Should gun control be increased in the United States?
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 2. Presentation of Arguments
Round 3. Rebuttals/Extensions of Arguments
I am ready to debate this topic to get an idea of where 'the left' stands on this topic and why they would support this sort of issue. Thanks! And lets have a good debate. (I am perfectly fine with any type of argument)
A) Self Defense: Why do we have fire extinguishers and the fire department? Well I would expect you to answer that fire extinguishers are a quick, clear, and temporary answer to the problem that faces immediate danger to our lives - the fire of a building. I must ask if these are the intention of these objects, then why do we need fire extinguishers? Surely we should control them as well because we have the fire department. Now think about this in the context of guns. Why do we have guns and the police department? I believe that guns are the similar quick, clear, and temporary answer the to problem that faces immediate danger to our live - a criminal that has broken the law with the possible intention to steal our possessions, rape our family, or kill us. Clearly, we cannot sit and watch our sister, or daughter, or mother, be abused as we hide in a corner calling the Police. Or, watch a man hold a gun to the head of our relative threatening to kill them. No, I would not sit and watch, but I would do what is just.
B) Government Defense: No this is not to support government and defend against foreign invasions (although they still might be useful in that case), this is the defense of our own government. A man you might know and have similar beliefs to said the following: "This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" If you didn't know, the man who said this was Adolf Hitler, and the atrocities that followed this were devastating to humanity. What is the most threatening prospect to the tyranny of government? An international war? Maybe, but not when you can use the people to fight. Global Warming? This would probably be a source of government tyranny. Terrorism? This has led to multiple times a "State of Emergency", which allowed for rises such as Hitler and Mussolini. No, it is the people that represent the threat. "To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens". As he said, this is still clearly the path that leads to the authoritarian system that we mock and hate, which will deprive us of our liberties as individuals and our respective power in the government that controls us.
2. Gun Control does not stop Crime. A study by John R. Lott found that "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". Additionally, Journalist John Stossel explained that "criminals don't obey the law... without fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these illegal weapons now have a much easier job." Its very simple to theorize the entire concept of a deterrent. Ironically, many people tht support gun control, support United States hegemony in deterring conflict. Well knock, knock, United States hegemony is us flexing our large weapons of mass destruction to deter other from doing violence. This is the same thing. A person that knows a shop posses a gun, will probably not rob the shop. However, a criminal that knows a shop is gun-free and has no guns, it would be much easier to steal and kidnap from here instead.
Thank you for posting your arguments. Here are my opening statements.
A. The Second Amendment
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."  Notice the bolded words. I won't focus on the fundamentals of a militia, but I'd like to add on the "well-regulated" part.
"The phrase 'well-regulated' was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order." 
With the way guns are handled today, you can't exactly call it well-regulated. I'll get back to that in the following points, though.
B. Homicides Would Decline
According to gun statistics, 88.8 out of every 100 Americans own guns. The firearm homicide rate is 3.54 out of every 100,000 Americans.  Let's compare these rates to Japan. In Japan, 0.6 out of every 100 people have guns and exactly zero firearm homicides happened there in 2008. 
"Civilians can never own handguns. Small calibre rifles were once legal, but in 1971, the Government forbade all transfers of rifles. Current rifle license holders may continue to own them, but their heirs must turn them into the police when the license-holder dies. Total remaining rifle licenses are 27,000. Even shotguns and air rifles, the two legal types of firearm, are becoming rarer and rarer, as few people find it worthwhile to pass through a burdensome gun licensing process. The number of licensed shotguns and air rifles declined from 652,000 in 1981 to 493,373 in 1989." 
In other words, Japan has strict gun control laws and, in turn, they have less firearm homicides than America, where we're more flexible in terms of gun control. What would happen if we put these types of laws in place in the U.S? Looking at the stats of Japan, America's homicides probably go down.
C. Mass Shootings
Sub-point 1. Statistics/Decline Chance
"According to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870."  This was recorded in 2015 alone. If more gun control laws were put in place, imagine the decline that could take place. In fact, the U.S has the highest mass shootings rates out of any other nation, developed or third-world. 
If we put laws in place, more innocent lives could be saved. We wouldn't put their families in risk of grief or loss because their family member was killed.
Sub-point 2. Mass Shootings of the Past/"Regulation"
I'll look at three examples of mass shootings and how the shooters got their guns.
First, the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They killed a total of 13 people in Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999. They also took their own lives after the massacre. 
"Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal 'straw purchase.' Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500."  There was no mental health assessment of the original buyers recorded. This is just one example of so-called "regulation".
Secondly, I present Brenda Spencer. On January 29, 1979, Spencer shot 11 and killed two from her bedroom window across the street from a school. Her motivation? "I Don't Like Mondays." Where did she get her .22 rifle? From her father who was aware of her being suicidal and that she had anger issues.  Again, no mental health check was made.
Lastly, we have the more recent Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting committed by Adam Lanza. Lanza killed his mother and 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary. The guns were, indeed, his. But he was said to have severe schizophrenia. Yet, the gun was still sold. 
D. "Regulation" in General
Previously, private sellers aren't required to do background checks of any kind on their customers to make sure they are fit to own a gun.  It was announced back in 2013 that universal background checks were going to be required.  But they still get around it!
"The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010, based on red flags raised by the background check system, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Justice. That’s just 1.2 percent of the more than 6 million applications. The most common reasons: nearly half were felony indictment or conviction; 19 percent were fugitives; and 11 percent were those who had violated state laws. The rejection rate has been essentially unchanged over the years." 
This proves that there are inaccuracies in the background checks. If the U.S were to place stricter gun laws, we could be comparable to nations of lesser gun homicides and gun violence, like the aforementioned Japan.
In conclusion, increasing gun control is the best way go when it comes to reducing violence. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttal.
roypolicypro forfeited this round.
My argument extends.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Adam_Godzilla 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: FF by con, he did not address the second amendment's statement on well regulated militia. Also did not address mass shootings.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.