The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BrianCBiggs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

more gun control ought to occur

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 29068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all.

here are my initial thoughts/rants....
why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand.
-background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people. the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot.
-it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too.
-most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up.
-a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here.
a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc.
sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun.
-while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns.
sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun.
-in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.//
-so when people say "guns don't kill people people kill people" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway.
-i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least.
-i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights.
if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?
BrianCBiggs

Con


I'd like to thank my opponent for setting up this debate and for her first post / rant.



My opponent says that criminals shouldn't have guns. How does she define criminal, though? Someone charged with a felony? Misdemeanor? Does it matter whether it was a violent crime, rather than, say, embezzlement? Under which conditions should criminals be deprived of the ability to own a gun with which they can hunt, defend themselves, etc.? And, how does this proposal differ from current laws?



Should we have background checks and registration on all guns? This might make some sense if the purposes of owning a gun were only for self-defense and hunting. But, you'll notice the Second Amendment mentions neither of these. It does mention the security of a free state. It is stated in our Declaration of Independence that securing inalienable rights is why governments are instituted among men, and that when it becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. How might a people abolish a government that takes away their freedoms?



Given that guns are the means to abolishing a rights-suppresing government, why would we want to ban assault rifles? So that shootings like Sandy Hook won't happen? It turns out that Adam Lanza didn't use an assault rifle ( ;).



Sure, other shootings may have involved assault rifles. Does that make school shootings the price of owning an assault rifle?



As my opponent has pointed out, school shootings and school massacres happen without them. But, do these massacres happen with or without planning? It seems to me that they usually occur with preparation and planning. I may grant that most people are not like Timothy McVeigh, but it doesn't mean that the people doing the school shootings aren't like him. Taking away guns won't stop the planning of school massacres, like the Bath School disaster.



What should be pointed out about school shootings is that they happen in places where guns are not allowed. If the teachers at Sandy Hook had been carrying concealed weapons, perhaps they could have done more than gather their classes into corners or closets, or simply put themselves between the shooter and their class.



I'm not going to do much interaction with my opponent's statistics until she cites where they are coming from. I will address being shot in your own home with your own gun, though. It is simple enough to prevent yourself or your family from being shot with your own firearm in most cases. That is one of the purposes of gun safes. Even if you cannot afford a gun safe, then you can purchase a gun lock, that prevents the bolt of your weapon from being in a forward, locked position.



On a final note, I find it peculiar that my opponent says that "most people don't have guns," and that "guns are everywhere." Most of the statistics she alludes to involve gun "deaths" - does this include law enforcement officers shooting people?


Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
BrianCBiggs

Con

My opponent forfeighted this round. I hope she responds in the next round, and would ask that if she does, you wouldn't count this forfeight against her, but simply measure the debate by the virtue of the arguments that are presented.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
BrianCBiggs

Con

BrianCBiggs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.