The Instigator
kyle_16129
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
flaming.liberal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 117401
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

kyle_16129

Con

With history almost always repeating itself, Gun control would not only be against the second amendment that granted you the right to bear arms, It would be a dangerous move that would result in there being more violent crimes in most areas affected by it's jurisdiction. This includes more violent crimes on woman and children. The reason for this has to do with there being a lack of intimidation on criminals who would want to cause harm to innocent bystanders & individuals. A perfect example of this would be in Chicago where in 1982 a handgun ban was set into place with the results being a higher homicide and violent crime rate. For these historical reasons, Any ban on currently legal firearms would not only be taking away the rights of a law abiding citizen to bear arms, But taking the right away from an individual to competently protect himself and his family
flaming.liberal

Pro

Thank you. Hope this is a informational and competitive!

So I actually agree with you about bans. They don't work and they would be extremely counter-productive. But there are many reasons to increase gun CONTROL, Not gun banning, As you have named this debate after.

Of course, By gun control I mean, (and defined by Merriam Webster is): regulation of the selling, Owning, And use of guns.
Gun banning is different, And has a completely different definition from gun control.

I am going to refute what you have said line by line. Then, If I have enough characters, I will bring up some of my own points.

>>Refutations<<
---"With history almost always repeating itself, Gun control would not only be against the second amendment that granted you the right to bear arms"
---------This is an argument that comes up a lot when I debate with people about gun control. They say, "it would violate the constitution. " But my question is always, "why does it matter? " I always ask this, And many people aren't able to give me an answer. That is because there is no impact. So I would love to know an answer if you could supply one. But people still will have the right to bear arms, As long as they aren't insane and are able to pass more rigorous testing. I think we can all agree that we don't want to give people that could be a danger to themselves and others. If you do agree then my point is proven, And if you don't then you are openly supporting school shootings and the average 96 deaths from guns in the US EVERY DAY.

---"It would be a dangerous move that would result in there being more violent crimes in most areas affected by it's jurisdiction. This includes more violent crimes on woman and children. "
---------I mean, To be fair, That isn't true, Plain and simple. When they increased regulations of guns in Australia, The last shooting that they had was in 1996. While in the US, Where the gun restrictions basically don't exist, We have one an average of 1 every month. Xhttps://www. Bbc. Com/news/world-australia-35048251
As for the women and children thing, There is no link that leads to the internal link that means more women and children will be harmed, And thus your point has no impact.

Point Refuted.

---"The reason for this has to do with there being a lack of intimidation on criminals who would want to cause harm to innocent bystanders & individuals. "
---------Can you please explain this part again because I am a little bit confused by the wording. How is it that more gun restrictions would result in more deaths of innocent bystanders and people in general. Here is another statistic about how more gun restrictions resulted in less deaths. Japan has a very strict gun policy, In which you can get a gun after going through, Again, A rigorous process. They are also allowed for hunting as well. They haven't had a shooting is a crazy amount of time. Https://www. Businessinsider. Com/how-other-countries-avoid-mass-shootings-2018-2
Thus, There is less harm to civilians and your point is refuted.

---"A perfect example of this would be in Chicago where in 1982 a handgun ban was set into place with the results being a higher homicide and violent crime rate. For these historical reasons, Any ban on currently legal firearms would not only be taking away the rights of a law abiding citizen to bear arms"
---------Again, Not a ban. And still, It isn't stopping people from bearing arms unless they are mentally unstable.

---"But taking the right away from an individual to competently protect himself and his family"
---------I can't stress this enough, Guns cause more deaths than they prevent. Home murders/shooters will not be able to get guns because they won't pass the tests to receive a firearm. Also, Just look at statistics, There are virtually no gun accidents when there are more intense tests.

Now I have more characters, So I'm gonna list some of the things that gun banning would help with.

Obviously, It would save lives. I already put statistics and links above when responding to your points. Go look at those if you need to.

Ultimately, What is left is the fact that there are no downsides to gun restrictions, And your worries about "destroying the 2nd amendment, " don't have an impact. Do you think we can't amend the constitution? We can, And of course we have many times in the past, So we can in the future.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
kyle_16129

Con

Okay, I will begin the second round with providing the reason why the 2nd amendment was enacted. Beginning with the Constitution and the primary reason as to why the 2nd amendment was enacted.

