The Instigator
Then
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Themoderate
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Should tougher gun laws be made in the USA?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Themoderate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,835 times Debate No: 36005
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Then

Pro

My stand on this debate is that tougher gun laws should be made in the USA as in recent months, there have been many shootings in the USA. I feel that if tougher gun laws are established, people will not be able to wield firearms in order to cause harm to others.
Themoderate

Con

I graciously accept your debate. I think I have the information and sources to prove that tougher gun laws are not necessary to your beliefs. Since this is your debate, I will let you have the first word.
Debate Round No. 1
Then

Pro

Many activists against gun control laws say that gun control laws infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizen. What these activists do not realize is that neglecting to control guns makes it unsafe to go out and violates every persons right to life and freedom. Although the second Amendment was meant for protection, due to the lack of regulations for guns, it has in recent months given way to nothing but tragedies and violence. In fact, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, there have been more than 61 mass shootings in the U.S since the January 8 massacre in Tuscon, Arizona, last year.
Thus, for all the reasons I have stated above, I feel that there should be tighter gun control laws in the USA.
Themoderate

Con

Many thanks to PRO for starting this debate.

The second amendment which states the people have the right to bear arms was created due to one's protection. It also states that it shall not be infringed.



Is Gun Control Needed?

Gun control logic is to stop criminals from getting guns, reduce gun violence, and make it harder harder to own a firearm
Recent incidents that have occurred like the theater shooting and Sandy Hook has brought a lot of attention to gun control advocates to come together and push the agenda through, making it harder to purchase a gun. I do not believe gun control is needed due to the following.

P1. Gun violence was at its peak in 1990-1991. During the Clinton administration gun violence has actually gone down with less gun control.

P2. Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws here in the U.S. and you are twice as likely to die there, in the Afghan war. Chicago Also, the murder rate there has gone up.

Source: https://www.google.com...

P3. Tougher gun laws have in fact, proved to be useless. For an example a college student owned a firearm and the college campus banned firearms on the campus. While she was walking out to her car after working a late night function, she was held at gun point, robbed, and raped. If the campus would have never banned guns on the property her chances of defending herself would have done up. The perpetrator was caught, and the gun was obtained illegally.

P4. Most crimes that include firearms are obtained illegally. It just so happens that Sandy Hook and the Colorado shooting was obtained legally but that's just 2 out of what happens everyday.

P5. Again, in Chicago none of the guns used in crimes were licensed or registered.

P6. The same day Sandy Hook happened a man in China, a man stabbed 22 children and 1 adult. December 17, 2012 was the day Sandy Hook happened.

P6. Making more gun laws would actually raise the illegal gun sales up. Guns and drugs go together in some cases. If someone wants something they simply go to a dealer and we do have gun dealers that sell guns so it would be like guns.

P7. Guns are not the only things cause massacres. No guns were used in the Boston bombing. Cars kill people, knifes kill people. chainsaws kill people, fists kill people, crowbars kill people. If guns truly killed people than cars drive drunk, pencils misspells words, and spoons make people fat.

P8. I think have made it so I can show my points and believe that tougher gun laws are not necessary. I have more to prove in the third round.

Additional Sources


http://youtu.be...


http://youtu.be...


http://youtu.be...



Debate Round No. 2
Then

Pro

Now, I will try to debunk your reasons on why gun control is not needed.
Although gun violence has gone down, it cannot be denied that there is still gun violence and with the recent spat of gun violence including the very recent shooting rampage in Florida, one cannot help but wonder, is gun violence starting to peak again? As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. It is definitely better to take measures to prevent further violence from happening than wait for it to happen and then pick up the pieces later.
Yes, Chicago has a murder rate that has gone up, but it is much less than in the gangster era, which shows that thanks to gun control, gun violence has been decreased. not only that, most of the murders are not by gun violence but by other means.
Well, yes, many people obtain firearms illegally but with tougher gun control laws, it will be much harder for people to obtain firearms.
Also, everyone makes the excuse that they buy guns to defend themselves, however, in the heat of the moment, they may use the gun to cause hurt to others.
Although there are many other dangerous things than guns, we should start to stop all violence one step at a time for the goal we hope to achieve, a world where everyone has a chance to grow and live safely, a world where people can live life to the fullest.
One good example of a country where guns are banned is Singapore. It is one of the safest countries in the world where everyone can walk the streets without fear of being killed.
I feel that although in the start, people might continue to obtain illegal firearms but after a while, they will give up and learn to live in a world without violence.
The most important thing to do is to keep your head up and stand against terrorism and violence. After all, what the bad guys want to see in us is fear. If we remain resilient and not give in to violence, they will realise that there is no longer any point in violence and learn to live in peace.
With that, I rest my case.
Themoderate

Con

Many thanks to PRO for instigating this debate.
Also, I would like to apologize for any typing errors I have made my previous debate.

