The Instigator
Our_Boat_is_Right
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Percivil
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

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: 6/23/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,148 times Debate No: 115967
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"[7]. It was designed for citizens to protect themselves from a potential tyrannical government, as well as self-defense uses. The Founding Fathers created it knowing that it could have been one of them. Many people believe that it is ridiculous to think that a government would attack its own people. But look at one of the most prevalent tyrants during World War II, Adolf Hitler. Before World War II, Germany banned guns. It would have been helpful if an armed populace, or at least those he persecuted, could have fought back against Hitler"s army. Currently, North Korea and its dictator Kim Jong Un impose a tyrannical regime on the country with guns banned there as well[10].
More cities are banning or attempting to ban guns these days like Deerfield, Illinois, but why? Many people think guns kill people, but the truth is people kill people. Evil people choose to misuse the tool. They are also misinformed about statistics, a common myth being that there would be fewer murders if there were no guns. Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same[6]. The assault weapons ban during Bill Clinton"s presidency from 1994-2004 saw a decrease of 3 people getting murdered per 100,000 population, from 9-6. However, when it failed to get renewed in 2004, the murder rate has remained virtually unchanged since. Keep in mind this was only an assault weapons ban such as the AR-15 and AK-47, not any handguns or other guns.
This may be a surprise to some people, but guns save more lives than take them. There are over 2 million defensive gun uses annually, which is more than offensive gun uses[2]. On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let"s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the "almost certainly people." If all the "probably" people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].
Concealed carry holders, people who have permits to carry their gun in public, are extremely law abiding. There have been multiple instances in which a good guy with a gun has stopped a bad guy with a gun in Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, and Oregon just to name a few[3]. Furthermore, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center, concealed carry holders commit crimes 14% less than police officers[1]. According to FBI crime statistics, as more citizens conceal and carry, the more violent crime goes down. From the early 1990s to now, there has been around a 50% decrease in violent crime [http://www.gunfacts.info......], while concealed carry permits increase thousands of times yearly to the point where almost 2 million people have them currently[1]. This does not necessarily mean that it has gone down because of the concealed carry permits, because correlation does not mean causation in every circumstance. However, it is definitely proven that concealed carry does not increase violent crime, which is a common myth.
Mass shootings have been an extremely popular topic to discuss, with some people wanting to arm teachers with guns, and some that want to ban all or certain types of guns. Student activists that survived the Parkland shooting, a mass shooting that killed 17 and injured 17 people Valentine"s Day of 2018, have sparked multiple "March for our Lives" protests, a few being school walkouts, and others being organized protests generally in big cities such as San Francisco pushing a gun control agenda of some type. What President Trump proposed as a solution to mass shootings is arming some teachers with guns. It would only be teachers that conceal and carry, and they would go through an intense training course, claimed the President. It would only be around 2-4 teachers per school, and nobody would know which ones have guns. This way, schools are not advertised as gun-free zones, which possibly attracts the mass shooters because a vulnerable place with little to no protection could be an easy target. Mass shootings, defined as 4 or more people getting killed by guns, happened 96% of the time in gun-free zones (i.e. in places where people were not allowed to carry guns) in the past 20 years. That number increases to 98% if one includes all the mass shootings from 1950-present[9]. It appears that some sort of gun holder(s), even a security guard that would do its job properly, could have perhaps diminished the deadliness of the sinful acts committed towards innocent people.

