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

Severe Gun Control.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 577 times Debate No: 64918
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

SebUK

Con

This time the BoP is shared , Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Commondebator

Pro

I accept sir.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Con

My computer sometimes does not let me structure my arguments in paragraphs , sorry for that. 1)The right to defense against tyranny - Guns are an effective way to deal with tyrannical governments , Before tyrannical governments come to power they try to make the population defenseless . 'In fact, every episode of genocide in the past century has been preceded by assiduous efforts to first disarm the victims.' . (https://www.youtube.com...) . Is it better if millions of people die? or is it better if a couple of thousand people die every year or so? . 2) Right to Self Defense . Unlike carrying a knife or any other weapon for protection , Guns are undeniably very effective . You should not need to be an expert at using a knife to be able to prevent someone from killing you . 'Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.

The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.'-(http://www.lp.org...) . The fact is that guns are used for self-defense quite often . '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.' (https://www.youtube.com...) (18:20). 3)Efficiency - States that have less gun control actually have less crime , 'The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.' -(http://www.cato.org...) . Now let's look at a more specific location and how gun control affected it - Ladies and Gentleman I present you with Washington D.C.'If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they advocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are "working." Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 residents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, "What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from getting guns? Absolutely nothing... [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun."

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.' .
Commondebator

Pro

I. Controlling the uses for gun, will reduce gun related accidents.
A nine year old fatally shot her instructer in the head with an Uzi gun. Which results in a innocent person killed, and a girl scarred for life. (Although I am assuming so). Clearly this means there has to be some gun control such as do not let a 9 year old shoot an Uzi? There have been other incidents such as a man in Florida, shot a person for having to be on the phone while being in a movie. Apprantly, a police officer who did this was not a criminal. He had a spotless reocord and he was being threatened. (Apprantly, being threatened means being thrown popcorn at). The trigger was fired and a life was taken away.

http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.newrepublic.com...

Before I go any further, I would like to point out that this is NOT about BANNING guns. But RESTRICTING its uses. Therefore, my opponent cannot use the idea of banning guns for I am not in favor for that. (According to tittle at least).

II. Moral point of view.
Now, this part of my argument holds no evidence, but I would like to bring it up. Now, morally speaking, a person being attacked, is morally better than a person being dead. (Speaking from a moral point of view, not a personal). If a person was attacked, there are other forms of defense as well such as pepper spray. (Which I will go deeper into my argument later). Some forms of weapons, do not kill and thus making them morally superior. If another person had a gun, then it would turn into a gun fight, resluting in more deaths if in public. Again, this part of my argument were mostly assumptions so I will not go into it any deeper.

III. Other forms of defense.
it does not mean that if you do not have a gun, and someone breaks into your house, your done for. There are other forms of defense such as
1. Security system
2. Pepper spray
3. Taser guns (Hopefully we are talking about firearms)
4. Baton
5. Tactical pen
6. Having a phone nearby

IV. Increase age of gun uses.
This is a form of gun control---increasing age. As I stated beofore, a nine year old had shot an insutrctor in the head. Gun ages vary from different ranges. In 30 states, a child or minor can own a rifle or shotgun. Which is one of the reasons why there should be some form of gun control. . .Increase the age so perhaps child related accidents do not occur.

I would like to have my opponent elaborate on "severe". In following rounds, hopefully, my opponent agrees it will be rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Con

My opponent first talks about a
9 year old shooting her instructer however I'm gone ask the audience first would stopping a 9 year old from using a gun really be severe gun control? Severe is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as ' very great; intense:' -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... having said that let's examine what Pro is saying , he is trying to make the claim that gun control is needed because 1 instructer has died . The fact that this story is popular shows how isolated the case itself is . 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...) . ' There have been other incidents such as a man in Florida, shot a person for having to be on the phone while being in a movie. Apprantly, a police officer who did this was not a criminal. He had a spotless reocord and he was being threatened. (Apprantly, being threatened means being thrown popcorn at). The trigger was fired and a life was taken away.' Gun Free zones are often the reason why shootings occur in places like Cinema's , some would claim it to be the main reason. Holmes, the Aurora shooter, for example , had 7 theaters to choose from . He did not choose the one that was the closest to him but he chose the only one that had signs banning concealed handguns. -(https://www.youtube.com...) (13 minute mark ) . What would happen if in that cinema the person shot had a gun to defend himself with? maybe the story would be completly different and again this is a very isolated case . Guns are used much more often in the name of Self-Defense - '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.' -(https://www.youtube.com...) (around 16 minute mark). (http://rense.com...). Now let's go into the second part of Pro's arguments . 'Now, this part of my argument holds no evidence, but I would like to bring it up. Now, morally speaking, a person being attacked, is morally better than a person being dead. (Speaking from a moral point of view, not a personal). If a person was attacked, there are other forms of defense as well such as pepper spray. (Which I will go deeper into my argument later). Some forms of weapons, do not kill and thus making them morally superior. If another person had a gun, then it would turn into a gun fight, resluting in more deaths if in public. Again, this part of my argument were mostly assumptions so I will not go into it any deeper.' Is a person attacking really entitled to not being killed? should he expect to be treated with respect? Guns are more effective in dealing with criminals (Assesment of the effectiveness of pepper spray - http://www.safetyed.org... ) . Do you think a criminal is likely to be scared of robbing someone's house if they have pepper spray or do you think they are more likely not to rob someone if they know that the person has a gun? . 'The National Rifle Association estimates, based on data 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. ' -(http://thomas.loc.gov...) . 'it does not mean that if you do not have a gun, and someone breaks into your house, your done for. There are other forms of defense such as' I just showed using statistics that guns are more effective. ' This is a form of gun control---increasing age. As I stated beofore, a nine year old had shot an insutrctor in the head. Gun ages vary from different ranges. In 30 states, a child or minor can own a rifle or shotgun. Which is one of the reasons why there should be some form of gun control. . .Increase the age so perhaps child related accidents do not occur.' I have already addressed this at the beginning of my rebuttals . I would just like to remind my opponent we are debating 'severe' gun control not just increased gun control . My opponent asks me to elaborate on 'severe' , However I posted the definition from the Oxford Dictionary which will hopefully be enough information. Many Thanks . SebUK
Commondebator

Pro

Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Commondebator

Pro

Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Commondebator

Pro

Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture