The Instigator
TheGodlyBuddha
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
therocker6204
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should guns be restricted or banned in the U.S.?

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: 2/25/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 87243
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

TheGodlyBuddha

Con

I don't believe that guns should be restricted or banned in any way as the Constitution states that ,"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 states no matter what happens to the gun situation that each citizen is allowed to own firearms to protect themselves from the rest of the country. It has nothing to do with muskets, hunting or any other sort of firearm criteria. They are allowed for protection.
therocker6204

Pro

I have agreed to take for the restriction of guns in the United States. My opinion is that we should use guns under a license or other means of restriction that prevent the use of guns for everyone. The following paragraphs will give you my opening points against the open uses of guns.

Let us start with the basics. What is a gun? Oxford Dictionary characterize a gun as, "A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise." Using this definition, we can see the danger of these objects already. They can throw bullets, shells even missiles at the target that they are aiming. A good example of the effect of a projectile propelled to a target can be seen in FPSRussia"s videos. We see Kyle using weapons, which are mainly guns, and the effect they can do to bottles, doors, explosives, and even mimic human bodies. With this said, imagine if an under aged infants or a destabilized adult watches these videos and gets inspired to reproduce what they see. This could lead to tragic events, but the problem is, it already has.

School shootings are now yearly occurring. Even yesterday, a threat of a school shooting occurred in Manitoba by an under aged child. Obviously, guns do not start the problem known as school shootings, the people holding the guns do. Mental de-stability plays a major role into the act of committing a school shooting. A mental illness often related to this de-stability is depression. Webmd.com describes depression effects as, "It affects the way you feel about yourself and those around you. It even affects your thoughts." Statistics from Healthline.com says, "Depression is a condition that reportedly affects 1 in 10 Americans at on point or another"" The website also mentions, "The number of patients diagnosed with depression increased by approximately 20% per year." This means that more people are becoming less mentally stable and in that case, less able to make healthy decisions. If these people have an easy access to guns, they could eventually turn around and shoot someone with the weapon. With some expertise, they could shoot down many people. If we restrict guns and add permits, we help prevent people without the mental ability to use guns in a harmful way.

Reference:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.cbc.ca...
http://www.webmd.com...
http://www.healthline.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheGodlyBuddha

Con

The point that you made about school shootings does not affect the use of guns at all. As you stated, a lot of people are losing mental stability and are less able to make healthy decisions, but that decision does not lay on using the gun or going and buying one, it lays on people not wanting to get help for their mental problem or there not being enough mental health centers in the county/state/country. I'd like to point out that the last major school attack in my area was the Franklin Regional stabbing in PA. This act wasn't carried out by guns, but because the stabber was mentally ill. I remember watching on the news afterwards a Pennsylvania state official who was in office at one point stating that, "These events don't happen from the media or anything else, this happens because we don't have enough mental health institutions in our country." Very little blame is placed whenever it's on a knife or a bomb. No one wanted to restrict or ban knives after the Franklin Regional stabbing, but as soon as a shooting happens the guns are the bad object. Banning guns won't stop massacres, they'll still make their way into bad hands, and if there aren't any in good hands, there'll be a lot more deaths instead. These people don't want to shoot, they want to kill. Doesn't matter what method.
therocker6204

Pro

I fully understand your argument. One point I must account for is that you said, “…each citizen is allowed to own firearms to protect themselves from the rest of the country…” You consider firearms as means of protection, but protection is a wide range of situations. This means that you should be allowed to have a gun whenever you feel under threat. For a mentally ill person, the perspective of this is way more complicated. They might consider anyone as a threat, which means they could as well shoot a bird then students walking in a school. Now this issue is also connected with gun handling.

“The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000”[1]. This is an enormous number of guns, and with that amount, everyone in the United States could carry a gun. This makes the access of these weapons extremely easy, and like you said, “…they’ll still make their way into bad hands…” With a ban though, the number of guns will be retained and will be closely looked by the government making everything way harder for the bad hand.

Another point that you made was, “…as soon a shooting happens the guns are the bad object…” Yes, guns are bad objects after a shooting, but they are bad before a shooting too. “The purpose of a gun-if we’re being honest-is to kill something.”[2] This clearly shows why there is a fear over violent guns, and how firearms can and will kill someone. I went to research the Franklin Regional stabbing, and I concluded that no one died because CBC wrote, “At least five students were critically wounded in the attack Wednesday, including a boy whose liver was pierced by a knife thrust that narrowly missed his heart and aorta, doctors said. Others also suffered deep abdominal puncture wounds.”[3] Why should we ban knives if they didn’t kill anyone? Now, let us compare with a school shooting by someone of the equal age in 2005. Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota is where a shooting by Jeff Weise a 16 year old occurred. I quote, “A high school sophomore in Minnesota went on a shooting rampage on Monday, killing nine people before taking his own life.”[4] Ten deaths, people that will never come back. If you look at the twenty-one injuries from the stabbing, those people will live the next day. The news reporter even said about the stabbing, “…They didn't even know they were hurt, they just immediately felt pain and saw blood…”[4] This shows the lack of effectiency of knifes, but if you compare that to a gun, which shoot bullets and can kill people, the reason that guns are trying to be restricted is clear.

