The Instigator
Samos
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
utahjoker
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The US Should Have Better Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+15
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 6 votes the winner is...
utahjoker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,358 times Debate No: 33615
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (6)

 

Samos

Pro

I believe that the lack of gun control in the Unites States is a serious danger to the public, in nations with full gun control the homicide rate, armed robbery rate, and suicide rates are much lower.

First Round is for acceptance

Second Round is for initial arguments & rebuttals

Third Round is for further arguments & rebuttals

Fourth Round is final rebuttals & concluding statements only, no new arguments
Debate Round No. 1
Samos

Pro

In the United States, the homicide rate is one of the highest of the more developed world, if you compare the US rate of 4.8 deaths per hundred thousand, with 3.3 of those involving firearms, to countries with tighter restrictions, like Germany (0.8 per hundred thousand), Australia (1.0 per hundred thousand), or the UK (1.2 per hundred thousand), it is clear that there is a correlation between mass ownership of firearms and an increased homicide rate. (Data from http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The proof that introducing gun control has a precedent, in 1996 after the Port Arthur Massacre, the Australian government introduced much more restrictive gun control, this is the major factor in the 47% drop in firearm related homicides in the country (http://www.aic.gov.au...). Put simply, if you don't have a gun, killing people is much harder.

I'm sure at some point in this debate the age old argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" will surface, to nip that in the bud at the start, the simple fact is that it is people who kill people ...... using guns. There is no need to own a firearm except for sport, it's not like controlling the use of knives, a gun has one purpose, it is designed as a means to kill.

The floor is yours.
utahjoker

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

What makes the United States so great, I believe it is our freedoms and rights; are freedoms and rights are listed in the Bill or Rights in our Constitution. The definition of a Constitution is an established law, custom, or the supreme law of the land(1). Which means the laws in the Constitution and the articles and amendments that are written in it are supposed to be held above any other law that is made in the land. Among the 27 amendments the 2nd one is the amendment that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (2)." It states in the Constitution reminding all those who read this that the Constitution is the higher law of the land that the rights for people to own and have guns shall not be infringed so any gun control legislation should by law be illegal.

But besides the Constitution argument lets look at the real statics. If I asked the readers whether they think gun crime has gone down, up, or stayed the same since 1993 most would answer it has gone up. The real statics is that it has dropped by 49% that shows that it is getting better not worse like many people claim it is like my opponent (3). 99.9% of all guns in the United States will not be used for violence which shows that gun control is punishing everyone for the acts of the 0.01%. Enacting gun control won't stop criminals from getting guns, 96% of all guns used for crime was obtained illegally by theft, black market sales, or illegal manufacturing. Going off my opponents argument of Australia and the United Kingdom the fact is when they banned guns armed robbery is up 40% in UK and 44% in Australia and in the UK most of their robberies occur when the victim is at home because criminals don't fear home owners without guns.(4)

My opponent is trying to throw out the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Guns are a tool for self defense and I have a good analogy for this argument. If I take an exam for school and I fail whose fault is it? Can I blame my pencil, well I could my teacher would probably not buy it and fail me. But if someone kills another with a gun it is the guns fault and should be banned. Does that make sense of course not people need to take responsibility for their actions and people need to hold them responsible.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Sources
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
(3) http://sourcefednews.com...
(4) http://beforeitsnews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Samos

Pro

I'll get to the constitution bit in a minute, let's start by saying that a photo posted on the internet is not a credible source, we'll start with '96% of guns used for crime were obtained illegally', where do you think they were stolen from? 78% of guns used in crime were made in the US (1). The argument that the US is safer than the UK or Australia is just wrong, in the UK the homicide rate using firearms is 0.07 per hundred thousand, in Australia 0.13 per hundred thousand, in the US 3.21, 46 times larger than the UK (2). The claim that the gun crime figures are going down is all well and good, but they are still MUCH higher than in other MEDCs. My favorite stat from your 'source' was that guns are used four times as often in self defence, against what? Surely self defence when you have a gun and the criminal has a banana and shouting bang, isn't really self defence.

It is argued that more guns cause less crime, this is a made up argument, the data says otherwise (3). Selected highlights from this source, you are 12 times more likely to injure 'household members or guests' than the intruder, 80% of homicides in the US are committed by a 'family member, friend, or acquaintance' who would not have got their gun illegally. Final point, 31 Americans are murdered with a gun every day, that's slightly less than those who are killed in the UK in a YEAR.

Now, the good old second amendment argument, the crux of this argument is 'this is currently in the constitution, and the constitution should never be changed'. The first argument against this is, what do you think amendment means?? The second is that laws change all the time for the good of the people, I think the good of the people includes the people not being murdered, ergo, this one should be changed.

Your pencil example is a good one, I don't believe people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, I agree guns don't kill people, but to look at your pencil example in more detail, let's say that you passed the exam, congratulations, that was all your own work, however, if you didn't have a pencil you wouldn't have been able to do the exam. Pencils don't take exams, people take exams..... with pencils.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...... with guns.