1) The second amendment was enacted as a right for all American citizens to protect themselves from future government leaders who could potentially oppress them by using military or government assets to control the American population. The Nazis did gun control to there citizens before taking control of all of Germany with minimal resistance. The founding fathers had common sense and enacted this basic right to own firearms to protect your safety from an unknown future of government leaders that could assume office and pose as a hazard to civil American Life.

2) Although government oppression is unrealistic for America as of right now, The 2nd amendment gives you the most fundamental and basic entitlement a human can possibly have. The right to competently and efficiently protect yourself and your loved ones with minimal resistance as to how you choose to do so.

3) I'll restate as I had stated before that intimidation on criminals (criminals rational fear of being killed by a firearm in the act of a crime) is the best deterrent to crime rationally. When firearms are granted to populations of individuals, With minimal restrictions as to how a person can use those firearms, Crime rates overall are lower as criminals fear of being killed becomes more and more rational.
[1]https://www. Cato. Org/publications/commentary/challenging-dc-gun-ban

4) "If you do agree then my point is proven, And if you don't then you are openly supporting school shootings and the average 96 deaths from guns in the US EVERY DAY". If somebody disagrees with your belief system, That definitely does not mean that they support the negative outcome of there belief system. It simply means that they believe there belief justifies the end result. When it comes to gun control or bans, In America, Historically extensive gun regulations have resulted in there being more crime such as in Washington D. C. [1]. Statistics can and are often flawed to promote political gain for political parties. In other words, Even though statistics can be made to accommodate your beliefs, They are often manipulated and the end result is simply a false statistic or lie. Common sense should then replace false statistics. Common sense would tell you that if an individual is afraid to break into a house due to the reality of being killed, That individual is less likely to enter that house.
[2]https://www. Google. Com/amp/s/www. Forbes. Com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/02/02/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-how-bad-statistics-are-feeding-fake-news/amp/
So overall the thought process that taking away guns and regulating guns saves lives though at first seems ideal and is well intentioned, The result is there being more violence and death in America. This means more than the average number of 96 people a day. Keep in mind that there are over 300 million people living America and that only 96 people being killed by guns a day is not an epidemic by any rational means.

5) "As for the women and children thing, There is no link that leads to the internal link that means more women and children will be harmed, And thus your point has no impact. " Okay, Again let's use common sense and point out that woman and children would be victims of violent crime as murder rates would increase. I would even dare to say that woman and children would be victized even more by criminals as criminals know it is easier to victimize unarmed woman and children than it is unarmed full grown men. Thus the result being violence on woman and children skyrocketing.

6) Now I will address a criminals ability to obtain firearms. A criminals ability will not be heavily impacted as guns are made more difficult to obtain. It may even become easier for criminals to obtain guns as gun dealers could become a very main stream illegal business if criminals or even law abiding citizens turn to illegal activity for being unable to purchase a gun at a store. Believe it or not there already are regulations for buying and maintaining gun ownership. Just like drugs trafficking, Even though drugs are illegal, People still get them. Not to mention that it's not easy to make drugs at home without there being reasonable suspicion from others. People already make guns out of everyday materials found in America, And even though it is illegal, It doesn't stop them.

7) For my final argument for round two, I am going to address some geographical and socioeconomic differences in countries and why just because a policy in one country works does not mean it will work in other countries. America has by far the highest gun ownership rate in the world. America also has the largest and most effective organized crime gangs in the world. Regulating or taking away certain guns from American citizens would open up a new business for organized crime groups further increasing gang violence as gangs compete for business, Resulting in even more death and violence. Even simple regulations such as "being unable to keep your own firearm loaded while on your own property" though innocent and we'll intentioned at first (yet highly controlling) could very possibly lead to people losing there firearm privileges and searching out illegal methods to obtain firearms for protection. Why should the government have a right to tell you how you can protect your own self or your loved ones.

In conclusion, For the rationale stated above, I cannot endorse or support this idea that limiting law abiding citizens ability to obtain guns would save lives. Gun violence is by no means an epidemic in America, And taking away citizens rights to competently protect themselves isn't just counterproductive, It's unethical and wrong.

[1]https://www. Cato. Org/publications/commentary/challenging-dc-gun-ban
[2]https://www. Google. Com/amp/s/www. Forbes. Com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/02/02/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-how-bad-statistics-are-feeding-fake-news/amp/
flaming.liberal

Pro

I think that we can both agree that this debate needs to be simplified. So lets do that.

