The first round is just to accept the debate. Good luck to the challenger!
All right, don't expect too much from me, because this is my first debate, but I accept the challenge.
First, I'd like to thank the commenters, as a new user I found them to be very helpful suggestions. I would like to argue the point that stricter gun control in America would do more harm than good to our society as a whole. I will start off by saying that I understand where liberals are coming from when they cry for stricter gun control. Shootings such as the Sandy Hook School shooting (along with many similar shootings) are horrific events and I pray for those affected. Just as my fellow Americans on the left side of the political spectrum, I was very moved by many of these shootings and thought to myself why these things happen to innocent people, and in certain cases even children. Despite the strong emotions stirred within me after such tragic events, I still can't think of how stricter gun control would have made any difference, as it won't help to prevent similar events in the future. As much as it hurts to write that previous sentence, I feel that our society has just become such a messed up world that it is unfortunately true. If I felt that stricter gun control could have helped to prevent such awful events, then I would immediately change my point of view and argue for the left side, despite my Conservative beliefs. For starters, almost 90% of guns used in crime are not obtained legally. Criminals can obtain firearms quite easily by purchasing them off of the street, at a gun show (where background checks do not have to occur), at a flea market, pawn shop, from a family member or friend, or even by theft. The fact is, criminals will get guns whether we want them to or not. Banning guns will only take the protection of law-abiding citizens from these criminals. In the United Kingdom, violent crime (homicide, assault, rape) per 100,000 people is 400% higher than the violent crime rate per 100,000 people in the United States. The United Kingdom is home to some of the strictest gun laws in the world. The knife crime rate in England is also much higher than the United States. Had many of these British citizens been able to protect themselves, lots of this crime may have never happened. There could be many more people living their lives not having to have gone through a terrible experience such as assault or rape. A recent survey of 5,000 households in America show 0.5% responding yes to the question have they had an instance where having a firearm may have saved you or other citizens from a criminal. This figure adjusted to the population of the United States reaches over 150,000 people. Guns are often bashed for "killing people," but what about the guns that save lives? Many people argue that most guns are not the major issue, but assault weapons are. These weapons actually account for just less than 1% of crimes involving a gun. Banning any of these guns would hurt the everyday citizen much more than it would benefit us. I personally would absolutely not want to allow myself, family, and friends four times more susceptible to violent crimes. I have many more points for the next round proving that we are safest when allowing guns, not taking them from us. In my opinion, this debate mostly comes down to logic and common sense. If criminals are able to obtain weapons anyway, why should you or your family not be allowed to own a gun legally, just in case of an emergency. The option of owning a gun is not only in our Bill of Rights, but it is a very effective way of keeping yourself safe. The 2nd Amendment should not only stand just the way it is, but more people should think about using your rights and owning a firearm, you never know when you just might need it. I bet the 150,000 lives saved in America yearly certainly appreciate those who do.
Well the problems of firearms or weapon ownership is that everyone can be in danger if there are no limitations or bans of firearms. I would like to point out that the name of this debate is No gun controls, this could lead to mass danger. I'm more a sceptic and a social democrat, but I didn't know that the left in average wants more stricter gun control. Of course the most (if not almostly all) people mainly families wants guns only because of the same thing: Criminals are gaining their guns from illegal sources. So many families wants a gun only because of the protection against these murders or criminals. Well this isn't a complete solution. Because if families are being attacked, than they are usually attacked by a gang, that owns more weapons and criminals. The Firearms control (that has to be even bigger, but me personally, I would like to ban weapons) would stop primarily the mass killing in schools, that are being shoot down by psyhopats. Secondary the country would soon get gun-free, and the only way for a criminal to gain it would be hard. Third, families would get safer because the attackings would get rarer. Also the strict gun control in Great Britain has a higher number of crime per capita because people live in a smaller area and are more compressed. But anyway Canada, the most of EU, Australia and New Zealand have a low percentage of murders and crime, partly because of the gun controls. A very large factor that is the problem of the US is the high Gini, inequality causes people to join criminals, gangs, meanwhile the other problem is overpopulation and depression. The families still can report weird activity to police. Meanwhile our privacy is at the minimum,so police should track and haunt down criminals, terrorist and the Illuminati.
I think that a lower Gini, more stricter gun control, ban of drugs and a bigger education with psychological test would bring a bigger safety to the society and a happier life. Of course firearms could be used by jobs that include these weapons, but not be owned and always pyhologicaly tested. The firearm industry has to be regulated anyway.
Sources are being revaled in the final round.
For starters, I would like to say that I agree with your opinion that criminals do and will obtain firearms illegally, proven by the statistic in my previous round (90% are obtained illegally). My question to you would be how do you think our country could even become "gun free" when we both agree that those who misuse firearms aren't even using guns that they acquired legally. That math just doesn't add up, and it shouldn't to you or anyone else either. Thinking it is possible to get our country "weapon free" (as you stated above) is even more ridiculous. How can we really define what a weapon is? I'm pretty sure if I really felt like it I could do some serious damage to an unsuspecting citizen with a baseball bat, possibly even murder them. The same could most likely be done with a steak knife. It is truly impossible to define exactly what a "weapon" is. There are many items used in our everyday lives that could be used to injure/kill another human being, yet none are considered weapons. You began your argument that we could all be in danger if gun control laws stayed the same, yet I would tell you to refer to my above statistic proving that the United Kingdom is actually a far more dangerous place to live, despite it's much stricter gun control laws. You stated that the fact is not legit due to the United Kingdom being smaller in area than America. I have yet to find the logic behind that argument. The people of America have the right to defend themselves, and yet some of us (yourself included) are fighting to take our own rights away. You stated that Americans having the right to protect themselves wouldn't matter "because if families are being attacked, than they are usually attacked by a gang, that owns more weapons and criminals." This simply isn't true. Out of about 30,000 gun-related deaths in America yearly, not even 1,000 are from gangs. Granted that some gang violence may not be recognized, logically it is tough to imagine that number ever reaching over 1,500. Also, gangs mostly kill members of rival gangs, not random, unprotected families just for the fun of it. The majority of homes that have been entered by armed criminals had the criminal acting solo, not with a gang. So that statement is just plain wrong. Seeing the lack of sources to back that up makes me wonder whether that is even a fact that you misread or if it is just something you thought sounded good to write in this debate. On the topic of gangs, you stated that "inequality causes people to join criminals, gangs." I would like to say that every human being has free will over their actions, and that nothing forces an individual to join a gang or become a criminal. There are always other, legal, alternatives for someone who may be a member of the lower class who may be struggling than to resort to crime. That statement is just giving an excuse for criminals instead of making them be accountable for their wrongful actions. Saying "the other problem is overpopulation and depression" has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate. Why do either of those topics have anything to do with the issue of gun control in America? Your only suggestion to keeping the public protected was law enforcement. Not only are police officers vastly outnumbered by criminals, but the duty of a police officer is to protect the public as a whole, not individuals. Although police will always respond to a 911 call, it is often too late to stop the criminal from already doing damage. Police officers have been protected by law (backed by the Supreme Court) in case of such scenarios. The Supreme Court also ruled that it is an individuals duty to protect themselves and their family until law enforcement can arrive. Saying that police "should track and haunt down criminals, terrorist, and the Illuminati" would be unrealistic if the police were forced with the duty of protecting every single citizen from criminals with illegally obtained weapons. All of your arguments either contradict each other, are just your opinion, or have major holes in them. You said you were a Democrat, yet claimed to have no knowledge of the gun control issue and didn't know which political party viewed the topic. You gave no real points arguing my stance and facts on the issue, just stated your opinion. You suggested that the real problem was the "Gini, ban of drugs, and a bigger education with psychological test." This is no solution to the gun debate, although you did mention that if it was your way, you would ban all weapons, a completely unattainable and unrealistic goal. Basically from this debate, I can tell so far that you are extremely unexperienced to politics and debating. I appreciate the effort, but suggest at least some real points/arguments for next round, backed up with facts. You literally showed no knowledge of the situation at hand. The fact is, guns save more lives than they take, by a significant amount (150,000 to 30,000, with about half of the 30,000 being from suicides, not homicide). Guns are a right of the American people, and taking them away (as you suggested) would be Unconstitutional. The firearm industry is properly regulated (as it should be), the real problem (as we both agreed) was the unregulated distribution of firearms to criminals. Using basic common sense, it would be plain stupid to take our right to bear arms away when the overwhelming number of citizens owning a gun use it 100% safely and legally, and have as much of a right to owning that gun as we do freedom of speech.
(The typos I made inside of quoted material from my opponent were copied from his writing above, not on me.)
Agree with some sentences of yours. But I really think that firearms should be banned. Next, yes I am young and not really experienced, but I need to begin somewhere,but still we cant watch how many people are being killed by guns. Next the control would eliminate 39.6% sources for criminals (because 39.6% are criminals getting from their family or friends). Thanks to your link.
Of course what we understand as a weapon is: any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. The source will be named in the last round. Agree, everything that can kill a man (including baseball bats, knifes...), but these non-firearm weapons are being used for killing people all over the world. I meant weapons as guns. A country can never get completely gun-free because there will still be criminals that will somehow get them. The country would eventually get gun-free, because soon all storage's of firearms would get smaller if there would be a ban. This would reduce the shootings.
Also I would like to mention, that I especially joined this debate, because the name of it is: no gun control in America. But we both agree with the worring distribution of firearms. From the facts I got on a site that I will mention in the last round. I would like to point that:
91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership;
57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban.