1. "Concealed Carry Statistics: Quick Facts by State (2017)." GunsToCarry. 2017. 30 Apr. 2018. <https://www.gunstocarry.com......;.
2. "Firearm Use by Offenders." U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. 30 Apr. 2018. <https://bjs.gov......;.
3. "Good Guys with Guns Saving Lives." Fox News. 2017. 30 Apr. 2018. <http://www.foxnews.com......;.
4. "Gun Control Facts Concerning Concealed Carry." Gun Facts. 2018. 30 Apr. 2018. <http://www.gunfacts.info......;.
5. "More Lives Are Saved by Defensive Gun Uses Than Taken by Criminal Gun Uses." The Truth About Guns. 2017. 30 Apr. 2018. <http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com......;.
6. "Murder and Homicide Rates before and after Gun Bans." Crime Prevention Research Center. 2013. 30 Apr. 2018. <https://crimeresearch.org......;
7. "The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." National Constitution Center " The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 2018. Apr. 2018. <https://constitutioncenter.org......;.
8. "Unpublished CDC Study Confirms More than 2 Million Defensive Handgun Uses Annually." Law Enforcement Today. 2018. 30 Apr. 2018. <https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com......;.
9. "What Percentage Of Mass Shootings Happen In 'Gun Free Zones'? The Number Is Stunning." The Daily Wire. 2018. 30 Apr. 2018. <https://www.dailywire.com......;.
10. "World's 10 Most Notorious Tyrants." RT International. 2009. 30 Apr. 2018. <https://www.rt.com......;.
Percivil

Con

Argument:
How many times have you turned on the morning news and saw reports of gun violence in mostly america? And why do you think that gun violence happened in america? It was legalized! Thats why! So why dont you wake up and see how many bad things have happened when we allowed guns:
2018:http://www.gunviolencearchive.org...
2017:https://www.google.com.sg...

And the years before:http://www.gunviolencearchive.org...

Sure we can ban guns if you want all these cases of gun violence to continue.

Rebuttals:
"Many people think guns kill people, but the truth is people kill people." With? Guns!

"Evil people choose to misuse the tool." Which is why guns should be banned to prevent "evil people"(so to speak) to misuse it.

"Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same." But compare those numbers to the numbers of countries that allow guns.

"This may be a surprise to some people, but guns save more lives than take them. There are over 2 million defensive gun uses annually, which is more than offensive gun uses." But still there were offensive gun uses wasnt there? And why do you think there were so many cases of defensive gun uses? Because of offensive uses.

"On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source." Its pretty obvious why. For those who dont see it:Its because guns were legalised.

"As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life." Saved their lives from a gunman running around killing people am I not wrong?

"There have been multiple instances in which a good guy with a gun has stopped a bad guy with a gun in Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, and Oregon just to name a few." Ladies and getlemen let me emphasize a few words in this statement. "...bad guy with a gun..." This alone shows that guns should be banned as bad people can get their hands on it and hence guns shouldnt be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

Claim: "Many people think guns kill people, but the truth is people kill people." With? Guns!
Rebuttal: Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. You could say that about anything. People use knives to murder. People die because cars crash into them by dunk driving.

Claim: "Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same." But compare those numbers to the numbers of countries that allow guns.
Rebuttal: I'm confused what you're trying to argue here. Compare what numbers? Please clarify. Cities that have strict gun control laws have some of the highest murder rates in the country. Why? Because they obtain guns from the black market or use knives. People can't defend themselves from such things, because they don't have a gun, especially women.

People obtain guns illegally or should not have been able to pass a background check in the first place.

Claim: "On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source." Its pretty obvious why. For those who dont see it:Its because guns were legalised.
Rebuttal: Sure, but again, in places guns were banned, the overall murder rate did not go down; Proving that a gun ban would not be effective.

Claim:
"As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life." Saved their lives from a gunman running around killing people am I not wrong?
Rebuttal: I have yet to find statistics on the weapon used by the offender. I would be happy to look at your statistics you could site since you seem so sure they are by guns. Either way, if guns were banned, nobody would be able to protect themselves. If a criminal got a gun illegally or used some other object to go at somebody with, it is almost guaranteed that person would be wounded or dead.

Claim: "There have been multiple instances in which a good guy with a gun has stopped a bad guy with a gun in Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, and Oregon just to name a few." Ladies and getlemen let me emphasize a few words in this statement. "...bad guy with a gun..." This alone shows that guns should be banned as bad people can get their hands on it and hence guns shouldnt be allowed.
Rebuttal: 93% of gun crime is when guns are obtained illegally.

Conclusion: Banning guns will not stop criminals from murdering people. Places in America with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates. Stripping law-abiding citizens who conceal and carry, who commit crimes 14% less than police officers, would not be an effective way to stop murder, especially since 93% of gun murders are obtained illegally and is due to gang violence. Law-abiding citizens need to protect themselves from other people, but most importantly a tyrannical government, which con has not adressed at all.
Percivil

Con

Since my opponent talked about the second ammendment of constituition,heres my argument against it.