I think a priority in your argument, As in mine is about lives lost/saved. This should be the priority topic/point in this debate, So I'm going to focus on this primarily, Then I will move on to some '2nd Amendment stuff. "

And to prove my point, I am going to refute your final argument for round 2. You sort of "named" this argument, 'geographical and socioeconomic differences in countries. ' While that sounds like a reasonable argument, Your paragraph after it didn't really explain the geographical and socioeconomic differences. You singled out certain policies from other countries, All with valid points, HOWEVER, These are not the kind of restrictions that I brought up. The only one that I have outlined was basic restrictions that are outlined in most basic plans of gun restrictions: strict tests based on psychology and other things that prevent people from getting guns. Also, An appropriate age range of course. We don't want underage kids with guns, Similar how we don't want them with alcohol (if you don't see the relation, I can explain it in the final response).

Here is a very interesting article about what some countries do to make sure that dangerous people don't get guns and use them in horrible ways: https://www. Businessinsider. Com/how-other-countries-avoid-mass-shootings-2018-2
I will summarize this article now (article is called Australia, Israel, Japan, And South Korea rarely have mass shootings "" and the reasons are clear).
1. "Japanese gun fans have to regularly take written tests. "(similar to Australia) -Japan has never had a mass shooting, And Australia hasn't had one since 1996. (THIS IS THE MAIN RESTRICTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE).
2. "Israeli shooters must wait until their twenties. " -almost no mass shootings from gun/shooting ratio. Israelis think of guns as a "necessity, " while Americans think of them as a right, Except there are very little mass shootings.
3. "South Korean guns aren't kept at home. " Here is mini paragraph from the article. "In South Korea, Where many men learn to use firearms during military service, Guns are just not easily available. People must first obtain a license from police and, Even with a license, Can only purchase air rifles or hunting guns. " -haven't had a mass shooting since 1982.

These are the facts. So I would like you to find some facts/sources that are SPECIFIC to these kind of regulations that say that they won't work in the United States. If you are unable to produce any, Then my point stands. You should also explain the geographical and socioeconomic differences that you brought up.

Oh also, You said, "America has by far the highest gun ownership rate in the world. " Yes, Of course. And you want to know why? Its because we don't have gun restrictions like other countries.

So now that I have proved that there are benefits from this kind of restriction. Unless you can find realistic, Reliable, And comprehensive evidence that it won't work in the US, There will be a lot of lives saved.

Now onto some second hand stuff!

Your first and second paragraphs were about an oppressive government that would come and attack us. I hear this argument a lot, And I have a few responses and questions.
1) You said it yourself, "government oppression is unrealistic for America as of right now. " Why are you trying to prioritize something that doesn't matter at all? This debate should be about saving lives, Not some "fundamental and basic" right.
How is it a fundamental right? Here is the definition of a fundamental right: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, Often held to include the rights to life, Liberty, Equality, And a fair trial, Freedom from slavery and torture, And freedom of thought and expression. Https://www. Thefreedictionary. Com/Basic rights
As you can see in that definition, Nothing says guns, Or even hints at it. None of the words encompass "the rights of people to own guns. "It isn't a basic human right, But y'know what is? Life. And 1, 077 people have died from mass shootings since 1966. Those are the human rights that are being infringed upon, And taking away guns from insane people isn't "against human rights. "
2) If an oppressive government were to take over, What would you be shooting at? Usually oppressive governments mean higher taxes and indirect harm, Instead of physical harm. Who are you going to shoot with your 2nd Amendment right? The tax collectors? H&R Block? It doesn't make any sense.
3) We have a democracy for a reason. People are supposed to choose their leaders through voting, And we can assume that people are smart enough to not vote for someone who would want to destroy their own population.
If you are referring to another countries leader coming in and attacking us, Your president just put hundreds of millions extra into the military budget, So we have enough defense, Believe me.
This invalidates your argument and makes it pointless.
4) I win this debate on timeframe and probability. Maybe you know what those words mean in debate terms, But if you don't, Here is a link: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Impact_calculus
Look under, "Basic impact calculous. "
I win this debate on those because your fear of, "government takeover, " is not probable. We can all agree on that. Even you agreed. Now, We also win on timeframe because, Even the slightest probability of a government takeover, It won't happen for a while. We have a leader that I personally don't like, But I know that he won't kill off his entire population. And as I said, We have enough defense.

I had 4 ways to refute this point so it, Again, Shouldn't be considered in this debate.

Now I'm gonna go onto the women and children thing because it doesn't seem inherent to the restrictions of guns. Women and children die in school shootings too, So. . .
And I also don't see how gun restrictions lead to deaths of women and children. Can you explain how if gun restrictions are passed, More women and children will die compared to men? I'm a lil confused. Also, You use the word, "skyrocketing, " but that doesn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of what would happen.

I must move onto this one thing that you said in your 4th paragraph. "If somebody disagrees with your belief system, That definitely does not mean that they support the negative outcome of there belief system. It simply means that they believe there belief justifies the end result. "

How does that make sense? Sure, You may not support the consequences, But, You are INDIRECTLY harming someone or something EVEN IF YOU DON'T MEAN TO. Here is where I think our beliefs differ. I agree with you that some people think that their belief justifies the end result, But you look at is as a positive thing, While I look at it as a bad thing. Lets use an example: you may support animal testing, However, You are indirectly hurting (and I guess torturing) animals. This is a downside to your "belief, " as you put it.

In your argument, You basically say that impacts don't matter because it is only about the "belief system" that you are basing your opinions off of. This is the opposite of what this debate is about. This debate is about taking actions while having to deal with the consequences, But you are trying to justify not talking about the consequences by saying, "that doesn't mean they support the negative outcome of their belief system.

This logic is flawed and should not be considered in the judging of this debate.

And then, Finally, About illegal gun trade, That would be something to worry about if we were to ban guns, Not if we increased regulations, Because they would still be legal to get.

Challenges for you to answer:
1) How probable is a government takeover if your eyes?
2) How are guns a, "fundamental human right? "
3) Can you explain how more woman and children will die, INHERENTLY to gun restrictions?

Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
kyle_16129

Con

Though me and my opponent may not agree on how to control guns for Americas ethics, We both do have 1 goal in common. . . To protect the majority of lives through appropriate gun regulations & laws.

1) I will first address your first seemingly appropriate restriction on gun ownership due to psychological conditions (applying critiqued written tests included). Just because you may have a psychological condition that may impair your decision making capability at times, That should not disqualify you from having guns or being able to protect yourself from those who may try to cause you harm. Only having been committed by the state due to having severe "complications" with your psychiatric health should that disqualify you from having guns (unless you have been cleared by a state psychologist to be competent enough to have your gun rights restored). Taking away an individuals ability to own guns due to "potential" violence that has not occurred is not only unethical as the individual has done nothing wrong, But is discriminatory to those with disabilities due to judging them for actions in which the largest vast majority would never participate in. . . Such as school shootings. I would even argue that school shootings in America are rare due to there being more guns in the country than people (over 300 million) and only having roughly 1, 077 deaths in Mass shootings in over 40 years is negligible. Almost 3, 000 people were killed on 9/11. . . This happened in less than one 24 hour period. As i had stated before, Death by gun violence in America is by no means an epidemic, Just something that people notice much more often than more important situations such as homicide rates dramatically increasing. This leadse into my second argument.

2) More deaths would occur in America as a result of more citizens being less armed with firearms. I will use this study as the handgun ban in Chicago was not a ban on all firearms, Just a "RESTRICTION" on handgun ownership. Individuals could still own various home protection firearms. Thus rationally Chicago would not have resulted in higher homicide rates using similar arguments used above (overall less citizens being armed for public safety concerns).

3) As my most important piece of evidence (and as you requested) I will show in the following link as to what happens to cities & countries when they put into effect gun "RESTRICTIONS". The results not only show more people dying, But show that guns are what keep society safer. . . Not more dangerous.
[1]https://crimeresearch. Org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
Keep in mind that England, Wales, And Ireland are European countries and thus much similar to America culturally & economically. They all had dramatically increased homicide rates. . . "MATHMATICALLY", Not how your feelings make you feel, Much more than 1, 076 people were killed in very short amounts of time compared to how long it took for the 1, 076 deaths to happen by school shootings (over 40 years). When you use math & statistics to calculate death rate, The outcome is as shown above in the link is not only not effective at deterring homicide, But counterproductive to stopping homicide.

