That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.
Debate Rounds (3)
This brings up the fact of criminals total disregard for gun laws. To put it another way, if you want to kill your brother because he has been sleeping with your wife, why would you heed 3 gun laws? Your going to kill someone, some tiny little gun laws wont get in your way. You will to strait ahead after all if you gt caught for murder, a couple illigal gun laws won't seam like such a big deal.
Since guns are so hard to acquire, especially hand guns. The majority of Canadian public does not carry a side arm. Imagine for second if every person in Canada was required to carry anside arm at all times. Criminals would think twice before trying to rape you in that back ally while you are taking a piss. Criminals would have to completely rethink their "plan of attack." No longer can they just barge into a bank holding all for hostage. Now every person in that bank has a side arm, and is willing to use it.
If more people carried weapons, and if our country even let us, then criminals would think again before harming innocents.
Gun control creates safer countries.
Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so!
I await your response.
The governments tales of lower crime rates and safer cities are merely smoke shields for a bigger issue, that of total control.
==My arguement and rebuttal==
::"My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet."::
How do we know this is true. Maybe criminals would become more agressive and in return citizens would be more agressive. This would cause alot of distress on society.
::"If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? "::
Maybe not directly! But I doubt this would halt the criminal but rather look for more secluded route to accomplish the fact that he is a criminal and will continue to be.
'Gun control‘ means the efforts of the government or the authoritarian body to keep a check on the selling-purchasing and using of the guns by the citizens within their jurisdiction area. They encompass the sale, purchase, ownership, usage and the distribution.
The subject of gun control has always created a political and social debate regarding the restriction and availability of guns and firearms. In American politics for instance, gun control has been a controversial issue that has not been easy to manage or control. Gun control is a law that is used in deciding whether a citizen can own a gun or not. It is a law established to ensure that guns are not owned by criminal minded people but by people who are victims or are helpless against crime.
:Pro stated: "The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these "laws". :
Those people, who are in support of gun control, say that a gun is meant to kill and the less available it is in the society, the safer the society will be, while those against it say that whether guns are restricted or not, it does not change anything because guns do not kill, people do.
Those in support say that gun control will ensure that guns will not fall into the hands of children and teenagers, while those against it argue that with gun control those children and teenagers will not be able to defend themselves in the face of crime because they are not protected.
One of the common arguments for gun control is that it helps to reduce the ability of criminals, juveniles, kidnappers, bandits etc to own or posses a gun, firearms and ammunition. These advocates for gun control argue that the availability of guns can be successfully reduced only by strict federal measures.
Many a time, crime and morality statistics are used when it comes to dealing with the debates on arguments for gun control. For instance the number of murders committed per year, with a gun, by people within the age range of 14-24 years, increased at a rate of 173% from the year 1985 to the year 1993 and later, it went down by around 47% from the year 1993 to the year 1999.
On the contrary, my opponent is a segment of population that does not believe in Government imposing laws over acquisition of gun.
:Pro states,"If we let the government disarm us, whats next?":
What's next is the absence of guns altogether. The fact that there is a gun in a household is also a threat a family member can use it to perpetrate one crime or the other, which is why a lot of people are in support of the implementation of strict federal measures of gun control with penalties if anyone goes against the law. Federal government should insist and ensure that citizens comply with and adhere to those gun control laws, to reduce the rate of gun related deaths and make the society safe for citizens.
::"No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves."::
This inclination by my oppoent is with this culture reflected in our movies, television, music and various other creative forms such as art. Which is based upon the theme of the so called ‘gun culture'.
Hence, they have been supporting the laws corresponding to the arguments about gun control and have been insisting the government to enforce them more strictly to lessen the chances of gun going into the hands of wrong people or children or young adults, so that the innocent people do not have to bear the brunt of fire-arms.
I do not think my opponnt have given us a real good arguement for why 'gun control' is not needed.
I thank my opponent for this debate. I send it back his way!
"For instance the number of murders committed per year, with a gun, by people within the age range of 14-24 years, increased at a rate of 173% from the year 1985 to the year 1993 and later, it went down by around 47% from the year 1993 to the year 1999."
First of all just a little clarification, what country was this study made in?
