The Instigator
mbelliardo
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Obama's "gun-control" will not lower crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 7 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,490 times Debate No: 29806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

mbelliardo

Pro

I strongly believe Obama is a horrible President. Although, Obama's 23 executive orders have good intention and just creates more monitoring ad regulation as pertaining to firearms, he is being an idiot.
#1: This "gun-control" push is going to cost American taxpayers A LOT OF MONEY, A HUGE AMOUNT! And it will all be wasted. All it will do is put this country more in debt!!
#2: If all of his 23 orders are passed then it will still will NOT lower violence. Look up how putting countless regulations on guns did for crime in Chicago. http://www.newsmax.com...
imabench

Con

"#1: This "gun-control" push is going to cost American taxpayers A LOT OF MONEY, A HUGE AMOUNT! And it will all be wasted. All it will do is put this country more in debt!!"

The resolution is whether or not Obama's 23 executive orders regarding gun control will reduce crime, not whether or not it will cost money....

"#2: If all of his 23 orders are passed then it will still will NOT lower violence. Look up how putting countless regulations on guns did for crime in Chicago"

The regulations in Chicago revolved around a handgun ban. None of the 23 executive orders authorizes any kind of ban on handguns, or any kind of gun for that matter.

==========================================================================

Theres a lot of confusion among people about what the actual 23 executive orders are, so heres a list of all 23 of them.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
http://www.slate.com...

==========================================================================

Out of this entire list,

- Numbers 1,2,3,5, and 6 all have to do with strengthening background checks.

- Number 4 is to review which categories of people arent allowed to own a gun and see if dangerous people are getting around it somehow.

- Number 8 is to update standards for guns and reclassify what is safe and what isnt.

- Numbers 9 and 10 are meant to help officials track down lost guns and trace guns found in crimes to their distributers to reign in the potential for more crime to occur

- Number 11 is meant to hire a director for the agency meant to enforce gun control on a national level (there hasnt been a director in years for some reason)

- Numbers 12, 18, and 19 are meant to train/hire schools and police officers to better respond to a shooter situation like what happened in Newton to at least limit the scope of a potential tragedy

- Numbers 7 and 13 seem pretty useless to me in my opinion

- Numbers 14 and 15 are meant to do research to report the effectiveness of multiple forms of gun control to utilize the most successful tactics on a national level.

- And personally I have no idea how numbers 16, 20,21,22, and 23 are even related to gun violence

==========================================================================

Basically, Obama's 23 executive orders focuses primarily on
1) Strengthening background checks and penalties for lying on background checks,
2) Update who shouldnt be allowed to own a gun and update existing safety standards for guns
3) Make it easier to track down lost guns and trace guns used in crimes to their sources to limit more potential crime in the future,
4) Hire a director for the government agency meant to enforce gun control,
5) Research the effectiveness of currently existing forms of gun control
and 6) Allow schools and Police officers to be able to better respond to a shooter situation.

There is plenty of evidence that background checks work:
http://www.star-telegram.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://center4research.org...

From the last source: "The researchers compared rates of gun-related suicides and homicides between areas where background checks were performed by local law enforcement agencies and areas where they were performed by the FBI between the years 2002 and 2004. They found that areas where background checks by local law enforcement agencies were required had 27% lower rates of gun-related suicides and 22% lower rates of gun-related murders"

Background checks simply work.

As for the other executive orders, the one that would aim to make it easier to track down lost guns could reduce crime by
A) Preventing those lost guns from falling into the wrong hands
B) Return those guns back to the law-abiding citizen (most guns are bought by ordinary people for self defense) which could in turn stop a potential mugging, kidnapping, burglary, etc. from occurring.

The three meant to increase security at schools and train police officers to better handle a shooter situation would also help reduce crime by greatly reducing the potential damage a shooter could cause, and police officers in schools could potentially deter crimes being committed in schools that arent gun related as well.

Thats all I got for now.
Debate Round No. 1
mbelliardo

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. Good luck.
First of all, I am already regretting that I was too specific in my debate topic. What I really wanted to do was talk about his gun control as a whole. Yet, none the less, here it goes.
I am well aware of what his executive orders are. You make a very good and logical argument. Here, I will break each order down myself and try to correlate it to how it will NOT lower crime.

