The Instigator
magic123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Why more gun laws are a bad idea.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 66266
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

magic123

Pro

We should not countinue to make more restrictions on gun laws. There are many reasons for this, crime prevention, protection, rights.
Philocat

Con

I accept your debate!

Please state your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
magic123

Pro

magic123 forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

My opponent has forfeited, I will allow him another chance to state his opening argument.
Debate Round No. 2
magic123

Pro

Sorry about the forfeit, thank you for postponing the debate.
1. An extremely high number of murders are committed by criminals.
2. It is a constitutional right to bear arms.
3. The reason for this is to avoid a tyrannical government.
Philocat

Con

Pro makes three points in opposition to gun control, I will respond to these after making my initial argument.

The first thing to consider is that a gun is a machine that is engineered to kill. It can even be argued that the purpose of guns is to kill. Not just this though, they are created to increase the efficiency of killing.
Taking this into account, it is a recipe for disaster to allow the general public (including people premeditating murder) to have free access to guns. Whilst it will not stop murderers murdering people (e.g using knives) it severely reduces the amount of people a murderer can kill. You can kill far more people in a given time with a gun than with a knife.
Therefore, not giving the public ready access to guns will reduce the amount of people that are killed when a murderer decides to go out and murder people.

'An extremely high number of murders are committed by criminals.'

Whilst this is true, criminals can kill an even greater amount of people if they have a gun compared to if they do not have a gun. Before you go and say that criminals break the law anyway so a gun law would be useless, you must think pragmatically. Whilst it is true that a criminal would not care about adhering to a gun law, the simple fact that a gun law is in place would make it a lot harder for a criminal to obtain a gun because of the lack of gun shops. Furthermore, if it is illegal to obtain a gun then there is a chance that the criminal would be detected and arrested as he attempts to obtain a gun; thus preventing the murder(s). If gun laws were not present then the murderer would only be arrested after shooting people.

'It is a constitutional right to bear arms.'

This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Just because the constitution says X does not mean that this is unquestionable absolute law. The constitution is not infallible and the pressure is on it to be relevant to our modern age. It's worse than saying 'the Bible says this so it must be true'.

'The reason for this is to avoid a tyrannical government'

Allowing civilians to bear arms would not prevent a tyrannical government. On the contrary, it could very well be used to justify the government using violence to control its citizens if some citizens decided to launch violent protest, which would be very much more effective if guns were allowed.
Besides, to suggest that civilian gun ownership could prevent a tyrannical government is to suggest that civilians could overthrow a tyrannical US government. In reality, this would cause a bloodbath that the civilians would probably lose; the US army is, after all, the most powerful army in the world. (1)

(1) http://www.shockpedia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
magic123

Pro

The majority of criminals who use violence obtain their guns illegally. You honestly think taking away the right to own firearm should stop people from owning guns. We did that with drugs and that's why drugs don't exist anymore. A criminal who has the intent of killing numerous people is going to see that it is now illegal to own a gun and just abide by the rules because that's the right thing to do. No that's ridiculous. The number of law abiding citizens who acquired their gun legally and committed gun related crimes is very low. By taking away more people's ability to own a firearm this will increase violence. This puts guns in the hands of criminals and takes guns away from law abiding citizens who can no longer protect themselves. You talk about how the purpose of guns is to kill. That is true for criminals, so you are allowing the murderes to own guns but not law abiding citizens. These people can no longer protect themselves. You want proof of this?

Chicago- Chicago has the stricktest gun laws in the country yet they have an extremely high crime rate. If they have so many gun restrictions how could it be such a violent city? If the criminals saw all of these gun restrictions why would they obtain guns illegally, don't they know that's agianst the rules?

You are correct that the constitution has to be interpreted and defined. But this is the second amendment of the United 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."
I don't exaclty see how you interpret that as "let's take everyone's guns away. "

More restrictions increase violence.
Philocat

Con

'The majority of criminals who use violence obtain their guns illegally. You honestly think taking away the right to own firearm should stop people from owning guns'

I never said it would stop people owning guns altogether, but it would severely reduce the amount of people (including criminals) who have them simply because it would be much more inconvenient to obtain one.
A criminal does not care about abiding to laws, I agree with that, but as I said in round 3, criminalising gun ownership could mean that a criminal intent on using guns to murder could be caught as he purchases the firearms; thus preventing a massacre. Also, a criminal could very well not be bothered to go to the effort to obtain a gun and instead opt for a less dangerous weapon such as a knife. Whilst this might not prevent many individual murders, it would make massacres a whole lot harder to do.

'This puts guns in the hands of criminals and takes guns away from law abiding citizens who can no longer protect themselves.'

Firstly, gun laws would not put more guns in the hands of criminals. How would it?
Secondly, guns are not needed to protect oneself.
Thirdly, if both the victim and the criminal had guns, the criminal would be more likely to use it (out of fear) as opposed to where the victim is harmless.

'Chicago- Chicago has the stricktest gun laws in the country yet they have an extremely high crime rate. If they have so many gun restrictions how could it be such a violent city? If the criminals saw all of these gun restrictions why would they obtain guns illegally, don't they know that's agianst the rules?'

Correlation does not mean causation. Just because Chicago has a high crime rate and simultaneously has strict gun regulation does not mean that the latter causes the former. For all we know the strict gun regulations have reduced the crime rate from an even higher one.
To propose a counter example, the United Kingdom has much stricter gun laws compared to the USA yet the USA's gun murder rate is 32 times that of the UK. This suggests that gun control reduces gun murders.

In regards to the constitution, I do not see it as an unquestionable authority that should have the power to prevent regulation that could save peoples' lives.
Debate Round No. 4
magic123

Pro

magic123 forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

My arguments remain standing, as Pro has chosen to end the debate without responding to my points.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
Oops, forgot to post my source for round 4.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Basically speaking, Gun control is Unconstitutional, under the 2nd Amendment.
"Gun laws" don't exist.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
magic123PhilocatTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
magic123PhilocatTied
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: Forfeiture