The Instigator
Samyul
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
GreenTeas
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

No Futher Restrictions on Guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
GreenTeas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,823 times Debate No: 26606
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Samyul

Pro

Welcome audience and challenger!

I am back for yes, another debate on gun restrictions in the US and have made sure to correct my flaw in my first debate, which was a misstated title, due to lack of experience on the site. Now I am back though, and will hopefully make my point a little more clear, thanks to more experience on the site!

As my opponent, you will be taking the Con side, which would be for further restrictions on guns. I will be taking the Pro side, standing for no further restrictions. I would also like to point out that this debate will not be over one specific state. Yes gun laws do vary throughout the states, but I would like to focus on the concept of no further restrictions then there already are.

The only "rule" I ask is that you leave the first round solely to acceptance and/or greetings. I only ask this because I have not stated an opening argument or statement yet. I would also like to inform you that there is a six thousand character limit.

Thanks to my opponent in advance!
GreenTeas

Con

I accept your debate and will be arguing the CON side -- that is, I will be arguing for increased restrictions on guns. Thanks in advance and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Samyul

Pro

First off, thanks to Con for accepting. Now in to the debate:


Laws already in place
Here are some basic laws already in place throughout various states in the USA.

You have to be at least 21 years old to purchase and own a handgun in the U.S.
http://forum.pafoa.org......

All states basic restrictions
http://en.wikipedia.org......(by_state)

Criminals cannot own a gun, nor can illegal aliens
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com......

You must be 18 to own a shotgun or rifle
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com......

Those are just some basic United States gun laws already implemented in to our system of Gun Control. If you read, you will notice that one of the basic laws is that criminals and illegal aliens cannot legally own a firearm in the United States. With stricter gun laws being added, who else would you like to restrict? What other citizens should not be able to own a gun? None of them. We all have the right to bear arms. Now, should we all have them? No. Criminals, illegal aliens, mentally unstable, should be prohibited, and they are. So who else would you like to ban?
Another basic law is that you must be 18 years old to own a gun. We should not further restrict that either. That is the legal age to be officially an adult. Plus, when you are eighteen, you cannot have a handgun, which in today's society is much more dangerous than a shotgun. You must be even older to own a more dangerous weapon. That makes perfect sense, we should not further restrict.

Why no further restrictions?
My opponent is obviously for further restrictions of guns. So, as the opposer, it is my job to present arguments against further restrictions.
First off being, of course, the second amendment. The right to bear arms. Lets honor our country and rights, and not restrict or abolish an amendment. Further restrictions could possibly lead to a removal of a right, or even so much restrictions its pointless to have a right.
Number two being that the gun laws are strict enough. The gun rights that are currently being practiced are strict enough, and the thought of adding more may not have an effect. Changing the legal age to own a shotgun from 18 years old to 24 years old, is in my opinion, absurd. What is the point. If I am eighteen and am planning a crime, two years of waiting will only make me want my gun more than ever, and being more anxious to get it.

Disarming the wrong people
I would like to ask my opponent what further bans or restrictions he would like to implement to our current system. I personally believe that adding more restrictions and making a pile of bans one after the other will only disarm the wrong people. The only people that will follow more restrictions and bans are the law abiding citizens not planning on abusing their guns in violent ways. For example, take cocaine or any other illegal drug. It is illegal to have or use, but criminals still get a hold of cocaine, and who doesn't? Law abiding citizens. You can restrict guns further and ban them, but criminals will still get a hold of it, and who won't? The citizens planning no violence. Not only is this unconstitutional, but very dangerous. The criminals are now armed, and the citizens needing self protection are unarmed, making the criminals more dangerous, and the citizens less equipped and protected.


Now, I apologize for the brief opening statement, but I do not have my opponents plan of action for more strict laws, and choose not to assume what he will say. In my last debate over guns I made a lot of errors, my main error other than lack of experience was the fact that I assumed what my opponent thought, when they obviously had other plans. Therefore, I would rather have a brief opening statement than one full of assumptions. Thank you again Con for the acceptance of the debate, and I now turn the debate over to my opponent.


Sources Used
http://forum.pafoa.org......

http://en.wikipedia.org......

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com......

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com......


GreenTeas

Con

I will begin first with my arguments, then proceed in the second part with a rebuttal to my opponent’s arguments.

