The Instigator
Commondebator
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
pjh816
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Severe gun control

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...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 65425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Commondebator

Con

Bop is shared. (Kudos to SebUK for giving such amazing arguments to completely change my opinion about gun control. Given well arguments to change my stance. I respect him for that.)

First round is acceptance.

Definition of severe: (of something bad or undesirable) very great; intense.

To clear things up, when I say "severe" gun control, it means almost banning guns, not giving to public use (even with lisence), and cannot own guns inside any home. Or, just really strict gun control.

Feel free to ask questions in regards to elaborate on "severe"
pjh816

Pro

Challenge Accepted
Debate Round No. 1
Commondebator

Con

Lets get started

I. No correlation between more gun control and less crime
"…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

-As presented by Harvard gun study

The idea that banning guns will lead to less crime is false. In reality, it is actually the complete opposite.

II. 60% of guns are used purley for self defense
No, all gun owners are not criminals, and many have not commited any crime related to gun. 60% of guns are used for self defense and banning them may in fact lead to an increase of crime. It is really no supprise that a criminal would not try to break in to a house with person that owns a gun. Why should others suffer because of shootings , due to someone's stupidity or mental diesese?

III. Decrease in gun ownership lead to an increase of crime
"
If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)"

-As presented by Harvard gun study

So, less guns do lead to more crime. In Ireland and Jamica, after banning guns, it has shown a steep increase of crime.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...
http://www.theacru.org...
http://www.gallup.com...
http://www.bostonmagazine.com...


pjh816

Pro

For things like gun control, you cannot have one policy for an entire nation. I think that if we do things on the state or county level, then more people would be happy. My argument is that give gun control to the people in the areas that want it and let people keep their guns in the areas that want it. In this case, rural areas can keep all their firearms, but people in urban areas may not want them. The divisions of government are not used enough on the big issues like gun control and I think that the smaller forms of governments would work here. The federal government should allow the states and their counties to figure it out for themselves, also because legislation is always much more productive on the state and county levels.
Debate Round No. 2
Commondebator

Con

My opponent has not refuted any of my points clearly, showing he has no objection to them. I wait for a rebuttal towards all my points. I believe my opponent had sufficient space to address his BoP as well as perform rebuttals. However, since it was not clearly stated in the rules, I have no objection to my opponent's lack of rebuttals.

Moving on. . .

"For things like gun control, you cannot have one policy for an entire nation."

By accepting this argument, my opponent has agreed that severe gun control is not beneficial on any levels. However, this was not clearly stated in the rules so I will have to perform a rebuttal regardless of what I had in mind. I will be more careful next time.

To refute my opponent's statement, I have shown earlier that increase gun control may lead to an increase of crime as well. Therefore, it is expected that states with lower gun control laws have a decrease of crime rates. In fact, 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.

"My argument is that give gun control to the people in the areas that want it and let people keep their guns in the areas that want it. In this case, rural areas can keep all their firearms, but people in urban areas may not want them."

Well. . .As shown by my previous statement, lower gun control does lead to a lower crime rate. This debate is not about what the people want and their opinions, but if severe gun control be enforced or not.

http://www.cato.org...;
pjh816

Pro

pjh816 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Commondebator

Con

I have no argument to present due to the forfeiture.
pjh816

Pro

pjh816 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by pjh816 2 years ago
pjh816
Also gun laws have to be enforced well. In Chicago, they have the most strict gun laws in the nation, but their streets are like war zones because their police force in incompetent.
Posted by pjh816 2 years ago
pjh816
For things like gun control, you cannot have one policy for an entire nation. I think that if we do things on the state or county level, then more people would be happy. My argument is that give gun control to the people in the areas that want it and let people keep their guns in the areas that want it. In this case, rural areas can keep all their firearms, but people in urban areas may not want them. The divisions of government are not used enough on the big issues like gun control and I think that the smaller forms of governments would work here. The federal government should allow the states and their counties to figure it out for themselves, also because legislation is always much more productive on the state and county levels.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Why is it that most violence occurs in gun free zones? And dictators rise to power and confiscate guns from the folks?Mexico has severe gun control and is the most violent country in the world run by the criminals. Of course liberals will blame America for that. We get blamed for everything. Just as the rich are blamed because people are poor.America being wealthy gets blamed for all the poverty in the world. It is never the poor are to blame for their poverty.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
@Conservative101:

correction-- the side of destructive libertarianism
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
What is "severe gun control"? You should aim to be very clear here, otherwise your opponent can seek to define what they view as severe.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Welcome to the side of truth.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Yes, I am against severe gun control
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
So are you against gun control?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Commondebatorpjh816Tied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Commondebatorpjh816Tied
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: Forfeiture