2nd argument:
The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned. In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." On June 9, 2016 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that "he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment," thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and "good cause" for concealed carry licenses in California. A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violates the Second Amendment between the 2008 DC v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed.

Rebuttals:
"I'm confused what you're trying to argue here." Compare the number of murders in countries which allow guns to countries which dont allow guns? The murder rate is so little! Take singapore as an example:
As a singaporean,I hardly read any articles of murders in the past years. Versus me watching the news with my grandparents a few months ago and finding out about the nightclub situations and similar shootouts like these.

"Cities that have strict gun control laws have some of the highest murder rates in the country. " You certainly havent heard of Singapore. We dont allow guns which results into less murders or no murders at all. Unless you"re talking guns like laser tag so that results into me coming back from the dead many MANY times. If you"re talking guns like laser tag guns then yes thats allowed and that"ll be a very high murder rate committed by mostly kids and teenagers.

"People obtain guns illegally or should not have been able to pass a background check in the first place."
Rebuttal on obtaining guns illegally:
This is why guns shouldnt be allowed at ALL to prevent events like these to happen and to conduct background checks as what you mentioned later in your statement which has its flaws which I would mention in just a minute. People who illegally get firearms go to those who have firearms which they get from those who have firearms. Source:https://www.quora.com... which is why I say ban guns

Rebuttal on background checks:So what if they say a leopard will never change its spots? People do change one way or another. The hardworking kid could turn into a gamer who plays 24/7. My point is:people can change one way or another. So a question you might have now is:So should cops have background checks? If so it isnt going to work as people can change and cops can be nice and become corrupted overtime. So what does a 13 year old propose? My proposal is:
First do a background test. This test is to see if a cop can be corrupted. If they show signs of corruption before they become a cop,dont let them become one. For those who do pass the tests, do monthly tests on them. Same test just different times in each month. Make it random so they wont know when it comes.

"in places guns were banned, the overall murder rate did not go down; Proving that a gun ban would not be effective." https://www.indexmundi.com... I know this is till 2015 but if there is a link, you can see the homicide rate decreasing or remaining the same.

"I would be happy to look at your statistics you could site since you seem so sure they are by guns. " Couldnt find a link but couldnt find a link to what you said as well.

"93% of gun crime is when guns are obtained illegally." And the only way to get a firearm is getting it from someone who has a firearm. Hence ban guns.

"...which con has not adressed at all." Ironic isnt it? I showed you links of the death count of people in various years and you didnt do a rebuttal but still blame me that I didnt do a rebuttal on the second ammendment of constituiton.

Rebuttal on second ammendment of constitution:
"...being necessary to the security of a free State..." But now are guns being used to the security of a free state or threatening the security of a free state with all this gun violence going around? I have no issues on firearms being used on a tyrannical government just so you know. But the fact is that it also allows people of a free state to use it for self defence purposes not offensive. You are pro gun,suggest a way to rid of offensive uses of firearms.

Apologies for not including that into my first round of rebuttals.

Ladies and gentlemen also take note that when my did a rebuttal on my opponent"s statement,he counterargued every single rebuttal except that one particular one. For fairness sake,I will type the counterargument again:
"Evil people choose to misuse the tool." Which is why guns should be banned to prevent "evil people"(so to speak) to misuse it."

Also ladies and gentlemen notice that my opponent didnt counterargue my first argument? Which brings me to question if my opponent does have a counterargument to the argument itself.
Debate Round No. 2
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

Claim: Compare the number of murders in countries which allow guns to countries which dont allow guns? The murder rate is so little! Take singapore as an example:
As a singaporean,I hardly read any articles of murders in the past years. Versus me watching the news with my grandparents a few months ago and finding out about the nightclub situations and similar shootouts like these.
Rebuttal: Singapore's murder rate has always been low. You shouldn't compare other countries murder rates, as every country is different. You should instead compare the rates before and after gun bans. I have already cited those statistics.