(1) http://bjs.gov...
(2) http://www.unodc.org...
(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
utahjoker

Con

I find it a little bit ironic that using a picture that has a list of facts on it from a credible website is not credible according to my opponent, while using Wikipedia is. But here are some more websites that back what I say (1) (2) (3). My opponent claims that if there are more gun control laws that people will be safer, but is that true. The top ten cities in the United with the strictest gun control laws are: Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark,and Atlanta; and out of these cities 6 have the most gun violence ( New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit). So gun control in America doesn't work there is an estimate of about 270 million guns in the United States and if gun control is enacted where do these guns go. Well they would go to the criminals who would have black market deals. Compare guns to marijuana, marijuana is illegal to own by federal law, but marijuana is still one of the Untied States largest cash crops (http://abcnews.go.com...) this shows that when someone wants something they can get if even if it is illegal like guns.

Look at the logistics of enacting gun control, Australia destroyed 640,381 guns after they made guns illegal it cost the tax payers 500 million dollars now imagine the cost of finding and destroying 270 million guns and we are nearing almost 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, the United States can't afford gun control. While the gun murder rate in Australia is low it doesn't mean they are safe since the 1997 ban on guns accidental gun deaths are up 300%, the assault rate is up 200%, and immediately following the 1997 gun ban overall robbery went up 200% from 1997-2002 and has increased since than 20%. crime Australia is not safe from guns just because they made them illegal (2). Compare that to the United States who has had less crime since 1993.

While any death is tragic aren't we going a little over board with it. In the US 3 people die out of 100,000 from guns that means 99,997 don't die from guns. Don't give up liberties for security like Thomas Jefferson said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

While the 2nd amendment can be amended the debate topic is not about amending the 2nd amendment. It is about gun control and he should have changed the topic.

Pencils are a tool like guns if used right they are great if used wrongly they are not great.

Gun control is not about guns it is about the government controlling you and me.

Sources
(1)http://dailycaller.com...
(2) http://freerepublic.com...
(3) http://www.justfacts.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Samos

Pro

From your own source (1) 39.2% of criminals get guns illegally, so gun control would save 60% of gun crime, or 18 thousand lives a year.

Sorry for not explaining the wiki source is is unodc data from (2) wiki lays it out better. The reason I said your source wasn't credible was if you trace it to its source it comes from an unreliable website. According to the Brady Campaign the states with the strictest gun laws are Pennsylvania, Illinois, Rhode Island, Maryland, Hawaii, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey & California, I would love to see where you got your list from seeing as Dallas, Cleveland, Detroit and Atlanta aren't in those states. Actually of the top ten states with the strictest gun laws 3 feature in the top ten gun homicide cities, however none of these states require buyers to have a gun licence before a gun is bought, the point is that if you aren't going to use your gun for violence there is rarely a need for it. You say at the end of your last argument that "guns are used right they are great" what is the great use for a gun, the purpose of a gun is to harm, if pencil murders were high there would be a case that it's a necessary evil as pencils are useful, gun murders don't have that argument. The way a gun licence works is that if you need one, for protection from animals, if you're a farmer, etc, you can buy one, but if you don't need one you can't have one.

The argument about the cost of destroying guns seems odd, partly because you seem to have pulled the numbers from the air, but mainly because you got your math wrong, I'll walk you through it.

Cost per gun = 500000000/640381 = $780.79

Cost for all guns = 780.79 x 270000000 = 210.8 billion dollars. In actual fact we can assume that some of the Australian money was for infrastructure so it would probably be less than that. More importantly gun crime cost the US $174 billion in 2010 alone (3), so if we can remove all legal sources of guns and reduce gun crime by that magical 60% , in just over 2 years the destruction of guns would have paid for itself.

In case you don't understand that math

174 x 0.6 = 104.4 billion saving per year

210.8 / 104.4 = 2.02 years

Shall we play the Australia statistics game you seem to enjoy, I'll give the headlines. Homicide down. Robbery has stayed the same. To be fair assault has risen, but you make yourself look foolish by claiming it's up 200%, try 27%. My favorite part of your source is where it shows the percentage of murders by guns and by knives, turns out that they still add up to 100%, it has proved that of all murders using a weapon 100% do actually use a weapon. I'm confused as how this source has looked at the same graphs and not understood them. Gun deaths in Australia have halved since '97 (5). If you're going to use sources please read them carefully.

Just because only a 'small' number of people die from homicides, there are other deaths due to firearms, whether it is suicides or accidental deaths, in total in 2010 it was about 30 thousand people (6).

Your final point of gun control being about 'the government controlling you and me' I'm going to let go, do you really think that deserves an answer?

In conclusion, guns are weapons, why are they legal when they have no use but to maim and kill. No good reason. VOTE PRO!