ARGUMENTS FOR INCREASED RESTRICTIONS

As the CON position, I am required to argue that increased restrictions should be placed on guns. I will NOT be arguing that the right of law-abiding individuals to own a gun should be reduced – instead, I will be arguing that current gun laws (1) do not adequately prevent the purchase of guns to criminals or other dangerous individuals at gun shows, and (2) do not adequately protect gun owners, their families, and young children from accidental injury or death.

Gun Show Loophole Permits Individuals to Purchase Guns Without Background Checks

My opponent admits that “[c]riminals, illegal aliens, [and the] mentally unstable, should be prohibited” from acquiring guns. When guns are sold by licensed gun dealers, federal law requires these dealers to conduct background checks on all buyers to ensure they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from owning guns. The purpose of these laws is clear – to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from acquiring deadly weapons. However, there are gaps in federal law that permit these dangerous individuals to purchase weapons at “gun shows,” and the government, in order to ensure public safety, should require further restrictions on gun show sales to prevent these dangerous weapons from changing hands without background checks.

The so-called “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that permits individuals, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records of those sales. According to the AFT, over 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal trafficking investigations are connected in some way to gun shows – over 10,000 guns used in crime [1]. The ATF states that “gun shows . . . are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”

The lack of gun restrictions on gun shows allows an unregulated flow of dangerous weapons into the public domain. Currently, there are no required background checks for purchasers at gun shows, and there are no records of who is purchasing these weapons. The highly regarded International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that laws be put in place to include universal background checks, even for the purchase of weapons at gun shows, to combat gun violence and increase public safety [2]. In order to protect innocent individuals from gun violence, the government should institute new gun restrictions requiring background checks on gun purchasers at gun shows – in the same way that the government already requires background checks on gun purchasers from licensed sellers.

Laws Restricting the Access of Guns to Children reduce Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities

Currently, only 27 states have adopted “Child Access Prevention” (CAP) laws. Among the requirements of these laws are mandated trigger locks on guns and safe storage requirements. States that adopted these laws experienced greater declines in unintentional gun deaths among youth within those states, as compared to states that did not adopt the laws [3][4]. These guns restrictions – which have been shown to be effective – do not prevent an individual from legally owning and using their gun, but instead simply require trigger locks and safe storage of these weapons to protect gun owners and bystanders. Studies have demonstrated a clear benefit of these child access laws in preventing unintentional deaths, and these restrictions should be applied in states that currently do not have them.


REBUTTAL TO OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS

My opponent argues that further restrictions “could possibly lead to a removal” of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and that existing restrictions “are strict enough.”

Will Further Gun Restrictions Lead to Removal of the Second Amendent Right to Bear Arms?

The Second Amendment of the Constitution provides “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

The Second Amendment – while granting the right to bear arms – does not prevent the government from placing restrictions on the manner in which individuals acquire those arms, nor does it prevent the government from restricting the manner in which those guns are stored. The government has an inherent duty to ensure the safety of the people of the United States. Because guns are dangerous, the government must necessarily place restrictions on how these weapons can be purchased and stored. These types of restrictions, which I have argued for, do not affect “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

It is my position that even though individuals have the right to bear certain arms, it still remains the government’s duty to ensure that these dangerous weapons are properly purchased, do not end up in the hands of criminals, and that these weapons are properly stored by gun owners to ensure public safety.

Are Existing Restrictions “strict enough”?

My opponent contends that existing restrictions are strict enough.

First, as evidenced from my previous argument regarding “gun show loopholes,” current restrictions are not strict enough. Felons, mentally-unstable, and other dangerous individuals can currently purchase guns at gun shows without undergoing a background check. My opponent agrees that guns should not be sold to these individuals, yet here we have loophole where these dangerous individuals can purchase these weapons. New restrictions are required to close this loophole and prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing guns without background checks at gun shows.

Further, Child Access Laws [see above argument] that require trigger locks and safe storage of guns have been shown to reduce accidental deaths of young children. Nearly half of the states in the United States do not have these restrictions, despite the clear benefit in protecting children. Instituting these restrictions would not prevent anyone from owning a gun, but would require that they safely maintain and store their weapon in order to protect young children.

Conclusions

Gun show loopholes allow dangerous individuals to purchase weapons without a background check. Restrictions should be applied to close these loopholes and protect the public.

Child Access Laws requiring trigger locks and safe storage of guns have been shown to reduce accidental deaths of young children. These laws do not restrict the right of an individual to own a gun, but merely mandate that they safely maintain and store their weapon. These restrictions should be applied to prevent the access of young children to dangerous guns.

[1] http://www.atf.gov...

[2] http://www.theiacp.org...

[3] http://www.theatlantic.com...

[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
Samyul

Pro

First, like always, thanks to my opponent for the debate.


Response to round 2

My opponent has aimed his argument at two main points,

1) Gun Shows offer criminals and other citizens
who are not allowed to get guns through regular gun laws. A gun show is a
loophole for anybody two get a gun

2) Child prevention acts should be put in place
in all fifty states, not just thirty seven of them.

I will now argue both of these topics


Gun Show "Loopholes"

My opponent is very convinced of the idea that a Gun Show is a loophole for anybody to get a gun. My opponent states that
we should add more restrictions at gun shows. In reality though, gun shows do have a great deal of restrictions added for safety. You could ban all assault rifles, but through underground sale, they could still be obtained by criminals. There is a loophole to every rule in life.
Here is a website which
states all of rules in a gun show;

http://usgovinfo.about.com...

As you can tell, you cannot walk in to a gun show, bid, and walk away with a gun. There are restrictions and regulations. My opponent talks about a gun show like it is some sort of underground dealing. When in fact there is a great deal of restrictions. Also,
there is a difference between a gun show and a flea market. Gun shows, which my opponent refers too, are moderately strict. Flea markets are not restricted at all.

Here are some basic rules of a gun show to
ensure safety.

1) You cannot sell guns to residents of another state. (Therefore you must check I.D. at a gun show.)

2) Police officers in uniform have free admission. (To encourage law enforcement being present)

3) Must comply with all ATF regulations. (There are regulations at a show; it is not some uncontrolled event.)

4) Non licensed dealers may only display or take orders. (Therefore no, not anybody can sell a gun.)

Those are just some basic restrictions at a show, not to mention other safety measures being practiced at show.

A gun show is a monitored event, there are rules and restrictions to ensure safety.

Children Access Prevention
This response will not be as extensive as the previous. The child prevention act already in place in my opinion is a good idea and for a good cause. But it is a state’s decision. If you want it that badly, move to a state with it in place. You do not approve of it? Move away. It’s that simple. It is an independent decision.
Also, it all comes down to each independent household. The parents more specifically. There could be many bans in place, but if the parents don’t make guns hard to get for their kids, no matter what bans are in place, the kids could get a gun.
It all comes down to the parents in the household. If they are really aware of the unsafety of their guns lying around, then the parents will take extra measures to make sure that their children do not get ahold of them. It comes down to the responsibility of the owners of the guns.

My opponent dropped arguments
I would like to point out that my opponent has "dropped" a few of my points made clear in the previous round.
First off, the concept of disarming the wrong people. I will re-state it in case my opponent skimmed over it or just completely ignored it in round two. The idea of more restrictions will only disarm the wrong people. The only people that will follow and obey these restrictions are law abiding citizens who do not use guns abusively. The people who will not follow more bans are criminals that don't follow any rules. Once again I will use the example of cocaine. It is illegal, but criminals still get their hands on it and use it. Citizens do not. Same with guns. You may restrict them, but the only people that will follow them are law abiding citizens, making the criminals more dangerous in the concept that citizens are unarmed in the case of self defense.
My opponent also dropped my very first section on current restrictions. Completely ignoring all three rules I stated. And the questions that followed.

Either my opponent has no response to the previous topics, my opponent ignored them, or they were over looked. Therefore I would just like to point those topics out to give my opponent a chance to respond to all of them. If of course my opponent chooses to.

Overall response and conclusion
First I would just like to conclude that you will have a loophole with everything in life. You simply cannot patch up everything. For example there will always be a black market selling guns illegally to anybody who wants one. Try patching up the black market.
CAP is a good cause, but it is up to the leaders of the house hold to ensure the act. The act does no good if the house hold owners do not practice it. You could make a law that everybody must lock up their guns in a safe, but if the owners do not practice it, it does no good. If a parent truly wants to lock up or hide their guns, they will. If they truly don't, they wont.

