The Instigator
TheRightJE
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sewook123
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Strict gun control

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 1 vote the winner is...
sewook123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 51780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

TheRightJE

Con

I believe that strict gun control: 1. goes against the 2nd amendment. 2. totally limits our options for self-defense. 3. increases crime because people are deterred less because the victims can't defend themselves against a gun when they don't have a gun. This is shown in Chicago because crime spiked when Illinois started very strict gun control. Recently in Chicago, Gun violence suddenly went down because you can now conceal and carry in Illinois. This deters criminals because now civilians can actually defend themselves. We know that change in crime is because of this because there have been no other major changes that impact this sort of thing.
sewook123

Pro

I accept.
As Pro, I will be arguing for stricter gun control.

Before I begin, I would like to rebut some of the points made by my opponent.

1. "Goes against the 2nd amendment"

First of all, the topic does not specify the region of the stricter gun control. Therefore, the point that deals with the US Constitution is very provincial. Even so, keep in mind that the US Constitution was signed more than 200 years ago in 1787.[1] The context of arms defined in the 2nd amendment varies significantly with contemporary firearms capable of murdering dozens of people in an instant. Also, scholars agree that a collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. [2]

2. "totally limits our options for self-defense"

In my opinion, this statement is absurd. First of all, if anybody is planning to assault one with a fire arm, one will be dead without even realizing what has happened. Secondly, there are other means of protecting oneself by taking precautionary approaches such as avoiding dark allies at night. Third, stricter gun control will decrease the number of guns available which will decrease the number of people carrying fire arms. This fact will actually substantiate one's self-defense as it decreases the dangers around one. There is no need for one to purchase an AK-47 rife to 'protect' oneself against an AK-47.

3. " increases crime because people are deterred less because the victims can't defend themselves against a gun when they don't have a gun"

Fewer victims will have guns but fewer criminals will also have guns. Regardless of whether their victims are armed or not, criminals will do whatever they can to achieve their goals. Therefore, even if the victims may be armed, it is a risk the criminals are willing to take as the potential gain far outweighs the risk.

4. " This is shown in Chicago because crime spiked when Illinois started very strict gun control"
This statement is very subjective. Are there any evidence that it is the stricter gun control that lead to heightened crime rate? It is very possible that other factors contributed to this rise in crime rate.

5. "Recently in Chicago, Gun violence suddenly went down because you can now conceal and carry in Illinois"
Same rebuttals as #4

6. "We know that change in crime is because of this because there have been no other major changes that impact this sort of thing."
Another very subjective statement backed by no evidence.

Now I will begin my arguments for this round.

Con's arguments are evolved around speculations rather than facts.

1. Decreased availability of guns

Con states that the ability of purchasing more gun has enabled civilians to defend themselves against criminals who are determined and some trained to commit malicious acts. However, isn't is more reasonable to lower the guns available for criminals to use? What Con is suggesting is similar to nuclear parity and Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War between the US and USSR. Both sides have dramatically created more nuclear weapon in fear of being attacked by the other. This led to massive stock piling of weapons of mass destruction. As shown in this picture:
http://alphahistory.com...[3]
Eventually both sides agreed to disarm the nuclear weapons they possessed and now we are no longer living under substantial pressure of being nuked. to Guns, we cannot solve the problem by adding guns to the stockpile. Instead, we should try to disarm the available firearms to decrease the crim rate.

2. Deterrence

Because I am running out of word count I will make this one short. Stricter gun control deters criminals. Because of the stricter gun control, criminals and ex-convicts will have greater trouble obtaining arms. Fewer criminals go through all the expenditures and difficulties trying to obtain an AK-47 to committee petty crimes.

I await Con's rebuttals and arguments.

[1] http://www.history.com...
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[3] http://alphahistory.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheRightJE

Con

There was a survey conducted in a prison about how criminals got their guns only 8% obtained them legally one person said "It's actually really easy to get illegal firearms" Now, i have to get to class so thats why i have a very short argument.
sewook123

Pro

Thank you for your argument.

I will first rebut:

1. "There was a survey conducted in a prison about how criminals got their guns only 8% obtained them legally "

Sources please. That may be true but stricter gun control still limits the available numbers of guns which makes the society safer even a little bit.

2. "one person said "It's actually really easy to get illegal firearms""

This is a very subjective statement. One criminal's opinion shouldn't affect the decision of the society.

3. "Now, I have to get to class so that's why I have a very short argument."

You have instigated this debate. If you do not have time nor willing to put in the effort, you shouldn't have. I have school too and yet I am spending time debating you. You had 3 days to put forth your arguments.

I stand on my arguments as Con didn't rebut my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRightJE

Con

TheRightJE forfeited this round.
sewook123

Pro

My opponent forfeited.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
I would also need to know the EXACT restrictions you feel necessary.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Sewook, you voted on a debate I had with nato1111. You gave points to him (reasonably) because I didn't make any arguments. The reason why was because the whole thing got messed up and didn't allow me to reply. Eventually, me and nato1111 had another debate on the same topic and i was able to change his mind. Would you care to have a debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
TheRightJEsewook123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Domination and forfeit