Claim: You certainly havent heard of Singapore. We dont allow guns which results into less murders or no murders at all. Unless you"re talking guns like laser tag so that results into me coming back from the dead many MANY times. If you"re talking guns like laser tag guns then yes thats allowed and that"ll be a very high murder rate committed by mostly kids and teenagers.
Rebuttal: Show me statistics before and after the gun ban in Singapore, then you can make a conclusion about the result and whether it affected the murder rate. Plus, I was talking about America, not singapore, a very small country. America has tried gun control multiple times in cities and it has not been efective. We banned assault weapons from 1994-2004. Not effective.

Claim: This is why guns shouldnt be allowed at ALL to prevent events like these to happen and to conduct background checks as what you mentioned later in your statement which has its flaws which I would mention in just a minute. People who illegally get firearms go to those who have firearms which they get from those who have firearms. Source:https://www.quora.com...... which is why I say ban guns
Rebuttal: America has more than 330 million guns. If we ban them, several will go into the black market, were they can be used illegally. It would be almost impossible to round all of them up because of the quantity. People will also use knives, vehicles, and other weapons if they can't get a gun. People will not be able to protect themselves from those threats, either.

On background checks, I was saying feds should have seen many red flags, like the 39 instances the parkland shooter should have warranted police action.

Claim: "in places guns were banned, the overall murder rate did not go down; Proving that a gun ban would not be effective." https://www.indexmundi.com...... I know this is till 2015 but if there is a link, you can see the homicide rate decreasing or remaining the same.
Rebuttal: Show me when guns were banned and the effect it had on singapore. This is also not an effective model for the U.S., because we have the most guns in the world.

Claim: Couldnt find a link but couldnt find a link to what you said as well.
Rebuttal: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
I apologize as the bibli. in my 1st argument did not provide the specific link to the actual page when i copied and pasted.

Claim: "93% of gun crime is when guns are obtained illegally." And the only way to get a firearm is getting it from someone who has a firearm. Hence ban guns.
Rebuttal: Or the black market and they could also use literally other object.

Claim: "...which con has not adressed at all." Ironic isnt it? I showed you links of the death count of people in various years and you didnt do a rebuttal but still blame me that I didnt do a rebuttal on the second ammendment of constituiton.
Rebuttal: Like I said, gun bans do not statisticly reduce murders.

Claim: "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." But now are guns being used to the security of a free state or threatening the security of a free state with all this gun violence going around? I have no issues on firearms being used on a tyrannical government just so you know. But the fact is that it also allows people of a free state to use it for self defence purposes not offensive. You are pro gun,suggest a way to rid of offensive uses of firearms.
Rebuttal: Only criminals harm people with guns. Like I said, conceal carry holders committ cimes 14% less than police officers. That says something about how law-abiding they are and how they actually want to defend themselves, not kill people like dumb people do.

Claim: I have no issues on firearms being used on a tyrannical government just so you know.
Rebuttal: I would like to highlight this because of simple logic. Why would you give the government your self-defense rights and firearms when they are the exact ones guns were designed to protect against?

Claim: You are pro gun,suggest a way to rid of offensive uses of firearms.
There is no way to completely get rid of gun violence. People will still find a way to get a gun illegally. However, I am in favor of stricter background checks and arming teachers with guns so they can protect the students.

Claim: "Evil people choose to misuse the tool." Which is why guns should be banned to prevent "evil people"(so to speak) to misuse it."
Rebuttal: If guns are banned, they can get guns off the black market, or use knives, vehicles, or their bare fists to kill you, without you having any protection because guns are banned.

Claim: Also ladies and gentlemen notice that my opponent didnt counterargue my first argument? Which brings me to question if my opponent does have a counterargument to the argument itself.
rebuttal: I believe I have already adressed this earlier when you stated "Also ladies and gentlemen notice that my opponent didnt counterargue my first argument? Which brings me to question if my opponent does have a counterargument to the argument itself." This is because I have already said multiple times gun bans do not statisticly reduce murders in big countries, cities in america, and america that has done it to an extent from 1994-2004 which also did nothing to prevent murders.
Thankyou.
Percivil

Con

My opponent brought up an interesting thing which was background checks so in this argument I will be opposing to background checks.

