The Instigator
mihawk
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
jacobie1121
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 53839
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

mihawk

Con

gun control is not right for america

that is what i am arguing i hope we have a good debate
jacobie1121

Pro

Let's do this!
Debate Round No. 1
mihawk

Con

alright first i will be looking into americas history but here is a puote right before that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" first off when we made the eighteenth amendment and banned alcohol a whole entire alcohol smuggling business began it was absolute chaos that is why we made an amendment to counter that one.
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%
jacobie1121

Pro

I will save disputing my opponents points for the last round (can't wait!). I urge my opponent to wait till the last round as well. For now I will present this points:

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.

Thank you,
Jacobie1121

Next speech hopefully a bit longer for me!

References so far:
(1): http://www.cnn.com...
(2): http://standupspeakoutnow.com...
Debate Round No. 2
mihawk

Con

alright as affirmative (pro) requested i will leave cross examination till the last round

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
jacobie1121

Pro

Sorry for the time it took to write this......just never got around to it. But here it is:

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.

Thank you,
Jacobie1121

References for this round:

(1) http://www.buzzle.com...
Debate Round No. 3
mihawk

Con

Pro it seems you are assuming that these people will follow the law, while it seems obvious that people intending to commit crimes will get them illegally.

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.
jacobie1121

Pro

Giving me a lot to think about. And write!
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.

Rebuttals:

"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

Vote pro!

References:

(1) http://www.justfacts.com...

Other references:

http://www.buzzle.com...

http://www.cnn.com...

http://standupspeakoutnow.com...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by jacobie1121 2 years ago
jacobie1121
If you can, please vote
Posted by jacobie1121 2 years ago
jacobie1121
be patient
Posted by jacobie1121 2 years ago
jacobie1121
You will see!
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Simply stating that there is gun crime isn't a reason for gun control. Both sides are aware of that, but the responses are different. Con shows that gun control increases crime rather than decreases it, so what argument do you have that it's good?
Posted by jacobie1121 2 years ago
jacobie1121
Maybe I will....Maybe I won't
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Find some examples of how gun control has decreased crime and that it works.
Posted by mihawk 2 years ago
mihawk
this has been a fun debate were almost to the voting round
Posted by jacobie1121 2 years ago
jacobie1121
What other points can I use then, Conservative101?
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Con seems to be providing examples of how gun control has negatively impacted society while Pro is just stating that because there is crime then we should have gun control.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DarthKirones 2 years ago
DarthKirones
mihawkjacobie1121Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
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.