The Instigator
annawaters
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ubermensch-Tsoa
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should the sale of guns and the use of them by the police be criminalized in America?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Ubermensch-Tsoa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 328 times Debate No: 90577
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

annawaters

Pro

I don't believe the distribution and free access to guns in the USA has been a positive practice.
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Con

Hello annawaters,
Interesting topic you have decided to debate. My effort on my first response my seem to relay minimal work, which would be partially true. However, given your claim I did not want to do to much work until you further you claim and provide justifications that I can analyze. However, I will try to dissect what you have written thus far and give you my take on things and why I disagree with your claim.
Topic: Should the sale of guns and the use of them by police be criminalized in America.
Response: No.
Claim: I don't believe the distribution and free access to guns in the USA has been a positive practice.
Response:
1) What exactly do you mean by the distribution and access of "free" guns?
Guns are allowed because it is written within our constitutional rights that have existed for hundreds of years. Sure, corporations distribute these guns to store, where in turn, are sold (not free) to a customer AFTER meeting certain state requirements and taxes of course.
So the first half of your claim seems to be misguided or poorly worded. (not trying to be rude).
2) How exactly has the ownership of guns been a negative practice? In one area? In multiple areas? or overall in general? and what are the results of these negative impacts?
I would suggest that any negative remarks about gun-ownership are likely skewed and mis-represented by fear stricken individuals or by political elite parties for their own agendas. In fact, people that share similar to your views our probably causing more problems than solving. Claims like "guns kill people" make me cringe because we all know guns don"t load themselves with bullets and then kill people.
At the current moment, primarily due to media, we see a huge negative connotations with guns; like you have expressed with your claim. "Guns simply should not be allowed because they cause more harm than good". Etc. Yet, you negate to relate that information you gathered to other periods of time. If you have, you would realize that there is a big problem with this claim.
An example is the Wild Wild West or so called by Hollywood. If you look at statistics from peer reviewed sources, information uncovered would illustrate that the "wild wild west" was in fact one of the safest times to live in; historians contribute the low homicide rate to the low gun restrictions.

Bottom line up front: further restrictions of gun ownership would not help lower homicide rates but likely increase these rates; creating a rise in one of the things these tools are used to prevent.
Debate Round No. 1
annawaters

Pro

Thank you for your argument, I'm sorry if you didn't fully understand my first argument, and this is my first time so I'm not overall familiar with the format.
Anyway,
I live in Ireland, a country where not only are the distribution of gums strictly limited, but they are not even possessed by the police. Surprisingly to most inhabitants of trigger happy nations, very few policemen have been shot, let alone resulting in death, in the last century in this country, as laws relating to this have been very strict. In America where all policemen are armed, the rates of shot policemen are, needless to say, staggeringly higher, even on per capita terms.
Secondly is the easy access to guns. When I mentioned the word 'free' I wasn't not implying that they were free of charge, rather that access was not illegal and not difficult either. And although you rightly mentioned that distribution is regulated, any number of people associated with the supposedly worthy owner of a gun now has easy access to the weapon. There is a considerable number of children who pick up guns that their irresponsible (how strict are these regulations?) parents of or siblings have left lying around and have caused damage to themselves or others.
I believe that it's all to easy to pull a trigger. It's impersonal and it doesn't require much thought. If the possession of guns without license was criminalised in the United States, the number of innocent people who would not die every year as a result of negligence annually would no doubt be profound. If you take everyone's guns away, no one would need protection from them.
You say that it's been written in your constitution for hundreds of years, but as I recall slavery was also considered a moral practice by the founding fathers aswell.
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Con

I lived in Europe for a little bit and had the opportunity to visit (and drink) with your country men, i enjoyed my stay!

"In America where all policemen are armed, the rates of shot policemen are, needless to say, staggeringly higher, even on per capita terms."
We have hundreds of years of Evidence to show that gun ownership was not a problem (or the restriction) until the past few decades. Does it mean we are now wrong? What has changed? The access to guns? No, in fact it is getting harder by the day to purchase guns and ammunition. Yet, we still have these (unfortunate) mass murders and gun homicides.

So whats the problem? You say we need very strict control and licenses (which to a point we already are required to have).
Here is were i will introduce some factual evidence to where it is clear stricter laws do not mean increase safety and security:

Myth: Countries with strict gun control have less crime

"Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. 1"

"Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America. 2"

"Fact: Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe 5, and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales."

"Fact: "We don"t have as many guns [in Brazil] as the United States, but we use them more." 8 Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S"

There are countless more facts that support my claim and disagree with yours. (Link below).
http://www.gunfacts.info...

"There is a considerable number of children who pick up guns that their irresponsible (how strict are these regulations?) parents of or siblings have left lying around and have caused damage to themselves or others."

Adults and children can illegally obtain a lot of things here within the US. Look at the US on the war of drugs. Theres an arrest almost every 40 seconds due to illegal drugs. Restriction/removal is not the right move, if it was the case.... we wouldn't see an arrest every 40 seconds due to illegal drugs.

Some kids take their parents cars without their permission and cause damage/death, should we ban vehicles as well?
Instances like this can be carried on through a dramatically long list.

"I believe that it's all to easy to pull a trigger." However, it takes a special type of person to pull it.
"It's impersonal and it doesn't require much thought." Neither does drunk driving.
"IIf the possession of guns without license was criminalised in the United States, the number of innocent people who would not die every year as a result of negligence annually would no doubt be profound. If you take everyone's guns away, no one would need protection from them."

"Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada"s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate " a significant increase. 10 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000)".

"Fact: Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned"

http://www.gunfacts.info...

