The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

there should be more 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,327 times Debate No: 29083
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




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?


Alright, lets face it. Shootings are terrible, and happen too often, but that does not have anything to do with assault rifles. Anyone who says that nobody hunts with an assault rifle is wrong. Every year, there are groups of people that i know, including myself, who go boar hunting. Boar are fast, and you hunt them out of a ranger, which is, quite simply, the ATV version of a golf cart. It takes several shots to hit a boar, and nothing less than an assault rifle will take one down. A .223 or .308 caliper round is fired from the gun, a bushmaster AR-15, at the boar. It is near impossible to go hunting with a long, bolt action rifle for boar.

Also, the video "Home Invasion", by, makes a slightly exaggerated point on gun control in the future. Imagine the hologram as a screen, and that man as YOU. Now think about the fact that there is a black market. If someone is PLANNING a home invasion, they are most likely going to buy a firearm, may it be a Glock 18 machine pistol, Semi automatic Beretta handgun, or a .308 AR-15, from the black market. Imagine yourself in that frantic position, attempting to get your weapon, which the government is sealing from you, while an armed person is going through your house, stealing your valuables, and they will not think twice about killing you.

Some people think the media is brainwashing people into killing others, and while it desensitizes us to some things, such as murder, it does not cause people to kill others. Video games such as call of duty do not endorse mindless killing, but doing what needs to be done to protect yourself and everyone you know, and may not know. The reason you hear about killers always playing games such as Call of Duty and Halo is not because those games told them to go out and kill people, it is because they have a sick obsession with murder, and a bleak outlook on the world.

Maybe a small background check and a mental health test should be in place for buying certain firearms, but they should not be eliminated altogether.
Debate Round No. 1


so we should allow assault rifles, we should allow people to be massacered, because a very small minority of people want to go boar hunting? you guys or these people are seriously a very small fraction of a fraction of percent. the right to safety of the majority trumps that right.

the last three or four major shootings in the country involved assault rifles, as even this pro guns advocate admits...

per "home invasion". no one says we should ban all guns so we can rule that out per the owner. there might be some very small percentage of percentage scenarios where a homeowner is waiting for a gun, while he's invaded. but, by far, if you want a gun, you can get a gun, just go about it lawfully and follow the rules. homeowners are not withotu protection.

i'm not sure what your point is about video games. it's true that usually the "liberals" are the ones who cry about that stuff, but at this point in political debate it's the NRA that blames video games, cause they don't want to admit that we should have mroe gun control. so if you're arguing video games aren't that bad, you're actually taking one of the few weak points the NRA currently is using, and pointing the blame at people themselves, as it should be. which only means all the mroe we should have more gun control.

and at the end of the day, even if we do or don't do this or that regulation, say we don't ban assault rifles... that doesn't mean we shoudln't engage in more gun control. so my primary thesis, contention, remains.
if you agre with background checks, and mentally ill... and probably would agree about criminals not having guns... the only point we dispute is assault rifles. i was hoping to debate soemone who wants no gun control. i realize that is an extreme position, one would usualy only whack jobs would take... so i'm content debating you.


Well, First, thank you for giving me SOME credit.

I understand what you are saying, but look at these charts, if you will. [IMG][/IMG]



Now, also remember that we are in a job crisis right now, and that would kill the gun industry, even if it is just assault rifled getting banned, it will make some of the pansies (i am not insulting you or anyone directly, i am just making this less...boring) who have never shot, held, or maybe even seen a gun that wasn't on their TV or their laptop, think that they could do more, because violence with handguns is up, and get rid of them. That would kill the gun industry and make hundreds of thousands, or even millions of jobs go away.
Debate Round No. 2


i'm not sure what you're getting at with the last post.

we shouldn't be concerned with jobs created by the gun industry. we should just do what's right, and whatever follows, follows.
most people don't say to ban hand guns, either. even if there's a spike, that's just the life of allowing the right ot a gun. handguns are as basic as they come. if there's a spike, it means something's wrong with society, not that we have to ban all guns etc. necessarily


DRONE769 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PrimalConcrete50 5 years ago
I'll just generally comment. I sell guns in Texas. Legally. To law abiding citizens. We have a HUGE hog problem, and I sold a LOT of AR (Armalite Rifle, is that designation, fyi) type guns to hunters, before everything went bonkers recently. Trust me, there are way more than a few people using these rifles for necessary and completely legitimate reasons. I'm not going to debunk anything or refute your claims. I'll just remind you that Norway has much more stringent "gun control" laws than the USA, and they had a mass shooting in recent years that ended in 77 deaths. You won't get all the guns, and the only ones you will get will be the ones owned by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminals don't hand in their guns that they stole or got from Mexico...or from the ATF.
How does this get any more clear?
No votes have been placed for this debate.