3rd argument:
People can forge data of themselves for the simplest reason as a job interview for background tests. So if that is possible,why bother with background checks anyways? Heres a link people play the system:https://www.tlnt.com... Also,my opponent mentioned that shooters usually get firearms from illegal black markets. So what is the point of a background check if you can obtain firearms illegally?

In total I have two questions which needs clarification:
1)What is the point of background checks on people who want to obtain firearms when they can get it illegally?
2)For those who purchase firearms legally, how sure are you they will not forge data? If they do,how can you be sure it is true?

Rebuttals:
"Singapore's murder rate has always been low. You shouldn't compare other countries murder rates, as every country is different. You should instead compare the rates before and after gun bans. I have already cited those statistics." But you said and I quote,"Cities that have strict gun control laws have some of the highest murder rates in the country." Singapore has strict gun control or like no guns at all. And singapore is a city as well.

"America has more than 330 million guns. If we ban them, several will go into the black market, were they can be used illegally." At least it wont be all of the guns. And eventually the black market will close.

"People will also use knives, vehicles, and other weapons if they can't get a gun. People will not be able to protect themselves from those threats, either." Look countries like singapore legalise knives which are sharp(not swiss army knives and stuff like that but they"re still sharp) and vehicles are legalised. Im typing this on a bus on the way to tuition just to confirm its legalised. And I dont hear of many accidents. Yes there have been quite a few cases but its not everytime. Whereas guns are the number one causes for murder crimes. You dont need much evidence for that do ya? I mean just turn on the news and if a new murder is being reported its always guns except for a few situations.
Proof guns are usually the cause:http://www.politifact.com...

Rebuttal 2 on background checks:One can easily forge data on themselves,memorise it and present it to whoever is conducting the test. So how are background checks possible when you can forge things like passports?

"Show me when guns were banned and the effect it had on singapore." Elaborate what exactly you are wanting me to search for or search for it yourself because I have no idea what you are asking since we"ve leaglised guns for probrably the longest time ever.

"This is also not an effective model for the U.S." Prooved enough that with a gun ban the murder rate decreases. Doesnt have to be the U.S. but shows what will happen with a gun ban. If this gun ban goes global,trust me murder rates would decrease.

"...because we have the most guns in the world." Then ban them. Problem solved.

"Or the black market and they could also use literally other object." Wont be effective enough. Like how do you rob a bank with knives? I understand the black market can still use other tools but why do you think so many criminals use guns to murder instead of knives?

"gun bans do not statisticly reduce murders." I just showed you a link that a place with a gun ban had drastic drops in terms of murders. And it had a graph to show it. Show a link to me that gun bans dont statisticaly reduce murders.

"Only criminals harm people with guns." Which is why we should ban guns. When you brought up the parkway shootings, you prooved to me that the feds should take precautions. Shouldnt we take a precaution for this situation?

"Like I said, conceal carry holders committ cimes" And they get their guns through black markets yea. And the only way the black market gets firearms is to get firearms themselves. And they get it from gun stores. So to prevent the black markets from getting firearms is to ban guns.

"Why would you give the government your self-defense rights and firearms when they are the exact ones guns were designed to protect against?" Like I said in my second argument:The second ammendment is NOT. I repeat:is NOT an unlimited right to own guns. My argument states why but because I think there wont be enough space,just re read it.

"There is no way to completely get rid of gun violence. "I"ll give you one:ban guns.

"People will still find a way to get a gun illegally." They have to get firearms from somewhere. My guess is mostly firearm stores. With guns banned and firearms no longer being sold, they"re resources are limited and will run out eventually.

"I am in favor of stricter background checks..." You do know that people can change for the better or the worse right? How do you intend to prepare for bad case scenarios? And I thought you said people can get firearms illegally? So what is the point of having background checks anyways?

"...and arming teachers with guns so they can protect the students." Of which the teacher could be the gunman somehow. Great plan!

"If guns are banned, they can get guns off the black market, or use knives, vehicles, or their bare fists to kill you, without you having any protection because guns are banned." Singapore allows knives and vehicles and yet there are hardly any homicides in here.

"...gun bans do not statisticly reduce murders in big countries, cities in america, and america that has done it to an extent from 1994-2004 which also did nothing to prevent murders." Show me a link that a state in america strictly did not allow guns and the murder rate went higher.
Debate Round No. 3
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

On Background checks- unfourtanetly you do not know much about america. You can't simply "forge background checks". You do not provide information, it goes to the FBI and they review it and determine your legitamicecy to have a gun lol. People also are mentally ill , yet background checks need stricter screening for that. It is a very complicated issue with many variables, and was an idea that I threw out there. My main idea would to arm teachers with guns.

Claim: Singapore has strict gun control or like no guns at all. And singapore is a city as well.
Rebuttal: Bro, you are honestly going in circles. Singapore is a different place and culture. Stop talking about your tiny little country. I am talking about America. I can site multiple places in which gun control has failed, yet you can only talk about singapore.

Claim: At least it wont be all of the guns. And eventually the black market will close.
The black market does not close, nor will it any time soon.

Claim: Look countries like singapore legalise knives which are sharp(not swiss army knives and stuff like that but they"re still sharp) and vehicles are legalised. Im typing this on a bus on the way to tuition just to confirm its legalised. And I dont hear of many accidents. Yes there have been quite a few cases but its not everytime. Whereas guns are the number one causes for murder crimes. You dont need much evidence for that do ya? I mean just turn on the news and if a new murder is being reported its always guns except for a few situations.
Proof guns are usually the cause:http://www.politifact.com......
Rebuttal: Gun bans are not effective, proof that people will use other objects to kill.

Claim: One can easily forge data on themselves,memorise it and present it to whoever is conducting the test. So how are background checks possible when you can forge things like passports?
Rebuttal: You are not the one telling the FBI who you are. They find out who you are. it isn't that simple to forge, buddy.

Claim: Elaborate what exactly you are wanting me to search for or search for it yourself because I have no idea what you are asking since we"ve leaglised guns for probrably the longest time ever.
I want to know the effect it had on singapore. Ex) chart that shows the murder rate in singapore from before the gun ban and after the gun ban. From 1950-2016, for example.

Claim: Prooved enough that with a gun ban the murder rate decreases. Doesnt have to be the U.S. but shows what will happen with a gun ban. If this gun ban goes global,trust me murder rates would decrease.
Rebuttal: Um... site a source that shows murders decrease from gun bans. Um.. it doesn't show what happens with a gun an because we have already tried it many times- and it hasnt worked. Murder rates would not decrease. Take for example England, Australia, America, Ireland, Jamaica- they did not decrease.

Claim: "Or the black market and they could also use literally other object." Wont be effective enough. Like how do you rob a bank with knives? I understand the black market can still use other tools but why do you think so many criminals use guns to murder instead of knives?
Rebuttal: Gun bans do decrease murder bro.

Claim: "gun bans do not statisticly reduce murders." I just showed you a link that a place with a gun ban had drastic drops in terms of murders. And it had a graph to show it. Show a link to me that gun bans dont statisticaly reduce murders.
Rebuttal: Um.. it was from 1994-present. Gun laws were ennacted in 1973 in singapore.
https://crimeresearch.org...
https://www.dailywire.com...

I never said concealed carry holders commit crimes. In fact, i said they commit crimes less than police officers. I guess police shouldn't have guns, either.

"Why would you give the government your self-defense rights and firearms when they are the exact ones guns were designed to protect against?" You said you want to ban guns. That would mean giving them to the government. Answer my question.

Claim: "There is no way to completely get rid of gun violence. "I"ll give you one:ban guns.
It does not completely get rid of gun violence. It might get rid of most of it, but not overall murders.

Claim: So what is the point of having background checks anyways?
Rebuttal: So people can pass the test to have the right to protect themselves, and to screen for the mentally ill.

Arming teachers would be smart. It be teachers that already conceal carry, who are 14% more law abiding than police.
Percivil

Con

4th argument(gun bans):
This says it all:https://www.google.com.sg...

Rebuttals:
"...it goes to the FBI and they review it and determine your legitamicecy" So criminals from other countries who came to america on the run who wants firearms wont?