#1) Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system
-We already have a background check system in place. Under the Brandy Handgun Violence Prevention Act. http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, what "relevant data" is Obama talking about? Is this "relevant data" different than the data that is already checked by the NICS during their background check? Therefore, if it is the same, and there is no difference, no change in crime will occur.

#2) Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
-This one I can understand. Yet, seeing to as the mentally ill person who shot up the elementary school did not legally obtain the firearm he used, show's that a law mitigating the privacy of an individuals health records won't matter too much. If someone is mentally ill or crazy enough, they will either borrow or steal someones gun or use a different weapon to accomplish his evil and twisted goal. It would have been just as bad or worse if he just lit he entire school on fire using jugs of LEGAL gasoline and LEGAL matches that require NO background checks for mental illness. Therefore, I believe #2 won't make much of a difference at all.

#3) Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
-"Improve Incentives?" Does that mean spend more taxpayer dollars and/or increase spending to "bribe" states? Anyways, bribing states for background information does not seem at all necessary or effective. Due to the fact that no state would allow someone who is convicted of a felony to get a firearm. So, what's the point for the federal government to spend more money on information for a background check when that said state already does one?

#4) Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
-Appoint the Attorney General? What more can he do that the NICS isn't already doing during every background check?
And on top of that, I believe there is a hidden agenda here. Our current Attorney General is Eric Holder. The Attorney General is DIRECTLY appointed by the President and can be removed by the President at any time. And Eric Holder just so happens to be thee FIRST African-American Attorney General. Obviously, the Attorney General will be Obama's puppet. I went a little off track, but I just felt like adding that.

#5) Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
-This is already being done. The Police run background checks when they pull you over. And if they take your gun(s) they will not just give it back to you without running your history. So, I am not sure what Obama is talking about. If I am right, then this proposal is another waste of time.

#6) Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
-"Provide Guidance?" If a dealer has a question about running a background check, e can easily call a government official. Once again, this proposal is also useless in lowering crime.

#7) Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
-Not really sure how to nicely and softly respond to this one......Ok, but you can spend all this money and all this time for this "campaign" but people already know the responsible thing to do. And, yet people just ignore responsibility. You can't fix that problem with campaigning.

#8) Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
-This one is ridiculous, gun locks ALREADY work! And again, you can't make someone become responsible enough to lock up their weapons. If they are an irresponsible person, they are going to act like an irresponsible person. And gun locks don't work when they are unlocked!

#9)#10) Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations; Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
-Good luck on finding them. That's all I have to say. I'm sure our lost and stolen guns will be found as fast as the Fast and Furious guns.

#11) Nominate an ATF director.
-Yes, hire another puppet for your disposal, like Eric Holder. And how would this ATF director lower crime? What will he do that the ATF isn't already doing? You can't argue either way on this one. There is not enough information for debating #10.

#12) Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
-The Police have already been trained in active shooter situations. And if there is a barricaded suspect or hostage situation then SWAT will take over, and they already have plenty of training and they are always training more already.

#13) Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
-Wow! That sounds like a sound plan. I'm pretty sure my taxes already pay for the ATF, FBI, and the Police. So, what are you trying to do exactly?

#14) Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
-This will just reiterate what everyone already knows. Yet, another ways of time.

#15) Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
-Gun safes, trigger locks, safety, and only aiming at something you intend to kill should be enough. There are already millions of guns in the us. And criminals obtained a whole lot of them illegally. An they will not go legally buy a "SAFER" gun. And no law abiding citizen will by a safer gun. Due to the fact that it will most likely mean the difference between life and death if you forget to disengage the safety when ou are trying to defend yourself or loved ones.

#16) Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
-This is a violation of my Privacy! If I am not trying to buy a gun from him, he doesn't need to know. And in no way can I see this proposal lowering crime.

#17) Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
-All this proposal is accomplishing is stating the obvious. And stating the obvious won't lower crime either.