3) As I stated above and as pointed out by you, Government takeover is not likely by our own government. However, It was not likely that Donald Trump would become president either. . . Even more unlikely that he would win by the largest landslide vote we've seen in decades. Even further unlikely that he would win by a landslide against the most qualified presidential candidate in American history (over 240 years). On top of that he never spent a day in Congress or even served at any level in America's political system making him quite possibly the lowest qualified Republican presidential canditate of all time. What if North Korea followed through on there threats and launched a missile at America that hit American soil. Firearms would be necessary as marauding would be a reality. And I'd like to bring up what the president of the Free world called Kim Jon Un (known to be a sadistic murderer) "Rocket Man". Antagonizing somebody that was threatening America with ICBM missiles. . . We're not as safe or as protected by the government and there defense as you think. After all Donald Trump is the Commander in Chief of the US military.

4) Woman & children would be at risk more so than a full grown man. Men prey on woman because believe it or not some men are evil. Children would be at a higher risk of homicide as murder rates being increased apply to them also. I think that is more than explained enough as to why especially woman and children would be at risk of being victimized without having to explain anything more around this issue, I think most people could rationalize other reasons as to why they would be more susceptible to violence using common sense. Increasing not skyrocketing is the word I should have used. . . Good catch.

5) I will now address the negative outcome of some perceived justifiable beliefs. As your name probably suggests, A common liberal belief is that it is ok for a womam to have an abortion in the third trimester so long as it is for the better good of her life. Although the outcome is a biological child dying, In there minds it justifies that it is ok because a woman's way of life will remain uninterrupted. So not only is not having to agree with the negative outcome of your belief justifiable in certain situations, It may be the right ideaology to possess.

6) Owning a gun as you stated above, Is not in the definition that
you used previously (fundamental right). Even though "owning a gun" is not part of the definition you used, It is common sense that you are entitled to protect yourself from those who would want to cause you harm. Calling the police is not always a possible options for this simple reason. . . Time. Sometimes picking up a phone (if charged), Calling 911, Waiting for an operator, Describing where you are and what room in the building your in, And waiting for the cops to show up is just not reasonable in certain situations. Therefore your firearm is your only reasonable protection.

7) Gun regulations, With the reasoning and evidence stated above, Should not be put into place. We are not in a dangerous society riddled with gun violence and because we're not it's best not to possibly upset the balance of things currently. We don't want to make it a serious problem, And therefore should leave things the way they are to not risk there being a sharp increase in homicide rates.

As i have addressed your questions asked, My question to ask you is this, With gun violence not currently posing a serious risk to American citizens, "WHY RISK USING REGULATIONS THAT COULD BACKFIRE"?

Overall good debate, I look forward to reviewing your final argument. Good luck
flaming.liberal

Pro

Sorry, This response is taking a long time. I'm currently on vacation, So things are moving a little bit slower

I just want to thank you for an amazing debate. Some people on this site write 3 sentences when responding to claims, So thank you for having full responses.

Here is something that I think should have been emphasized throughout this debate. Actual statistics and sources are very important because they reflect the truth, While logic ASSUMES the truth. Ultimately, Because of this, I think we can both agree that statistics speak louder than logic.

So while your logic is well thought out, It doesn't represent the truth.

Here's an example:
Your logic claimed: More women and children will die if guns are restricted. (I would also like to emphasize that there was no impact of how banning guns will end up with more women and children's death. You may be thinking, "yes I did, He already asked me this! " However, Your response was "men will prey on women and children because some men are evil. " How is this at all related to gun regulations?
Real sources/statistics say: that less people, Men, Women, And children die less because of gun restrictions. So we aren't just saving women and children, We are also saving men which is something that you didn't emphasize while mine does. Overall, Less school shootings--> less deaths-->my case has better impact and the weight of this debate goes to my side. Https://www. Businessinsider. Com/how-other-countries-avoid-mass-shootings-2018-2
There were two refutations to this point. We both made it clear that the most important thing in this debate is saving lives. Now, Because this is the most important thing in the debate, You will probably need some evidence: something that I supplied, And something that really didn't come in your responses.

As for the abortion argument that you brought up. . . Good job catching that. Here is what I was trying to say: There has to be a net benefit to the sacrifice (if you don't know what net benefit is, Here is a short explanation: It is part of a counter plan. If someone presents a plan, The opposing team can present a counter plan, Which must have a net benefit. A net benefit is a reason that some benefit of the original plan is overpowered by the consequence/a benefit to the counter plan that the original plan does not supply).

