deaths in the United States is 40x that of the United Kingdom.
If we look purely at the number of murders, the UK is still fairing much better than the US. The murder rate in the UK is 53.35 out of 100,000, and the murder rate in the US is 65.22 out of 100,000 .
gop_for_usa forfeited this round.
AlternativeDavid forfeited this round.
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.