The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Heineken
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

more gun control should 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 6 votes the winner is...
Heineken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,918 times Debate No: 29063
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

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?
Heineken

Con

Pro stated: 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.

Rebuttal: The current administration's catch phrase (“meaningful legislation”) is simply a generic “pathos” (emotional) appeal, which exploits voters who are instinctively reactionary, rather than rationally critical.To counter this pathos appeal, I will utilize a “logos” approach. After all, an emotional argument is best countered by a rational argument.

Premise 1: Meaningful legislation already exists. Article 18 , section 922 of the Federal Firearms law prohibits Felons, Drug users, non-citizens, subjects under court restraint, persons with assault convictions, fugitives, dishonorably discharged service-members and minors (article VII) from owning or coming into possession of a firearm. [2] This is a blanketed federal law, applicable to all states.

In addition to Federal guidelines, each state has supplemental gun laws. Connecticut (Sandy Hook) has a law in place to prevent mentally ill persons from acquiring a firearm. Connecticut State Law 53a, article 217c prohibits a classified mental patient in custody of a state appointed guardian to purchase a weapon. [3] Adam Lanza actually attempted to buy a gun, and the laws in place prevented him from obtaining it.

Current gun laws work if they are enforced. Sandy Hook cannot be blamed on an absence of gun regulation. It must be blamed on the presence of malicious, criminal intent. The law already prohibited his actions. In fact, Adam Lanza broke at least eight gun-laws before he even entered the school.

---------------------


Pro establish: 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.

Rebuttal: Background checks are already in place. The Brady Handgun violence act prevented 190 million weapon sales between 1994 and 2009. [4] That's approximately 12.6 million gun sales annually. By any measure, a hugely successful law.

Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the US, being one of only seven states that require background check in all gun sales, including private, gun-show and auction sales.

Clearly, an Executive mandate to make this common place would have little effect on gun violence, because the Sandy Hook shooting occurred despite the rigid Connecticut gun law.



Premise 2: Background checks are already sufficient. According to the National Institute of Justice, only 2% of gun related deaths occur from weapons purchased at gun-shows.
The source does not list how many of those guns where stolen from the owner or if the gun related death was criminal (or self-defense). [5] Why is my opponent so focused on the 2%, while the 98% run a muck?

---------------------

Pro said: 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.


Rebuttal: Straw man argument. Current gun laws are already removing weapons from the wrong hands, while guaranteeing the 2nd amendment to law abiding citizens. As stated above, current background checks prevent 12.6 million illegal gun sales annually.

---------------------


Pro stated: -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.

Rebuttal: Certified Mental illness already prevents gun ownership. The problem is diagnosis. Most psychotics aren't diagnosed until they have psychotic breaks. Not one incident (as far as I have found) lists a shooter who was a ward of the state due to mental illness. At some point we need to stop blaming gun laws and start looking at the people who know the killer. More often than not, there are warning signs, if not flagrant threats.

Premise 3: The citizen has a duty to report suspicious behavior. Yet more often than not, suspicious behavior is ignored, rather than confronted. Seung-Hui Cho was in psychiatric care for good reason, but a failure to diagnose resulted his release from state custody to an “outpatient” treatment, which allowed him to purchase weapons. Had the mental health professionals taken his condition more seriously, the shooting would have been prevented. In fact, had the two women, whom he stalked, pressed charges against him, the shooting would have been prevented. Had the classmates reported his threatening social-media profile to the school, in which he posed with loaded weapons, the shooting could have been prevented.

I challenge my opponent to explain how the Virginia tech massacre was a failure of gun laws, rather than a failure of the people around him to recognize his capacity for violence.

---------------------


Pro established -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect...

Rebuttal: Most people don't know what an assault weapon is.



Premise 4 The American population is mostly composed of low-information voters.70% of people questioned in a poll believe an assault weapon is a gun that keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down. [6]

---------------------


Pro stated -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.

Rebuttal: There is something to be said about banning all guns. “Terrible idea”. How safe should we feel with criminals knowing that we are not armed? Consider this single mother who saved her own life, and the life of her infant, by shooting the intruder. [6]

---------------------

Pro established - 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.

Rebuttal: Japan's homicide rate is a cultural phenomenon. Consider the quote:

Japan’s crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.” [8]


---------------------

Pro remarked - in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense.


Rebuttal: Correct. Most gun crimes are crimes of opportunity. Very few criminals fight fair. They us the gun to gain an advantage over the victim. There is only one cure for this: Arm the victim with a gun.

If you remove the ability of the victim to arm themselves, you've removed the ability of the victim to protect themselves from criminals who use any means of opportunity to prey on their target.

To correct you premise:” In fact, most gun situations involve victims that didn't have a gun to defend themselves with.”

---------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]

http://www.justice.gov... [2]

http://www.ncsl.org... [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]

http://www.cato.org... [5]

http://www.debatepolitics.com... [6]

http://abcnews.go.com... [7]

http://frontpagemag.com... [8]

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Heineken

Con

All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Heineken

Con

Opponent Forfeits. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Well, then the law itself sounds worthless. Most criminals don't go through legal venues. What a waste of money to enforce that law.

What a weak analogy. The brady law hasn't reduced crime. Vaults have. Also, bank robberies are still extremely common. Why? At gun point, I'm unlocking that vault. The brady law helps him not do that! No, not really. He goes somewhere else. The brady bill hinders legal gun owners from getting weapons. Weapons deter crime, helping criminals. A vault doesn't hurt consumers. In the book More Guns Less crime, lott demonstrates how the bill increased crime slightly. So, really, the law was ineffective. The two points make no sense.