So, We must weigh our options. There is a net benefit to having an abortion because the woman could avoid physical harm, She may not be able to take care of the baby, The baby may be sent of to the foster care system which is, Unfortunately, Brutal. There is a net benefit to that plan because no one suffers, While not having an abortion results in unneeded harms.

There is a net benefit to gun restrictions because, As proved above, There are less deaths. The only 'benefit' that we would be losing is, "we, As Americans, Deserve to own guns. " That isn't a good reason to support something. "We deserve it. " And that seems to be a bulk of your argument.

So, Ultimately, There is a net benefit to gun restrictions, Negating, "that definitely does not mean that they support the negative outcome of there belief system, " when it comes to guns.

Then I must move onto the psychiatric health tests that you said were, "discriminatory. " Here is the thing: people that have mental health problems that could cause them to lash out. I'm going to use a comparison: airport security. We have airport security to make sure that people don't do something bad to hurt themselves or something else. If that person has something that could potentially be a threat, They will not be allowed to enter the plane. It isn't discriminatory, It is the most logical option to protect people on the plane. You said it was, "potential violence, " but there is, "possible violence, " when getting on a plane, And yet we still have regulations around it to protect the people on the plane. So now regulations make a lot of sense.

Next, You tried to belittle the deaths from guns. 1, 077 deaths is a lot. Think of the victims, Think of the families, Think of the friends. I'm not saying that 9/11 was good, As was implicated. Belittling that amount of deaths is morally reprehensible. Name another crisis that needs this much fixing THAT WASN'T CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. When kids are being shot in schools, And according to you, "it isn't a big deal, " that is when you know that the logic you have presented is flawed.

I looked at the source you put for why America is similar to a few countries, And the regulations backfired. HOWEVER, If you looked at the source a little closer, You would see that they were referencing BANS, Not the kind of regulations that I had recommended. Here is a sentence from the paragraph: Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, Whether it"s Chicago or D. C. Or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, Or Ireland.

You didn't ever find a source that was specific in refuting my proposed regulations, It only talked about bans which I have said over and over, Are not what I am advocating for, Thus negating your source and making it irrelevant.

Then you said that, 'it wasn't likely for Trump to get elected, " and a bunch of other examples. Here is where some minor hypocrisy comes in. You scrutinize my point about psychological tests, Saying its, "potential violence, " but then you make a point about how the is still "potential" that there will be a government takeover. You say, Potential violence is irrelevant, But then you talk about a potential government takeover? Seems hypocritical.

Now onto the fundament right. I legit put the definition and the link to the website. I didn't "leave out" anything. It isn't a fundament right by definition.

Now, On to protecting yourself. Police save so many people from home invasions every year. There is no need to implement a system in which a huge amount of people die every year for no reason. Just call the police and hide. It has saved a lot of people. The police system isn't broken.

Of course, As I said in my last response, I win on timeframe and probability. Your impacts are improbable and won't happen for a while if the DO occur, They won't happen for a while. My impacts, On the other hand, Are very probable, And are happening now(timeframe and probability). '

And finally, On to your challenge: "WHY RISK USING REGULATIONS THAT COULD BACKFIRE"?

Please tell me: what risk? What could backfire? Will it result in more deaths? Here is something that I wanted to say earlier, But I didn't have time, So I'll do it now. You tried to belittle the deaths people who died. And your right, 3, 000 people did die in 9/11, But you have to think about the families and friends that knew these people. They are suffering too. So it isn't just about the people killed, It is about the people that are traumatized from these horrible disasters. So really, Gun violence is indirecting a lot more people that 1, 077.

Thank you so much for a great debate, And thank you for letting me see your side of things. I will friend you, So if you want to keep debating this afterwards, We can. You are one of the more respectable people on here so thank you so much!

-Flaming. Liberal (-:
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by anti_ethnocentric 3 years ago
anti_ethnocentric
Gun control should be emphasized on education and training. Way to many gun accidents are caused by individuals mishandling of fire arms. As I've mentioned in a debate few weeks ago. Individuals who own guns legally are the most Law abiding citizens in our society. You try to bureaucratically take away their guns and society will turn into the Wild Wild West.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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