The overall view is that further restrictions on guns is a pointless idea. Criminals will always get ahold of guns, illegal or not. That's what makes them criminals, they break the law. People will find loopholes in every rule or ban, and the idea of restricting guns will only hurt peoples self defense and freedom. Gun laws are strict enough, and we need to stop restricting.



Source-
http://usgovinfo.about.com...






GreenTeas

Con

My opponent asserts that I dropped or ignored his arguments in the previous round. I do not believe this to be true, and I will reiterate and clarify my rebuttal against my opponent’s arguments.

<<< REBUTTAL AGAINST PRO >>

1. “More restrictions will only disarm the wrong people”

My opponent contends that additional restrictions will only serve to disarm the wrong people, i.e. disarm individuals that have a legal right to own guns. However, neither of the restrictions that I proposed – (1) laws requiring background checks at gun shows; and (2) laws require safe storage of firearms – would prevent legally-qualified individuals from owning guns.

Requiring Background Checks at Gun Shows will not Disarm People that have a Legal Right to Purchase Guns

Federal law already requires Brady Background Checks when individuals purchase guns from licensed sellers. The purpose of this law is to prevent criminals and the mentally-unstable from owning guns, thus furthering public safety. My opponent has admitted that the current Brady Background Checks serve this important purpose.

Requiring Brady Background Checks at gun shows will not disarm people who have a legal right to own a gun. These people will still be able to legally purchase a gun at a gun show, just as they could purchase a gun from a licensed seller. As a result of these gun show restrictions, the only individuals who will be unable to purchase weapons at gun shows are criminals and the mentally-unstable (who already do not have a right to purchase guns). These restrictions would therefore not “disarm the wrong people.”

Safe Storage Laws Have No Effect on an Individual’s Right to Purchase and Own a Gun

Further, laws requiring the safe storage of firearms in order to protect young children will not “disarm the wrong people.” Safe storage laws require that a gun be maintained and stored in a particular manner. These restrictions have absolutely no bearing on who may purchase or own a gun, or what type of gun they may purchase.

Because safe storage laws do not affect who may purchase guns or the type of guns they may purchase, safe storage laws will not “disarm the wrong people.” In fact, safe storage laws will not disarm anyone.

2. Restrictions Will Not Work Because Criminals Won’t Follow The Rules

My opponent also contends that further restrictions will be ineffective because the only people that will follow these rules are law-abiding citizens and that criminals will refuse to abide by them. However, the intention of criminals and their desire to circumvent the law is not relevant. The purpose of these restrictions is to increase the difficulty for criminals to acquire these guns.

Overwhelming evidence supports the notion that background checks will make it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns. In the year 2009 alone, there were over 150,000 attempts-to-purchase guns by dangerous individuals that were blocked by the federal Brady Background Check – and, over 1.9 million since the law was enacted.[1]

As a result of blocking these dangerous individuals from acquiring guns, crime and violence has dropped. Numerous studies have found that Brady Background Checks have reduced homicide, gun-related violence, and illegal gun trafficking.[2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The effect of these background checks is clear – it makes it more difficult for dangerous people to acquire guns, regardless of their intentions, and ultimately reduces violence and crime.

These same background checks should be applied to gun shows to increase the difficulty of criminals and the mentally-unstable to illegally acquire guns at these events.

<<< CON ARGUMENT >>>

The following are the gun restrictions for which I am advocating.

  1. Close Gun Show Loopholes

Gun show loopholes allow dangerous individuals to purchase weapons at gun shows without a background check. Background checks have been shown to reduce gun trafficking, reduce homicide, and reduce gun related violence. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Restrictions should be applied to close these loopholes, prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing guns at gun shows, and protect the public.

My opponent states that gun shows already have basic rules to ensure safety. However, these existing restrictions do not require purchasers to undergo a background check, nor do these existing restrictions even require the seller to make a record of the sale. Background checks at these events must be required to prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing guns.

  1. Child Access Prevent Laws – AKA Safe Storage Laws

Child Access Laws requiring trigger locks and safe storage of guns have been shown to reduce accidental deaths of young children. [10][11] These laws do not infringe on the right of an individual to own a gun, but merely restrict the manner in which they maintain and store their weapon. These restrictions should be applied to prevent the access of young children to dangerous guns.