If the bill only affects legal sales, but mostly affects law abiding citizens, that's a huge waste of law enforcement time. Supporting this bill is so stupid I cannot even fathom how its supportable. It's system is mostly false positive and costs millions to maintain.

Now, lets assume the law worked. Crime did not drop, it just delayed them a few minutes.

"Under the Brady Act, state and local law enforcement officers had been forced to spend literally millions of hours investigating handgun buyers. A Brady check usually began with contacting the FBI's National Criminal Investigative Center (NCIC), which maintains a partially accurate database of felony arrests and (in some cases) convictions."
http://www.saf.org...

So we waste millions for no benefit?

Back to the analogy, you compared to crimes. I'm not comparing crimes, rather how the crimes are committed. Credit fraud and bank robbery are totally different. Gun crime is gun crime. If gun crime doesn't fall, we waste millions on a pointless law, and there is evidence crime rose, that's a failed law. To evaluate a law, we must not look at a laws goals, but also un intended consequences. This isn't a strawman. This is logical evaluation of a law.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
16k, you're ignoring my argument in full. I said the Brady was designed to prevent human error in legal sales. The Brady Bill is not designed to hinder black-market sales.

If a felon must resort to black market sales to get a weapon, then the Brady bill has obviously succeeded in it's design.
What we need now, is a better funded, better organized ATF to crack down on illegal weapon sales.

You're essentially arguing that banks shouldn't have vaults because criminals can steal cash through credit card fraud. The problem is, the vault isn't designed to stop credit card fraud. It's designed to secure hard assets.

By the same token, the Brady Bill is designed to prevent illegal sales through legal sources. It's not designed to combat the black market.

Two different measures of gun control are being discussed here. You're setting up a straw man by claiming the Brady Bill is in charge of controlling all illegal weapon sales.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Most criminals don't go through legal venues. All it does is hinder law abiding citizens. It had no effect on crime, and due to the fact felons rarely use legal vendors all the law does it annoy me for a false positive. One of my links directly shows only .02 of the backround checks actually stopped a felon -- and he/she probably went through another route. All it did was waste police resources.

"Therefore...every time a felon tries to buy a weapon and is declined because of background checks, the Brady Bill has prevented an illegal transaction."

Wrong. They go to the black market. It merely occurs elsewhere and takes extra time. And again, the law did not decrease crime.

"Additionally, the sources you posted complain about the Brady Bill, but don't address the Brady Bill."

No, one was a study directly focused on the bill. The other a blog post by PhD John Lott who talks about the NICS -- the main part of the bill. It shows the estimates of stopped criminals is too high. Lott used the same data by the 2008 Obama study and shows their conclusions and representation of the data to be simply false. Doing the math, the backround checks stopped 95,000 felons. Data shows after arrest (remember: backroud checks are still in place) 37% of the criminals got a gun within a week. 20% got another gun in a day. 57% get a gun in a week then. So 54,150 are armed again in almost no time.
Data here: http://www.examiner.com...

So about 40,800 criminals were stopped. Sound pretty good. Not really. They will likely he guns within a few months, through buddies, etc. due to the fact the law had no effect on crime -- according too Ludwig and Cook (gun control supporters) -- we can assume What I said above: they got gun later. The bill did nothing but annoy law abiding citizens.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
Additionally, the sources you posted complain about the Brady Bill, but don't address the Brady Bill.

The Brady Bill was designed to stop felons from buying guns through legal vendors.

Your sources talk about felons stealing guns from private residences.

The Brady Bill wasn't designed to stop burglars. It was designed to prevent human error for legal vendors.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
Interesting.

Humor me...

It is illegal for a felon to come into possession of a firearm.
It is therefore illegal to sell a weapon to a felon.
If you fail to run a background check on your client, you cannot know if he is a felon.
Without background checks laws, felons could come into illegal possession of firearms through legal vendors.
It does not matter that the vendor is legal. The minute the felon takes possession of the firearm, the transaction is considered an "illegal arms sale".

Therefore...every time a felon tries to buy a weapon and is declined because of background checks, the Brady Bill has prevented an illegal transaction.

Illegal transactions can occur through carelessness and human error. We're not limiting sale statistics purely to the black market.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Both.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
16K,

Elaborate your objection. Are you saying that the Brady Bill didn't prevent illegal gun sales, or that the Brady Bill didn't prevent gun violence?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
That why I Lol'ed, but the 190 number was a wtf moment.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Brady act did not decrease crime.
http://www.saf.org...

Gun control advocates Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook also conclude the Brady bill does not lower crime.
http://www.guncite.com...

The it stopped guns claim is bogus: most of them are false positives. 99.8% of the guns stopped from criminals were false. But those statistics only account for initial red flags. See:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
Yea, I must have been smoking that sh*t. It's 1.9 million, not 190 million. I have no damn clue why I didn't catch that.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
dairygirl4u2cHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
dairygirl4u2cHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Heineken rebutted all of Pro's major points, and Pro responded by forfeiting.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
dairygirl4u2cHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
dairygirl4u2cHeinekenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear and easy win for Con. Pro is an indefensible position and Pro failed to come up with a convincing case.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
dairygirl4u2cHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
dairygirl4u2cHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit