The Instigator
SebUK
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
wiro
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

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

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 2 votes the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 62633
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

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 .
wiro

Pro

I accepted this debate and just to clarify:
1) I have been a member for much less than a month
2) I will be arguing against SEVERE gun control not ALL. Regulations do need to be in place and I hope that the title of the debate was not misleading
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Con

Pro has showed lack of respect for other members and lack of discipline by accepting the debate and therefore breaking my only rule being that the opponent has been a member for at least a month, The debate will be repeated but I will continue this debate anyway . I await Pro's arguments.
wiro

Pro

I meant no disrespect by accepting the debate.
The gun control debate is one of the hottest topics in the US. The numbers can be skewed to be supportive of either side of the debate. While severe gun control is not the answer the 2nd Amendment does say "well regulated" which many people seem to look over.

I do believe that background checks at gun shows would help prevent many illegal gun sales in the US. While regulation is needed severe regulation is not needed. An estimated 37% of Americans own guns or say someone in their house does. That is roughly just over 110 million gun owners. According to the CDC, in 2011 there were 11,068 firearm murders in the US. Now if we disregard that in many cases multiple people were killed by the same individual and assume that each murder had an individual shooter, that is 1/100 of 1% (rounded up).

The big debate right now is to ban "military style" rifles. Many people purchase these for recreation or home defense. Yes the recent events at Newton, CT and Aurora, CO were terrible tragedies that took the lives of many. The issue is that "military style" weapons take the lives of fewer people per year than knives and fewer than blunt objects.

The focus on preventing violence(of all kinds not just gun) should be on mental health. If we remove the stigma of needing mental health help and provide care for those who show signs of needing it we can build a healthier nation.
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Con

My opponent starts with telling the audience that the numbers are not supportive of either side of the debate. I personally have to disagree , my opponent has not created an argument why these numbers cannot be used to argue for either side. '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 later mentions the 2nd Amendment but I have to remind him this is not an 'America' debate. Pro goes off on a rant in fact he admits that severe regulation is not needed pretty much agreeing with my stance. ('While regulation is needed severe regulation is not needed. '). Pro basically is telling me some regulation is good which is not what the debate is about. The debate is about severe regulation and control. Pro does not specify but I assume he then talks about mass shootings. 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...) . I do not personally agree with banning 'military style' rifles but Pro must agree that banning them would not be severe gun control. I look forward to my opponent's response.
wiro

Pro

wiro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Con

SebUK forfeited this round.
wiro

Pro

wiro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If you mean severe gun control is accurately hitting your target, then I agree.Where is your proof that government controlling our guns would make us more safe?Certainly not safe from a tyrannical government.It is the second amendment that keeps the other rights safe from government takeover.

America is 4th in the world in gun violence. But if you take out all the gun free zones and severely limited gun ownership out of the mix, we are 30th.Where I live no one is afraid to walk out their front door to be shot by a gun.Only in gun free zones is that a realistic fear.

The police are not first responders. The victim is.And when you strip him of his right to self-defence, then all the police are good for is to just clean up the mess.
Posted by a_mysterious_stranger 2 years ago
a_mysterious_stranger
Burden of proof is on pro? http://www.debate.org... I won this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
SebUKwiroTied
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: Pro misunderstood his stance, violated debate rules, and forfeited 2 rounds. Con had 3 sources, Pro had none. Points go to Con.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
SebUKwiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I regret that Pro has completely misunderstood his stance, he is meant to be arguing for severe gun control, not against it.