#18) Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
-More incentives That's more money. How about you let teachers, aid, etc carry concealed guns and use their 2nd amendment rights to defend themselves and their students. And there are only so many police officers to go around, if that is what he means by "resource officers". And if it is some kind of school security push, it still will NOT lower crime. The majority of crime does not happen in schools anyway. Maybe if you just let every teacher conceal carry and take the money spent on "Resource Officers" to pay for more Police Offices. Then, maybe crime might go down then.

I'm out of space TBC...
imabench

Con

Executive Order Number 1:

"We already have a background check system in place. Under the Brandy Handgun Violence Prevention Act. So, what "relevant data" is Obama talking about?"

In the case of "Printz v United States", the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

Basically, nationwide background checks is something that the federal government cant oversee, it all has to be kept in shape by the collaboration of all the individual US states. Some of these states though have vastly different laws on the books about what is and what isnt relevant information. This executive order would define what is or isnt relative information so that states are all on the same page when it comes to transferring information of people who want to get a gun.
http://www.denverpost.com...

E.O.2)

"seeing to as the mentally ill person who shot up the elementary school did not legally obtain the firearm he used, show's that a law mitigating the privacy of an individuals health records won't matter too much."

Not all mentally ill people can easily work their way around background checks like Lanza did. Background checks are a massive roadblock for mentally deranged people trying to get a gun, and to point to one instance and assume thats how ALL mentally ill people operate when they try to get guns is ludicrous.

E.O.3)

"Anyways, bribing states for background information does not seem at all necessary or effective. Due to the fact that no state would allow someone who is convicted of a felony to get a firearm."

They do that all the time because of how underfunded those agencies are. There are 270 million guns in a nation of 300 million people, and the government agency meant to handle gun control only has a staff of 5,000 people. Not to mention, this same agency also has to track tobacco and alcohol along with firearms.
http://www.knoxviews.com...
http://www.reuters.com...

If a state agrees to increase funding for background checks and existing forms of gun control, then the government will help fund the agencies within the state that would carry out these tasks according to this Executive order, which will help reduce crime.

E.O.4)

"What more can he do that the NICS isn't already doing during every background check?"

The NICS is merely a database containing records of people and their backgrounds, the role of the ATF is to actually go out and shut down places illegally selling and manufacturing firearms, seize caches of weapons that are being stored or illegally held by people, retrieve the guns seized from cartels and drug rings within the US, etc.

The ATF basically does the dirty work of actually going out and retrieving the guns already used in crimes or illegally owned while the NCIS just keeps a list of everyone who is and isnt allowed access to a gun. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

E.O.5)

"This is already being done. The Police run background checks when they pull you over"

Police officers cant run a full background check before returning a firearm because what the FBI considers to be enough information is only a fraction of what other state departments use when running background checks to begin with. Most background checks only include criminal history, not any information regarding mental health or drug abuse.

http://www.mercurynews.com...

This gives officers more information which will help them better asses if someone should get their gun back or not.

E.O.6)

"If a dealer has a question about running a background check, he can easily call a government official"

Go find the number then... Lets see how long it will take you and you'll see how 'easy' it is or isnt....

If you dont want to waste your time though Ill reiterate the point though that these government agencies are horribly understaffed and underfunded, and that there are hundreds of thousands of gun dealerships and gun stores throughout the US. Such a letter would be a general FAQ that could answer commonly asked questions and save everyone a whole lot of time and effort....

E.O.8)

"This one is ridiculous, gun locks ALREADY work!"

Then how come a three year old can get past them?
http://www.forbes.com...

Seriously, are you researching the things you say at all or are your arguments driven by your own opinions and imagination?

E.O 9 + 10)

"Good luck on finding them. That's all I have to say."

Ok now im SURE that your arguments are being driven by your own opinions.... Youre argument against tracking lost guns to make sure that they dont end up in the wrong hands is 'good luck finding them'? For real? I feel like im just wasting my time at this point. Its clear that locating lost guns will prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.

E.O. 11)

"What will he do that the ATF isn't already doing"

- Push for more funding,
- Hire more agents
- Coordinate with state governments to better utilize the resources they have at hand
- Choose what the agency should focus on fixing first and foremost
- Reorganize how information is shared so that information gets where it needs to be faster and cheaper

Thats just off the top of my head. Imagine a classroom with no teacher though, a hell of a lot more gets done when there is someone at the helm and in control of things.

