The Instigator
RileyMitchum
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
dlu2012
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should there be more gun control?

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 2 votes the winner is...
RileyMitchum
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,613 times Debate No: 26993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

RileyMitchum

Con

I believe we should not add more laws to the books when it comes to gun control. I think that we should enforce the ones. In criminal cases where a gun is involved an offender would not not use a gun because that is the law, they will use the gun. Hence the name, criminal or outlaw. The only thing that adding laws will do is hurt the law abiding citizens, especially those with concealed carry permits. If the laws are so strict that a person cannot own a gun a criminal will see that as an opportunity and commit the crime with no firearm resistance.
dlu2012

Pro

Hi, im dlu2012.

Intro

I think that there should be more gun control. If you look at the news there is nothing but chaos, it like all order has been thrown out the window. There have been recent cases of the i-95 shooter and the movie theater shooter and many other cases just like them. The fact is, guns kill. Does this mean that guns should be eradicated? No, hence the term gun Control. Gun control does not take away guns. It just makes the world safer for us. As for the law abiding citizens you have for your part of the debate. Yes, there are many law abiding citizens out there, but ask yourself this, why would they need a gun if there was no danger of being killed? The reason why they need the guns is because there is a danger, in Detroit for example, almost everyone owns a gun, for what reason? To protect themselves. If the criminals don't have guns to begin with would the civilians need guns? Obviously gun control does not take guns away for hunting ranges and for sport but you will need to prove that you are not a criminal. America is one of the few countries that done have gun control, look at the turmoil it has brought us. Adding more amendments to the gun control bill will not hurt any law abiding citizens, it will only keep them safe.
Debate Round No. 1
RileyMitchum

Con

First I would like to start by asking for a citation on the number of people owning guns in Detroit. Best I can see Michigan is number 37 out of 50 states in terms of population of gun owners [1], Kentucky is number 1 and has the most. Second I would like to refute the i-95 and movie theater shootings. I will give you this, the guns were obtained legally. However, restricting the types of guns would not have stopped the shootings. The Colorado shooting involved three guns a 12 gauge shotgun, often used in bird hunting, a .40 caliber pistol, as well as a civilian version of the AR-15 [2]. These three weapons are used by law abiding citizens for recreational uses such as hunting, target shooting, and shooting competitions. People who legally obtain a permit may carry the .40 caliber pistol concealed or open depending on their state laws. But they must have a permit to carry. Getting the permit involves more extensive background checks and fingerprinting. I would also argue that most people carry a gun because they "need" to, or because they feel threatened. Most people carry, after getting the right permits, because it is their right guaranteed to them in the Constitution. That is not to say that some don't feel threatened. The people who carry are usually well trained and well versed in their carry weapon. They try to keep themselves prepared for that situation that will probably never happen, but if it does they are prepared and willing to protect themselves as well as the people around them. But let me ask you this. If we ban people from being able to buy a civilian version of the AR-15 to hunt with, or to shoot competitively we will hurt many people as well as many gun shops who sell these weapons thus hurting local economies. However the people who really want these weapons to do bad things will get them. The main point here is criminals do not obey the laws. Increasing the laws will only hurt the law abiding citizens and the gun stores, while making it easier for criminals to take what they want. I will admit that a more thorough background check for the purchase of a weapon could not hurt, but restricting the types of guns more will only hurt things.

Citations
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
dlu2012

Pro

[Content removed by moderator]
Debate Round No. 2
RileyMitchum

Con

I dont think that was necessary. If I said something that offended you I'm sorry. I don't want to offend anyone. I was simply stating my points in the debate. Can you please elaborate as to why you are mad?
dlu2012

Pro

I am sorry if i was to rash in my words. You have a good argument but there are flaws. You keep saying that there should be less gun control and that citizens do not need guns to protect themselves. But I disagree, why the hell would you need a gun unless for sport of to protect themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dlu2012 4 years ago
dlu2012
accepted, just wait for this to be over, also if you vote for me on everything i will most definatedly vs u.
Posted by Samyul 4 years ago
Samyul
I would love to debate you on this DLU2012 . Please!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Aldric_Winterblade 4 years ago
Aldric_Winterblade
RileyMitchumdlu2012Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Agree with gun rights, and more than that, Pro's conduct was terrible (I have never seen an argument be removed by a mod before).
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
RileyMitchumdlu2012Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro sees correlation and claims a causation. Con has refuted the theater shooting and that more guns equals more crime. A mod removed pro's R2 as it was offensive, so conduct goes to Con.