My opponent argues that although these laws serve a good purpose, it should be a choice of state to enact them. My opponent’s view brings up a federalism argument that is outside the scope of this debate, and which I think we should both avoid. As such, I modify my argument and simply contend that these laws should be enacted in every state, regardless of whether the legislation is national or through each state’s own laws.

SOURCES

[1] Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009 - Statistical Tables, October 20, 2010

[2] La Valle, James M, “Re-Estimating Gun-Policy Effects According to a National Science Academy Report: Were Previous Reports of Failure Pre-Mature?” Journal of Crime and Justice, Volume 33(1), 2010, pp. 71-95

[3] Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T Bulzacchelli. “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 86 (2009): 525-37.

[4] Sumner SA, Layde PM, Guse CE, “Firearm Death Rates and Association with Level of Firearm Purchase Background Check,” Am J Prev Med 35:1(July 2008):1-6.

[5] La Valle, James M. “Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 18 (2007):451-465.

[6] Vigdor ER, Mercy JA, “Do Laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide?” Evaluation Review 30(3)(June 2006):313-346.

[7] Webster DW, Vernick JS, Hepburn LM, “Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other State Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns,” Injury Prevention 2001;7(3): 184-9.

[8] Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Drake CM, and Beaumont, JJ, “Subsequent Criminal Activity Among Violent Misdemeanants Who Seek to Purchase Handguns: Risk Factors and Effectiveness of Denying Handgun Purchase,” JAMA, 285(8)(2001):1019-26

[9] Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T Bulzacchelli. “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 86 (2009): 525-37.

[10] http://www.theatlantic.com...

[11] Hepburn L, Azrael D, Miller M, and Hemenway D, “The Effect of Child Access Prevention Laws on Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities, 1979-2000,” The Journal of Trauma, 61(2)(2006):423-428

Debate Round No. 3
Samyul

Pro

Thank you for a good debate so far, now in to the final round;

My opponent has proposed two restrictions to add to our current system

1)CAP Acts

2)Gun Show restrictions

Before my statements for the round, I will go over these to main points and the pointless "safety" it may provide. Then, I will state my final argument for the debate and closing statement.

Child Prevention Acts-
My opponent briefly reviewed the topic in his last round. Like I said before, the CAP acts will never help out unless they are followed by each independent household. The government can regulate and restrict all they want, but if the owners of the guns never follow the rules inside their household, what's the point? You can say you have to keep all of your guns in a safe locked up, but if the owner of the guns never do it, what's the point? You don't need five sources of articles and books to figure it out, its simple.
The laws will only be followed if the individual who owns the gun decides too. And if the owner believes in making guns very protected and locked up, he/she will be already practicing them right now, they wouldn't need some new law. Its pointless.

Gun Show Restrictions-
"In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence." Remember, everything in life will have a loophole. You can't patch up every loophole.

http://civilliberty.about.com...

Now, are all gun shows strict enough in my opinion? No. But there is no point in restricting guns shows further, for that will only encourage underground trading of guns illegally. At least at a gun show, trading and selling can be monitored. Further restrictions at gun shows will lead others away and sell their guns "underground." That is not what we want to happen.
"Background checks must be required at the event to ensure safety," -My opponent
Once again for my basic idea above, Guns will be sold illegally wherever you are in the nation. The only difference is that a gun show is a public event, and is monitored by officials of the state in most cases. Now, are background checks a good idea? Yes. I do not deny that, unless of course in this instance, where it may be pointless at a gun show. Like I said in the round before, where I wrote out major rules. It is not like some flea market, it is a civilized event in which people buy sell and trade guns. Its not some undercover scheme.


Main Arguments for NO more restrictions:
Gun control laws are already strict enough, why more? Numerous studies show all over the nation that, quite surprisingly, less gun control leads to less gun related crimes. Here is a Q and A response by author John Lott, in his book, "More Guns, Less Crime,"

[1]Question: "It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be
reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?"

Answer:
Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction
rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will
confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative
relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the
crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent
crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect
the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over
2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they
reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which
potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a
much better position to defend themselves.

Facts from: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during
18 years from 1977 to 1994.

