The Instigator
SebUK
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Series 1 Episode 5 : *RETAKE* Severe Gun Control is good for Society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 776 times Debate No: 63449
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

SebUK

Con

The Burden of Proof is on Pro I'm only here to create counter-arguments. Do not accept the debate if you haven't been a member for at least a month .
Commondebator

Pro

I accept your debate sir/madame.

Keep in mind I am NOT for the act of completely banning gun ownership, but simply drastically restricting its uses.

Good luck Sir/Madame, and I look forward to an interesting debate!

(Please do bring up definition of a gun. Water gun? BB gun?) I am assuming you are referring to an actual hand gun (or bigger) , that can easily kill. NOT pellet guns, or water guns.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Con

I am actually reffering to the real guns, yes. You may begin, Good luck.
Commondebator

Pro

Apologies! I should have kept first round for acceptance!

I. Multiple incidents regarding society
There have been many incidents regarding gun shootings. Helpless and innocent lives have been snatched away due to another man's carelessness or anger. You could say that "people abuse people, not guns abuse people". Yes, overall it is the person harming another person, but if people's carelessness continues due to guns, isn't it logical to control guns? Yes, again you can bring up that cars also bring deaths, but the solution to that is rising the age limit, or going off of experience. You can also restrict the use of cars, but in the grand scheme of things, it is impractical. Cars are a need to society, but what need is there for guns? Taking the multiple shootings into consideration, guns weren't needed, but in car accidents, cars are more needed than guns.
List of shooting incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org...

II. Argument for constitutional rights
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -Second amendment

http://en.wikiquote.org...

Yes, you cannot take away the right to bear arms, (In the U.S), but you can still restrict the use of arms. Keep in mind I am not in favor for banning guns, but CONTROLLING its uses. The people have the right to own arms, but it is restricted to the point that it is only used in specified shooting grounds.

III. Access to guns raises suicide risk
In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others. States with low gun ownership have less suicide rates than once that do. This can affect children, and other people. People who are a little bit suicidal with a gun, makes it much more easier to kill themselves. Hopefully this is plain to see, and doesn't need much more reasoning.

Rebuttals to Con.
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Con

'There have been many incidents regarding gun shootings. Helpless and innocent lives have been snatched away due to another man's carelessness or anger. You could say that "people abuse people, not guns abuse people". Yes, overall it is the person harming another person, but if people's carelessness continues due to guns, isn't it logical to control guns? Yes, again you can bring up that cars also bring deaths, but the solution to that is rising the age limit, or going off of experience. You can also restrict the use of cars, but in the grand scheme of things, it is impractical. Cars are a need to society, but what need is there for guns? Taking the multiple shootings into consideration, guns weren't needed, but in car accidents, cars are more needed than guns.
List of shooting incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org......' I think it is important to know that the number of shootings in the US has not increased over the last few decades (http://time.com......) . The worst year for the US when it comes to mass shootings was 1929 , 'In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.' (- http://www.nationalreview.com......). Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp writes at Cato, "In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.'" -(http://www.washingtonpost.com......) . 'Yes, you cannot take away the right to bear arms, (In the U.S), but you can still restrict the use of arms. Keep in mind I am not in favor for banning guns, but CONTROLLING its uses.' By making guns harder to get you would cause an increase in crime rates . 'from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country. 4' (-http://thomas.loc.gov......) This number would clearly suggest that gun rights lower crime rates. My opponent then talks about how states with low gun ownership rates have less suicide. Suicide is a personal choice and you should not take away somebodies right to gun ownership just because someone want's to kill himself which is irrelevant. Extra Info : 'With just one single exception, the attack on congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1915 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.'.-(http://spootville.blogspot.co.uk...) . Guns are used 7 times more frequently in self defense than they are used during the commission of a crime. - (http://www.electsteveowens.org...). After 60 years of increasing gun control the UK murder rates got worse -(https://www.youtube.com...)-9 minute mark. The UK more specifically had less violance before 1920 when there was much less gun control. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are about 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America every year. I think the case here is pretty strong for gun rights , I thank my opponent for making his case.
Commondebator

Pro

I agree with the fact on how lots of guns do my necessarily mean lots of shootings however, with the list that I have given with school shootings in U.S, in the future, restriction the use of firearms as a weapon choice, means less violence involving shootings. When I say further restricting uses, I mean that some gun related incidents (9 year old shooting instructor) can indeed be prevented if we restricted the uses! Such as, not giving a gun to a 9 year old for starters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

I. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. Which proves my point that stricter gun control can lead to less gun relayed murders.

My opponent then brings up how guns are used more for self defense than murder. I would like to ask him, what kind of defense?

My opponent then brings up how lower gun control reduces crime. How do you know that the crime number in the "right to carry states" were not constant, or almost same throughout the time?

According to my source less gun means less suicide. Yes it is a personal choice, but restricting guns can lead to fewer suicide rates. Which I assume is a favorable outcome.
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Con

