The Instigator
syracuse100
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Stricter Gun Control Policies

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 971 times Debate No: 66324
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

syracuse100

Con

First round is an acceptance round. If you believe stricter gun control policies are better for our nation please accept this challange. I will gladly persuade you otherwise.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Thank you for starting this debate! To begin, I will state my policies on firearms. I do not want to take anything away from innocent, hard working Americans. It is clearly their constitutional right to bear arms. However, back ground checks should be put in place to determine whether or not someone is fit to operate a firearm. For example, Texas, the state I live in, is the easiest place to buy a firearm. You can practically walk into a store and own a firearm.

Also, "WASHINGTON " Slightly more than 190,000 firearms were reported lost or stolen across the country last year, according to a new report by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives". As a person who owns firearms, I can ensure you that they do not just go missing. Mandating gun safes could potentially help in keeping firearms out of criminals hands. Also, there is no excuse for firearm dealers to "lose" firearms.

Thanks

http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 1
syracuse100

Con

I will start this argument from my side and explain reasons why I think gun control is outrageous. I read your first argument and realized you are not completely against firearms or restricting firearms, but instead want firearms to be harder to get access from criminals. I will ask if you can please clarify more to what your side of the debate is. I must agree that I do not want firearms in the hands of criminals, but I will use this round to give my simple facts of why Gun Control is wrong. Facts below are by the FBI and other sources online. I will post the websites if you really do not believe me.

First off. Let us look at the countries that have banned guns. Britain, Australia, Japan, etc, etc, etc. What do most anti gun democrats say about this? "35, 40 deaths by guns in one whole year" This is a common misconception. Britain and Australia (2 main examples for gun control arguments) are the two HIGHEST AMONG ANY COUNTRY with violent crimes per 100,000 people. 2,000 of every 100,000 people in Britain, 1,600 in Australia. What is a violent crime? Rape, robbery, murder, stabbing, chocking, life threats, etc. Guess what? The United States has a whooping 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people and that INCLUDES Chicago, New York City, and other anti gun areas in the United States. What does this mean? Less Guns = Less fear to commit crimes. If the bad people KNOW that other civilians have no weapons, what should they be afraid of? Nothing! That is why the violent crime rates are SO HIGH in these Gun Control countries.

Secondly. It is our second amendment right. I am not saying this because it is good for hunting and self-defense, which it IS. Of course we must defend ourselves. The main fact is that We HAVE THE RIGHT. When America was first created we saw what the British had done way back when to take away our rights. We have guns so we can protect ourselves from oppressive governments! Ferdinand Marco is the dictator of the Philippines. What was the first thing he did as dictator? Return all guns to the government within two weeks or you will receive the death penalty. Why would a dictator do that? So the people have no power and no threat that will stop the government from completely ruling the people's daily lives. Having guns was and is protected by the Constitution for the main reason that tyranny will not occur in the United States, and if it does we will be ready for it.

Third. Assault weapons. I really want to enlighten some people on the views on assault weapons. Referring to my previous paragraph, to stop an oppressive government you need a chance to stop them. So how can you stop a government with rifles that shoot a bullet a second and require much aim. What many people do not realize is that assault weapons given to citizens are semi automatic, not fully automatic. They are powerful, but are not as powerful as military grade weapons. People think semi automatic assault weapons should be banned. Most reasons are "Aurora, Sandy Cook". No. Not valid reasons. In Sandy Cook the man who committed the crime had two pistols along with him as well. If he did not use the assault weapon would he not have used the pistols? So wouldn't you have to ban all guns? Assault weapons are NOT the main use of death by firearm in the United States. 95-98% of ALL HOMICIDES BY FIREARM IN THE UNITED STATES ARE FROM HAND GUNS. So if you want to pull the "Aurora, Sandy Cook, you should feel terrible you want assault weapons to keep killing children" trick, yes I feel terrible, but then what stops you from banning ALL guns? Handguns cause much more deaths in Chicago, Detroit, New York City, in a day than they did in Aurora and Sandy Cook combined. Assault weapons should stay legal.

Fourth. Yes there should and is back round checks that see if you are mentally ill or a criminal. I agree, keep the guns away from the ones who will use it for harm of others. The Aurora shooting took place because a mentally ill person took guns from his mother. There should be laws that make gun owners safeguard their weapons if they know they have mentally ill people living with them. ONE MAIN THING. People think back round checks are terrible and easy to get around in their current state. 96% of all homicides from guns are done by criminals who get parole or pardons by corrupted officials / illegally obtained weapons in the United States.