E.O.12)

"The Police have already been trained in active shooter situations"

Oh yeah sure because the shootings at Newton, Virginia Tech, and the Aurora movie theater went so well right?..... Again this is just your own opinion on how you think everything works rather then the reality of it all. Its straightforward logic to conclude that if police officers are better trained to handle a shooter situation, it will limit how much damage is done, and could even intimidate potential shooters into not going through with their plan. Hell an officer may be able to take out a shooter before he kills a sinle person, which counts as lowering crime.

E.O.13)

"I'm pretty sure my taxes already pay for the ATF, FBI, and the Police. So, what are you trying to do exactly?"

Maximize enforcement efforts means utilize the resources those agencies already have to better organize against gun crime without just asking for more money, which is something that we all agree is a smart move and a smart thing to do and will help lower crime.

E.O.14)

"This will just reiterate what everyone already knows. Yet, another ways of time."

And you know this for sure because.....? Seriously dude, stop assuming you know everything that will happen and give actual arguments and sources for your claims.... Theres no reason to assume that this will turn up nothing useful.

E.O.15)

"Gun safes, trigger locks, safety, and only aiming at something you intend to kill should be enough"

You must have a really bad definition of what gun control is if you think that safeties and trigger locks is all the gun control you need... Gun control includes conceal carry laws, handgun bans, assault weapon bans, ect. that are enacted on state levels which certainly are worth looking into to see which ones are the most effective and which ones suck.

E.O.18)

"More incentives That's more money"

OH THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, WE KNOW THAT ALREADY.

Look, 99% of the Pro's arguments are based on his own opinion of how HE would do things and how HE thinks everything works, but in reality the systems in place have a lot of problems, are underfunded, understaffed, and not up to code. These executive orders are meant to fix these issues, which in turn will lower crime. Its as simple as that.

