The Instigator
timothy.dorn
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
ajwf95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should guns be restricted further in the USA?

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 3 votes the winner is...
timothy.dorn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,518 times Debate No: 31847
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

timothy.dorn

Con

I (being CON or NO) believe that guns should not be further restricted or banned in the USA?
ajwf95

Pro

I will happily accept this debate from timothy.dorn.

I will represent the PRO position on the issue "Should guns be restricted further in the USA?".

Since no arguments have been put forth by my opponent, I shall begin by defining my "position":
My position is that Americans should have RESTRICTED access to firearms. We should restrict magazine/clip sizes, amount of ammunition able for purchase, as well as limit the types of firearms available to Americans to smaller firearms, such as handguns.

To make my position entirely clear: I am not, in favour of banning handguns completely in the USA.
Debate Round No. 1
timothy.dorn

Con

I realize for my first debate, I have given no arguments for my position. It appears you have already chosen to debate in the hypothetical style in which I meant. Apologies for not making that clear in the first place.

A semi-automatic handgun is concealable and it's function is exactly the same as a rifle with less accuracy.

Any gun, magazine, or bullet can be made by a person with basic skills on a CNC machine as has been seen in the Philippines.

If we are not trying to ban all guns, then any restrictions on the type of weapon or magazine it can hold are irrelevant as any magazine can be tampered with to hold more rounds.

My position is that once guns have been have been restricted to a certain point, illegal gun manufacture is unavoidable. Machine guns are already banned, but could be made just as easily as semi auto weapons and would be sold to the highest bidding criminal.

I am all for the background checks on sales of weapons, but restricting the type of weapon or magazine a person may have will not fix the problems in which we are trying to solve. It will only turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, and create charges for people who still continue to break the law. The purpose of these restrictions is to limit the number of people who break the law with a firearm, or decrease casualties when people do.

As with most things that are banned or restricted, they are still easily accessible in our society to those with the desire.
ajwf95

Pro

My opponent begins by arguing that a rifle and semi-automatic handgun have the same function, albeit that the latter is more concealable and less accurate. I believe what my opponent is trying to argue is that banning either of them without the other would be unjustified. I personally do not believe that either should be completely banned (I am assuming you are speaking of a bolt-action rifle), since they have their applications. Rifles are more effective for hunting than a handgun.

My opponent"s main point, as I understand it, is that restriction of guns is pointless. People will desire to own guns, whether legal or not, and the black market will be there. He does make a good point; we don"t have to look far back in history to see the shortcomings of prohibition, and the lucrative black markets they create. But the fact that guns may be continually created illegally, despite our best efforts, is not a reason for us, as a society, to not take a position on the issue. The fact should not change the moral (if there is really a moral issue here).

A gun, as I understand it, represents "possibilities". The presence of guns can either have positive effect or a negative effect on an outcome of events. Let"s think about the most recent school shooting that prompted this revitalized debate about gun control: Sandy Hook Elementary. Both shootings, Sandy Hook and Virgina Tech, stand as the deadliest school shootings in American History, the former claiming 26 lives and the latter 32. Neither shooter would have been as "successful" without their guns. Whilst it may be true that the assailant"s had a history of mental illness, that did not stop them from acquiring such powerful firearms, whether legally through a dealer, or indirectly through their parent"s legal purchase.

The type of guns American citizens are allowed to purchase must be restricted. There is no legitimate reason to enable a citizen to purchase semi-automatic rifles, such as some of the M4/AR-15 variants available. I will justify why I believe handguns and bolt-action rifles are okay, but not semi-automatics. Handguns can be concealed, and symbolize the safety guns can provide; they are more modest, and a handgun"s ability to protect can be understood in the context of civil society. Hunting rifles are different, but they still have a context in society - for hunting purposes. Semi-automatic rifles do not have the same context as handguns and rifles context in civil society. Semi-automatics, such as the M4, were created by the military for one reason: to kill enemies effectively. You can't go deer hunting with a m4. You couldn"t reasonably replace carrying a handgun for a semi-automatic, in the name of self-defence, without being misunderstood.
Debate Round No. 2
timothy.dorn

Con

While I am in complete agreement with my opponent that no rifle could ever replace a handgun for the defense of one's home or person. The rifle such as the AR 15 or one of it's variants could be used to defend one's ranch or farm. Coyotes and wolves are on the rise in their numbers, you may need a semi automatic rifle to take out a pack of wolves or coyotes or simply the ability to to fire semi auto to take out something large such as a bear. As I live in the city, I have no need to take out wolves or bears, but if the federal government were to enforce such laws on me they would also enforce them on the rancher, the farmer, or anyone who lives in the country with a decent sized piece of property.