[2]As you can tell from statistics and logic that more restrictions may be contradictory to its own cause. These can also be related to my idea of "Disarming the Wrong People"
If you were a criminal, would you feel safer committing a robbery with a bank you are positively sure is unarmed because of new concealed carry restrictions? Or a bank that may have a couple people with a self defense weapon on their belt. Remember, the only people that will follow these new restrictions is the law abiding citizens, not criminals.
Another quote from John Lott-
Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent
horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us
all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there
are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this
question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect
is.

[3]Economist. com-
"Mr Wolfers is right: the "too early" construction is ridiculous. He's also right that it's too late. It is too late for gun control in America. It's never going to happen. There are too many guns out there, and an individual right to bear arms is now entrenched in constitutional law."

Another problem with too much control, its too late! You can never remove all of the guns on the streets today, in the gangs, with the citizens. People will not give up their guns nor will the government even be able too! It just wont work, the idea of further restrictions is not going to work in today's society.

[4]"Gun Control Targets the Wrong People" -Dr. Kyle Scott
Criminals will end up with the guns, not the citizens. Like I have pointed out numerous times over, further control targets the wrong people.


Summary on why the idea of no further restrictions are wrong-

I will summarize all of the basic ideas on why further restrictions is wrong. My opponent did not accept this debate to argue gun shows and CAP acts, so I will leave that argument for the text above. Here are five, basic reasons in the most simplest of forms.

1) Gun restrictions disarm the wrong people
2) Do not reduce gun related crimes
3) Encourages black market trade
4) Takes away the basic right to bear arms in our Constitution
5) Take away self defense and self security

Basic reasons based off of logic and fact on why further gun control will not work. In the last round when talking about disarming the wrong people, my opponent denies the topic then switches the subject back to the idea that gun shows are flawed and unsafe. When in fact, further restrictions will disarm the wrong people and not the citizens. Gun control is too late, we are to far in to owning guns to remove and ban them. If a criminal has a gun right now, adding more restrictions will not make him loose it. He will still have it. Overall, the idea of further control is wrong, there is gun violence now and there always will be further restrictions or not. The only difference with then and now is that now people are armed for self defense. In the future, with more and more restrictions there will be no self protection. Further control is unproductive and wrong.

Thanks to my opponent for a great debate, and thanks to my audience and voters for reading!


Sources:

[1]Dr. Kyle Scott's Quote in the article, "Gun Control targets the wrong people"
[2] More Guns, Less Crime By John Lott
[3]http://civilliberty.about.com...
[4]http://beforeitsnews.com...
[5]http://www.123helpme.com...
[6]http://www.ammoland.com...
























GreenTeas

Con

Thanks to my opponent for a good debate. I will use my final round to summarize and clarify my arguments.

I am proposing that two additional gun restrictions should be implemented. If you agree that I have presented compelling evidence that both, or either, of these restrictions would be beneficial to society, then you must vote for CON – as you would therefore agree that further restrictions should be added. These restrictions are (1) requiring background checks at gun show events and (2) requiring safe storage of guns to prevent child access.

<<< CON ARGUMENTS >>>

1. Background checks at gun shows will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals

When someone wants to buy a gun from a gun dealer, they must undergo a background check. This background check is designed to prevent criminals, the mentally-unstable, and illegal aliens from purchasing guns. However, due to a gap in federal law, background checks are not required when someone buys a gun from a gun show event. The following evidence will demonstrate why background checks are so important, and why they should be implemented at gun shows.

Since 1994, when background checks were first required for purchases from licensed gun dealers, over 1.9 million criminals and mentally-unstable individuals have been prevented from purchasing a gun.[1] As a result of blocking these gun purchases, crime and violence have dropped. Numerous studies have found that these background checks have reduced homicide, gun-related violence, and illegal gun trafficking. [2][3][4][5] The effectiveness of these background checks is clear.

So, why should we apply these background checks to gun shows? According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, “gun shows . . . are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”[6] Over 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows – which represented over 10,000 guns. Without background checks at gun shows, there is an unregulated flow of dangerous weapons, many of which end up in the hands of criminals. This loophole undermines police enforcement efforts to combat gun violence, and undermines the effectiveness of existing laws that require background checks in other contexts.