Also 40 % of all homes have firearms, and as long as these weapons aren't kept only for working menth. Can this get really dangerous, because there are criminals.
In 1996, 140 children died after being accidentally shot; in 2012 the figure was 259 with comparable numbers in between+
About 1,500 children are hurt by guns every year.
So these children can get post-traumatic worries. But also:
Over 100,000 people are shot each year in the U.S.; 72% of all violent killings use guns as the weapon.
Compared to Japan, where gun laws are very strict regarding both ownership and punishment, only 4 people were killed by guns in 2012. Japan has a smaller population, but even counting that, the per capita death rate is 1,000 times higher in the United States. But enough for the statistics.
But it is true, that there are two sides. Books and researches like More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott and other aren't supporting stricter gun controls because people should have firearms to protect themselves from a shooter. Many facts are true and I support some of them. But guns are a major danger especially when there is even less gun restriction. But today the Constitution protects an individuals right to own a gun for personal use; but what is the menth of the personal use? Well its: 60% personal protection, 36% haunt (that should be regulated by mine opinion) and 8% target shooting and other. The children in mine opinion shouldn't use guns at all, and fortunately there are restrictions for them. But (there's always a but) children can use guns under specific conditions.
I have a question for you that may seem silly: How can a gun protect you from a criminal or if there are more criminals?
Sources are being revealed in the final round
I'll start this round by saying that as I mentioned in the previous round, there is in fact regulations in place. I can not buy a RPG tomorrow, as there is no real purpose for it (protection, hunting, range) in the everyday world. These regulations currently in place are fair, but that is all that there should be. Children get their hands on guns because of irresponsible adults, not on their own. The uses of guns owned legally that you listed are very legitimate uses for a gun, and in no way is that an argument for banning them. I agree that your question may seem silly, it really is. How can a gun protect you from a criminal if there are more criminals? The answer is that most criminals act alone, as I proved in previous rounds (only 3% of gun-related deaths are due to gang violence). That question has proved to be completely useless in your debate. Moving on, you stated the the country can become gun free. We both agreed that criminals don"t acquire their guns legally, so what would making the rest of the country gun free (completely unrealistic and impossible, by the way) do to stop crime? Since you obviously are oblivious to how the world works, I"ll answer that for you as well. It would only encourage criminals, since they would know that wherever they chose to go there would be no one with protection against them. This is basic logic. A city in the country Georgia made a law about 15 years ago requiring every household to have a gun. In that time, crime has dropped almost 90%. I am not saying we should ever go this extreme, I am just saying why would we ever do the opposite. I"ll also ask you a question, do you think it takes longer to call 911 and wait for the police to arrive or to pull out a gun. Even you are smart enough to figure that one out. There is just no logic behind your entire debate. I have time and time again proved your simple-minded arguments to be just plain stupid. The 2nd Amendment is here to stay because of real Americans like myself who are smart enough to know about politics in the real world and stand up for ourselves against liberals like yourself who want the government to do everything for you. I can only hope the majority of Americans still feel the same way and are willing to fight for their freedoms just as I am. Please look at the many facts I have presented you throughout this debate and I urge you to reconsider your own opinion. I know that those of you who truly care about our country will logically think this issue over, before siding with myself, instead of acting off your feelings and opinions alone. Think of the lives that you could help save by standing up for the 2nd Amendment before liberals like my opponent take our rights away.
Well this is the last round. I really have to mention that the name of the debate is: no gun control in America. And I would like to answer to my question in that way: If there is a criminal with a rifle at your head, would it be safe to pull out a gun? Probably not, the criminal wouldn't risk his life, and would shoot. Agree with the sentence that Children get their hands on guns because of irresponsible adults, not on their own. But the government could ban that. Imagine an irresponsible killer child.
If there would a ban. The country could get more gun-free or at least the storage's of firearms could get smaller, and there isn't a unrealistic wall. The 39.6%+ guns that criminals are getting are from families/friends... The limitations or bans would reduce crime for 1/3 at least. And mass shootings in schools would be eliminated.
Next, I don't get what are ;true US Americans;, this could probably mean the Americans in the movies. And there are no problems with liberals. The right of owning firearms is dangerous, and taking it away would make our lives safer. What's more important? A useless and dangerous right or a individualistic life? From the first round I meant that the police officers or troopers could be more effective, if there would be special social security laws.
Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective:
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.
;A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.
For voters I recommend reading the links, and vote wisely. Think twice about it, liberals will try to make our live better and more modern, meanwhile the conservatives will try to keep the old traditions. Freedom is to live and do what you want. And not traditions, religion and have morals.
All 4 round sources:
and some facts from http://en.wikipedia.org...
plus some basic social liberal and common sense.