The Instigator
Con (against)
Anonymous
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
F100
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,301 times Debate No: 120136
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

Con

I am with the right and think that the government shouldn't ban guns. I am for better background checks and mental health screening. The way Japan does it.

good luck to my opponent.
F100

Pro

Going by your opening (albeit confusing) argument, I believe I should speak FOR the effective banning of guns.

I truly believe that the best way to control an issue is to stem out its source, Which, In this case, Takes the form of guns. Of course, Japan has implemented a novel system, But looking at this in a logical light, It would be far more efficient to ban guns altogether. As a result, One can control over illegal trade and imports of guns, As there are provisions banning them.

You see, The route problem is in how the law is tuned. In a country that has completely banned guns, It authorizes the state to use force against any potential defaulters. Now think of countries like America. What guarantee exists that a former convict will not wield the gun again? What safeguard exists against any potential criminals influenced by this convict? In all, The situation is dangerous and worrisome - the solution? Gun Control.

I shall elaborate in R2, But I feel this should do for an introduction to my argument.
Debate Round No. 1

Con

Well, First of all, America already has thousands of gun laws in place at a state and local level. Majority of all gun crime happens in 4 cities. Baltimore, Chigaco, Detroit and Washington D. C. These 4 cities all have strict gun laws. 96% of mass shootings are in gun-free zones. Britain, Who banned all guns has seen an increase in violent crime and has murders higher than Japan which has the best gun policy with only 10 deaths and a higher population. There's a movement in the UK to ban knives now. In Parkland, Florida the school shooter was in an FBI Watchlist. His Mom called the cops on him 39 times and had mental problems. That would have prevented a school shooting. Now, Let's look at countries who banned guns.

mexico did it-largest crime rate in the world
Hitler did it
Stalin did it
mau did it

These are the people who took the guns.

I have more arguments that I am going to save, I look forward to your response. The way Japan bans guns is in the comments.

Last, Give me a solution to disarming 300 million guns.
F100

Pro

Contrary to what you have cited, An article on USA Today, Published as recently as last year, Indicated that Alaska, Alabama and Louisiana had the highest gun crime rates. And look at the legislation -
Alaska - No permits, State authorization, Owner license or permit for open carry needed.
Alabama - No permits, State authorization, Owner license or permit for open carry needed.
Louisiana - No permits, State authorization, Owner license or permit for open carry needed.

See the pattern? Such liberal laws do translate into more gun related violence.

On the contrary, Illinois came 34th, And Washington 41st on that list. In fact, For that matter, The strict laws in these states has led to such less crime. Also, The UK never banned guns. The 1997 law DID NOT ban pistols as such, And revolvers were permitted with a license. As for the Parkland incident, What you are trying to tell us actually supports my statement - even being on the FBI watchlist, Laws weren't strict enough on possession of guns, And a terrible massacre took place. Had there been arbitrary gun control, That banned guns - banned use of guns by civilians - it would not have turned out like that. Listen to the survivors, Who bore first hand witness to the terrible events - they advocate gun control. Listen to the families of the victims. They are no different. The fact is, From the viewpoint of those affected, Guns are but a menace, And proper control is necessary.

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them. This belief originates due the general perception that only members of law enforcement, The armed forces, Or those in armed security protection are authorized to have them. While it is true that Mexico possesses strict gun laws, Where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement, The acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents, Given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law.
Hitler did it. Fine, But do we see Nazi Germany in bad light because of gun-related violence? Do we consider Nazism as a form of terrorism because Hitler apparently allowed guns to be possessed?

Stalin. The government had made it a point to "arm the working people" in the Declaration of the Rights of Working and Exploited People in January 1918. With the introduction of the new Criminal Code in 1960, Penalties were softened significantly for illegal possessions of firearms to only up to two years of imprisonment. The USSR was relatively soft.

Mao Zedong. I guess I have to repeat what I said about Hitler - it is insignificant. It is like claiming that gun crime in China makes Mao a terror figure, When today the Chinese government systematically tones down his image for his support of rebellion. Is it guns? No. Please don't cite insignificance - for in the face of healthy debate that just focusses on unimportance, And stands on poor reason.

How will I disarm 300 million guns? What if I told you India underwent demonetization of currency notes within just 50 days. 50 days to deposit 40 BILLION notes. Talk about numbers.
Debate Round No. 2

Con

Well, You just proved my point. I am for permits.