Extend all dropped arguemnts
Debate Round No. 2
mbelliardo

Pro

CON:
"Not all mentally ill people can easily work their way around background checks like Lanza did. Background checks are a massive roadblock for mentally deranged people trying to get a gun, and to point to one instance and assume thats how ALL mentally ill people operate when they try to get guns is ludicrous"
PRO:
I never used the word ALL. I understand that not EVERY mentally ill person is the same. I was just making a point that a lot of people don't use legally means of obtaining a firearm, including the mentally ill. And seeing as his actions sparked Obama to "do something" about guns in the first place. This event is and young children is the fuel to Obama's gun control fire.
CON:
They do that all the time because of how underfunded those agencies are. There are 270 million guns in a nation of 300 million people, and the government agency meant to handle gun control only has a staff of 5,000 people. Not to mention, this same agency also has to track tobacco and alcohol along with firearms.
If a state agrees to increase funding for background checks and existing forms of gun control, then the government will help fund the agencies within the state that would carry out these tasks according to this Executive order, which will help reduce crime.Police officers cant run a full background check before returning a firearm because what the FBI considers to be enough information is only a fraction of what other state departments use when running background checks to begin with. Most background checks only include criminal history, not any information regarding mental health or drug abuse.
PRO:
It's obvious we are not on the same page here. I am just trying to make a point that there is no way to prevent everyone from "slipping through the cracks". And increasing the research, investigation, personnel, regulations, incentives to states, rights to break privacy, etc. all to somehow make the background heck system better, is a waste of money and a lost cause within itself. Seeing to as most criminals commit crimes with guns obtained in an illegal manner aka bypassing the background check system.
http://www.pbs.org...
Yet, I do agree with you on EO4 for pushing to shutdown gun dealers that are illegally selling guns. I also agree with your argument for EO6. But, the goal, it seems, Obama is trying to get to is make a universal and federally regulated background check system with no state lines or privacy acts hindering it. It will end up being a waste and it won't work. It will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com....
And I am also very much against taking more rights away from the states and giving more power to the federal government. http://www.nationalaffairs.com....
CON:
Then how come a three year old can get past them?
Seriously, are you researching the things you say at all or are your arguments driven by your own opinions and imagination?
PRO:
I understand COMPLETELY what you are taking about. But, that only pertains to cheap electronic gun safes because they suck. I have never owned one and nobody I know owns one. They are simply put, NOT reliable. Guns are very dangerous in the wrong hands and locking them up should be taken seriously.
#1 It should be stored very high up, away from the reach of children
#2 Electronic locks should never be used, i my opinion, combination locks or keyed locks are the best choice.
I also see you point on EO11, but there is no proof that the push will work. And there is no proof hat it will reduce crime. We will just have to watch the crime rates and how they change.
CON:
Oh yeah sure because the shootings at Newton, Virginia Tech, and the Aurora movie theater went so well right?..... Again this is just your own opinion on how you think everything works rather then the reality of it all. Its straightforward logic to conclude that if police officers are better trained to handle a shooter situation, it will limit how much damage is done, and could even intimidate potential shooters into not going through with their plan. Hell an officer may be able to take out a shooter before he kills a sinle person, which counts as lowering crime.
PRO:
Just because the Police were not doing their job "up to par" in a few isolate events, you think EVERY Police Department needs special trainig for shooter situations? If some guy at my work destroys a Signal Converter for our Reactor Control System at my job, and they make EVERY person in the company go through some crazy training on it just because one idiot. EVERYONE was already trained on it. It is up to the person on how they apply their knowledge. And the SWAT team has every skill required for dealing with shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org...
CON:
And you know this for sure because.....? Seriously dude, stop assuming you know everything that will happen and give actual arguments and sources for your claims.... Theres no reason to assume that this will turn up nothing useful.
PRO:
And there is no reason to assume that it will turn up something useful.
CON:
You must have a really bad definition of what gun control is if you think that safeties and trigger locks is all the gun control you need... Gun control includes conceal carry laws, handgun bans, assault weapon bans, ect. that are enacted on state levels which certainly are worth looking into to see which ones are the most effective and which ones suck.
PRO:
EO15 does NOT say anything about "gun control". It talks about "gun safety technology" and to "develope innovative technologies". So, your argument is on false grounds and is uncalled for.
CON:
OH THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, WE KNOW THAT ALREADY.

Look, 99% of the Pro's arguments are based on his own opinion of how HE would do things and how HE thinks everything works, but in reality the systems in place have a lot of problems, are underfunded, understaffed, and not up to code. These executive orders are meant to fix these issues, which in turn will lower crime. Its as simple as that.
PRO:
First of all, in CON's reply to my argument:

#18) Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
-More incentives That's more money. How about you let teachers, aid, etc carry concealed guns and use their 2nd amendment rights to defend themselves and their students. And there are only so many police officers to go around, if that is what he means by "resource officers". And if it is some kind of school security push, it still will NOT lower crime. The majority of crime does not happen in schools anyway. Maybe if you just let every teacher conceal carry and take the money spent on "Resource Officers" to pay for more Police Offices. Then, maybe crime might go down then.

Con replied with: OH THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, WE KNOW THAT ALREADY.
Now, I believe I have been posing good arguments. And seeing to as NONE of these 23 Executive Orders are executed yet. It is inevitable that this argument was going to based of of logic and opinion. Seeing to the fact that they don't exist yet.

I believe CON posed very good logical arguments, although informal at times. Yet, I believe I came back with more logic and more sources to back me up. I have made my reasoning very clear as to why these executive orders will NOT lower crime and that they will just be a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Whatever the outcome, thank you CON for accepting this debate.

Take Care and Stay Safe
imabench

Con

Executive orders regarding Background checks:

" I was just making a point that a lot of people don't use legally means of obtaining a firearm, including the mentally ill."

Of the 61 mass shootings in the US dating back to 1982, 49 of the shooters obtained their weapons legally... A large number of would-be criminals obtain their weapons through legal measures, which means that increased background checks will phase out at least some of these people which will in turn lower crime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

"And increasing the research, investigation, personnel.... all to somehow make the background heck system better, is a waste of money and a lost cause within itself."