Fifth. What stops guns from being given to the bad guys? MEXICO. One prime example. Banned guns, 50,000 gun homicides a year. Doesn't work. Chicago. New York City. Detroit. Banned guns. 6,500 gun homicides are in the United States per year if you exclude suicides, self-defense, etc. There is an average of 500 deaths by guns in Chicago PER YEAR ALONE. Detroit, New York City, other cities are even worse. Chicago is not even in the top 6. Another question. There are 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. What stops there from being 12 million guns smuggled into the United States if we cannot even stop PEOPLE from coming in illegally and unseen?

Sixth. What stops gun control enthusiasts there? Guns cause barely as many deaths as do knives. The same day as Aurora, in China a man took two knives and killed 22 people and wounded one. Are you going to ban knives? What is after that? People kill using glass. Are you going to ban glass? People kill with fists so are you going to ban that as well? Why not ban cars since people drink and drive and kill others?

Look at the facts. More guns = less crime. Less guns = more crimes.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

To begin, I will explain how I will be organizing my arguments. For rebuttals, they will be labeled corresponding.

1st paragraph: My side was plenty clear. I stated that by definition, gun control, defined as, "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms.". Under this definition, government mandated gun safes and back ground checks would be allowed. I do not want a more extreme measure, nor a lesser extreme.

2nd paragraph: I hope your entire argument is not based on banning guns. I do not want to do that. I made that extremely clear in my last argument. I specifically said, "I do not want to take anything away from innocent, hard working Americans. It is clearly their constitutional right to bear arms. " Unless you can prove I said something along the lines of, "I want to get rid of guns", this argument is invalid.

3rd paragraph: You also have the right to burn the American flag. Should you just go out and do that because you can?

4th paragraph: I understand assault weapons. I have one. I am a stable citizen, who is capable of having a firearm.

5th paragraph:

"Yes there should and is back round checks that see if you are mentally ill or a criminal. I agree, keep the guns away from the ones who will use it for harm of others. "

Do you understand that this is gun control? If you believe in background checks, and keeping firearms out of certain American's arms, then you believe in gun control.

6th paragraph: Once again, "hat stops guns from being given to the bad guys". As I proposed earlier, we hold people who lose guns responsible. See here, "As a person who owns firearms, I can ensure you that they do not just go missing. Mandating gun safes could potentially help in keeping firearms out of criminals hands. Also, there is no excuse for firearm dealers to "lose" firearms.".

7th paragraph: Once again, I do not want to take guns away from safe, stable people. But background checks that prevent the mentally incapable of owning firearms would at least do some good, and the people who are capable are barely effected.

I don't want to ban guns, I don't want to ban knives.

With that statement, your argument falls flat unit's face.

"More guns = less crime. Less guns = more crimes."

For the 100th time, I don't want to take guns away. I want to keep guns out of the bad guys hands. by preventing guns from being sold illegally, we can stop unnecessary crime.

Thanks, and hopefully you will rebut my "missing firearms" argument next round.
Debate Round No. 2
syracuse100

Con

2nd paragraph : I stated in my arguement that I was going to give all of my views on gun control and that it what I did. The point of my first statement was quote "I will use this round to give my simple facts of why Gun Control is wrong." I clearly said that and gave you almost all of my views on gun control.

3rd paragraph : Is that really your arguement? Do not make a fool of yourself.

4th paragraph: And thats exactly why I want Gun Control laws to not become stricter. So citizens like you may have those firearms. Thank you for supporting my arguement!

5th paragraph : I completely understand this is gun control. That is why this topic is "STRICTER GUN CONTROL". I made that very clear. I believe in back round checks! Of course! 100 percent of Americans probably do because you do not want criminals or the mentally ill with the possesion of guns. I do not want STRICTER gun control that effects the innocent and those who deserve the right to bear arms.

6th paragraph: My point was nothing stops the criminals from obtaining firearms illegally so putting down stricter gun control will only thwart and prevent the good citizens from purchasing firearms legally.

7th paragraph: There are backround checks! That is to prevent the unstable from obtaining firearms. I am simply stating that we should not make it even HARDER to obtain firearms when it is already like this.

And for my "100th time" my last post was to give you all my thoughts on gun control.

My response to your "missing forearms" topic.
This entire article you sent does not have to do anything about the topic. We are talking about stricter gun control. You proposed that "mandating guns" can prevent situations like this. Ok? How is this restricting the simple right to own a gun? That is not controlling anything that is just a safety measure. Gun control is all about the topic of making it harder or easier to express your right to bear arms

IMPORTANT! You completely ignored my fact that "96% of all homicides from guns are done by criminals who get parole or pardons by corrupted officials / illegally obtained weapons in the United States". Please respond.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

1st paragraph: Your personal feelings are irrelevant. Were not here to discuss personal issues, were here to discuss issues.

