The Instigator
DonaldDuck1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
legitcow3
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,579 times Debate No: 85771
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DonaldDuck1

Pro

From 1999 to 2013 a total of 464,033 deaths by firearms happened in the U.S. Of this number 37% was from homicides, 55% from suicide's and 9% from accidental killings. The fact that mostly anyone can get guns make's this number a threat to increase every day. More gun control laws should be enacted because, more gun laws would decrease death rates, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals, and more gun control leads to fewer suicides.
Like I stated before 464,033 deaths by fire arms happened in the U.S from 1999 to 2013. This number is a huge that can be lowered with more gun control laws. For example the organization of ProCon states that both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). [45] In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Seeing as Switzerland has harsher gun laws then the U.S. and the amount of deaths is lower in Switzerland harsher gun laws can save lives.
The second amendment gave the right to militia to bear arms not the right to everyone. The Second amendment states "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." This means that miltia is given the right to bear arms not every citizen. Modern day militia is like the National Guard or the police. Not people of other standers.
My last point to talk about is that more strict gun laws mean that less people will suicide with a firearm which is one of the leading causes of death via suicide. The organization of ProCon also state that between 1999 and 2013 there were 270,237 firearm suicides in the United States, accounting for about 52% of all suicides during those years. This shows that over half of all suicides in the U.S. during this time was via a firearm. ProCon also states that a person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable. This relates back to the first piece of evidence showing that firearms were the leading cause of suicide.

Works Cited
http://gun-control.procon.org...
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
legitcow3

Con

The first president of the United States George Washington our founding father once said, "When government takes away citizens right to bear arms it becomes the citizen's duty to take away the government's rights to govern." Because I strongly agree with George Washington I will have to stand in firm negation of the question: Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted? I say this for three main reasons. 1: Constitution, 2: Protection and finally 3: Ineffectiveness. To begin I would like to tie back my opening quote into the first argument, the constitution. The constitution states, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you are to vote for the pro side you would be voting against what our country is built off of. My second argument is protection, GOA an informative database shows that 2.5 million situations in this past year guns were used for self protection. My opponents may try to argue the fact that there are absurd amounts of deaths due to guns but in reality these guns are used far more often for self defense then actual intent to kill. On a personal level let"s look to Springfield, Mo in 2015. A man far past the age of being capable for defending himself, arrived back at his house to see he was walking in to in-session robbery. With his back against the wall and a masked man on the brink of stealing all of his personal belongings, the homeowner shot the robber several times in non-fatal areas. The results of the extravaganza was the homeowner seizing control of the house, stopping a robber who did not die and had to face a jail sentence. While watching this debate think what would've happened to that man had he not had the ability to buy the gun. My final argument I would like to make is that gun control would be totally ineffective. If you were to visit any criminal justice branch and ask, "How do criminals get guns?" The answer would be simple... "They steal "em." This is a testament to show how effective would gun control actually be, PBS reports that tens of thousands of guns every year by criminals are stolen "illegally". Throughout this first speech I believe it is clear to see that if you want to vote pro, you would be promoting criminal activity and demoting self protection. You would be killing what are country is made off of and enforcing a totally ineffective and useless strategy. The clear side to vote for is con, a side that promotes the safety of your children, promotes the foundation of your country and promotes effectiveness to protection. What"s more important to you... your rights or the government's interests?
Debate Round No. 1
DonaldDuck1

Pro

DonaldDuck1 forfeited this round.
legitcow3

Con

During this round I will be attacking my opponent"s arguments.
The first contention from the pro side was the amount of death"s guns cause. As I stated 2.5 million deaths are stopped every year from gun"s being used for protection. All my opponent"s want is for more deaths to happen every year basically. After implementing gun control the number would go from 464,000 to 3,000,000. Again the thought of taking away our only source of self protection is irate. Also what my opponents fail to realize is that United States already has the same type of control of guns as to Switzerland and Finland. We already require background checks and limit the purchase of clips to only 10 per magazine. So in the end all my opponent"s want to do is take away our only hope of protecting ourselves from criminals who want to take our lives by way of illegal weapons.
My opponent's second argument is that the wording of the constitution is set up to where it is only for militia"s. Let"s take a look back in to what a militia used to be. When the constitution was writ, a militia was a group of men who protected their neighborhood or families from crimes or local indian tribes. In modern sense there is no certain group who is built to defend a neighborhood or even their own families from a government standpoint. The only form of self protection militia we have today is ourselves. The impacts of my opponents arguments are very weak because not only does it say militia it says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". You my friends are the people, you have the right to protect yourself and do you really want the pro side to take that away from you? The harms of my opponents arguments are that we would take away our only source of self protection only to promote something the constitution doesn"t mean.
Finally they talk about how guns are responsible for mass amounts of suicide.Their argument states that a person is more likely to use a gun over a knife or poison, but failed to realize the fact even if we took that gun away, the person would still have the poison or knife and would still kill themselves. All in all, if a person is depressed and wants to take their own life they will find alternatives to a gun, this number will still be high. What we should really do is find better ways to help them of depression or suicidal thoughts, not take away their killing devices so they can suffer longer, this argument for the pro side is extremely radical.
Debate Round No. 2
DonaldDuck1

Pro

DonaldDuck1 forfeited this round.
legitcow3

Con

legitcow3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DonaldDuck1

Pro

DonaldDuck1 forfeited this round.
legitcow3

Con

legitcow3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.