The Instigator
Andrew-Cheng
Pro (for)
The Contender
CelsoMoskowitz
Con (against)

Gun Control

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CelsoMoskowitz has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 100144
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Andrew-Cheng

Pro

Gun control is the right way to go. I will let the opposition start. Post your argument below.
CelsoMoskowitz

Con

You say gun control, yet you say so little. Do you mean forbidding the sale of bazookas, machine-guns, handguns, knives or baseball bats? On what terms? What's a "gun"? Do you think that we, because we live in a society, forego the right to protect ourselves, transferring that power solely to the hands of a government? Who signed those papers?

Or are you trying to mask the failings of a culture and deliberately forgetting Switzerland and Finland?
Debate Round No. 1
Andrew-Cheng

Pro

I am for a stricter policy on gun control. I'm not asking for a complete shutdown of guns, but rather more strict procedures to purchase a gun and use it. Different types of guns should have different levels of enforcement, such as your examples. A machine-gun would have the strictest rules, and only the military should be able to use it.. One the other hand, everyone should have access to knives and baseball bats.

When the 2nd Amendment was made, guns could only fire at 1 shot per 3 minutes, now the firing rate is way higher. Times have changed, and the 2nd Amendment is now outdated.

I believe that prevention rather than treatment is the way to go, as if you say when everyone has guns then people will be less likely to open fire. But then, you will have a death either on the victim's side or the instigator's side. If no one had a gun in the first place, there wouldn't have been a death there at all.
CelsoMoskowitz

Con

Iceland
Firearms per 100 people: 30.3
Firearm homicides per 100,000: 0

Finland
Firearms per 100 people: 45.3
Firearm homicides per 100,000: 0.45

Switzerland
Firearms per 100 people: 45.7
Firearm homicides per 100,000: 0.77

USA
Firearms per 100 people: 88.8
Firearm homicides per 100,000: 3.21

Some points about this data. The USA has a significantly higher n" of guns per 100 people, HOWEVER, this does not mean that there are that many more people with guns on the USA, much to the contrary. What happens is that, if we take Switzerland (for example), about 45% of the population has a gun. That means that about 45 in 100 people own one gun, it's normal to have one. Because they chose to. Some have more, of course. But most, one. Still, more people have guns than in the USA, because in USA'S case, those 88.8 guns per 100 people are very far from representing 88 people with guns. It's probably 10 people with a gun, and the other 70 in the hands of 4 or 5 more. What does this tell us?

That a country with the same (or less!) number of people with at least a gun (1 or more, that makes little difference in killing ability) as Switzerland, has almost 5 times it's firearm homicides per 100.000. 8 times higher than Finland. Infinite times higher than Iceland.

The problem are not the guns. The problem is THE CULTURE. Limiting access to guns would probably work in a culture like Switzerland, Finland, or Iceland. They would probably be fine without their guns. Police in the UK traditionally doesn't carry fire arms. But that's not USA'S culture. Wouldn't work, just as having guns doesn't work as well as in other countries. But it's not the guns' fault.
Debate Round No. 2
Andrew-Cheng

Pro

You have not posted a counter argument for my previous argument.
Yes, it is a cultural issue that most Americans are thinking that guns are a necessity. That is not the case. It is not required for everyday citizens to own a gun. I am not calling for a complete shutdown of guns.
Law enforcement may use a gun, and hunters, but everyday people who own a gun for self-defense is not important. It allows the criminals to blend into the people who have guns at home, and will create many problems. Children getting their hands onto guns, mass-shootings, etc.
In Iceland, Switzerland, and Finland it worked perfectly as you stated above. What is so different about the United States than those countries? Why does having guns in the United States be more beneficial than other countries? It is not. We are all human beings and we can all be changed.
Please post counter arguments for argument 2 and 3.
CelsoMoskowitz

Con

In all the countries I've mentioned, the majority of gun owners are automatic rifle owners. Not for sport, not for hunting, for defence of their country and of themselves. Yet, their violence indexes are very low. This clearly proves that the problem is the culture, not the guns, and if Americans didn't have access to guns, they would find other ways to be violent (explosives, knives, cars, etc.). I can kill as many people with a car or a bomb as with a gun. Gun control wouldn't solve anything because the root problem is not the guns. I can't put it more clearly than this, and I think I argued against all of your main points.
Debate Round No. 3
Andrew-Cheng

Pro

If you mention that the culture is the problem, it's not like it is impossible to fix. The first step to fix the culture of violence is to enforce gun control. I will acknowledge that the United States has a cultural problem, but we cannot give up there. We must do something about it. And the first would be to enforce gun control. If you say that they would find other ways to be violent, a gun is still the most cheap and effective way to do it. Murder someone with a car? Not so subtle, and would be caught in a matter of hours. Knives are very inefficient, and most criminals rely on guns. Even if it didn't reduce the amount of violence, surely there would be less accidental deaths by guns.
You are not mentioning any benefits on keeping guns, only the fact that gun control would not work, which is wrong. Even you have just admitted to the fact that there are no benefits of having guns, so why not take a leap and enforce gun control. Even if it renders useless, there's no harm in trying.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
Good arguments from Con. Interested to see how this debate plays out.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.