The Instigator
Parth_Vakil
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
brontoraptor
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The US should adopt stricter gun control laws

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 2 votes the winner is...
brontoraptor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 88633
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Parth_Vakil

Pro

1st round- Acceptance
2nd round- Arguments
3rd round- Arguments and rebuttal
4th round- Closing Remarks and Rebuttal. No new Arguments
brontoraptor

Con

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Parth_Vakil

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I would firstly like to state my framework for this debate, and then move on to state my contentions for this debate.

Framework: The affirmation states "Adopt stricter gun control laws." This means that the proposition only needs to prove one gun law that should be stricter in order to win this debate.

C1: Solves The Root Of The Problem
One of the roots of the problem for gun violence are background checks. The current laws for background checks are ineffective, allowing criminals to get there hands on weapons. According to Everytown, Federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks. That means that millions of guns are exchanged each year without a check"most often online or at gun shows through unlicensed "private sellers." Felons, domestic abusers, seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people know about this loophole, and they exploit it every day. It"s like having two lines at the airport"one with security, and one without. And criminals get to choose. We also need to make sure the background check database is complete. States and federal agencies have failed to send hundreds of thousands of records to the national background check databases. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen. The Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 32 people, was banned from buying guns. But he passed a background check because his records never made it into the system.
As you can see, by closing simple loopholes in the law, like making private sellers also have to give background checks and entering information in databases faster, criminals and the mentally ill cannot get access to guns, making tragedies over before they even happen.

C2: Reduces Homicides And Suicides
My opponent and I both know that there are intentional killings with guns. However, what many people do not know is that there are unintentional killings as well. According to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted. 89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents" absence. 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills themselves could be prevented by automatic child proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.Simple solutions like these could have prevented over 270,237 lives in the last decade. This
means that we should adopt these simple laws to save lots of lives in the future.

C3: Reduces Societal Costs
The effects of gun violence not only cause a loss of lives, but also cost a lot of money to families and the federal government. Causing restrictions, would make spending money at a minimum. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2015, gun violence cost each person in the United States roughly $564 and the US government $5.5 billion in lost tax revenue; $4.7 billion in court costs; $1.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid costs; $180 million in mental health care for victims; $224 million in insurance claims processing; and $133 million for law enforcement and medic response to shooting injuries. There were also 36,341 emergency room visits and 25,024 hospitalizations for gun injuries, costing an estimated $6.3 million. 84% of those injured by firearms are uninsured, leaving taxpayers responsible for most of those bills through programs like Medicaid. As you can see, there are so many effects of gun violence that can cost money. If we take simple precautions like closing loopholes and making sure guns are locked up at all times, then there would be no money spent on this, leaving more money to spend on other things.
brontoraptor

Con

Here are a list of things we could ban that would save lives. That doesn't make it logical, rational, or reasonable. Let's take a peek.
*
-Cars
-Planes
-Fried foods
-Unprotected sex
-Walking out of your house
-Swimming
-Horseback riding
-High cholesterol foods
-All large dogs
-Drinking pop
-Eating anything loaded with salt or sugar
-Crossing the street
*
The Secret Service, who protect government leaders are well armed and well trained. Why? To protect the government leaders from threats, of course.
*


