The Instigator
Aned
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
DoctorDeku
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Should Gun Owners Who Lose their Guns Be Hold Accountable for Crimes Committed Afterward?

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 5 votes the winner is...
DoctorDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 28764
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Aned

Pro

Because of the notoriety that the phrase "illegal guns" has reached, I would like to initiate this debate where I will point out why I believe that the responsibility of legal gun owners concerning the safety of their guns should not end with their losing control of their weapons. In short, they should be hold accountable for any crime committed with their lost gun even though they have reported it lost and regardless of who the perpetrator is. Welcome to this debate! Good luck!
DoctorDeku

Con

I negate that gun owners should be responsibly for the crimes committed with their lost fire arms on the grounds of Deontology. Each individual can only be reasonable responsible for their own intentionally committed actions; losing a firearm is not something that someone does on purpose and one should not be punished for the action of another. This would do nothing to deter crime or promote justice, it would cause fear to from law abiding citizens.

this would discourage citizens to practice their right to bear arms out of the fear that they could be incarcerated for the action of some one else. If some one's gun was stolen they would be charged for any crime committed with that gun -- that is not just.

Furthermore my opponent states that the owner would be responsible for the crime even if they reported the gun as lost; Pro is advocating that these people should be punished even when they take the necessary precautions following such a terrible accident.

Vote Con, Maintain rights!
Debate Round No. 1
Aned

Pro

Before starting, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and considering this debate.

The reason I chose this topic is that somehow we need to find a solution that could stop the flow of weapons into criminals' hands. Behind those so called "illegal guns" stand former legal gun owners.

Losing a gun or allowing a gun to fall under criminals' hands is a serious tragedy that should be taken very seriously; hence, some consequences should me implemented for those neglecting their firearms. People died in a daily basis because of this negligence. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, a penalty can be imposed. If the gun owner is found guilty of losing his weapon, he can be deprived of his right to bear arms, as convicted felons who lose their rights to vote and carry guns. So, it will not be something new.
DoctorDeku

Con

I both appreciate and understand the concern that Pro raises, but it is unfounded; while I agree that it is a tragedy when something as dangerous as a gun is lost or stolen, law abiding citizens shouldn't have to fear practicing their rights at the cost of their lives.

Having a lot of guns isn't dangerous in and of itself, they're a means to an end which require violent desires in the first place.

Switzerland for example, has a high rate of gun ownership, with every home having an automated firearm in it[1]. Despite this, they actually have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world; only .5 gun homicides per every 100,000 residents.
[1] http://world.time.com...

The fact is that gun ownership is an essential right that must be protected at all costs. Pro's solution to reduction of Gun violence wouldn't solve the indicated problem whereas innocent citizens would suffer.

Thanks for reading, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dont-Do-It-13 2 years ago
Dont-Do-It-13
Do criminals register THEIR guns? No. So, why should it be so hard to own one? Knives don't need to be registered, neither do crossbows or baseball bats or tire irons, yet those kill just as effectively. I carry a gun to protect myself INCASE I need to. So, hy do I need to let everyone know I have one, so I can be challenged? So I can be stereotyped into people thinking I'm a criminal? Killing someone or peeing on a bush, you can still be arrested for each, but what will come to mind when you tell someone you were arrested, that you were eeing, or that you did something very bad? A gun should be for protection against those who want to harm me, cut and dry, there should be no other reason. If you want to buy ammo, you should need to show a two forms of picture ID including your driver's license, that's it. People can torch or grind off a bike lock, but it deters most would-be criminals. Look at the bait car show, if the car wasn't running with the door open, a lot of people wouldn't steal it. Most crimes are by opportunity and ease of execution. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, I don't care what kind of gun you have, .22 rimfire or an M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
Posted by Dont-Do-It-13 2 years ago
Dont-Do-It-13
Do criminals register THEIR guns? No. So, why should it be so hard to own one? Knives don't need to be registered, neither do crossbows or baseball bats or tire irons, yet those kill just as effectively. I carry a gun to protect myself INCASE I need to. So, hy do I need to let everyone know I have one, so I can be challenged? So I can be stereotyped into people thinking I'm a criminal? Killing someone or peeing on a bush, you can still be arrested for each, but what will come to mind when you tell someone you were arrested, that you were eeing, or that you did something very bad? A gun should be for protection against those who want to harm me, cut and dry, there should be no other reason. If you want to buy ammo, you should need to show a two forms of picture ID including your driver's license, that's it. People can torch or grind off a bike lock, but it deters most would-be criminals. Look at the bait car show, if the car wasn't running with the door open, a lot of people wouldn't steal it. Most crimes are by opportunity and ease of execution. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, I don't care what kind of gun you have, .22 rimfire or an M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
The debate was simplicity itself. Pro said we should have measure to stop guns falling to the hand of criminals and Con diverted this point and said crimes happen due to violence nature not due to indifferent behavior of gun owners. Pro's argument was accruate but lacked some sources to back those up. Pro's case also contained a bit of false diachotomy. Pro made it sound like the primary reason of gun shooting incident is due to irresponsible gun owners, when it is not really true. There can be more reasons why one might shoot at 20 innocent lives and yet, Pro made it seemed like there are only two cause: criminal and gun owners who lose their guns. On the other hand, Con's argument seemed strong but was in fact based upon few faulty premises and facts. First of all, Switzerland do not require all household to have guns. Second, .5 is in fact slightly above average. Thirdly, gun right is not an essential right since MANY countries do not guarantee it and have no problem. Fourth of all, when Con said "innocent citizzen" wil suffer, it is in fact wrong since losing such dangerous weapon like gun is in fact not fulfilling a responsibility. All drivers have the duty to look forward while driving. Even when someone was driving towards them and crashed into them, if the "innocent" drivers weren't looking straight, they are partially blamed. It is analogous. Being privileged to own a firearm, the owner is also promising to take care of the firearm and be cautious with it. Owning such dangerous weapons, it is logically correct to think that losing such firearm is in fact being irresponsible and hence, some partial blame should be attributed to the owners (and that is what Pro basically said), viewing from the fact that about 16% of mass shooting accident happened with illegal weapons.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
AnedDoctorDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con nailed this one with his counter arguments within the debate itself. Though he could have used many more from outside this exchange. (Is a car owner for something a car-jacker does after they make off with a stolen car?) Easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
AnedDoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Stated in the comments
Vote Placed by Canadian-In-Florida 4 years ago
Canadian-In-Florida
AnedDoctorDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct. I counted 10 grammar mistakes in Con's argument and 5 in Pro's so I gave that point to Pro. I was not convinced at all by Pro's argument and he provided no sources or claims to his argument. It seemed as it was solely opinion based. Overall, neither side cast a hugely profound debate but the concept was easy for Con to win, as far as I can see, and did not require a huge rebuttal.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
AnedDoctorDekuTied
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 half of logical-master's vote since the conduct and grammar was clearly the same from both sides. I do agree that con won though so i left alone arguments
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 4 years ago
Logical-Master
AnedDoctorDekuTied
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 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: I find PRO's arguments unpersuasive. PRO has provided us with no justification that individuals should lose their second Amendment rights for (as CON rightfully pointed out) matters beyond their control. Al in all, PROs argument is one big fat appeal to emotion. CON's citing of Switzerland statistics was persuasive and solidified his victory in this debate. CON.