Would gun control work?
Debate Rounds (3)
1) Criminals are exactly that; criminals. Criminals are called criminals because they do not follow the laws. So, will a criminal have to listen just because of a law that prevents them from buying a gun? No, they can still buy illegal guns, they can still get someone to buy them a gun, and they can still steal registered guns.
2) Yes, the gun murder rate will drop slightly, but what about the rest of the murders? Stabbings, bombings, running people over, etc. I suppose we'll have to ban knives and cars, too, then? Or do the gun control advocates not care about the victims of those murders, just the gun victims?
3) Gun control is proven not to work. Let's take Russia as an example. They have very strict gun control laws, and you guessed it, they have a very, very high murder rate.
Gun control is not only effective, but paramount to the safety of everyone in society. The best scenario a gun control advocate could hope for would be a strict ban on the manufacture, sale, and purchase of firearms. The ideal scenario would include this, but would also include a recall and immediate dismantling of all confiscated firearms. I will be the first to admit that neither of these scenarios is likely to ever occur, but for the sake of the argument I will assume the latter has taken affect.
What would happen:
1) An immediate drop in murder rate.
While Con is correct in stating that there will still be murder, many studies show that making guns more difficult to obtain does reduce crime. States that have gun control laws on the books have a lower rate of murder where firearms are used.
2) A boost to the economy
More people means more production. Instead of wasting time in the ground, people can instead be working and contributing to the growth of the United states in non-violent ways.
3) More public funds
Less money would need to be spent on police for public safety, which would increase the amount of money the states give to other areas. Education, infrastructure, public works, tax breaks, safety net programs, worker training programs, anything that isn't police. And with less violent crime to focus on, the police would be free to focus on other crimes, like property crimes and cases of abuse.
Whether or not gun control will be implemented is still up for debate, but this issue is not. If properly implemented, gun control has the potential to save thousands of lives each year.
1) Yes, criminals will still have access to guns through intermediaries, but most murders are crimes of passion. They are impulsive in nature and, if given enough time to stop and think about what they are doing, most criminals would abandon their pursuits. There is a reason we make a big deal whenever a 1st degree murder case pops up, it's because they're so unusual and uncommon.
2) Looking at the ideal scenario, the removal of all guns from society, you would see an 85% drop in the overall murder rate. Murders are committed with other weapons, but the vast majority of homicides are gun homicides. Even a small decrease in the rate of firearm murders would have a big impact on the number of lives saved.
3a) Russia is not America. The police in Russia are corrupt, inefficient, and are universally mistrusted by the public. This leads to many people in Russia taking the law into their own hands. Say what you will about police in America, they are at least respected.
3b) Take a look at Australia. In 1996 they enacted a ban on certain types of firearms in response to several mass shootings and since then their homicide rate has dropped 20%. Gun homicide rates have dropped even more sharply. Granted, Australians never had a constitutional right to own firearms, so that must be taken into account. But a 20% drop in overall homicides is not something to be discounted.
Also, the majority of gun owners are not criminals, so why would you try and take rights away from law abiding citizens? It is unneeded and violates the second amendment. As I stated before, criminals will not abide by the laws so gun control is merely a hurdle to jump over.
I must point out that I'm glad you believe civilians should not have military style weapons designed to kill as many humans as quickly as possible. There is no constitutional right to that. Relating to this, I believe that we need to look at the second amendment in the context of the time period. When the second amendment was written, the best marksmen could reload a single shot in about fifteen seconds, and they were only accurate at short to medium range. Today, we have weapons that can accurately fire hundreds of rounds per second with comparatively little training. While these weapons are not available to civilians it still shows that technology has advanced far beyond the scope of what the framers could reasonably conceive of.
I will admit that most gun owners are law abiding citizens. However, the majority of murders involve guns. As I said earlier, the murder rate alone would drop 85% if you remove guns from the equation. Other crime would likely decrease as well, as there are few things more frightening than someone pointing a gun at you.
And regarding magazine size, which for some bizarre reason is vehemently opposed whenever brought up, is there any reason why you would need more than five rounds in a magazine?
kkloviee forfeited this round.
McCainOffensive forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: argument that convinced me was, "majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens," and "the murder rate in Russia" arguments that didn't convince me was that "removing guns from the market would somehow boost the economy."
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.