Like I have said, “I have agreed to take for the restriction of guns in the United States.” With this point made clear, I never envisioned a complete ban over weapons in the United States, but a restriction. dtien400 in the comments suggested examples of ways to form restrictions. He listed these examples, “Adding more extensive background checks, background checks for private sales of firearms, being referred to a psychologist prior to purchase, a national gun registry, the requirement of having a hunting permit and/or to have to regularly attend a shooting range to own/keep a gun…”[5] From what I understood, he was making a reference to the gun laws in Canada. These laws writes that an individual require, “a firearms license that is valid for restricted firearms in order to possess or acquire a restricted firearms and to obtain ammunition”[6], “a registration certificate issued under the Firearms Act for all restricted firearms in their possession.”[6], and “an Authorization to Transport, issued by the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of their provincial or territorial jurisdiction, in order to transport a restricted firearm from one location to another.”[6]. Now, I have tables and graph from crimeresearch.com that show worldwide information about mass shootings: [7]

Table from : <a href=http://crimeresearch.org...; />

Table from : <a href=http://crimeresearch.org...; />

With a brief analyse of these graphs, Canada does not even show up once. This proves my point that restricting guns in the United States would prevent deaths. We don’t have to ban them, but restricting them would do only good for the country.

Source:

http://www.gunpolicy.org... [1]
http://www.punchnels.com... [2]
http://www.cbc.ca... [3]
https://www.wsws.org... [4]
http://www.debate.org... [5]
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca... [6]
http://crimeresearch.org... [7]

Personal Thanking:

I have to aknolodge dtien400 for the comment he left on the debate. His idea greatly helped with the last paragraph. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 2
TheGodlyBuddha

Con

You've stated that Canada has not shown once on these charts because of the stricter gun laws, however, there are still shootings in Canada! This proves that with restrictions do not happen, in fact, on January 22, 2016, 4 people were killed in Saskatchewan in a school and property. So this shows that with more restrictions, people are still going to illegally use guns for a bad cause, and if more law abiding citizens do not have access to guns because of these restrictions, more people are going to be injured or killed.

Also, you stated that during the Franklin Regional stabbing that the victims didn't realize they were hurt, just had pain and saw they were bleeding. The same can happen with a mortal gunshot, but that's more important since the person dies.

On the basis of dtien400's comment on adding some examples on restrictions, I don't believe that someone would have to have to go to a psychologist before purchasing a firearm, although background checks would be helpful as they could see if they had any previous crimes.

I'd like to thank you for debating with me and making my first debate on here memorable.
therocker6204

Pro

Yes, I know that shootings still occur in Canada. This, in that case, also happens around the world. If we look at any country, there will be cases of school shooting even with restrictions. The problem is not that there are school shooting in general, the problem is the amount of school shootings. The charts I have given only prove that the number of deaths due to mass shooting is greater in the United States, which in that case, is a country with no laws banning guns. I only see restrictions in the country to prevent these mass shooting, even though like you said, “…people are still going illegally use guns for bad cause…”


For this paragraph, I see where you are going. The pain factor does occur with both weapons, but you proved my point with your end sentence, “The same can happen with a mortal gunshot, but that’s more important since the people dies.” We see here that you say that guns kill. With my source of Franklin Regional stabbing, we see that no one died due to the knives that stabbed them. That’s why I think we should restrict guns; they are not only painful and dangerous, they kill. I restate from my second round paragraph three, “This shows the lack of effecitiency of knifes, but if you compare that to a gun which shoot bullets and can kill people, the reason that guns are trying to be restricted is clear.”


On the point of psychologists, I total agree with you that that restriction would be too much. When I was thinking restriction, like you, I was thinking that there should be a background check, and if they are clean, they should be allowed to have guns with a license. The only situation where I would see a psychologist needed in these laws is if someone committed a crime that might need a psychologist to confirm that they are mentally stable. With this, we would prevent potential harm, and at the same time, make a better America!


I’d like to thank you too for responding to this debate. This was a fun first debate, and if you are looking to do another debate on any topic, I would be glad to go against you. You have made this debate complicated, but at the same time, very interesting! All to conclude, have a great day!

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
You're welcome :)
Posted by therocker6204 1 year ago
therocker6204
@dtein400 Thank you for your input. I will try my best to incorporate that element for my next point. I honestly believe that there should be that type of restriction in the US. Canadians have these kind of rules, and from what I saw, the rules prevented many problems!
Posted by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
The GodlyBuddha, therocker6204, what do you feel about not just restricting/banning guns, but reforming the way guns are purchased to make it more difficult to buy and keep a gun? For example, adding more extensive background checks, background checks for private sales of firearms, being referred to a psychologist prior to purchase, a national gun registry, the requirement of having a hunting permit and/or to have to regularly attend a shooting range to own/keep a gun, etc

I would love to see you two discuss this in your debate but if not, no problem.
Posted by dtien400 1 year ago
dtien400
The GodlyBuddha, therocker6204, what do you feel about not just restricting/banning guns, but reforming the way guns are purchased to make it more difficult to buy and keep a gun? For example, adding more extensive background checks, background checks for private sales of firearms, being referred to a psychologist prior to purchase, a national gun registry, the requirement of having a hunting permit and/or to have to regularly attend a shooting range to own/keep a gun, etc

I would love to see you two discuss this in your debate but if not, no problem.
Posted by cuteblondie14 1 year ago
cuteblondie14
They should be restricted. It's dangerous in the U.S. and millions ave people have died because of guns and not many people have been saved.
No votes have been placed for this debate.