The Instigator
Woodstove
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Longrange_92
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Universal Background Checks Need To Be A Law and 20+ Round Clips Should Be Banned.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 44926
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Woodstove

Pro

If I could change just one thing in this country, I would try and help change gun laws. This is because I think that changes can be made to the system that would save lives; and if a change can save just one life, that is a change that is definitely worth doing. In 1968, Robert Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan. Since then, over 1,384,000 people have been killed by guns in America. That's more people than all the U.S wars, including the Revolution and the Vietnam Conflict, Civil War, and both the world wars. This kind of devastation does not happen in other developed, 1st world countries. Some countries like Iceland went two years (2003-2004) years without a single gun homicide. As a matter of fact, the collective homicide rate of Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Finland, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom in 2003 was roughly one-fifteenth of the United states gun homicide rate in the same year. The reason this is, is because in the U.S gun laws are not strict enough. And over 90% of Americans agree with me on that. That means additional gun regulations are more popular than puppies, kittens, or even a slice of all American apple pie. This is why I think congress needs to act on gun reform. The people that are dying, or having their families torn apart every day are not just people in the news. They are neighbors, cousins, fathers, students, mothers, children and grandchildren how might be saved with more, federal, gun laws.
The Elastic Clause states "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This means that the government can make changes on a federal level, and it is key that these national laws are changed. A prime example of this is in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun buying laws. But this hardly influenced the numbers of illegal guns in used by organized criminals in the "Windy City." This is because a short trip by car could bring criminals to out of city or state to buy a gun. This practice became so common that hundreds of illegal firearms confiscated every year could be traced to one store in Riverdale: Chuck"s Gun Shop. Proving that this problem can only be solved federal level. If I were to change gun laws at all, I would do it right. I can"t tell you what will work best, but something has to be done and I wish I could do it. In just the last 30 days there have been 5 public shootings at schools (including Purdue University where my Uncle and Aunt both work), movie theaters and stores. Is my right to walk safely through my town, were two people have been shot and kill in the last year, less important than someone's right to a 20+ round clip? Or their right to buy guns and ammunition without a full and detailed background check? I don"t think it is. I think that loose gun laws steal lives, and this is why background checks need to be a law.
Longrange_92

Con

The gun laws which are in place today gives the American people just enough wiggle room where their constitutional rights are not being violated. That saying, you would like to create stricter gun laws that would devalue our right as an American citizen to uphold the second amendment? I understand you have good intentions to make this country safer, however, creating stricter gun laws such as universal background checks and limiting the capacity of a firearm magazine are not the answer to gun violence in America. The reason why stricter laws are not the answer is because background checks already exist (The Brady Act) which requires a background check in order to purchase a firearm. The universal background checks will eventually lead to gun registration, which unfortunately exists in states such as California and Connecticut since the first of this year. Gun registration by each gun owner provides the government with information concerning each type of firearm they have in their possession, which in theory could lead to gun confiscation as seen throughout the 20th century. If you would like to discuss the amount of people killed by firearms, then let"s discuss the amount of people killed without firearms. In 1929, Soviet Union established gun control yielding 20 million deaths. In 1911, Turkey established gun control yielding 1.5 million deaths. Germany, China, Uganda, and in Cambodian millions of people loss their lives because they could not defend themselves. Do you wonder why our country never had a dictator that slaughter millions of their own people? It"s because we the people have right to protect ourselves, families and fellow citizens. That is why this country that you and I live in has not seen the day where millions are being buried in mass grave sites.

On the other hand, you argue to have stricter laws that limit 20+ round magazines, which I am assuming you know it will limit the amount of bullets the gun can fire, thus allowing the shooter more time to reload which will allow the shooter to delay his shooting time. However, the gun legislation that has been created for many states in this country has limited the magazine capacity to 7 rounds. How do you expect to defend your family from three armed criminals that are breaking into your house? I know for I it"s going to take more than seven round to hit at least one of them to protect my family. Which raises the following the question: Do you really believe that criminals are going to abide by new gun reform legislation? You made great point by stating Chicago is a city with the strictest gun control laws. I say this because Chicago also experiences shootings every single day, not just one but many. Also, you stated that there were 5 shootings in the past 30 days. How many of them were used with high capacity magazines? The weapon of choice was a shotgun, which does not come near the amount of 20+ rounds.

The reason why gun reform has become such a hot topic in the past year which also persuaded so many minds such as yourself, is because the media is spending every second of the day searching for these types of violent crimes. In my opinion, why doesn't the media ever talk about the drone usage in foreign countries and how innocent children and adults are being killed by US power? The Washington Times released article stating that drones have killed over 2,200 Pakistanis and 400 of them were civilians. I understand they are from a foreign country and we are at war with terrorism however they are still human beings that are being killed by senseless technology.

Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens protects this country.

P.S. I would like to know where you obtain the 90 percentile that Americans are in favor of Gun reform.
Debate Round No. 1
Woodstove

Pro

First of all I agree that the use of drones is disgusting. Second and most importantly, I think that 7 is a good number for maximum clip size. The reason I say 20 is because some states would never agree to such legislation. Sadly some states, like Texas, have no limit on how big you want your gun clips to be. It is no coincidence that these deep south states have the highest gun homicides per capita. To put it simply, there is nothing you need a large clip for is killing a large amount of people. That is a fact. Clip size is not the only idea that is grossly ignored. The idea of universal background checks is not enforced in many gun shows and private deals, and some of those guns are used for killing. My father knows 13 people who were killed with guns and 4 of them would have not been killed if universal background checks. This is because it would have Ben nearly impossible for the mentally unstable killers to get a gun. Like I said before, every life that could be saved is worth saving. I also see that you think that these proposed restrictions are a violation of the second amendment. Unless I am wrong, witch I am not, the second amendment does not say that such changes are illegal. No one on earth at the time of the addition of the bill of rights could have predicted the weaponry that is currently in existence. If you were really good with a musket in the 1700's you would only be able to shoot once or twice a minute. You could also forget about accuracy and safety as guns in that error often backfired or failed. Yet another thing to take into consideration is that the U.S second amendment (the way it is often interpreted) might not necessarily be a good thing.

It also seems apparent to me that you think that guns lower the amount of deaths, this is a completely illogical statement, with little to no evidence to support it. To be quite frank, the states with the highest amount of guns per person also have the highest gun homicide rate. If you are correct in stating that guns are great defense, why is this the way things are? It is also no coincidence that that the states with more gun laws tend to have lower gun homicide rates per person. This is why gun control is necessary for saving lives.

My sources, by the way, include, but are not limited to:
-http://www.politifact.com...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
-http://www.policymic.com...
-http://www.suntimes.com...

P.S. The 90% comment comes from a speech given by Obama, and was confirmed by multiple polling services.
Longrange_92

Con

Longrange_92 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Woodstove

Pro

Woodstove forfeited this round.
Longrange_92

Con

Longrange_92 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Senatus 3 years ago
Senatus
Interesting topic, but banning 20+ round clips and background checks are two different things.
No votes have been placed for this debate.