Why should we take guns from good guys when a few criminals commit crimes. The mother of the school shooter was a law-abiding citizen and called the cops on her son 39 times! Banning ARs would not have done anything. There have been shootings not committed by an AR. AR crime only commits barely a fraction of the gun crime. Shootings have been stopped by good citizens in gun-free zones.

80% of gun crime is drug-related.

Violent and gun crime continue to fall and more and more guns are being purchased.

According to FBI crime stats, In 2004, After the 1994 federal "assault weapons" ban ended, Violent crime actually fell. In fact, Violent crime has fallen by more than 50 percent since 1997, When the ban was in effect. Since 2004, Sales and ownership of AR-15-style rifles have skyrocketed. Thus, Contradicting claims made by gun control components, Violent crime fell when the number of guns owned by the population significantly increased.

if we ban guns, Illegal firearm sales from our southern border will skyrocket.

For the reasons above, We know that this isn"t true. However, Even if it were true, Our goal should be to reduce all violence. Completely eradicating gun violence wouldn"t have stopped the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The Boston marathon bombing, The serial bombings in Austin, Texas, Or other violent crimes.

Often Australia is used as an example for how banning guns works. Yes, Their firearm-related crime went down, But their violent crimes, To include sexual assault, Kidnapping, Manslaughter, And robbery, Have all stayed the same or increased.

Also, Gun restrictions can lead to an increase in violence when law-abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves. Everywhere would be a gun-free zone.
F100

Pro

No, I did not prove your point. Your use of the term "banned guns" was what I was referring to. So in the contrary, I showed that your evidence was incorrect in all cases in your Round 3 argument. Of the modern states that you referred to, None of them have, In principle, BANNED GUNS. The facts ought to be straight.

I shall base this argument on why guns are not needed - they are unwanted sources of potential violence. Read this straight - "unwanted" sources of "potential" violence. That one possesses a gun means that he can, And that "can" holds large prominence, Cause violence. Giving someone a gun permit, Allowing him to possess one, Never fully removes the risk associated with that. It need not be the ARs - just about any gun that can fire bullets using gunpowder is risky for the general population at large.
You say the mother of the Parkland criminal called on her son 39 times. He still had a gun. Imagine - if gun control laws were rigid, His worrisome mental stature, And potential criminal status would have been enough to confiscate the firearm(s) he possessed. What if the mother had respite in the legal system of Florida? What if guns were under strict control? Would this have happened?
I shall back that up with the stats - Florida does not require a state permit for possessing guns. There is no need to have a registration. No owner licenses needed either. Assault weapon law? No. This exists for all - both the long and short - guns. Tell me - wouldn't those 17 students still have been safe had there been a helpline for the mother to inform authorities that her mentally unstable son was in possession of a gun? If there was a legal system, If there was any legal infrastructure that would tackle any unstable gun owners, This would not have happened. Also, According to John Malcolm, VP at the Institute for Constitutional Governance, And Amy Swearer, Visiting Legal Fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The principal cause for concern in society from guns is from suicides and illegal possession - not mass shootings. Either way, Gun control is the best option.

80% of gun crime is drug related. Tell me, Can you shoot a person dead using pills?
The root cause is guns. Not drugs. That which leads to the mafia killings is guns, Not drugs.

Yes, Violence and gun crime may fall. But even in the way you make that statement, It is clear that there is no correlation. This is because it is illogical - when everyone has guns, And some may be influenced to crime, One can never expect gun rates to fall.

If homicide rates have decreased, Is this decrease uniform? Take a look at the fact that over 50 percent of gun murders occur in only 2 percent of all counties. 2 PERCENT. Gun control applies uniform law, Even banning the guns, Hence eliminating such disastrous statistics.

"If we ban guns, Illegal firearm sales from our southern border will skyrocket". Does a nation base policies on fear from illegal smuggling? If that had been the case, Shouldn't be drugs be fully legal since, As you say, That would increase their price and hence, The rates of smuggling? There is no truth in your statement, At least, With regards to this debate - we must look at the situation in our country, And that what needs to be done here is not the permit of guns, But merely the tightening of border rules.

Australia never banned guns. I find it bothersome that you use the term " ban " so liberally - for banning guns completely would mean that society is completely compelled to do away with guns - incorrect. People can possess guns with permits. In the current argument, That the rates of such violence have increased does not really do with guns alone - it has to do with criminal jurisdiction.

