Is strengthening gun control laws necessay
Debate Rounds (3)
Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.
A waiting period for guns? What would that do? Anybody with the will to kill a bunch of people doesn't care about a waiting period. A one-time psychological test wouldn't hurt, but with a drivers license, all of your background information be accessed instantly! Why would you need to wait any longer than the time needed to obtain that info.?
As for the massacres, look at Japan! There are school mass murders committed with knives over there! They outlawed guns in England, yet people are burning down London! According to FBI statistics(http://www.fbi.gov...), violent crime has been going down in the last decade, while gun sales have gone up. While America has more gun crime, overall crime has actually been lowering. Look at Switzerland! Barely any gun control, yet one of the safest places in the world. Outlawing the powerful guns would make a criminal gun-smuggling industry rise up, just like with Prohibition nearly a century ago as well as drugs today.This will allow criminals to obtain them while leaving law-abiding citizens powerless to stop them.
Lastly, just because you don't want to feel like you have to defend yourself doesn't change the reality that you do. If we outlaw guns, criminals will not feel threatened and you will need guns more than ever.
N.A.T.O. is the person who watches the watchmen. It"s pretty simple. When there is something wrong in another country N.A.T.O. votes whether it"s wrong and if it should help. They have put down many tyrannical governments throughout history, which is their purpose.
Mandatory waiting periods will stop rash decision, in the heat of the moment. If the person is forced to wait a week before killing his mom there might be a change in thought, where rational thought is reacquired.
You specifically said in your argument that gun sales and gun crime is going up. If you ask me and pretty much every person in the world if they see a correlation there they will say yes. You say overall crime is going down, that"s good, but I"d rather someone steal my car then shoot me. There are more guns and more gun crime. There is a positive correlation there. Now, theoretically if there were significantly fewer guns there, most likely, would be less gun crime. It doesn"t take a rocket scientist to understand that more guns equal more gun crime and more gun violence.
As for your argument that the citizens do not have the right to their own military, look no further than the second amendment. "The right to a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free state, the Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed." Don't pull out that National Guard crap on me, because well regulated does not mean government controlled, it means well trained and well armed. That is why it explicitly says "a Free state" without specifically naming the U.S, because the founding fathers wanted the citizens to fight back if the government ever became tyrannical. They had just overthrew a tyrannical government, after all. English troops were burning down their homes, quartering their soldiers, and the people were powerless to stop them. U.S would've never become independent.s, and the people did not have arms to defend themselves. We're lucky that they started making some arms, or the You say that the only reason that you would need a modified assault rifle is defend your house from an army. Well how about our own military? Like you said, we don't want the army patrolling our streets, but who's going to stop them if the citizens don't have arms?
I'm all for a one-time psychological test on potential gun-owners, as well as an accessible database of mentally unstable people, so I can't disagree with you their. And if we have that psychological test, why would we need the waiting period? you say a rational person might decide not to kill their mother within that week, but I say a rational person wouldn't want to kill their mother at all, and with the psychological test, we already know who's rational and who isn't.
You seem to focus on the factoid that more guns means more gun crime, yet you fail to look at the big picture that more guns means less violent crime. If you make guns illegal, it'll be just like drugs. Huge gun smuggling cartels will open up, and the sellers won't care who buys them, whether they are kids, felons, whatever. Same with prohibition, same with weed, and it'll be the same with guns. Law-abiding citizens won't have any way to defend themselves, and criminals will run amok, doing as they please. Can't count on the police, because,
on average, it takes the police twenty minutes to arrive. Enough time for a murder or two?
You tell me that not everyone has every right. You say that felons who commit non-violent crimes are not allowed to vote. Do you condone this? I thought you said it was impossible for the government to be tyrannical because of the Constitution, yet we have an example of mistreatment given from yourself. This is contradictory, and contradicting yourself is usually one of the main signs that you don't know what you're talking about.
A well regulated malitia is meant to be state coontrolled to put down uprisings and if the state deems the federal government infridging on their rights they can wage war against them. Also it says in the constitution that only the federal government is allowed to have an army. State police are your malitia.
You can't be serious that you don't see the correlatin between more guns= more gun crimes. Which is what in this argument we are trying to say needs to stop so the government should step in. A country can't allow uncontrollable weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people. It's ot everyone's right to have every liberty. People originally needed guns to hunt and maybe stand up to the government and protect against indians. Everyone had muskets. You can't give everyone gun ships if they learn to fly. It isn't in societies best interest. The constitutions meaning is meant to evolve over time and it needs more gun regulations. You don't get to possess every weapon you want but you can keep your shot guns and such.
If you make gun laws much harsher to the point if you have a gun and sell it privately you need to have checks done on that person or you bare the same responsiblity as them for any crimes committed. I think this would wake up people about who is getting their guns. They need to be tracked and monitored. end of story.
N.A.T.O will intervene because they don't want the U.S in a Civil War
This may be true, but they will probably intervene on the tyrannical militaries side, because, after all, we do have the most powerful military in the world. Then then the citizens will need guns more than ever, and gun control will prevent them from defending their freedom.
Militia is meant to be state controlled
I refute this argument on grounds of irrelevance. Voters, do not let this confuse or distract you, for even if I concede this (which I don't), it would mean nothing, because this debate is about gun control. The part of the second amendment that is not up for any interpretation blatantly says "The right of the People to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed"
More guns means more gun crime
I've already openly acknowledged this fact. However, what you refuse to acknowledge or even debate about is the fact that more guns means less violent crime, while less guns means more. Switzerland is armed to the teeth, yet it is a very safe place to live. Even Hitler, the man who invaded Russia in the winter, didn't invade Switzerland because he knew that the citizens were armed to the teeth. This applies to the N.A.T.O argument as well. Ignoring facts is yet another sign that you don't know what your talking about.
Psychological testing and Waiting Periods
" A country can't allow uncontrollable weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people." How many times do I have to tell you that I agree to a one-time psychological test before you will quit repeating the same argument with different wording without attempting to refute mine? My argument has been that if you have already used a psychological test to determine that that person is rational, why would you need a waiting period at all if you've already weeded out anyone crazy enough to kill somebody? This argument has been ignored entirely by you.
Muskets were only used for defense against Indians, Hunting, and standing up to the government
Indians were breaking into their homes and farms, stealing their property, and possibly getting violent... wait, doesn't that sound like a criminal today? I concede that you don't need a full-auto to hunt, but you just admitted that they needed guns to stand up to the government. Isn't that one of the main points I've been trying to make throughout the debate? You just conceded to one of my strongest points.
Citizens should not have all of the weapons of the military
No, but they should have enough firepower to obtain said weapons should the need arise. Note that I say that they should only have the ability to get the weapons if they are a very large group, not just a few crazy teenagers.
I've agreed to one method of gun control , and refuted any argument for stricter gun control. You have repeated the same argument, made a new argument in the last round, and have failed to refute any relevant arguments of mine. I have obviously won this debate, good luck next time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BigSky 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:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Both had excellent points, but con had a source.
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.