'I agree with the fact on how lots of guns do my necessarily mean lots of shootings however, with the list that I have given with school shootings in U.S, in the future, restriction the use of firearms as a weapon choice, means less violence involving shootings. ' I have shown in the previous Round how other countries that don't have severe gun control (Israel and Switzerland) don't have a lot of mass shootings and have low murder rates which shows us that there is no evidence proving that there is so many gun shootings in the US due to the fact that guns are not severely controlled, I would like to mention that the Columbine High School massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and such are not deficiencies of American gun control laws. 'Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.' -(http://www.cato.org...) . Additionally I would also like to remind everybody that Boston which has pretty much the strictest gun control also has the most school shootings and that there was a Federal Ban on Assault Weapons 1994 to 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Which did not impact school shootings. 'Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn"t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.' . ('http://www.cato.org...) . 'When I say further restricting uses, I mean that some gun related incidents (9 year old shooting instructor) can indeed be prevented if we restricted the uses! Such as, not giving a gun to a 9 year old for starters.' That scenario is such an incredibly isolated case that it cannot serve as an argument for severe gun control , as this simply does not happen often. The Logic here is 1)A girl shot her instructor 2) Don't allow gun training for children , This would only be a reasonable approach if such a scenario happened often , it is not reasonable to stop millions of parents from making sure their children can defend themselves not just from criminals but from a possibility of a future tyrannical state because one instructor died due to his own stupidity. (For more info for why it's the Instructors fault - https://www.youtube.com...). 'I. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. Which proves my point that stricter gun control can lead to less gun relayed murders.' Is my opponent arguing for my side? 'Criminals in Washington have no trouble getting either prohibited drugs or prohibited handguns, resulting in a skyrocketing of the city's murder rate. D.C.'s 1991 homicide rate of 80.6 per 100,000 population was the highest ever recorded by an American big city, and marked a 200% rise in homicide since banning handguns, while the nation's homicide rate rose just 11%. Since 1991, the homicide rate has re mained near 75 per 100,000, while the national rate hovers around 9-10.' -(http://people.duke.edu...) my opponent basically agrees with me , but if he simply got it the wrong way around then first of all my opponent has picked very isolated cases and he does not show me his source therefore I cannot address something that is not supported by any evidence , My opponent has also failed to show if the numbers really have to do with gun control . Unfortunatly this is the last round so I won't be able to respond either way, As I have shown previously statistics are on my side as States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don"t , this is not even debatable - 'from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country. 4' (-http://thomas.loc.gov.........)My conclusion will be found in the comment section.
Commondebator

Pro

Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
I apologize for not being with you guys on the last round.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Conclusion part 2 'In fact every episode of genocide in the past century has been preceded by assiduous efforts to first disarm the victims' ( Turkish Armenia, The Holocaust , The USSR, Soviet-Occupied Poland , Guatemala under the military dictatorship in the 50s , Mao's China , Chiang Kai-Shek's White terror , Uganda under Idi Amin , Cambodia under Pol Pot, Zimbabwe , Darfur . ) Severely controlling guns makes it hard for the population to defend themselves , we cannot let tyrannical governments possibly murder millions of people.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Conclusion part 2 'In fact every episode of genocide in the past century has been preceded by assiduous efforts to first disarm the victims' ( Turkish Armenia, The Holocaust , The USSR, Soviet-Occupied Poland , Guatemala under the military dictatorship in the 50s , Mao's China , Chiang Kai-Shek's White terror , Uganda under Idi Amin , Cambodia under Pol Pot, Zimbabwe , Darfur . ) Severely controlling guns makes it hard for the population to defend themselves , we cannot let tyrannical governments possibly murder millions of people.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
I run out of the space so here I will address the rest of what my opponent has said.'My opponent then brings up how guns are used more for self defense than murder. I would like to ask him, what kind of defense?' I don't understand what my opponent is trying to say. 'My opponent then brings up how lower gun control reduces crime. How do you know that the crime number in the "right to carry states" were not constant, or almost same throughout the time?

According to my source less gun means less suicide. Yes it is a personal choice, but restricting guns can lead to fewer suicide rates. Which I assume is a favorable outcome.' The Burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the crime number was constant I don't have to do that, I don't find less suicide to be preferable if it is the result of trying to make it harder for those who wish to kill themselves to do so , Our bodies are our property, I should not have to live with guns being heavily regulated because someone might kill themselves. Conclusion : I have managed to refute all of my opponents arguments or at least address them in detail , My opponent has not proved that Severe Gun Control affects society positively in fact I have shown that it increases crime , Commondebator has also forgot to make it clear from where he got all his information.
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
Eav
@SebUK it's fine not be welcome (not that you could prevent me from voting, if it were my honest wish); I am just trying to explain that I consider your debate outline as a sign of "poor sportsmanship" (the concept of conduct) as it's vague (as whiteflame criticized) and has a BOP favoring yourself.
Good debaters will know not to accept this unclear resolution and poor debaters will be overwhelmed by the BOP pressure. So much for that.

I am not saying that you already lost that and I am not saying that what you do is wrong. I am just trying to point out why people might be not in the mood to debate you. The same reasons why kids don't play with kid that always makes the rules to his advantage.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
SebUK, that is not a sufficient answer. I did not ask you to simply define the term, but rather to define it in context. Tell me what is and what is not severe gun control. Otherwise, if I were to accept, my case would fit my concept of what is "very great; intense," which probably differs from your perception.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
'What does it say about an Instigator that chooses a debate in a way so he has no BOP on a topic he initiated? What does it say about an Instigator that sets up a debate clearly to his advantage? Welcome to a debate where I'd say Con starts with a negative score on the conduct points.' You are not welcome to vote on the debate , as the structure of the debate does not matter , voting is not for the way I structured the debate but how I debated.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
' very great; intense:' -Oxford English dictionary
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
you have to either omit the term "severe" or define it for anyone to be inclined to take this
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
what do you consider to be severe? Hard to accept debate cause risky if i don't know what you define as that.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
SebUKCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Willreiley said it
Vote Placed by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
SebUKCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments, ff.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
SebUKCommondebatorTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Good use of sources by both debaters. Poor S&G by both debaters. Con, especially, should use paragraphs to make his posts easier to read. Arguments were about equal, but Pro forfeited the last round, so arguments and conduct to Con.