Your last argument is incorrect too - you see, Banning of guns does not bend around criminals. I have pointed out that it is possible for the confiscation of guns when new policies are introduced in countries. Hence, Law abiding citizens must expect that the law works - take it this way. Let us consider bombs - bombs can, In most cases, Be made from one's knowledge, And from basic circuits and triggers. The damage they cause is devastating. Now, Most individuals don't how to make bombs, But there are people with such knowledge. Of course, Detonating objects are a strict no-no in all states - do we see everything blowing up? Law must be trusted in most cases so as to prevent crime. The legal framework must be rigid enough. Gun control, With I quote, Strict laws must be brought up.

Coming to another argument - what impact could this have on little children in homes. They see guns, And with the rise in news of shootings, A child's mind isn't mature enough so as to prevent it from using the gun. I am talking about even those upto the age of 13 - stats show that at least 30 % of kids in America are brought up by a single parent, And 16 % have abusive parents - do guns promote peace in the newer minds? Ask yourself.

I brought this up last round - ask the survivors of the MSD shooting. First hand witness to their friends being slaughtered - I pray this never happens, But if we think in their shoes, Gun control is what we must be promoting - not greater liberty for more crime.

The route for peace is hard, Often worrisome, But one must at times believe in the laws - minor incidents may happen, Even under gun control. I accept that. But these will be minor - very insignificant, Compared to the state of affairs today.
Debate Round No. 3

Con

Right, So the UK banned virtually all guns and doubled their gun crime in 6 years and violent crime continue to rise.

So guns are risky. You are safer holding a gun and being next to someone with a gun than being in a car.

no, It wouldn't have happened if mental health screening took place. What if that woman was put in a position to defend herself. Guns don't kill people. He could've come in with a spoon to kill people and or a knife, Or an iron rod. You can't bn the iron rod. If there were laws for responsibilities with mentally ill people. No mass shootings.

First of all, Drug Lords can't get guns legally. So where do they come from? I made this to clear up a point.

There have been fewer guns in the past, More crime in the past. There are fewer guns in Britain now, More crime now. There are fewer guns in Mexico then was before more come. There are multiple examples.

This is why I want a wall, Think about it. Now if guns were illegal and you wanted to commit a mass shooting(God Forbid)

Where would you get the gun? Common Sense.

Their ahs been mass shooting with weapons bought illegally.

Well, Australia banned virtually all guns. Give me an example of the Jurisdiction being part of the rise in crime.

Criminals will find a way-Illegally bought, Etc. Etc.

Nobody could stop them either.

See this has relation to Parkland. If the mother was responsible with her gun. Nothing would have happened.

You see, The media always has news on about the shooting and yatta, Yatta, Yatta. This ahs an influence on kids mind.

There have been guns before the rise in school shootings. Why are we just seeing them now?

Ok, Look. They are kids. They don't know the real world and are being brainwashed by the media. If they looked at what could've stopped the Parkland shooting. They would change sides. The media doesn't report
F100

Pro

With all due respect, I feel like I am debating Donald Trump here. . :D (take it lightly, Sir).

I have given evidence clearly before this round. My opponent's stance that the UK banned guns is wrong. The UK never banned them. In fact, I don't quite understand why my opponent keeps getting back to this issue of banning guns - Australia never did so either.

Also, As for his stance on illegal smuggling of guns, I shall say this conclusively given this is the final round - just because of fear of it being brought in from our borders, We cannot have a law that does not ban guns. Simply put, Fear of smuggling should never lead to the dismantling of laws. Borders are meant to be protected, And we must trust the people best suited for that.
You spoke of a wall - do you think that the House is full of idiots that wouldn't support it? Do you think this shutdown over the wall was a joke? Imagine not getting your paycheck when you live on these - the Air Traffic Controllers didn't get their salaries, TSA officers didn't get theirs, The government was shut down, Over the whim of building a huge wall, And getting Mexico to pay for it. What beats me is that this is America we're talking about.

My opponent has told us that fewer guns result in more crime - while I have seen evidence for this, Is he suggesting we loosen already existent gun laws? Remember, Throughout this debate I have vocal over the need for gun control - I am Pro here. Based on such statistics, It's incorrect to think that freer rules would result in less crime. Imagine, If the laws weren't so tough on defaulters, What cause would keep them from committing crime again? We need tough laws against guns, I repeat myself, GUN CONTROL IS THE WAY FORWARD.

I believe that my opponent has based on his argument on the understanding that tough laws will only provoke criminals to find ways to bend the laws for them. What about robberies? We have laws against theft. In reality, Rates of theft have reduced considerably. Yet if we take your argument, A house should be broken into every week. The fact is, And I say this again, Our laws should never be borne of fear. We have the police, We have law enforcement, We must trust that the law is, To whatever possible extent, Maintained. Our Constitution cannot be edited on whims, I hope that's very clear.

