The Instigator
Jlconservative
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Idontcare
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Loosen gun control

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,974 times Debate No: 1904
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (10)

 

Jlconservative

Pro

Gun control, probably one of the most heated controversies in politics today,and I think a fun topic to debate on.

The constitution on the United States of America allows citizens the right to bare arms. And yes today citizens are allowed to bare arms, however not extensively. I am sick of hearing about these women being ripped to pieces by homicidal men, gun control should be allowed on a more loose system. If you cannot carry a gun in areas where you are more likley going to use it what's the point in carrying one? Gun control should have a more thorough search and background system and then that should be the extent of it allow citizens who's background is clean and has children who are not mentally ill or have a history of a mental sickness background carry weapons extensively. If 3/5 women carried small caliber pistols the sexual and homicidal crime rate were these animals victimize women will drop rapidly.
Idontcare

Con

First off wow,
but that aside gun control should be tightened more, the point of gun control is to stop killing and stop "homicidal men" from getting guns.

Sure a few manage to get their hands on one and they do hurt people but there is no doubt that more would get hurt if the gun control rules were weaker if you really think about it that portion of the constitution was written when there were indians and other nations in North America (No offence Canada) that had a means of getting to the population before the army even knew about it unlike today where we have a Navy and an Army and a Air Force oh and 50 National Guards...... see my point?

As for having a gun where you'd really need one, the rules make it so that you need one less and if they were really followed you wouldn't need one at all, so again if anything guns should be made illegal period, if everyone who wanted a gun was able to buy one there would be 10 times as many deaths related to guns then there are now and were already the country with the most crime do you really want that? so the choice is no privately owned guns and less gun crimes or more privately owned guns and mass destruction and chaos,
take your pick.
Debate Round No. 1
Jlconservative

Pro

Apparently you listened to nothing I said, first of all the idea that a homicidal man purchasing a weapon legally is absurd no one with a misdemeanor or any type of mental history or illness is capable of such a purchase. My argument is that we should tighten the gun purchasing and licensing like a better background search including yourself and family members, but those able to purchase one should have little to no restrictions. You give me one individual who went threw a background search and then used a concealed weapon illegally and your point will be valid until then your just spewing opinions. The problem with firearms is that guns are able to be purchased illegally easily. Tighten the gun selling but those able to buy one should have no restrictions on carrying it as long as its concealed.

Also your point about the constitution being written in "different" times is also stupidity. The times we live in now are much much more violent and dangerous than when the declaration was written. Crime is so high in the United States because there is no capital punishment anymore. It is more important than ever for citizens (women especially) to be carrying a concealed weapon, with the Bush administration out of the white house soon and the democratic party taking over the threat of another terrorist attack is almost a probability. The truth is these times are much more dangerous to the citizen and the right to bear arms is a right that should and must be implied today.
Idontcare

Con

although it is not an official record from a court case here is a little sip of an article that shows a illegal use of a legal gun

The 23-year-old Navy officer was dead at the wheel, shot by a convicted felon out cruising the highways with two friends. They had been drinking and were looking for cheap thrills, illegally armed with a Glenfield Model 25 .22-caliber rifle and a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun.

here' the hyperlink

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...

so that makes my point valid right? maybe he didn't purchase them legally but the authorities had possession of them and let him have them and then he killed someone

and the Constitution was written in a different time the dangers were closer, harder to intercept, they didn't have the worlds most powerful military guarding them they were practically expected to fight in the army when a threat did come and they didn't go around with them in their back pockets. and how safe does that make the rest of us knowing that 1 in two republicans are carrying guns around? and then you'll have (Like i said before) even more death.

It's like the domino effect, one person shoots because they feel threatened then someone who looked because of the shot sees a man holding a gun over a dead body and they feel threatened so they shoot etc. Don't say it cant happen because this is the 21's century Mr. "The 1700's weren't a different time" the 1800's are much closer and it happened then.

As for people need guns because Democrats are in office? or was it terrorists? Either way that's what the Military/ FBI/ CIA/ Police are for so i don't think that we need any 80 year old women gunning down Osama any time soon.
Debate Round No. 2
Jlconservative

Pro

"The 23-year-old Navy officer was dead at the wheel, shot by a convicted felon out cruising the highways with two friends. They had been drinking and were looking for cheap thrills, illegally armed with a Glenfield Model 25 .22-caliber rifle and a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun."