"Stop talking about your tiny little country." Sure. Let me list you a few other countries:
Malaysia:They arent the safest but compared to america homicide rate pretty sure its lower ever since half the crime rate going down in 2010.

Thailand:Aside from the bombings in I think was 2016, not many homicides.

Indonesia:Not that I have heard that there were any homicides in the past few years.

"The black market does not close, nor will it any time soon." And this is because...? Guns are still being made. Im talking the black market for guns.

"murder rate in singapore from before the gun ban and after the gun ban. From 1950-2016, for example." Couldnt find a link because 1950 is too far back bruv.

"England, Australia, America, Ireland, Jamaica- they did not decrease." Did the places you mention ban all guns? Im talking places which bans all guns 100%. I mean america cant be one because you said the U.S. has the most guns in the world.

"Gun bans do decrease murder bro." And earlier you said and I quote,"Um.. it doesn't show what happens with a gun an because we have already tried it many times- and it hasnt worked. Murder rates would not decrease. Take for example England, Australia, America, Ireland, Jamaica- they did not decrease." Which brings me to question if you are making stuff up because your points dont link.

"I never said concealed carry holders commit crimes. In fact, i said they commit crimes less than police officers." Make up your mind. Do concealed carry holders commit crimes or not? Again points dont link. When you say you never said they(concealed cardy holders) commit crimes,it means its a no tbey never did commit crimes. And then you say the commit crimes less than police officers which just means they have.

"That would mean giving them to the government." Well then so be it. I mean the second ammendment as I said is not an unlimited right to own guns. All rights arent unlimited. Why surrender rights? Ask the people who set it not me.

"It does not completely get rid of gun violence. It might get rid of most of it, but not overall murders." Well better than having more casulties. You agreed having gun bans results into getting rid of most gun violence but not all. Which then again shows that gun bans are effective just not 100% of the time. Eventually the act of gun violence will have a drastic drop and who knows? Maybe even stop completely. Although we cant get rid of overall murders because we can use knives and whatever weapons my opponent can think of, its better than having mass killings as it is easier to kill with guns than knives.

"So people can pass the test to have the right to protect themselves, and to screen for the mentally ill." Did you know people change? Like I mentioned in round 2,I said and I quote,"People do change one way or another. The hardworking kid could turn into a gamer who plays 24/7." People can change one way or another regardless of whatever was send to the FBI for inspection. So what is the point of background checks when people change?

"So people can pass the test to have the right to protect themselves, and to screen for the mentally ill." When people can change so....what is the point?

"Arming teachers would be smart. It be teachers that already conceal carry, who are 14% more law abiding than police." Arming teachers when the teacher can change into an attacker. Okay then have it your way.
Debate Round No. 4
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

I am not going to make all rebuttals, because my opponent is going in circles and does not understand the background check system. The point is- Gun bans are not effective.
I gave my opponent links for homicide rates before and after gun bans. If you want a total gun ban, then look at australia. There murder rates were not effected by the gun ban. And this is America were talking about. You have completely ignored my point which is- Gun bans in cities have not been effective. The assault weapons ban for 10 years was not effective. We have tried several times, yet it has not worked. And to strip law-abiding people from the right to protect themselves for a gun ban that has proven several times not to be effective in America- is in my opinion stupid.
If you think concealed carry holders can change into an attacker, I guess police will turn into attackers too. They commit crimes less than police. They are the most law-abiding group in the country.
Gun bans in America have not worked. Don't strip people of their rights.
Also, Vox is the most bias org., they completely ignore the other side.
Percivil

Con

"Gun bans in cities have not been effective." Did they ban all guns? People still can use other guns you know?

"If you think concealed carry holders can change into an attacker, I guess police will turn into attackers too." You arent wrong considering the fact that officers have attacked civilians before:https://www.google.com.sg...

"They commit crimes less than police." Which means they still do. If you mean they dont commit crimes as compared to officers then just say something like:concealed gun holders do not commit crimes as compared to officers.

"Don't strip people of their rights." Im not,just limiting. If you dont want that to happen,name me one right which is unlimited.