Kids have, I have said before, Minds that can be very easily influenced. Think of this - a kid watches a cartoon where the hero comes out of nowhere, And shoots dead a criminal. His dad owns a gun, And due to most laws in states, Is permitted to hold the gun in public. Wouldn't the kid be tempted to emulate that great hero? Only that, In the real world, That's a criminal offence. Then again, Do kids even what that means.

I apologize for that parable - this is a very serious debate on which the future of the US and the world hinges. But I believe that one must tackle ignorance or false claims by such means.

I conclude by repeating my stance. I am pro gun control. I support tough laws that ensure that possession of guns is strictly regulated. I believe we must place trust in the law, And not base that law on mere whims. I believe that a lesser number of guns everywhere is better for the future - we don't want a society that was brought up seeing the gun and the violence it can cause - that just spells disaster.
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
*This
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
"We have FBI background checks now"

his explains why we haven't had a mass shooting in a while.
Posted by normaldude 3 years ago
normaldude
We have FBI background checks now I'm not sure how much better we can get as having the NSA comb every electronically generated sentence a person has made isn't gonna happen. Who is to say what mental disorder makes you incapable of keeping a firearm? I have severe major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety and require medication. I will not give them up and if somebody thinks killing me will save the rest of the country then let them come. I should be able to own whatever firearm I can afford including antiaircraft weapons. Tanks, Helicopters, And nuclear subs aren't firearms. If we ban guns do you agree that all law enforcement should be disarmed because they can only parity force and if all guns are gone the police, FBI, ATF, DEA, And other LEO's logically won't need them correct?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
If you insult your teachers you also get an F.

People who have a weak argument, Like you, Should be insulted. LOGIC

80% of gun crime is drug-related. This is true. Again, Trump id doing more than Obama for guns.

car crashes are on the rise. Let's ban cars.

Take out the drug factor, Take in the fact that we have 300 million guns and only 13, 000 fatalities. Take in per capita and the number is different.

Again you can jump off a bride, Stab yourself, Exhaust fumes, Etc, Etc to kill yourself. NOT THE GUNS.

They're killing themselves because of PTSD.

People in school are kids. They don't about the real world.

You discard me because I'm right and then you start to deny FBI statistsics and avoid the fact that

Mexico took the guns, Britain took the guns and saw INCREASES in crime

Dictators like Hitler took the guns

The purpose of the second amendment is to face the biggest killer of all. Tyrannical governments like the Nazis.

Why people in Germany in 1933 didn't fear that is why they turned to ash.

Explain to me how can get rid of 300 MILLION guns just like that and why people won't just buy guns illegally.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. "

"Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. John R. Lott, Jr. , PhD, Gun rights activist, Stated, "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, While would-be criminals ignore them. " [70] According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37. 4% of state prison inmates who "used, Carried, Or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence" obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago's ban on gun shops, Shooting ranges, Assault weapons, And high capacity magazines. "
Posted by F100 3 years ago
F100
I'd like to thank Backwardseden for voting, And I encourage more votes for the better orator
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
"This is what happens when you ban guns. Veterans stand with Trump. " OK I'm ending this because as stated previously 22 - 23 vets kill themselves daily with YOUR guns. YOU must think its cool and fun and great and grand and that things should remain the same and that your god should not do anything about this horrific statistic.

You are a true miserable lowlife. Do yourself a favor. Go out and actually witness someone's guts be ripped out, Ripped to shreds especially a child's, In the streets, Or at a school, By your guns and bullets, And then come back with your "cotton brains of infancy" (Jim Morrison). But you can't, Because your ability to actually care for someone and have feelings for them is completely inept just like your god.

Don't even think about posting me again. If you do, So? It will be disregarded.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
"Insults are not an argument. " When you don't have an argument, None, And you act stupidly, Without and education, Or intelligence for something you profess to have knowledge upon and you really don't and since you don't you thus pretend that you do by inventing excuses and or flat out lying, Then you deserve to be insulted. ESPECIALLY if you cannot back up what you say with something called "evidence" in which you have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to what "evidence" is. This is something that is taught in college teeny bopper. If you do this crap to your so-called friends and loved ones, As you most certainly have, This is why you have no genuine friends or loved ones. If you pull this crap on your teachers = instant F, No exceptions, None. I'm certainly not going to deal with it. And f--king hell yes, You deserve to be insulted. If you don't like it teeny bopper, Too bad its your own fault and you deserve it. I can ---always--- back up what I say with evidence or I don't enter conversations. Its why I have kept my 5 friends 3 for 43 + years, 1 for 18 and one for 19 years. You? Nothing and deservedly so.

