The Instigator
ftab
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Stricter gun controls

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...
ftab
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 75511
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

ftab

Con

I am against of stricter gun controls in the USA and in Europe. Before beginning our debate you have to know some things about me:
1. I am German, so I will use some facts from German websites but also from English websites (I hope that is not a problem for you!)
2. I am against stricter gun controls but I am for a background check, to prevent that dangerous people can legally buy weapons.
I hope we will have an interesting debate!
Good luck!!!
9spaceking

Pro

I will be playing devil's advocate (speaking out for the position normally against what I really believe).
I will start off simple.

1. Deterrence to crime and deaths
There have been many shootings in the pass years. [http://www.motherjones.com...] These are all due to guns, and if we control guns to a stricter extent, the criminals will be able to buy fewer guns, possibly leading to fewer shootings.
Here are a few more statistics that prove guns should be in stricter control: [http://www.bradycampaign.org...]
  • One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1
  • On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2
  • Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3
  • The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4
  • A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5
Stricter gun control would not only stop the criminals, it can also stop the unintentional shootings. It would be a warning to those who want to buy guns for good purposes, and allow them to be more careful. And even if the gun control isn't 100 percent, it arguably helps the civilians who do buy guns, since some people believe in defending themselves just in case. [Keep in mind that if gun control WAS 100%, criminals could obtain them illegally, leaving the civilians defenseless, while if it is just severe enough to hinder a good amount of criminals, with lots of security and checks, it still allows the civilians who are serious enough to both hunt for fun, and defend themselves in cases of emergency). The background checks, with sufficient increase in tighter control, will be able to deter much more crime than now.
That is all.
Debate Round No. 1
ftab

Con

Thank you for taking part in my debate! First of all I have to say that gun related crimes, in the USA, decreased quite a lot, also if people buy more and more guns. In the FBI crime statistics for 2011 there was a decrease of 3,8% of violent crimes. For 2012 it increased for only 0,7%, in 2013 it decreased for 4,4% and in 2013 it decreased for 4,6%. This is 12,3% lower than in 2009 and 14,5 than in 2004.
Here you can see the full statistics:
2011: http://www.fbi.gov...
2012: http://www.fbi.gov...
2013: http://www.fbi.gov...
Preliminary crime statistics 2014: http://www.fbi.gov...
Most of the crimes committed are because of personal relationship, this means that if he wouldn't have got any access to firearms he would have used other objects like knifes or any other things you can find at home. People who want to suicide can find other methods than their guns (eg. jumping out of a window, from a bridge...).
Stricter gun controls only harm those people who want to use their guns for "good" things like self-defense or those who want to practice a shooting sport or go hunting. Criminals find other way to get to guns: this would massively increase the number of illegal weapons, and at the end some who is killed is dead, shot with an legal weapon or with an illegal weapons, he is still dead. A more restrictive gun law would only minimally decrease the number of weapons in hand of people that should not have them.
After a study of Prof. Dr. Heubrock, for the German Landtag Schleswig-Holstein, and other studies in the European Union, he comes to the conclusion that most of the gun related crimes are acquaintance crimes. Here the offender and the victim are clear only the object of the crime is not clear. This means, for example, if he would not have used a gun he would have used a knife or any other object that could be used as weapon. This means also if we would not have got a gun he would have used an other object for his purpose.*
We also have to remember that if you have weapons at home it does not turn yourself automatically into a crazy murder who is shooting in schools. Almost always is not the weapon that turns you into a murder but it is the murder who wants a gun and use it for criminal purposes!

*The full study (in German): http://www.landtag.ltsh.de...
A summarised version (in German)--look pag. 4, paragraph n. 4: http://www.ballistol.de...
9spaceking

Pro

9spaceking forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ftab

Con

I hope you forfeited your the last round because you had no time, so for giving another another possibility I will put my next arguments in the next round!
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent is right. He has shown exactly why stricter gun control was not necessary.
Vote for him. I did not play devil's advocate very well. :P
Debate Round No. 3
ftab

Con

Thank you for taking part in the debate. Always remember:
"A country is only so free like its gun control law!"-Triebel
9spaceking

Pro

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ftab9spacekingTied
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: Pro conceded and forfeited.