Moreover, requiring background checks at gun shows would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns or purchasing guns. These individuals would still have the exact same rights they currently possess. If they could legally purchase a gun from a gun dealer, they would be able to legally purchase a gun at a gun show. No rights are lost.

Thus, requiring background checks at gun shows will increase public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and will not harm the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. Background checks should be required at gun shows.

2. Laws requiring safe storage of guns will reduce unintentional child firearm fatalities

Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws require that gun owners have trigger locks on their guns or safely store their guns outside the reach of children. The purpose of these laws is to prevent children from finding and using guns, potentially leading to accidental injury or death.

The effectiveness of these laws and increasing child safety is compelling. States that have adopted CAP laws experienced greater declines in unintentional gun deaths among children than states that did not adopt these laws. [7][8] Additionally, these laws do not prevent an individual from owning or using their gun, but instead simply require safe storage of the weapon they choose to own.

CAP laws improve child safety by requiring that guns be safely stored, and do not affect an individual’s right to own a gun. Thus CAP restrictions should be adopted.

<<< CONCLUSION >>>

I have presented compelling evidence that requiring background checks at gun shows and requiring safe storage of guns will improve public safety, without affecting any law-abiding individual’s right to own and use a gun.

My opponent admits that gun shows are not strict enough in his opinion, stating “Now, are all gun shows strict enough in my opinion? No.” This, alone, is an admission that more restrictions should be required and ultimately supports my argument.

He also states that “everything in life will have a loophole. You can’t patch up every loophole.” Maybe that is true, but at least we can patch up this particular loophole by simply implementing a law requiring background checks at gun show events – a patch that would greatly improve public safety.

If you believe I have presented a compelling argument that both, or either, of these restrictions would be beneficial, then you should VOTE CON! Thanks to the readers and my opponent!

SOURCES

[1] Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009 - Statistical Tables, October 20, 2010

[2] La Valle, James M, “Re-Estimating Gun-Policy Effects According to a National Science Academy Report: Were Previous Reports of Failure Pre-Mature?” Journal of Crime and Justice, Volume 33(1), 2010, pp. 71-95

[3] Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T Bulzacchelli. “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 86 (2009): 525-37.

[4] Sumner SA, Layde PM, Guse CE, “Firearm Death Rates and Association with Level of Firearm Purchase Background Check,” Am J Prev Med 35:1(July 2008):1-6.

[5] La Valle, James M. “Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 18 (2007):451-465.

[6] http://www.atf.gov...

[7] http://www.theatlantic.com...

[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Freedom1Man 4 years ago
Freedom1Man
I tried to vote.

Now the first one to use the term "loop hole" in this debate was the CON not the PRO.

The CON is about taking away our rights per your wording, wiploc.

Samyul, I tried to give you side line pointers in the comments bar here before hand. We ended up with another Heller case though. Heller was not really a clear and concise win. It was a left handed win or a sliding lose.

You should have smashed the loop hole thing as soon as it happened.
You cannot give ground when debating with a person who is all for the destruction of our rights.
Posted by Samyul 4 years ago
Samyul
Freedom1man;
why dont you vote?
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Freedom1Man wrote:
: Besides there is no such thing as "loop holes" in laws that is a term that came about to help get people to fight to destroy each others' rights.

It is Pro's term. Pro isn't trying to destroy your rights.

: Gun shows are where a group of people can come together and make private sales of firearms. You can sell them through a local paper but then you have to worry about a stranger coming to your home and knowing where you live. At a gun show I can buy and sell guns in relative safety. Strangers never learn where I live, I don't have to worry about walking into a criminal enterprise when trying to buy a listed gun.

Cool. Good to know, and well expressed. Too bad Pro didn't make that point.

: Criminals will steal guns and then sell them to each other. Unless it was part of operation "Fast and Furious," in which case the ATF helped criminals buy guns.

Pro didn't make that point either. I don't see how it could have helped his case if he had. If criminals steal and sell guns, does that somehow refute the studies that prove trigger-lock laws reduce injury to children?
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Freedom1Man wrote:
: Only those who are not going to commit crimes are going to follow any laws anyways.

By that logic, we shouldn't have any laws.

: Trigger locks only help keep criminals from getting shot.

Now that's an interesting argument. Had Pro made that argument, then Con would have had to respond to it. Wait, Con's argument is relevant anyway. Con said that studies show that trigger lock laws reduce damage to children. So, you're wrong.