Opinion..... Again.....

"Seeing to as most criminals commit crimes with guns obtained in an illegal manner aka bypassing the background check system."

Of the 10.8 million applications to buy a gun that were denied, convicted felons account for the largest share of those rejected; persons with a record of domestic violence, while growing in recent years, are a distant second.
http://www.publicintegrity.org...

Half of all people who fail background checks were felons who were trying to get a gun.... Which is enough evidence to show that background checks, in the bad state they are already in, have already prevented thousands of felons from getting guns, most likely to use for nefarious purposes. Therefore strengthening the background system will halt more problem people from getting guns to use for nefarious purposes, which in turn would lower crime.

"But, the goal, it seems, Obama is trying to get to is make a universal and federally regulated background check system with no state lines or privacy acts hindering it. It will end up being a waste and it won't work. "

Saying the same thing over and over and over without giving any evidence to support it doesnt make it true.

"It will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun"

If they arent a felon, have no criminal record, and are mentally sane, there is literally nothing that would prevent you from owning a gun....

"And I am also very much against taking more rights away from the states and giving more power to the federal government."

I was wondering what was really driving your opinions regarding this whole thing.... Ill keep this bias in mind.

Executive Orders regarding upgrading safety standards of guns

"They are simply put, NOT reliable. Guns are very dangerous in the wrong hands and locking them up should be taken seriously."

You just did a complete flip flop where originally you said theres nothing wrong with them and they are proven to work, to they are not reliable and that cheap electronic gun locks suck.....

Executive Order regarding hiring an ATF director

"there is no proof that the push will work. And there is no proof that it will reduce crime."

Hiring more ATF workers to coordinate with states to seize illegal caches of guns, shut down places that illegally sell or manufacture guns, better utilize the resources the ATF already has, and actually having leadership are all reforms that can help guns from falling into the wrong hands, which in turn will cut back the number of crimes committed. Like I said before, a classroom with no teacher of any kind will get nowhere fast, but when there is a teacher the whole system changes drastically to become more effective and efficient.

Executive order to give training to security and officers to better handle a shooter situation

"And the SWAT team has every skill required for dealing with shooters"

I already explained how every movie theater and school in the country doesnt have a SWAT team 5 minutes away just waiting to deploy. When SWAT isnt around, the next line of defense of people are local police officers and security guards. It makes natural sense that funding a couple thousand officers to better handle a situation would be much better then spending a sh*tload more money to give all teachers guns and train them to handle shooters....

Its funny that pro is dead-set against the government intervening to do anything, unless it supports his alternative to a situation.....

Executive Order to study successful forms of gun safety technology

"EO15 does NOT say anything about "gun control". It talks about "gun safety technology" and to "develope innovative technologies""

Wow I really misread that one, my bad.

Wait a second... You were the one who two seconds ago was completely denouncing how ineffective electronic gun safeties are, which Im fairly certain qualifies as gun safety technology. This research could show how ineffective certain safeties are and help make guns safer for everyone.

Doesnt really tie into gun crime I know but still it is something worth looking into.

==========================================================================

"And seeing to as NONE of these 23 Executive Orders are executed yet. It is inevitable that this argument was going to based of of logic and opinion. Seeing to the fact that they don't exist yet."

But the problem is, youre only using opinion for your arguments and not logic at all.... For almost every argument youve given youve said at one point or another that it wont work or is a complete waste, yet never once did you go into any kind of detail explaining WHY it wont work or WHY its doomed to fail. You just make a statement and move on to the next argument, thats opinion based on your bias against a big government, not opinion with logic....

Example of one of pro's arguments: "Good luck on finding them. That's all I have to say. I'm sure our lost and stolen guns will be found as fast as the Fast and Furious guns."

How is that an argument based off of any kind of logic at all?