2nd paragraph: That is not my entire argument. That was a rebuttal to your argument. A rebuttal which you failed to rebut yourself.

3rd Paragraph. You are ignorant. I clearly stated that stricter gun control is in a sense very vague. Since like I stated, Texas has very little gun control, any body can buy a gun. All I want is more background checks. (Stricter background checks). You failed to give a counter definition, so under the overarching definition, I am protected.

4th paragraph: Like I stated previously. Stricter is vague. There is virtually no gun control laws in Texas. Back ground checks would benefit us.

" My point was nothing stops the criminals from obtaining firearms illegally so putting down stricter gun control will only thwart and prevent the good citizens from purchasing firearms legally."

Would background checks keep firearms out of the hands of healthy citizens? I expect an answer in the next round.

"There are backround checks! That is to prevent the unstable from obtaining firearms. I am simply stating that we should not make it even HARDER to obtain firearms when it is already like this."

Please cite where I said I want to make it harder to attain firearms for the average citizen. I never did. I want deeper, more extensive back ground checks.

"This entire article you sent does not have to do anything about the topic. We are talking about stricter gun control. You proposed that "mandating guns" can prevent situations like this. Ok? How is this restricting the simple right to own a gun? That is not controlling anything that is just a safety measure. Gun control is all about the topic of making it harder or easier to express your right to bear arms"

That article gave an idea to how many guns go missing. I used it to strengthen my point about holding those who "lose" firearms responsible. An argument you dropped.

"You completely ignored my fact that "96% of all homicides from guns are done by criminals who get parole or pardons by corrupted officials / illegally obtained weapons in the United States". Please respond."

No I didn't! You literally just tried to rebut my argument that talked about missing firearms. Did you not even read what you were writing? If we ensure that guns do not go missing by holding people accountable, then less guns will go missing=Less murder. Please respond.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 3
syracuse100

Con

I will end my argument like this.

You called me "ignorant". Thanks for being respectful. To add to that, you said Texas has very little gun control. So why does Texas have some of the lowest crime rates every since making less gun control laws. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org.... Gun deaths have gone down from 8 per 100,000 people to 4 per 100,000 people. More people die in Chicago, a gun control infested city in one week than an entire year in Texas. Less gun control = more lives saved. If I was going to commit a crime would I do it in Chicago where I know people do not I have, or would I do it in Texas where I know every other person will shoot me if I do something to harm others?

I will also respond to where you said "Please respond." How will guns going missing lead to less murder? You said mandating guns will prevent them from going missing, but if they cannot be found, then they are simply missing. No matter what you really do to a gun, if it is gone it is gone. Unless you put a tracker on it there is no way to know where that gun went. It would not lead to less crime.

I do not think I need to say anymore. Simply making it harder for the innocent to retrieve guns only makes it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

"You called me "ignorant". Thanks for being respectful."

You were being ignorant. That is not a bad word. You were given information, and you blatantly ignored in. That is ignorance.

"So why does Texas have some of the lowest crime rates every since making less gun control laws. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

texas has larger problems. Due to illegal immigrants and gang activity, there are a lot of illegally owned firearms. Chicago has taken firearms away. Once again, I do not want to . This is why I called you ignorant. I have stated several times I do not wish to do this, yet you ignore that.

"How will guns going missing lead to less murder? You said mandating guns will prevent them from going missing, but if they cannot be found, then they are simply missing. No matter what you really do to a gun, if it is gone it is gone. Unless you put a tracker on it there is no way to know where that gun went. It would not lead to less crime."

When guns go "missing", gangs and people who wish to do bad things with those weapon now have control. It's extremely simple, why do you not stand for this? You make it sound like you want this people to have firearms.
It's obvious that firearms sold illegally (missing) firearms will only be used for bad things, so I don't understand the point of your argument.

"I do not think I need to say anymore. Simply making it harder for the innocent to retrieve guns only makes it easier for the criminals to commit crimes."

I reaffirm I am not making it harder to get firearms. I believe I said that in my first arguments. Background checks will not be more work for the person purchasing the firearm.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The place where violence is greatest is gun-free zones. Nuff said.
Posted by syracuse100 2 years ago
syracuse100
Yes I am against stricter Gun control.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
You go Con
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by z1 2 years ago
z1
syracuse100AbandonedSpringTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm kind of bias lol so not giving points to anyone.