"80% OF GUN CRIME IS RELATED TO DRUGS. " Nope. Not even close teeny bopper. Try harder. Since YOU don't have the foggiest clue, Tell yah what since I'm such a softie, WHY DON'T YAH DO SOME RESEARCH ON IT rather than flat out guessing?

Wow! Yah actually got one right! Gun crime is rising. Its because your god Trump is in the big white barn and is doing 0% of nothing to take away any guns from anybody.

Underdeveloped nations such as Mexico have always had a high gun crime rate. The U. S. Is a developed nation. The U. S. , By far, And its not even a contest has the highest gun crime rate of ---any--- developed nation on earth. Do you fricken homework. Why are you such an imbecile to not know these first grade truths?
Posted by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
@Dr. Franklin- apparently no one on this site has genuine friends or loved ones.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Insults are not an argument. It was Obama who has pulled a race war on America. Look at any gun crime breakdown 80% OF GUN CRIME IS RELATED TO DRUGS. The number is rising.

Mexico banned guns-highest crime and suicide rate
Britain banned guns- doubled crime rate in 6 years and violent crime goes up.
Hitler and other fascists took the guns

This is what happens when you ban guns. Veterans stand with Trump.

No, You didn't beat me on the border wall.

You are defying the Constitution and your calling for me to leave this country
OK, Bud.

{INSERT CLICHE LIBERAL ARGUMENT THAT PRO-GUN PEOPLE don't CARE ABOUT LIVES}

Bud, My great grandfather was stabbed. I'm not calling for bans for knives.

Hold on, Semi-automatic weapons have existed 100 years before our country. Gun crime was MORE in our founding fathers times when they wrote it up.

What did Obama do for gun control? Trump banned some stocks. He's done more than Obama.

Again, Trump may have a personality you don't like, But he is right.

Hold on, So its Japanese culture who stops gun deaths. SO IT'S NOT THE GUNS.

Again, The left is unhinged in America and must be stopped.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Why is the 2nd amendment worthless? Again oh sorry excuse for a human being. . . A child's life is far far far more important than YOUR guns, Bullets AND a stinking piece of paper. Not only that, But since YOU obviously have no friends or loved ones, YOU cannot understand that YOU would never put YOUR child, Or anyone you cared about in front of YOU to protect YOUR guns, Bullets and 2nd amendment. Since YOU cannot stand behind YOUR fallacious product, It means YOUR conversation is completely null and void. Tee hee. Now you read those words again because I 100% know that your fried meat thing you call a brain, Didn't get it. All you are capable of thinking about is YOU and only YOU. Too bad. Others matter.

Oh darn. The 2nd amendment also doesn't matter because within 5 years or less, Its gonna have to be torn to shreds anyway. Why? ? Because weaponry will have advanced so much that people will be able to build in their basements that will make the average AK47 look like an atom as compared to the big bang. Hey right now people are building 3D printer guns in their basements. Guess what? There's no laws, None, To stop them thanx to your god because he doesn't care.

Here's something to watch about your god that hit throughout all media sources TODAY since you think your god is so great.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=HdVGZ6gf_L8

"Also, You still haven't told me Japanese culture is different and would prevent my regulations to not work" YOUR regulations? Well-i-well-i-well-well-well-well Yeah I did AND did yah watch the films I recommended YOU to watch? Why no of course not because you are a true maggoty coward. Also explaining something to you so that you understand it is me being Einstein and you being a cheap manure spread on buttered toast.

When you can think of something that is worthy of conversation, Post me back, But not until then. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me back unless you have something intelligent to say.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
AnonymousF100Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Michael's inadequate vote. We're supposed to give examples of why we're voting for each point.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
AnonymousF100Tied
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: Con throughout the debate gave erroneous misconceptions and did not back them up with sources or evidence which could be substantiated. His grammar was terrible. His conduct was like a loose screw. Pro "See the pattern? Such liberal laws do translate into more gun related violence." He's right. Con "80% of gun crime is drug-related." Is false. Pro "The root cause is guns." True. Pro "With all due respect, I feel like I am debating Donald Trump here" Exactly.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.