Debate Rounds (4)
that is what i am arguing i hope we have a good debate
when guns are outlawed the same thing will happen outlaws will find out how to get them and we will be defenseless because we wouldnt have any guns of our own anymore.
i will now emphasize this point with the history of another country. a little over a year ago guns were banned in Australia and the results were homocides up 36% assaults up 8.6% and in the state of victoria homocide rate went up a wopping 300%
Argument 1: Problems
When people who own guns have a big amount of stress in their lives, have mental illness, get bullied/harassed, they feel the need to let their anger out on someone, to relieve the stress of there lives. People in these situations have been known to act and let go of control using the guns in there possession. For example:
"Spc. Ivan Lopez's friendly smile apparently gave no hint of a history of depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders.
The Iraq war veteran was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder before he opened fire at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas on Wednesday.
Lopez took his own .45-caliber handgun onto the sprawling facility and killed three people and wounded 16 more before taking his own life. His death left authorities to piece together what in his background and medical treatment could have triggered a new round of bloodshed at the same Killeen post where an officer killed 13 people in 2009."- CNN
In this example, this man has "depression anxiety, and other psychiatric disorders" and killed three people and wounded sixteen more.
Now, what is a way to stop things like this from happening? Gun control. If people do not have these sorts of weapons within arm's reach, then they will not commit such awful murders like this.
Next speech hopefully a bit longer for me!
References so far:
since last round i talked about crime rate this round i will talk about employment and government
First off there are many people who support there family with these guns they hunt with them and use them for sport to gain money and food for there family
the unemployment rate is already low enough do we also wanna take away the jobs of all those people who own or work in a gun shop
So many people make a living with these guns our unemployment rate is gonna spike
ok now its time for my government section
as the people we are supposed to be ready to fight if the government uses any act of tyranny against us the people this may be unlikely but lets take a look at this
- The Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents were exterminated
- In 1935 Germany established gun control and 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves were killed
- China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents were exterminated
These were all acts of tyranny from there forms of government
Argument two: The second amendment
People who are against gun control, including my opponent, often argue that the second amendment states that any person can "bear arms." Well, if you take a closer look, it actually 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." This does not, and should not cover the imaginary delusions some individual might experience.
Argument three: Example
"After the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where an armed man shot 27 people to death, 20 of them first-graders at the Sandy Hook Elementary school, the subject of gun control was once more thrown into the national spotlight. The 20-year old was a shy lonely individual, without a history of violence but possible behavioral issues. He lived with his mother in a decent neighborhood in Newtown and used her arsenal of guns to go on a bloody rampage."- Buzzle (1)
This man had access to such a killing machine because his mother LEGALLY had them in the house. A way to stop this? Gun control. The government can control who owns these guns, and where these owners put them. If they had done so, this tragedy most likely would not have happened, because this gun would be stowed away in a safer place.
Argument four: Lethal Weapon
The gun is a lethal weapon that is meant to kill therefore, the fewer people that have guns, the less deaths will occur. My opponent might say "knives kill people too." Well, bud, knives kill a maximum usually of around 3 kills per "incident." Those semi-auto's that they sell today can kill at least 20 people in the same time frame.
References for this round:
I can also see that everything you say is part of the same point that peoples stress level will rise and they will shoot people so you only have had one point this whole debate pro i hope to see you make at least one more in the last round
The Columbine High School massacre was a school shooting which occurred on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine, an unincorporated area of Jefferson County in the State of Colorado.
This seems to be a good example against your "stress shootings" these students got there guns by illegally buying them from a man who illegally made them at his house.
It is isnt especially hard to illegally manufacture guns.
Well this was somewhat of a short round for me but i believe i have made my point
Gun Control is right for America thank you.
But before I do my rebuttals I will present one more point because of being slightly nudged/helped from a comment.
Argument 5: The facts
"In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration."- (1)
Since the ban started in 1982, the murder rate in Chicago went down 17%, and the USA murder rate 30% down.
"the unemployment rate is already low enough do we also wanna take away the jobs of all those people who own or work in a gun shop"
Ahem, we are talking about "gun control." Gun control means limiting or making more thorough checks for sales of gun. So when you state that instituting gun control will take away jobs of people, it wouldn't. People would still be able to sell guns.
"In 1935 Germany established gun control and 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves were killed"
We all know that in this example Germany was Nazi-Germany. They where completely mean, horrible, and other words that I will not state on this family-friendly website. Listen to this: "Jews were prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. They were also forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition." This is a bad example because it was completely unfair for the Jews. Gun control should be for EVERYONE except for the Military. Not just for the Jews, and this is barely gun control. This is banning guns.
"The Columbine High School massacre was a school shooting which occurred on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine, an unincorporated area of Jefferson County in the State of Colorado. This seems to be a good example against your "stress shootings" these students got there guns by illegally buying them from a man who illegally made them at his house."
By the way, my "stress shootings" point was just to show how guns could POSSIBLY be used to kill. I never once said that ALL shootings where "stress shootings!".
"Gun Control is right for America thank you."
Uh, just to clarify things bud, you are against (con) Gun Control. So when you basically state that gun control is good, you just flopped the last round.
I would like to say one thing (thank you opponent for writing these fine words for MY side of the debate): Gun Control is right for America,
Thank you, Jacobie1121
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DarthKirones 2 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con had better arguments because he took different angles of the debate while most of Pro's arguments followed a theme. I am not a big fan of Pro making an argument in the last round but the only reason I am not awarding conduct to Con is because con never established proper rules, thus making Pros argument 5 legal. I wish you two had a rematch with the same topic only a proper definition, one more round and some rules.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate