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

there should be universal background checks on gun sales

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: 8/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 388 times Debate No: 78369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

about forty percent of gun sales currently do not involve background checks. that means there's plenty of head way to be made here.

true, some will just get guns illegally. but not ALL of them will. this is common sense. to say otherwise is like saying we shouldn't have crime laws cause some crime will occur. not everyone who is denied is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun.
SpartanHoplite

Con

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves, even convicted felons who have already been punished for their crimes; this is why free societies protect the right to bear arms.
The difference between a law against crime and a universal background gun law is that the former prevents a crime, while another prevents gun ownership, even though you can not legally use a gun for crimes in the first place, since there are already crime laws. If someone follows the crime law, no one gets hurt; if someone follows a background check law, and they are denied a gun, they have no chance if someone threatens their life with a gun, even if it is by a convicted felon, who broke the law to get the gun.
Gun control does not save lives from criminals, who get the guns illegally, it only makes it extremely difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, which is why there is more murder (per GDP, per population, whatever) in places with gun control, and less in places where the criminal knows people are free to defend themselves with a gun if the criminal attacks them. Why make it less risky to attack someone and punish law abiding citizens? A convicted felon should not be forever punished with the risk of being helpless to a person threatening his life when they have already been punished for their crimes.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so someone who continues to use guns to kill and do violence should get access to a gun? where do you draw the line if any? shouldn't a line be drawn? they've killed and abused the right before. it's like exceptions to the first amendment that are well estabslihed, there can be some reasonable exceptions to the right to bear arms.

so con insists that one hunred percent of people who are denied a gun will go out and get one? that is quite a claim. it's an all or nothing argument, which at least usually are known to be fallicious. can you clearly state that for the record?
SpartanHoplite

Con

Someone who uses a gun for criminal purposes are given a punishment equal to the crime, determined by the law and/or the judge's discretion. However, if the punishment has been given, then as soon as it has been fulfilled, the convicted should retain all rights protected under the law. Punishments for repeated offenses are more severe, and, in the case of murder, rape, ect., eventually lead to the death penalty or life in prison, preventing them from committing further crimes, while also not sentencing them to a life where they can not adequately defend themselves.

I never stated that everyone denied a gun will get one; I stated that all those who would use a gun for criminal purposes would get one illegally when denied one for their previous criminal acts, since, logically, criminals break laws by definition. One petty law is nothing compared to those they intend to break with the gun they were denied.

Do you believe someone who wants or is willing to murder someone and already has committed crimes will obey a gun control law? This, of course, does not apply to all past felons, because not all will want to commit another crime and risk being punished again, hence why we have punishments, as an incentive to prevent people from committing crimes, and to discourage convicted felons from reoffending.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con acts as if taking away gun rights can't be part of the punishment. sometimes, someone might be bad enough to not get gun rights, but not so bad they should spend the rest of their life in jail. it's not an either or situation. then of course there are those who are too mentally unstable to get guns. we should have checks just for those people, at the least.

you can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death. the simple act of having a gun causes some people to be more likely to commit a crime. if they didn't have the gun to begin with, they wouldn't commit the crime. or, do you unequivically deny that that would be the case? again either the all or nothing stuff if you disagree.
SpartanHoplite

Con

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves, even convicted felons who have already been punished for their crimes; this is why free societies protect the right to bear arms. The mentally unstable should also have the right to adequately defend themselves, with the same consequences of murder they would receive if they were to pummel someone to death.

"You can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death."
I do not know what you are arguing; you said criminals will just get guns illegally if they want them, which is a fact, but then say stopping some people from having guns prevents crime and death. Who else is going to use a gun for crime besides criminals who by definition commit crimes? If you believe taking away someone's right to defend themselves just because there is a possibility they will use their weapon for something other than defense, you might as well be the one threatening their life.

Besides, banning someone from using a gun makes no logical sense, even if there were no guns in the world, people would go back to bows and swords, and if the same is done for those, they will use any physical object they can find, and then their fists. Weapons do not kill, people do, and nothing will prevent them from doing so, if they intend to, except some form of punishment; however, taking away someone's weapon of any kind, so that they can not defend themselves if threatened with one of equal or greater power, is cruelly burdening them with a constant risk to their life, which is why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right to bear muskets, not swords, not non-assault weapons, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
robertacollier
Another pantywaist, emotional argument against terrifying gunz. This will be another easy vote.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I didn't want to accept while you were gone.
Posted by DebatingForever 1 year ago
DebatingForever
I would want to debate with you upon this topic
Posted by Boesball 1 year ago
Boesball
I would like to accept this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.