: You compare apples to oranges with the murder and gun show "loop holes". First off you have a RIGHT to own guns, you do NOT have the right to commit murder.

Pro didn't argue that every rule <insert something about rights here> has a loophole. He said every rule---regardless of whether you have rights---has a loophole.

: It is wrong to pass trigger lock laws because it effectively disarms the gun owner in his/her own home so they would be unable to protect their children from any assailant(s) who might break in to their home. Then to make it worse that law would cause a bigger break down of the 4th Amendment because the police will determine that they have the right to come in your home and inspect all your guns without a warrant even.

Two good arguments. Pro could have made those arguments if he'd wanted to, in which case, Con would doubtless have responded.
Posted by Freedom1Man 4 years ago
Freedom1Man
Only those who are not going to commit crimes are going to follow any laws anyways.

Trigger locks only help keep criminals from getting shot.

You compare apples to oranges with the murder and gun show "loop holes". First off you have a RIGHT to own guns, you do NOT have the right to commit murder.

It is wrong to pass trigger lock laws because it effectively disarms the gun owner in his/her own home so they would be unable to protect their children from any assailant(s) who might break in to their home. Then to make it worse that law would cause a bigger break down of the 4th Amendment because the police will determine that they have the right to come in your home and inspect all your guns without a warrant even.

Besides there is no such thing as "loop holes" in laws that is a term that came about to help get people to fight to destroy each others' rights. Gun shows are where a group of people can come together and make private sales of firearms. You can sell them through a local paper but then you have to worry about a stranger coming to your home and knowing where you live. At a gun show I can buy and sell guns in relative safety. Strangers never learn where I live, I don't have to worry about walking into a criminal enterprise when trying to buy a listed gun.

Criminals will steal guns and then sell them to each other. Unless it was part of operation "Fast and Furious," in which case the ATF helped criminals buy guns.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pro challenged Con to produce any single new gun law that would be beneficial. Con came up with two. Con gave good reasons for his proposed changes.

Pro had no coherent comebacks. Pro claimed that Con's rules would "disarm the wrong people," when in fact they don't disarm anyone except criminals who can't legally own guns anyway.

Pro then retreated to generic arguments, arguments that don't have to do with the particular issues being debated. He said that all rules have loopholes. Does that mean we shouldn't have murder laws, since some people will murder anyway? No gun laws at all, since all laws have loopholes? Pro never explained how this mantra should apply to the gun show loophole.

Con says trigger locks are shown to reduce gunshot injuries among children. Pro says if you are against injuring children, you should move to a state that already requires trigger locks. How does that make sense? Pro doesn't give a reason for that. He doesn't have a real response. If trigger-lock laws save children's lives, why is it wrong to pass trigger lock laws? Pro has no real response.
Posted by Freedom1Man 4 years ago
Freedom1Man
Gun shows are not "holes" and Con has not shown that guns purchased from them are more often used in crimes than any other gun. If we close the "loops holes" what's next? No more private sales? Gun registration data bases? Ask the citizens of all the other countries who have done that how well that has worked. Ask the citizens of California how that is working for them. A gun a legal today and next morning it's illegal and the cops are there to take it from you with out even so much as "just compensation."

So when the screws get tightened down only the law abiding citizens will follow the law. I can see how well the "gun free zones" work. It got a theater of people shoot up because they could not defend themselves. Also look at Virgina Tech how man died because they were not armed and able to defend themselves.

Also note that you have NO right to police protection so you are liable for your own protection 100% of the time that you're not in police custody or in the courts.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by CRSdave 4 years ago
CRSdave
SamyulGreenTeasTied
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: Samyul's arguments implement common logic which was not rebuffed adequately in its entirety. While Con did present evidence to the contrary, I felt that some of the figures he presented did not serve his argument well enough.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
SamyulGreenTeasTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
SamyulGreenTeasTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I would like to debate con on this some time. Anyway, although pro cited a reference (MGLC) that has mounds of data, he failed to apply it properly. CON cited more data, therefore winning. Although in reality pro is correct, he failed to present his case effectively. As I can only vote on what was presented, con wins. Con cited more academic studies to support his case. I must vote con, even though pro should have won (easily, too)...