Conclusion:In conclusion ladies and gentlemen,guns should never have been allowed judging by the mass murders we have heard of globally. When we only ban certain guns, there will still be homicide cases as my opponent showed. We need to ban all guns in order to prevent such homicide cases and with the following points in all 5 rounds, I conclude why guns should be banned.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
Debating_Horse, thank you for the extra document! I will use those rules in my next debate. I ask you this-what types of flaws were in my debate? Thanks!
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 years ago
Debating_Horse
last example: "There is no way to completely get rid of gun violence. " "I"ll give you one:ban guns." And again it is clear how the con person's reasoning is structured.

My final comment:
I am not biased and I believe that both did excellent work in this debate, though I think [Our_Boat_Is_Right] did a little better than his opponent. He was not exactly perfect, and he too had some flaws, but less than his opponent, and I for myself found for his arguments to be more convincing than the con person's arguments. I myself am for the 2nd Amendment considering I am a registered, legal, and responsible owner of three firearms, but again I will state that I am NOT biased, and believe that the two who debated and done excellent throughout the debate, if only the con person had put some sources on many claims and so did the pro person things would have been much different, great debate! It was very entertaining to read! Next the debate should be strict by placing in rules. [https://docs.google.com...] please view this document in some extra tips, I myself am a novice debater! Thank you and have a good day!
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 years ago
Debating_Horse
Analyzation of the entire debate:

[Round 1 for the con person]: Although the purpose of the debate was to change the pro-gun person's view on gun rights, there were many fallacies made by the con person. Example by the con person : ""Many people think guns kill people, but the truth is people kill people." With? Guns!" The con believes that murders are committed with firearms, when this is not the case. Example #2: "Evil people choose to misuse the tool." Which is why guns should be banned to prevent "evil people"(so to speak) to misuse it." The con person proposes that if a gun ban were to be placed in effect, that bad individuals would not be able to access guns , even though that even with a gun ban, access to guns would NOT be limited. Does the con person forget that criminal gangs have guns that were BANNED from the U.S? Throughout the rest of round one, the con person continues to make various claims without placing sources on his claims.
[Round 2]: The pro rebutted the con person's claims, and the con continued throughout the rest of the round with some other claims: "93% of gun crime is when guns are obtained illegally." And the only way to get a firearm is getting it from someone who has a firearm. Hence ban guns." The con person thinks that banning guns will still stop people from getting guns, he simply does not understand. Why is "quora.com" used as a source even though it is a website that is used for OBTAINING answers to questions?
[Round 3, 4 & 5]: "If this gun ban goes global,trust me murder rates would decrease." The con person asserts with a gun ban that murder rates would drop. No source to even make his claim appear logical. Example #2:"...because we have the most guns in the world." Then ban them. Problem solved." Again, he FAILS to comprehend how impossible it would be to ban 250,000,000 firearms. There are many other points he makes towards the end of the debate.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
Guns are banned in Chicago. Perhaps the shooters obtained guns illegally, like I said could happen in my argument.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
Yes Percivil, I don't know how many times I have to say it.
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
Percivil
Did they try banning all guns?
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
Yes, different cities in America banned guns completely yet they have some of the highest murder rates, like chicago and washington dc. It is extremely hard to get a gun in england, you can only get shotguns or certain other guns but rarely do people get them because of strict laws. You can not conceal carry in England. In Australia, they had a mandatory buyback program, in which they essentially banned all guns.
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
Percivil
They banned guns but was it all guns?
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
That is the main purpose. It was also for self-defense. You should do a little research on the history of it, you don't know much about it. To solve the problem would be mental-illness screening and arming teachers with guns. Not banning guns though, because it hasn't worked in America, England, or Austrailia.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Debating_Horse 3 years ago
Debating_Horse
Our_Boat_is_RightPercivilTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason for voting decision in comments.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
Our_Boat_is_RightPercivilTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did such a good job, I orgasmed over it. Lack of ability to enforce is reason to improve funding to the enforcement of it. It is not at all reason to support the legalisation of it. Con hits Pro HARD with the stats of countries that aren't USA and basically all Pro can do by the end is say 'but enforcing won't work' but Con proved it has and does.

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