Now I will prove my point my gun control is NOT needed VS. why you think gun control is needed.

Gun violence is not at its peak again. The gun violence dropped had dropped a 49% with less gun control. Gun violence is still an issue, but assuming my opponent did not watch what I used as sources because if he did he would not be using some of the words he did.

Rebuttals

PROS thoughts will be shown in Coming Sans, and mine will be shown in Bold times new roman.

" Yes, Chicago has a murder rate that has gone up, but it is much less than in the gangster era, which shows that thanks to gun control, gun violence has been decreased. not only that, most of the murders are not by gun violence but by other means."
- Where is the source to prove your point? Also, you are 2.5 more likely to be shot anywhere in Chicago than the Afghanistan war. Gun control must work.

Source:https://www.google.com...

"One good example of a country where guns are banned is Singapore. It is one if the safest countries in the world where everyone can walk the streets and feel safe" -
Source needed. And Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world, and they have NO gun control over there. The government gives them ammo and Sig Five Fifteen, and over 500,000 are kept in Switzerland homes and have the lowest crime rate in the world.

"The most important thing to do is to keep your head up and stand against terrorism and violence. After all, what the bad guys want to see in us is fear. If we remain resilient and not give in to violence, they will realise that there is no longer any point in violence and learn to live in peace."-
How can we stand against terrorism and violence without having instruments to defend ourselves? If we don't give in, then the crime rate will go through the roof. The idea criminals have is when no one is on to them for them being caught, that will give them more of a reason to commit crimes, and with that we must have something to defend ourselves. If we have nothing to defend ourselves how are not going to show fear? There will always be criminals, and there will always be violent ones. More and more people become criminals and with more and more criminals most will never learn to live in peace. That's why they are criminals.

Source:http://youtu.be...


Source 2:https://www.google.com...



Summary


It seems that some people like to think regardless of having or not having a gun will still not save your chances of defending yourself. Well, a 11 year old girl used her mothers rifle to scare away 3 burglars and scared them away and were arrested later in the night. A man in Ohio had a fiancé that was being held at gunpoint. If he had not used his fully licensed and registered gun to him his fiancé was would have shot, but he managed to save her. That is why we do not need stricter gun laws. With stricter gun laws we are simply making it harder law-abiding citizens and letting the criminals simply having keeping them. I have provided evidence that I have used in this debate that was not brought up by opponent but by me. I will provide more sources in this debate to show gun control is not needed.


Conclusion

It seems my opponent thinks with more gun control that less gun violence will happen. When guns are either banned or harder to purchase other weapons become a issue. In China, due to strict gun laws knifes are becoming the weapons of choice to go on mass stabbings, also in the U.K due to strict gun laws. Criminals regardless, will find ways to use weapons to commit crimes. Making gun ownership harder for the responsible, law-abiding citizens will be an infringement on the Constitution of the 2nd amendment of the right to keep in bear arms. The U.K. murder rate is higher than some states here in the U.S. Gun control and gun laws are not the answer, it's people who are criminals. That's why felons cannot buy guns, that's why you must have a back round check, and that is why we have them registered and licensed.

I thank you for debating with me.

Additional Sources.

https://www.google.com...


http://bearingarms.com...



http://youtu.be...


http://youtu.be...


https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
This is not your debate. If you wish to practice a private message would be more appropriate
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
P1. Correlation / Causation
P2. Correlation / Causation
P3. Highly unlikely that her possessing a weapon would have had any effect on the situation other than possibly causing her to be shot.
P4. Between 1982 and 2012, 49 mass shootings used legally acquired weapons, 12 used illegally acquired weapons (first source). The second source details how guns are commonly obtained illegally - typically they are bought legally and then illegally resold.
[http://www.motherjones.com...]
[http://www.pbs.org...]
P5. I don't quite understand.
P6. None of the victims of the knife attack in China died.
P7. Would you let a paedophile babysit your children? Would the rape still be all the paedophile's 'fault', per se?

I'm practising for a debate I have coming up.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
ThenThemoderateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no sources to back up his arguments, so none of his arguments can be taken seriously. Con used sources and presented his argument in an organised manner whereas pro did not.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
ThenThemoderateTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments and Con didn't back up any claims with sources.
Vote Placed by chainmachine 3 years ago
chainmachine
ThenThemoderateTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some good arguments but Con had excellent sources and an excellent argument.