The Instigator
LordFritzinger
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Reigon
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should there be gun control in the US?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Reigon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 90721
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

LordFritzinger

Con

I personally believe that the US government should not regulate guns. Con, myself, will be arguing that there should not and pro will be arguing that there should be.

I wish the best of luck to con and look forward to an interesting debate.
Reigon

Pro

I hope we have an interesting friendly debate!

While I understand the second amendment in the Bill of Rights 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."
I believe we need some gun control in the US.

I'm not suggesting we lock control every aspect of having a gun but I personally believe we need more regulations specifically in an extensive background check (which includes a medical background check) for those that want to own guns.

I also believe we need a form of testing to ensure the user is competent and trustworthy enough to handle a gun.

I also believe laws need to be harsher for those who obtain guns illegally.

This will further prevent those who want to do harm from obtaining them.

The above solutions I'm suggesting will help ensure guns only go to individuals we can trust to handle the weapon properly. I do not believe in limiting what guns people can have, how many etc etc.
Debate Round No. 1
LordFritzinger

Con

If someone is going to commit a crime, they will not paticularly care if how they obtain the weapon is legal or not. They are obtaining it already.
Gun control will only restrict the common person from getting protection.
Why do they need it?
Some places, like New Orleans, can take over an hour for police to get to your door. This, honestly, is ridiculous. People need to have a gun for defense becaue the police can not do everything. If you are going to murder someone, would you want to murder them if they have a gun? The logical answer would be no. There is a higher chance of failure.

The UK started restricting guns and murders jumped greatly. Currently, the UK is considered to be a not favorable area because of this. This trend continues in places that restrict or ban guns.




They also attempted this in Washington DC. Again, crime rates went up. After they got rid of the regulation law, crime dropped.


It stands repeating before our eyes. Gun regulations will bring up crime.
Reigon

Pro

Understandable but that is not always the case for people who commit crimes.

"The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons."

I never said we should stop people from having guns all together. My argument is more to restrict those who are potential threats from obtaining guns. Like my source above says our current system of background check is weak, eight of those gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems. Documented mental health problems is why I support having a medical history check done on them too.

Personally I'm in DEP for the AF and they have already done background checks on me, I gave up my right to privacy to serve (and since I have no record I was good to go on that area.) They can also do a medical history check on me whenever they deem necessary, I gave up that right in order to qualify for military service. I also booked an Intel AFSC which requires another extensive investigation which they'll conduct on me as I need a Top Secret Clearance for my AFSC. My case is the military does all of these checks and investigations on me to make sure I can be trusted to handle classified government information. It works in most cases these checks are able to prevent most unqualified applicants who are not qualified and should not be trusted to serve and handle classified information.
I believe similar policies can be applied towards obtaining a gun. (Not the Top Secret Clearance investigation, that's just an example of an investigation the military does to ensure their classified information remain classified)

No policy is perfect but I truly believe an extensive background and medical history check can prevent those who should not be trusted with handling weapons to obtain them. I also support harsher punishments for people who deal or obtain guns illegally. I do not support limiting how much firearms people can have or what types of firearms are legal.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
LordFritzinger

Con

According to studies, there is a chain of guns. The likes of which that can not be traced. Yes, it is originally from transactions. However, the way criminals do it seems to give no reason or probability that the original gun owner is going to use it for criminal activity. Since these criminals do not use gun stores, gun shows, or even legal private gun sellers, there is no point in the criminal supply chain where a background check would make any difference whatsoever. As said before, it will not affect criminals, but only the common person.


Source: https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net...
Reigon

Pro

My proposals are not geared towards restricting the "common law abiding healthy citizen."

My idea is geared towards creating a safer pool of gun owners. I'm not offering an exact plan but the more intense background check in addition to the medical background check are designed to prevent some potentially dangerous individuals from obtaining them.

"The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons."

Like I said the laws are meant to stop someone with a potentially dangerous mental health condition such as schizophrenia, depression, anxiety etc etc from obtaining guns. It's also meant to stop more people with a history of criminal activities from obtaining guns.
Would you trust those individuals having access to guns?

I'm not offering a detailed plan but like I said in the first part of our debate:
"I also believe laws need to be harsher for those who obtain guns illegally."
And in the second part of the debate:
"I also support harsher punishments for people who deal or obtain guns illegally."

My plans are in no way to stop the common person from getting access to guns if they want to.

Anyway it was an interesting debate, I understand where you're coming from but I do not agree with them.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
LordFritzingerReigonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Pro had the most convincing and persuasive arguments. Pro said he only wanted to have more extensive background checks set in place, while Con argued that a ban on guns led to a rise in crime, even though Pro wasn't suggesting and wasn't in support of a ban. However, I think Con used better resources to back his arguments then Pro did.