"You say that it's been written in your constitution for hundreds of years, but as I recall slavery was also considered a moral practice by the founding fathers as well." Almost all countries had slaves at one point, including yours. The American Constitution was framed after the European Enlightenment and we are still fine tuning ethical and moral dilemmas. The bottom line is that we have Natural born rights as a citizen, the right to bear arms is one of them. Do we live in a serious (choice of word)ed up society, seems like it at times. However, as i hopefully pointed out, further restriction would not eliminate the violence that we see today. Our problem rests much deeper that just the "simple"restriction of guns, my friend.
Debate Round No. 2
annawaters

Pro

Your argument holds many interesting points. However there are also many holes within it. Although I totally agree with you that our problems will not go away by simply restricting guns, I do believe this would be overall a positive move, which is what I have been arguing.

Throughout your argument, you stated many unexpected facts and statistics about homicide rates in various countries; "Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe 5, and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales." However, homicide rates are not very telling on this particular topic. 67%, a bit over half of all murders in the US are committed using guns, which would suggest murder rates and gun usage are not necessarily proportional. Simply said, you cannot point to low murder rates in a country with easy gun access and say that the two are related- the fact the Swiss have loads of guns and the Brazilians few, yet their homicide rates are the opposite of what you'd expect doesn't mean these statements are related. Of course there are less murders in a rich country like Switzerland than a slum ridden one like Brazil.

"Theres an arrest almost every 40 seconds due to illegal drugs. Restriction/removal is not the right move, if it was the case.... we wouldn't see an arrest every 40 seconds due to illegal drugs". Although this statement may be true, you cannot really compare the possession of illegal drugs in the United States with the possession of firearms. These two are incomparable. Firstly, the demand for these illegal substances is much different than that for guns. People become addicted to these drugs, and it is inevitable that they will be in circulation, regardless of punishments and restrictions. In comparison, while if guns in America were made illegal this would obviously not eliminate them, it would stop a lot of law abiding Americans from possessing them. This, in turn would stop them from falling into the wrong hands.

And anyway, it is not possible to conclusively tie violent crime rates in any country with access to firearms. Using your example, even though Brazil has strict gun restrictions, and yet high murder rates, does not mean one can conclude that 'less guns means more murders'. There are dozens of other factors that cause Brazil's high murder rates, the primary reason being poverty.

Finally, do Americans really need guns? Studies would suggest not. A survey done by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program tells us that in 2010, for every 1 'justifiable homicide', that is a gun used in self-defence, there were 36 criminal homicide, and this includes off duty policemen. So, if guns in America were criminalized, one person MIGHT die because of a robber with a gun, but at least 20 or so homicide victims would be spared.

Thank you all for reading and thank you to my opposition, I hope you agree with me!
Ubermensch-Tsoa

Con

"Your argument holds many interesting points. However there are also many holes within it. Although I totally agree with you that our problems will not go away by simply restricting guns, I do believe this would be overall a positive move, which is what I have been arguing."

These weren't just points but facts that making guns illegal or further restrictions do not work. It showed direct statistics that support my claims and prove that restrictions would work. The point? They tried restricting guns in other countries and it didn't work. Fact (which was provided above). In my opinion, to effectively argue your point you should have argued the facts by providing actual data not just opinions. With that being said, I feel that there is no need to continue this debate.

"Although this statement may be true, you cannot really compare the possession of illegal drugs in the United States with the possession of firearms. These two are incomparable."

Yet, they are. The whole argument was that a restriction placed would provide less incidents/occurrences. IE Cause and effect. They ban drugs, prohibit the use and yet people still acquire and use these prohibited drugs. The correlation? Restrictions of guns would not work, if someone wants a gun, they will get one. Further facts below will contribute to this claim, again they're facts.

So, you want all people to include the law bidding citizens access to guns be restricted? Even the the vast majority of all gun murders are committed by criminals that opt for unarmed target? Doesn't seem to make much sense.

"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 19
Fact: 92% of gang murders are committed with guns. 20 Gangs are responsible for between 48% and 90% of all violent crimes. 21"

You mentioned something about protecting the cops from violence as well.
"Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill police."

And the case closer?
"Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows)"
http://www.gunfacts.info...

That means 7% of guns were only obtained legally. Restricting access would ten only remove 7% of the crime and leave the 93% at large.

"Firstly, the demand for these illegal substances is much different than that for guns. People become addicted to these drugs, and it is inevitable that they will be in circulation, regardless of punishments and restrictions. In comparison, while if guns in America were made illegal this would obviously not eliminate them, it would stop a lot of law abiding Americans from possessing them. This, in turn would stop them from falling into the wrong hands."
"Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. 5 Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal"s) is shed.
Fact: Every year 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms."
http://www.gunfacts.info...

And how do the drug lords control their turf, my chats over tea or slugging it out with hallow tips? Yeah, drugs and guns correlate very closely. Again, you're hurting the vast majority of people (law bidding citizens) to even more violence.

"Finally, do Americans really need guns? Studies would suggest not. A survey done by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program tells us that in 2010, for every 1 'justifiable homicide', that is a gun used in self-defence, there were 36 criminal homicide, and this includes off duty policemen. So, if guns in America were criminalized, one person MIGHT die because of a robber with a gun, but at least 20 or so homicide victims would be spared." Again its not Americans you're talking about. Its only a small majority of our populace committing all the crimes. (93% of them criminals).

In closing: 7% of guns were only obtained legally. Restricting access would only remove 7% of the crime and leave the 93% at large (committed by criminals, obviously).
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lwittman 1 year ago
lwittman
If guns are made illegal, only criminals will have guns. We all know that criminals follow the laws though so they would probably just turn their guns in.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lwittman 1 year ago
lwittman
annawatersUbermensch-TsoaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Owning a gun is a natural right. Taking guns away from the people who follow the laws only punishes those who follow the laws.