The Instigator
Jo_bi
Pro (for)
The Contender
Mystixis
Con (against)

Should more gun control laws be enacted in the United States and other countries?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jo_bi has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 110785
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Jo_bi

Pro

There are only a few countries in the world where the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, one country would be the United States. Mainly due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms, US has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany. America has 4.4 percent of the world"s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world. Extensive reviews of the research, compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health"s Injury Control Research Center, suggest the reason why the enormous amount of gun violence is caused by US having way more guns than other developed nations. In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been more than 1,600 mass shootings, with more than 1,800 people killed and more than 6,400 wounded as of February 2018. On average, there is around one mass shooting for each day in America. It"s not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths but US is a prime example of why more gun control laws should be enacted. Furthermore, guns allow people to kill them selves much more easily, and suicide rates have been more prominent in countries that allows the purchase of guns to ordinary citizens. One may argue that in a huge country such as the US, guns allow citizens to better protect themselves or go on hunting trips, the harm caused outweighs the benefits by a long run.

Sources:
https://www.vox.com...
Mystixis

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent Jo_bi for presenting this opportunity to debate on the topic of firearm regulations. I hope that this would be a fruitful discussion for the both of us.

Firstly, I would like to point out that the opposition stated that "guns allow people to kill themselves much more easily" which leads to a higher suicide rate. With regards to this, it must be noted that it is inaccurate to say that guns cause more suicide because of their efficiency at doing so; Even without guns, people with suicidal thoughts would still commit suicide using other ways such as falling or consuming drugs. The fact that guns have the ability to kill easily does not correlate with a higher suicide rate as suicide is not a result of possessing firearm. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that guns cause a higher suicide rate.

Secondly, although guns do indeed possess the power to kill many innocents, it must be noted that it can also save many if one possess a moral compass. While it is true that many shootings can be prevented if the accessibility of firearms is limited, it is expedient to see that these cases are mostly caused by conflicted individuals. Many argue that firearms should be banned to stop criminals from carrying out shootings, however, wouldn"t these people with criminal mindset just resort to another method of killing if firearms are banned? The main problem for the deaths is not firearms but the people that instigated such violent attacks. In order for these deaths to be prevented, it would clearly be more plausible to ensure that people are inculcated with moral values through a better education system instead of limiting firearms which would impact people who utilise firearm for self defense or hunting.

Lastly, I would like to ask if there is really a need for such drastic measures to be taken to prevent deaths from firearms. The number of people getting killed by firearm misuse is very much exaggerated. Using a greater scale, it can be seen that the detriments of firearms do not impact people enough for a law to limit its usage. According to a research [1] , only 32,173 out of 2,512,873 deaths in 2011 is caused by firearms while the rest is caused by other causes and diseases. This is a very meagre sum. In contrast, in 2005, China alone has 98,738 of deaths that were caused by road accidents [2]. If it is argued that firearms should be limited or banned due to the danger it is capable of, does this mean that all vehicles should be banned as the damage they cause it exponential when compared to firearms? If the priority of the government is to improve the well-being of the people and prevent unnecessary death, then shouldn"t more effort be placed in providing better healthcare facilities than banning firearms? Thus, imposing more laws to limit firearms do not really benefit citizens much when compared to other factors such as healthcare and education.

On the other hand, the opposition argued that guns have such adverse impacts but did not answer the question as there was no proposition of gun control laws. Hence, I would like to enquire about the gun control laws the opposition propose that will limit the problems firearm brings.

Sources:
http://www.anesi.com... [1]
http://www.indiaspend.com... [2]
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mystixis 3 years ago
Mystixis
@BiasedHuman
I don"t think a there is anything illogical about the source stated. Mass shootings might not necessarily cause the death of so many people, instead, it will injure more than kill, as mentioned in the part after the sentence you quoted, more than 6400 people were wounded. That"s about 4 people wounded in each incident, sounds plausible to me. Besides, these were only recorded incidences, the real number may be much higher and your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
"Since then, there have been more than 1,600 mass shootings, with more than 1,800 people" so there has been more than 1,600 mass shootings yet less than 2 people died per mass shooting? These numbers don't seem to add up to really seem like a mass shooting.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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