Most handguns are semi automatic, with the exceptions of some derringers and double action revolvers, both of which would be acceptable for a single assailant, but during a home invasion would most likely lead to a catastrophe. Semi automatic is the ability to fire one round for one pull of the trigger. A good comparison would be the Ruger SR 22 pistol compared to the Ruger SR 22 rifle. They are both semi automatic, black, can carry ten rounds or more, are both highly accurate, and both shoot the same exact bullets. The SR 22 rifle would be considered an assault rifle while the SR 22 pistol is just a pistol and is not currently being considered discussed. Their function is exactly the same, but one would be taken away from law-abiding citizens while the other would continue to be sold. But if you look up the SR 22 rifle and compare to the Ruger 10/22 classic rifle, they literally are the exact same rifle, one is scary looking with a pistol grip and the other one is not. Many of these rifles use the exact same bullet as their wooden stocked hunting rifle counterparts and many of the features being discussed in these ban talks are mainly cosmetic or ergonomic features for comfort.

If we allow any ban on semi automatic rifles, that would later justify a ban on semi automatic pistols. Having to cock a weapon or reload for each shot could be potentially dangerous in a situation of self-defense or hunting. Some animals could potentially attack you while reloading your second shot, or a group of invaders in your home could take you out due to the slow response of a single action revolver or reload time of a Derringer.

This discussion of banning weapons of any sort stems mainly from the recent school shootings that have taken place. If we are trying to fix the school shooting problem, I feel that the only way to do so would be with armed guards. Everything we cherish in this country is protected with armed guards except for our children. Criminals already have access to fully automatics witch are already banned for everyone else, citizens don't need full-auto to defend themselves, but semi auto is the next best thing, and single shot anything is basically suicide against more than one aggressor.

Banning weapons of any type from common law-abiding citizens would have no effect on the occurrence of school shootings, as banning these weapons has no effect on the mental state of the deranged and they, when properly identified, will fail the background checks in which I am for.

When school shootings happen we call the cops, who bring their guns.

I would like to thank my opponent for his time in this debate, and look forward to debating him again in the future.
ajwf95

Pro

My opponent has argued that there are legitimate reasons that may justify the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles; the type of reasons includes: 1) farming purposes, and 2) protection. First, farmers may have a legitimate purpose for owning rifles, but that does not sufficiently justify why Americans " as a whole " should be able to purchase these rifles. For example, farmers can purchase large amounts of fertilizer " an ingredient commonly used for making explosives " something the average American cannot do without arising suspicion. The point is that it should be relatively inaccessible to the average customer - I shouldn"t be able to buy it at Walmart.

My opponent has also argued that a semi-automatic rifles and pistols are "functionally" the same. Thus, it would not be fair to restrict one without restricting the other. I agree with my opponent on this point, but wish to re-raise, and elaborate a previous point I had made. The difference between rifles and pistols, are their general connotation: people in general don"t think you are merely "protecting" yourself when you carry a rifle such as a semi-automatic M4 variant. A concealed pistol would have worked just as well for protection. If my opponents claim that semi-automatic rifles and pistols do not differ in functionality, then carrying a pistol in this case would not only be pragmatic, but just as effective.

Another point my opponent has made is that it is potentially dangerous to need to reload your weapon during a conflict, or during hunting. In response to hunting concerns, I am completely indifferent. "Protection" is about self-defense; the hunter started it. But there may be times where a person would have benefitted legitamitely from owning a gun, such as in home invasion scenarios. But the problem is that many of these scenarios are quite far-fetched and would very unlikely happen to the average law-abiding American. It"s unrealistic to believe that the average person will encounter a fire-fight with multiple people - unless drugs/gangs/etc are involved.

"[restrictions] would have no effect on the occurrence of school shootings, as banning these weapons has no effect on the mental state of the deranged and they, when properly identified, will fail the background checks in which I am for." - We definitely need to look into how our background checks are done, as evidenced by the Virgina Tech shooter. But the background check is limited in use: Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) did not purchase any guns. His mother, who passed the background checks, did. So improving background check procedures helps the situation, but it does not when the general adult public can still legally purchase these items. If this does not convince you, think about how effective the drinking-age law works at preventing the underage from drinking.

I would like to thank my opponent at this time for all his insightful arguments and look forward to debating him again in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
timothy.dornajwf95Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con discussed why current "assault weapons" bans being discussed are unworkable, but did not provide evidence for his arguments. Pro's position was vague, and simply asserted as if it were evidently true.
Vote Placed by PurpleDrink 4 years ago
PurpleDrink
timothy.dornajwf95Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had BOF to argue for why guns should be restricted. His only argument was essentially "Why Not? You don't need them anyway."
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
timothy.dornajwf95Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: No one used sources, but at least Con used arguments that used logic and not playing and emotions and possible situations.