This does not prove your argument at all, I asked show me one person who went threw the system to purchase a gun and then used it illegally. I asked my opponent to show me a person who went threw the system and the background search bought a weapon and then used it illegally. My argument is much stronger and has not been proven incorrect. Take illegal guns off the street, put weapons in the hands of likley victims(women) and place no restrictions on the area's of a concealed weapon that was purchased by a citizen with a better background search. Crime will drop if likley victims would carry weapons, you get one or two rapists blown away by a woman with a pistol the crime drops.
Idontcare

Con

As hard as it is for my opponent to admit he's wrong... he is, what he fails to realize is that a bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter who shoots the gun, there will always be less harmful ways to disarm a mugger/rapist (May i suggest a tsar or mace) that are just as effective and (If used properly) not deadly at all. Does it matter who shoots the gun let it be a woman or a criminal, a life is a life.

As for you saying that the case i provided was not sufficient proof i disagree strongly saying that this convicted fellon was able to posses a gun and pass the mandatory background check that the police gave him when they confiscated the weapon's so if he got the guns back, which he did, that must mean they were legal guns, and i'm pretty sure that shooting someone is a crime.

I'm not even going to get into the complications of getting all of the illegal guns off the street, but i would like to say it would be impossible to do so.

As for his argument being stronger, he sort of just spewed ideas and thoughts that had very little in common.

Gun control should be tightened for several reasons including but not limited to:

1. The right to bear arms does not refer to individual use but to the right for your government to bear arms, so the idea that you have a right to own a gun is "Absurd"

2. even with state-of-the-art background checks there will always be some who manage to fake their way through.

3. The idea of Millions of Civilians, who have no training with weapon's, being aloud to carry them in their pockets where ever they want is like running with a stick of dynamite in your back pocket (It's dangerous)

4. Civilians don't need to carry guns because we have well established government agencies (i.e. FBI, Police, CIA, about 100 other three initial agencies, and for more major threats the military)
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
I can't believe it. This isn't like Abortion, people, where the courts had to invent a "right" to have one. The right to bear arms is RIGHT THERE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT. But of course, that doesn't matter to some people.
Posted by Jlconservative 9 years ago
Jlconservative
All I have to say is "The right to bear arms does not refer to individual use but to the right for your government to bear arms" wow.....that is a scary thing for a citizen of the U.S.A to actually believe is what the constitution says.
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
Apperantly, you don't understand U.S. culture, JOEMER21, because even if handguns were made illegal, criminals would still have them. We live in a violent culture in the U.S., and the only thing banning handguns would achieve is make law-biding citizens defensless against criminals with guns. Maybe it works in Ireland because nobody would even want a handgun, but it doesn't work in the U.S.
Posted by JOEYMER21 9 years ago
JOEYMER21
Handguns are your problem . In ireland we are allowed have shotguns and rifles and there are almost no gun related crimes.nobody needs a gun that can fit in your pocket
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Talk about taking opposite, and extreme, sides of an argument.

WOW.

While I certainly oppose easy access to 50MM weapons being available to the average citizen, to ban citizen ownership of guns is not only un-Constitutional it's absurd.

This argument floored me:

"The right to bear arms does not refer to individual use but to the right for your government to bear arms"

That has to be the most incorrect interpretation of 2nd amendment I've ever seen. Are they teaching this nonsense in schools these days?

The 2nd amendment declares that a well armed militia is necessary to protection of the country, but it ALSO prohibits infringement on the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms as individuals.
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
John Lott is a bum. Read "Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament," by Aaron Zelman.
Posted by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
A little side note ......... It's not the people who have guns but failed the backround check to look out for .......... it's the ones who failed it, got a gun, got it taken away, then given back to them in addition to being guilty of a fellonoy
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
You're absolutely correct. I suggest John R. Lott's "More guns, less crime," if you intend to go deeper on the subject. Good luck!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by A51 7 years ago
A51
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by JOEYMER21 9 years ago
JOEYMER21
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kibbles 9 years ago
kibbles
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
JlconservativeIdontcareTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03