The Instigator
pfourniernhs
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TrueScotsman
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

gun control

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 1 vote the winner is...
TrueScotsman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 39406
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

pfourniernhs

Con

As Joe Misserli states in an argument about banning gun laws for multiple reasons on BalancedPolitics.org, its a fact that "banning guns will take away yet another piece of our liberty, creating a higher rate of socialism and totalitarianism in our nation.
TrueScotsman

Pro

Hello,

Hope you are doing well today!

I have to disagree with you on this matter as it is well documented that countries will less gun control are statistically less safe. The findings of this peer reviewed article in the American Journal of Medicine concluded this:

"The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer."

Source: http://www.amjmed.com...(13)00444-0/fulltext

For instance, take the United Kingdom and the United States, let's compare the total fire-arms related deaths per 100,000 populations.

UK: 0.25
USA: 10.3

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

And this predictor can be used to determine any two countries not just with the USA and UK, for predicting firearms related deaths in a country with high gun control (UK) or a country with low gun control (USA).

The current gun laws stem from our Bill of Rights.

"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."

Source: http://www.archives.gov...

This law is given in the context of an organized militia, and the right to bear arms was to obstruct oppression from possible totalitarian governments. Yet, people take our Constitution and hold it up like some kind of religious document when it is MEANT to be changed and changed if a portion of it is no longer necessary and not working. Therefore, this "liberty" to own and carry a weapon should be determined on it's overall good for the society rather than simply accepted as a fundamental "right." Such arguments are nothing but special pleading.

Also, we can note that in these foreign nations with strong gun control or gun bans we do not see increased inclinations toward a totalitarian government. Again, the UK has a democratic process not too different from our own and it was not some prime group or dictator who said guns will be banned, but the people themselves (with little debate) decided to make their society gun free. Thus have benefited from it.

It would not be proper to say increased gun control is an indicator of a society's proclivity to becoming a totalitarianism, correlation is not causation. What matters is the means and purpose for which guns are controlled or banned, and in totalitarian dictatorships it is to ease the oppression of the people. And in a democratic society such as our own and many other Western Nations it is for the safety of the general public.

I also find it interesting how he claims this will create "a higher rate of socialism," of course since the word "socialism" had a negative stigma in our politics since the Cold War this seems to be a rather emotive argument at it's core I believe. And most importantly it is an ideological difference, which is refuted by the fact that countries with less gun control are less safe. It also is a slippery slope fallacy in that higher gun control laws do not essentially cause a country to all of the sudden become more like a social state. However, at the end of the day that is for the people of America to decide on by electing their representatives to support their values.

It should not be asked by our great nation this question:

What is of greater significance to our great nation, the ability to choose to own a fire-arm? Or the overall safety of our people, who are constantly threatened with rampant shootings happening in our homes, schools and public places?

I highly suggest that you conclude along with the facts that increased gun control in America is the right thing to do, regardless of your political ideologies as this regards people's lives and not just choices.

Kindest Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 1
pfourniernhs

Con

pfourniernhs forfeited this round.
TrueScotsman

Pro

Con has not addressed any of my points, nor has he defended his initial premise further. No further argument on my part is warranted at the moment, but gladly welcome and invite my opponent to engage my remarks.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 2
pfourniernhs

Con

pfourniernhs forfeited this round.
TrueScotsman

Pro

Extension of my previous arguments, as my opponenet has forfeited two rounds in a row.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 3
pfourniernhs

Con

pfourniernhs forfeited this round.
TrueScotsman

Pro

My opponent has not come back to respond to any of my arguments. Vote Con.

Kind Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
pfourniernhsTrueScotsmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: A full forfeit. Conduct for the forfeits, S&G relatively equal (Con did post an R1, and it wasn't total gobbledygook), Arguments to Pro for the utterly unrebutted case, and sourcing to Pro for actually having some, vs. Con who, though he did quote someone, had no real sources or citation (in his very brief 1 unforfeited round).