*
The 10th Amendment -
"Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: So help you God?"
---
In theory, moles could infiltrate the country, give anti American citizen commands and use military force on us. Some people think moles have already infiltrated the U.S. government in an attempt to destroy the country. Do we have the right to weapons to combat them? Of course we do. We the people are more trustworthy than a group of crooks that have become so corrupt that they bailed out the banks and caused a Donald Trump revolution...If we can't have something, the government doesn't need to have access to it either.
---
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
---
Here is the amendment from being ratified by the states and authenticated by President Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
"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."
---
In real life, violent crime goes down when more people legally carry guns: "Right-to-carry laws" have been on the rise in the United States since the early 1990's. At the same time, violent crime rates have decreased. The number of privately owned guns has risen by aproximately 100 million.
When criminals subconsciously wonder if each house is armed, each purse carrying woman is armed, or see a man with a gun on his hip, they logically think twice, or they are insane. If they are insane, I'd much prefer the option to be able to protect myself, friends, and loved ones against them.
According to the NRA, “Through 2010, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 52 percent to a 47-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 48 percent to a 37-year low.”
---
Gun control laws don't make the U.S. a safer place. In Paris, France, which has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the Western world, ISIS militants, who didn't care about the gun laws mowed down 130 unarmed civilians at a concert in the Bataclan Theatre. I think about my sister who does carry a gun in her purse, was in the military, and is highly trained in using it. What if someone like her, male or female, had been present? What if a handful of similar people had been present? 130 might have been 40, or 20, or 5. That's why it matters. Killers will ignore the laws no matter what the laws say. Thus, you do not disarm the innocent.
---
With stricter and stricter gun laws, we get this equation:
Innocent, law abiding civilians : no guns OR less powerful weaponry.
Violent, non law abiding, criminal muderers: still the same amount and types of guns in their posession. Nothing changes for them, but we become disarmed.
Scenario-
So the violent criminal walks into my house with a semi automatic. I obeyed the law and am unarmed. He did not. Guess who dies today? Me. That doesn't logically work for me.
Real Life 101-
But in real life, if I notice an armed intruder, I get my weapon, I lie in wait, and he's the one that dies today. My choice is him or me and my friends/loved ones. I choose him. Call me crazy...
---
Scenario-
What if ISIS is here in the U.S. right now, right this second? They coordinate an attack on the American people. I'd like to be armed as opposed to beheaded, burned alive, or the females around me kidnapped and raped, as is their custom.

---

According to the New York Times most gun deaths are suicides, not actual attacks from one person exacted onto another.

Debate Round No. 2
Parth_Vakil

Pro

Parth_Vakil forfeited this round.
brontoraptor

Con

Current laws are usually poorly enforced. Criminals are often able to buy guns even when the law says they should be prohibited. We need to enforce the laws we have right now first.

Guns do not kill people. People do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and focus on the role the media plays in giving glory to violence and the lack of respect for law and law enforcement.

Denial of firearms is comparable to the "war on drugs". If people want the item, they will get it whether legally or illegally. It doesn't matter.

With the war on drugs, meth and marijuana are illegal in most states, so guess what? People started making and growing their own. And then Mexican cartels saw a new underground business to pursue, so we now have illegal drugs from Mexico being snuck in, drugs being made in private homes, and people growing their own. It didn't make it better. It's worse.

The same would happen with guns.Mexico would have a new underground business. People would begin making their own, and the market would yield great money for private individual makers. And now, we would have unregistered illegal guns everywhere with no way to trace them.

Here's a web site showing just how easy it is to make a gun.

http://m.wikihow.com...

And here's another.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

Point? You will never stop people from having guns. The only thing you even have a prayer of accomplishing is disarming law abiding citizens. Congratulations.
Debate Round No. 3
Parth_Vakil

Pro

Parth_Vakil forfeited this round.
brontoraptor

Con

Current laws are not enforced concerning firearms. New ones will not be enforced efficiently either.

People have the right to protect themselves from terrorists, murderers, rapists, and even our own government. Our government can't rid the world of 30-40,000 ISIS militants. How would they stop 350,000,000 angry Americans when the military itself would be related to these armed people by blood? I trust the American people to know when to act in such matters, not the corrupt government of the United States.

We will get guns, laws or not. We will make them and stockpile them if we must. The government will never truely be in control, nor should it be. We are this nation, not them. We have our own checks and balances by being armed and outnumbering the U.S. military 300 to 1. And even within the military, most would defect with no desire to kill their mom's, dad's and family. The government will never win, so it can just accept it. It's not in control. We are.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Shmac07 11 months ago
Shmac07
You are aware there are laws in place already that make it illegal to sell EVEN PRIVATELY to someone disallowed to own a firearm. GUN SHOW Loophole is a BS statement.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by pianodude2468 10 months ago
pianodude2468
Parth_VakilbrontoraptorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I am mostly voting for CON today because they took part in the debate LOL. Also, they had extremely good points which went uncontested. The pro had great points too but CONS attacks were dropped so I must assume that the PRO agreed. CON also was great at making points and had a good writing style. I'm not voting on that issue but I'd like to point it out.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
Parth_VakilbrontoraptorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.