List of forfeited arguments:

- 1 - Pro drops the argument that E.O.4 to review categories of people who shouldnt own a gun would prevent dangerous people from slipping past the system and getting their hands on a gun
- 2 - Pro drops the argument that E.O.'s 9 and 10 will help track down lost guns and trace back guns used in crimes to their dealers, a process that would help lower crime
- 3 - Pro forfeits that government agencies used to enforce gun control are terribly underfunded and understaffed, meaning more resources will help these agencies execute their job better and fight gun crime
- 4 - Pro forfeits that the NICS is lacking in a lot of data and in need of updating, which Obama's executive orders would fix by setting standards for what is necessary information to be shared
- 5 - Pro forfeits that police officers cannot carry out a full background check since the FBI only looks into criminal history, and not drug addiction or mental health, which will be fixed by an Executive Order that lets law enforcement have all the information they need.

I would like to thank the pro though for a very speedy debate, im thrilled that I was able to finish this before the Superbowl even started. I would also like to thank all the voters for reading.

Now excuse me, I need to go cheer for the Ravens.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mbelliardo 4 years ago
mbelliardo
If Con turns out to be correct after these 23 orders are executed, if it occurs. Then I will change my belief and logic. Until then, I will stay strong in what I believe. Thank you all for taking the time for reading this debate.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
I remember reading a quote that is relevant to the attitude expressed by one debater here.
I don't remember the quote exactly, but it basically says: Once a belief is ingrained into a person's mind, it is near impossible to convince the person of otherwise.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
As for the super bowl... go whoever is winning at the present time!!! (Sorry, but I have no preference of who wins whatsoever.)

Say, has there ever been anyone who made a forum on on the super bowl or super bowl commercials? I have a strange feeling something about the results of it will make it onto this website... whether in a forum or debate.

And, IF that does happen, I also have a feeling something about Janet Jackson will come up, too...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
While I've been vocally opposed to limiting guns to magazines with ten rounds or less, imabench does a spectacular job showing these executive orders will lower crime. It's too bad mbelliardo didn't resolve against their cost-effectiveness. Then, a closer debate might have ensued.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
'Mbelliardo just needs to give an example of where gun control hasn't worked before, and why it won't work for America." -- The hole he dug himself with this resolution was deeper. He needed to show either why all 23 orders will be ineffective or that at least some of them would increase crime. I think he realized that, upon imabench's acceptance, but the gauntlet was already down.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Normally I'm for anything anti-Obama, but imabench makes a good argument. Mbelliardo just needs to give an example of where gun control hasn't worked before, and why it won't work for America. But be careful, I have read many of imabench's debates, and he is excellent at tearing arguments apart. I particularily enjoyed the nonsensical argument debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
mbelliardoimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments than Pro. Aww man, the 49ers lost. Well Ray Rice, you got two presents. A Lombardi trophy and a win from imabench
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
mbelliardoimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy victory for Con, every single one of Pro's arguments was dismantled. S&G and sources were fairly even.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
mbelliardoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really socked it to Pro. I'm giving conduct because, as Con pointed out, many of Pro's points were simple assertions backed by nothing. "Good luck on finding them", really? S&G seemed the same, and Con's arguments were based on the reality of the situation, as backed up with his sources, as opposed to bald opinions.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
mbelliardoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Aceviper's random S&G and conduct.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
mbelliardoimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: While I've been vocally opposed to limiting guns to magazines with ten rounds or less, imabench does a spectacular job showing these executive orders will lower crime. It's too bad mbelliardo didn't resolve against their cost-effectiveness. Then, a closer debate might have ensued. His order-by-order breakdown and list of forfeited arguments made his domination easy to understand. (arguments to Con)
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
mbelliardoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost the sources; wiki is not reliable, convincing goes to con, he used logic plus his own opinion effectively; where pro just used opinion, Pro did do a good job at arguing, but needs to realize that, nowadays presidents do not make any choices when it comes to laws. Oh and when they take out taxes there only taking out a small percentages makes me wonder how he felt about the other presidents when taxes were still being taken out, or how much we still have to pay back for ww2 and ww1, also now iraq, when in bushes term NOT obama. Reason why pro lost, was because he was arguing taxes or money spent not lower crime rate, but he done a good job, just not quite great on the position
Vote Placed by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
mbelliardoimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: What I thought was a knockout win for imabench with his line by line analysis of why Pro's arguments were completely flawed. Oh yeah, 49ners.