The Instigator
xXACEXx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chimera
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Chimera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 53961
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

xXACEXx

Pro

I probably hunt more than the next guy but having insane regulations for not having gun control is out right insane. Thousands of people die every year from gang violence to mass shootings. Plus the government Im pretty sure is not that crazy
Chimera

Con

I accept this challenge.

Opening Statement:

I will argue on the grounds that gun control would be detrimental to society.

First, I will define the term 'gun control'[1]:

Gun control: 'Regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns.'

Opening Argument:

The Idea that we have to regulate firearms makes sense, however, it can lead to various unwanted effects.

For instance, crime rates would increase. Not necessarily the murder rate. As an example, let's make up a scenario. If I were to break into your house, and you were unarmed due to laws preventing you from owning a gun. But I have a gun that I gained through an illegal market (note this, I will come back to the illegal market concept), how are you going to defend yourself?

The fact is, you wouldn't. I would be able to steal everything you own, then leave without the cops suspecting a thing. I wouldn't have any need to kill you, which is why the homicide rate would be so low. However, in a country where there are tighter gun control laws, you are more prone to a variety of other forms of crime.

However, if you were living in a country where everyone had a gun, then you would be able to kill the criminal who invaded your house, then call the police. Thereby meaning you would be safer in a country with less gun control laws, than more.

Statistics Prove: More Guns, Less Crime 070113graph2

If countries with stricter gun control laws have lower crime rates, then how do you explain countries like Brazil[2]? Who have some of the highest crime rates in the world.

Also, returning to the illegal market concept. By banning guns, you are just opening up a whole new market for criminal organizations like cartels.

You can make a parallel between this and the selling of narcotics. Since narcotics like marijuana are illegal, the black market is the biggest source for this product, but passing legislation on this product does not limit the needs of the consumers. It doesn't stop the selling and buying of this product. It only drives it to be sold by criminals.

So, by passing gun control laws, all you are doing is arming criminals, while disarming law-abiding citizens. Thereby making the environment more dangerous for law-abiding citizens.

The UK for instance, which is well known for it's strict gn control policy, was named the 'violent crimes capital of Europe' by the European Commision[3].

Therefore, by passing gun control laws, you would make an environment that is more dangerous to the average civilian.

Sources:

1- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

2- http://en.wikipedia.org...

3- http://www.express.co.uk...





Debate Round No. 1
xXACEXx

Pro

Look im a teenager living in texas(where it is crazy to not own a gun) And am not looking to ban all guns. I see it fit not to have military grade products like ammo that is made to go through chest armor or guns that are semi automatic weapons. Plus I dont think that you need that kind of stuff to protect your house. I hope that you will agree with me for at least this part
Chimera

Con

'Look im a teenager living in texas(where it is crazy to not own a gun) And am not looking to ban all guns. I see it fit not to have military grade products like ammo that is made to go through chest armor or guns that are semi automatic weapons. Plus I dont think that you need that kind of stuff to protect your house. I hope that you will agree with me for at least this part'

My opponent has made the argument that we should ban semi-automatic weapons, and armor-piercing ammunition. This falls under the same arugment I made regarding black-market activity.

However, my opponent has provided no basis to his argument other than 'I don't think you need that kind of stuff to protect your house'. Well, if someone came into your house with an assault weapon, and you can't own one, how do you expect to defend yourself?

This is all I can provide at the moment, for I am quite busy. I await my opponents next argument.
Debate Round No. 2
xXACEXx

Pro

assualt weapons are weapons used for merly for medium to long range. So try to protect your house in close quaters is up to the job for pistol and shotguns
Chimera

Con

'assualt weapons are weapons used for merly for medium to long range. So try to protect your house in close quaters is up to the job for pistol and shotguns'

Again, criminals will still have the upper hand on law abiding citizens since they will have access to assault weapons through black-market activity.

Not only that, but if you ban assault weapons for ALL people, and not just those who don't have a lisence to use them, then criminals will have the upper hand on private security personnel in public places aswell.

Pro has failed to show proof of their arguments, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Also, I can have what I want. Con will agree with me on that since we have liberty ideals. Mind your own business and worry about yourself. If you are a mentally sane law abiding citizen, you shouldn't be told what to do. I'm tired of people controlling other peoples lives. Same thing with drugs. If people want to take drugs, let them take drugs. It shouldn't be your concern. Liberty is more important than your extreme measures of security. Semi automatic weapons have been used by civilians for over 100 years. They aren't going away. They are fun to shoot and are excellent for home defense.

Tell me, would you ban alcohol when 10,000 innocent people are killed by drunk drivers each year?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
To pro (who is incompetent) "assault weapons" make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 worst mass shootings in the WORLD were NOT committed by them and in the past TEN years, less than 70 people have been killed by them in mass shootings. There is no legitimate reason to ban these rifles. These rifles are perfectly fine for close quarters (because semi automatic weapons in general are descent for that). So take a hike. I'm tired of the ignorance. I don't need by guns taken away because idiots like you think "black and scary looking rifles" are more dangerous.
Posted by Chimera 2 years ago
Chimera
@MyDinosaurHands

Thank you for your vote, I was worried that nobody would vote on this.

As for gun control, i'm against it, but i'm not very well educated on the subject. Nor do I really care to be. But thank you for your input on the subject.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Additionally, your link about Britain negates the point you're trying to make with it. The article says that Britain has an extremely low police to citizen ratio.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
That graph Con used supports Pros case more than his. The crime rate barely shifts as gun ownership rises steadily. Just because it drops off suddenly doesn't mean the guns affected that. Gun ownership didn't rise any more significantly than it had been the whole time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JackFritschy 2 years ago
JackFritschy
xXACEXxChimeraTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't even try on this. Con used lots of sources and did a nice job.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
xXACEXxChimeraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used proper capitalization more often. Even though Con did clearly put a lot more thought into his arguments, I am Pro gun control, and as he laid out his arguments, I was thinking of clear rebuttals to them. Therefore his argument was no more convincing than his opponent's. If Con is displeased with this choice, I can explain the reasoning further.