"This inclination by my oppoent is with this culture reflected in our movies, television, music and various other creative forms such as art. Which is based upon the theme of the so called ‘gun culture'."
If I read correctly, you stated that because of cultural influences I am against gun control. If so, then yes! But it has absolutely nothing to do with the movies i watch, or any other art form. It is based on the beliefs of founding fathers, the people who built our countries. The second amendment clearly states,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Did you catch that? It is the right of the people to bear arms, for personal defense, and or defense from corrupt leaders. The second amendment is built on these main facts:
:Deterring tyrannical government
:Facilitating a natural right of self-defense
:Participating in law enforcement
:Enabling the people to organize a militia system
If the American government changes these key elements in political structure it opens the door to an entirely new and worse evil, tyranny. Total governmental control should be shunned like the plague, they are here to choose were our troops go, make economic decisions, and protect our values. Not rape our basic human rights to self defense by taking away our weapons.
"How do we know this is true. Maybe criminals would become more agressive and in return citizens would be more agressive. This would cause alot of distress on society."
Are you aware that the gun related crime rate in the US is twice that of Israel? Its true, out of 100,000 people, 4.8 will be killed in the us by a gun per year, while in Israel only 2.4 are killed. This is a huge difference! What makes their murder rate so low is conscription. In Israel each man must serve at least on year in the army, during that time even when off duty they must have a fire arm on them at all times. This forces criminals to deter, or like I said before think twice. They half as likely to commit a homicide with a fire arm. By arming what could be future victims, they cease to be victims. They can now stand up for themselves, against an a assailant, or corrupt tyrannical government.
"These advocates for gun control argue that the availability of guns can be successfully reduced only by strict federal measures."
Well thats great! If you want a spineless, easily pushed around public. Statistics clearly say that higher gun rates equal lower gun related crimes.(See my previous comment) With out guns we become a weak and volatile group of individuals who will follow anyone who is in possession of a gun, wether it be the government(Who was used gun control numerous times to control, push around, and kill the public.), or an armed criminal.
The only way for innocents to not bear the brunt of guns, we must arm them. Give them the power to stand up for themselves.
Thanks you for your input on this touchy subject.
I look forward to hearing your response.
My opponent starts off and gives us our rights, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Did you catch that? It is the right of the people to bear arms, for personal defense, and or defense from corrupt leaders. The second amendment is built on these main facts:"
An American citizen's right to own guns is upheld by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. However, many people feel that the amendment is outdated, and that gun control is of utmost importance in an increasingly violent society.
Gun rights activists have staunchly supported the Second Amendment and will continue to do until the government agrees with their position on firearms. Though gun control advocates seem to be unwavering on imposing further firearm laws and regulations, anti gun control factions such as the NRA have proven to become extremely influential and powerful political force to be reckoned with.
It is the government's duty to protect the people and society, and stricter laws have proven to adequately offer for a safer environment. The background checks, must therefore, be conducted to only provide guns to lawful owners. Furthermore, if gun owners registered their weapons, it would more adequately provide law enforcement the necessary information to keep track of firearm purchases and make sure that all sales are legal.
My opponent talked about society being weaker from gun control but I think we see that gun control has lessened our crime rate. These statisitcs rarely accouns for the grwoth on population and the increase in firearms themselves.
While most Americans oppose an outright ban on all handguns, there is considerable support among the public for stricter laws governing firearms. http://partners.nytimes.com...
:"Are you aware that the gun related crime rate in the US is twice that of Israel?":
My opponent here attempts to compare the USA with Israel. There are many differences but the only one we need is the population difference. USA is one of the most populated countries in the world and will be top of any poll or rate.
Americans continue to trend toward holding attitudes that are more in favor of gun rights. While solidly against a ban on handgun possession, Americans are nonetheless about equally likely to say they favor stricter laws on firearm sales as to say these laws should not change.
I will like to conclude that guns laws are needed to protect society not halter it.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: pro failed to prove a direct link between more guns and violent crimes....though he provided a source, he didnt provide concrete evidence that besides other factors like population size that gun laws is the reason for these results. Also con effectively rebutted pros case. I kind of wish con would have hit a little harder though. Con also actually provided a link to his source. By the way pro id love to debate thisth you, I Being con....Lastly con has better grammar