Sorry for source overload

(1) http://dailycaller.com...
(2) http://www.unodc.org...
(3) http://www.forbes.com...
(4) http://www.aic.gov.au...
(5) http://www.gunpolicy.org...
(6) http://www.cdc.gov...
utahjoker

Con

From my sources it states that 39.2% of criminals get their guns from the street or illegal sources, and 39.6% obtain their guns from a friend or family member which doing this is still illegal and if my opponent would have read on it also states that less than 9% of criminals obtain their guns from a legal retail setting. (1)

Guns are not meant to harm they are meant to defend that is way Police Officers are given guns so they can defend themselves not go around and kill. Watch this video of Dr. Gary Kleck widely recognized as one of the top criminologists and gun control experts in the entire country. Self defense works in our country. Making stricter gun laws makes crime for frequent because you take away the self defense people have.(2)

Robberies are up in Australia and the United Kingdom because the criminals no longer fear the home owners because they don't have a defense like a gun(3)(4). While Australia and United Kingdom does have less gun crime they do have more crime overall because criminals don't fear anyone.

The cost comes from making them illegal and having to use police force to gather guns up would cost more than we can estimate.

Gun Control is meant to control people, because you can't herd lions, but you can herd sheep. Guns are what give the American people a chance to stand against tyranny. Dictators always want to ban guns because it makes it easy to rule with an iron fist (5). Like what Thomas Jefferson said "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.(6)"

I love my 2nd amendment (7) and I want my freedom that my fore fathers fought for. Vote con against gun control because of what control is and what it would do to you.

Sources
(1) http://dailycaller.com...
(2) http://news.yahoo.com...
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(4) http://www.nationmaster.com...
(5) http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com...
(6) http://www.goodreads.com...
(7) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bla60ah 4 years ago
bla60ah
Nero,

During the Revolutionary War the majority of cannons and artillery were provided by private persons. The founders saw many revolutionary advancements to the musket, and they must have foreseen that changes would be made in the future.
Posted by Nero1678 4 years ago
Nero1678
When we wrote it we did not have fully automatic rifles. So why do we need them anyways.
Posted by bla60ah 4 years ago
bla60ah
If more guns mean more people killed, why is it that the number of guns in the USA is at an all time high, whereas murder is continuing to go down?
Posted by WatWatInTheWat 4 years ago
WatWatInTheWat
Pro, go look up how many of those gun crimes are committed by assault rifles. It'll really surprise you. Also, have you considered the numbers skewered due to gang violence?
Posted by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
When they wrote the 2nd amendment they intended for the people to have the same protection as the military
Posted by Nero1678 4 years ago
Nero1678
I feel that we should have the right to have a gun but why do we need fully automatic weapons. when we wrote the second amendment they did not mean you should have the right to a mini gun
Posted by hereiam2005 4 years ago
hereiam2005
@ utahjoker,
I merely pointed out the flaw in the logic; I did not make any comment on the debate subject itself. I don't want to start another debate in the comment section.
If you want to debate me on the subject, you can challenge me - I will gladly accept.
Posted by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
@hereiam2005

People kill people....with guns and knives and bombs and fists and poison and cars and drugs. The problem is not a gun problem it`s a Society problem that no longer views violence as bad if you want to fix gun violence and violence in general it starts with people`s attitude and morals
Posted by hereiam2005 4 years ago
hereiam2005
@ wrichcirw
"Pencils don't take exams, people take exams..... with pencils. Guns don't kill people, people kill people...... with guns."

This is a horrible analogy which if exploited correctly would works against con:

Suppose that the act of "taking exam" is bad, and should be prevented, what should we do? Would banning all pens and pencils works? Most definitely.

Con's analogy would be equivalent to blaming the gun in a shooting competition: if you lost, you don't blame your gun.
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
Excellent video, Con.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by avery6652 4 years ago
avery6652
SamosutahjokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
SamosutahjokerTied
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: "If I take an exam for school and I fail whose fault is it? Can I blame my pencil, well I could [,but] my teacher would probably not buy it and fail me." "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty" I was actually a little for the banning of guns till i read con's debate. This was probably the most convincing argument i have read on DDO so far. Overall Pro and Con both had powerful arguments, both very good sources, and were pretty evenly matched, but the quotes and the passion i felt from Con was just more convincing. Btw Pointing out that Cowboy votebombed. (This is not a CVB)
Vote Placed by Cowboy0108 4 years ago
Cowboy0108
SamosutahjokerTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Prop used wikipedia, and I do not believe that you can compare other countries with the US, which pro placed the entire argument on.
Vote Placed by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
SamosutahjokerTied
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: Danger to the public is not the same thing as a course correction via the addition of more laws. It is illegal to murder, more anti murder laws or even harsher penalties does nothing to stem the tide of murder rates, in fact it often causes an elevation of this sort of crime. Sorry Con, but I am a bleeding heart liberal that doesn?t believe gun laws are just.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
SamosutahjokerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really only compared 3 countries to the United States in total saying that they have gun control and have less homicide rates and that was basically Pro's entire argument. Con showed that crimes in general went up in those countries and that Civilians need a way to defend themselves and that regardless of gun control, about 10% of criminals require their guns through the black market. Con also showed that guns are used to protect themselves from the government. Conduct to Con only because Pro really elaborated and presented his arguments on guns versus the government in the last round.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
SamosutahjokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments