Question: Should Stricter Firearm Regulations Be Implemented?

Gun Control Reconsideration
The right to bear arms is fundamental. The current gun control regulations in the United States should not be expanded and, if anything, should be reduced. Firearms do not inherently breed violence; it is disturbed individuals who perpetrate such acts. Data indicates that regions with stricter gun control measures actually experience higher rates of gun-related offenses. Gun control laws disproportionately benefit the criminal element. "Assault weapons," along with any other types of firearms, should not face prohibition. The foundational purpose of the Second Amendment was to serve as the ultimate safeguard against oppression, and armed citizens are pivotal in safeguarding freedom. Furthermore, a moral standpoint holds that the government lacks the authority to dictate an individual's possession of items, provided they do not harm others or infringe upon their civil liberties. The right to own any kind of firearm is a basic human right, given that firearms are essential for self-protection in today's world against potential adversaries. (Please forgive any formatting errors, this is my initial contribution to this platform.)

The right to bear arms has become an important, lasting expression to many American individuals of their individual freedom and liberty. There are few symbols as powerful, particularly as the right to bear arms for the purposes of, potentially, joining a militia and fighting a tyrannical government is such a tangible concept. The rights to free speech and religion are much less tangible, and lack the power and threat of violence as a check on government tyranny. Such a symbolic expression of freedom resonates too deeply with many Americans to be deprived.

What counts as a potential weapon? A disabled child's crutches could be swiped off her/him and used to hit someone over the head with.No more sports(let`s not forget how lethal balls and bats can be). Children can potentially attack each other with sharpened pencils and scissors and we can't remove these from the classroom. A Kirpan is not going to be used as a weapon and a Sikh child is neither going to willingly part with his Kirpan or attack someone with it. It is no more a weapon than anything else in the classroom that isn't meant to be a weapon but conceivably could be used as one.(while other things such as baseball bats/sharpened-pencils/guns/bombs/kitchen-knives have reportedly been used as weapons, Kirpans have not.) It would be more useful to have responsible adults in a school who can control a class and protect vulnerable children. And adults to supervise these adults since attacks by and on teachers are fairly common.

Tighter security controls at airports and borders will help prevent attacks and loss of life.

An assault weapons ban encourages organized crime

Semi-automatic weapons do not serve a sporting purpose

While it is possible to argue that the natural interpretation of the language "arms" refers to a military weapon, it is not clear that the framers of the constitution meant for the use of the language "arms" to necessarily exclude an individual right to bear arms.

In today's reality the Second Amendment cannot be applied to civilians

The DC handgun ban has produced a marginal decrease in crime and murders.

Um... HELLO????? It's called the second amendment!!! The second amendment means you have the right to bear arms, and a cigarette is like a gun.Even though cigs are bad, they are classified as a harmful weapon that can cause serious injury or damage. Also, right now we are both breathing in campfire, barbecues, and even marijuana smoke! I do not see a ban on those items and I do not see a ban on cars? Do you? How about we just ban cars????  Also tabacco is a legal drug and so is  marijuana, so you cannot just ban it! Also, I looked up that the smoke from smokers produces 0.00092% of carbon dioxide emissions in the world! I have tons more but I'm about to run out of battery, so my last point is that we are building our own natural disasters, like building power plants! Only two out of the 50000 power plants in the world produce more carbon dioxide than the smoke from smokers does in a year!

A DC handgun ban is a reasonable measure against high gun violence


Question: Should Stricter Legislation Be Implemented to Control Firearms?

Guns should be legally accessible for home defense in the United States.
The fundamental right to self-defense is enshrined in the principles laid out by American founders like Thomas Jefferson, who stated that no citizen should be denied the use of arms within their own property. While acknowledging that the right to self-defense is not absolute, the Supreme Court has ruled that while the right to defend one's home cannot be infringed upon, there can be gun-free zones elsewhere. The opponent argued that the right to self-defense stems from a right to liberty, but this is a separate matter. The debate centers around the defense of one's home and family, where the right to self-defense takes precedence. The opponent labeled the castle doctrine as immoral, but this may stem from a misunderstanding of the doctrine. In all self-defense cases, a jury must determine if the person using lethal force had a reasonable belief that they were under threat of great bodily harm. The castle doctrine establishes a legal presumption that if a criminal breaks into your home, there is a reasonable presumption of threat of harm. This presumption can still be overcome if the person breaking in is reasonably identified as posing no threat. For example, if it's a sunny day and the homeowner sees that the person breaking in is an unarmed child, then the use of potentially lethal force is unreasonable. The castle doctrine only comes into play when there is doubt, such as in an unidentified break-in at night. The resolution is whether there are any circumstances when a homeowner should be allowed to legally possess a gun for self-defense. Guns are the most practical means of self-defense. The Supreme Court ruled in the Washington DC case that voided the District's prohibition on guns that there is no practical alternative to guns for self-defense. The opponent did not offer any alternative effective means of self-defense. If a fundamental right to self-defense is granted and it is acknowledged that guns are the only realistic means of self-defense, then the resolution is affirmed. You cannot have a right to self-defense and then ban the only means of asserting that right. Banning guns would not significantly reduce suicide rates, as Japan has twice the suicide rate with a strict gun ban, and the suicide rate in Washington DC was unchanged by a gun ban. Accidental deaths from guns are also far below the levels of other hazards that are not banned. The benefits of guns outweigh the disadvantages. The opponent dropped my argument that background checks and safety training can be placed upon fundamental rights, so long as they are not a significant impediment to practicing the right. This is

Assault weapons empower the deranged to kill many people.

Um... HELLO????? It's called the second amendment!!! The second amendment means you have the right to bear arms, and a cigarette is like a gun.Even though cigs are bad, they are classified as a harmful weapon that can cause serious injury or damage. Also, right now we are both breathing in campfire, barbecues, and even marijuana smoke! I do not see a ban on those items and I do not see a ban on cars? Do you? How about we just ban cars????  Also tabacco is a legal drug and so is  marijuana, so you cannot just ban it! Also, I looked up that the smoke from smokers produces 0.00092% of carbon dioxide emissions in the world! I have tons more but I'm about to run out of battery, so my last point is that we are building our own natural disasters, like building power plants! Only two out of the 50000 power plants in the world produce more carbon dioxide than the smoke from smokers does in a year!

Some argue that Washington, DC is not a state, and so the constitutional right to bear arms does not necessarily apply. Yet, DC residents are United States citizens, even if they are not citizens of states. The constitution and the second amendment apply to them as much as to other citizens. The right to bear arms is a right conferred to all US citizens equally, including DC residents. If we assume that the constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, then we should assume that US citizens residing in DC receive the same privilege to exercise this right as do other citizens.

Gun bans only disarm citizens that are not inclined to commit crimes

A ban would create blackmarkets in arm trade.

Tighter immigration laws and tougher entry measures can be used to reduce the chances of terrorists entering America. For example, travellers from certain countries can be made to get visa papers before their journey. Airlines flying to the USA now have to pass lists of their passengers to the authorities before they take off for America. Some passengers could be given searching interviews on arrival.

The 1994 assault weapons ban was ineffectual

Legal restrictions would be nearly impossible to enforce in the way that same trying to restrict what children watch on DVD's is. Currently the law prohibits children from buying DVD's and video shops from selling and renting them. This may have an effect in that it stops children unless they use fake ID from renting or buying DVD's that may be too violent or sexually explicit etc. However its a wide net as adults can and do rent DVD's ostensibly for their use but which is really for their child's use. Restricting what a person watched on their TV would be more impossible given that parental controls can only be put on by parents and not children.

The opposition is introducing other content that does already fall under ratings or censorship therefore irrelevant to their case. egAnimal Farm, Clockwork Orange. even Pornography. Opposition must stay on the topic. Fictional violence does lead to real violence!!! It is a sad state of affairs when we decide that fictional gratuitous violence is entertainment. It appears the Opposition would rather subject our youth to the glorification of VAW then try blame perpetrators because jail was a deterrent and they should have been 'reasonable' Poverty rates go hand in hand with poor literacy but globalisation impacts all regardless of values and situation. So censorship; in this case. the banning of music that glorifies VAW is essential. We affirm the line that this music that 'GLORIFIES'. VAW must be banned because it is morally imperative regardless of the number of people who act on the inherent messages within the music because it breaks down the moral fabric of society, hence potentially encouraging singers like Pink who create reactionary songs that glorify acts of violence against men in her song- 'So what?'; and it places women in a position where they are still fighting against the sexual objectification of women that condones them being subjugated and then condones them having a poor sense of self worth believing that they have to be subject to males, often idealised as 'pimps' in this music. It doesn't matter if the audience is so called 'reasonable' the govt bodies have the responsibilty to help maintain the dignity and respect of all genders. There are racial & homosexual vilification laws, but no gender vilification laws that protect women from being subjected to these messages.They have no power then to stop these attitudes permeating society because we give 'tacit consent'. This is why we need to have govt bodiest that act on our 'express consent'.[[Loche,Second Treatise of Government, 1690.Hackett Publishing Comp]]

There is no point totally banning laser pointers, and only in one state, because most laser pointers are purchased online, or through the black market. There is no point banning them because they will always be around. Restricting their usage is a far better solution to problems caused by laser pointers because there is no way of fully banning laser pointers. The law won't work anyway.


Question: Should Stricter Regulations on Firearms Be Implemented?

Resolved: There should be more stringent gun control laws.

R1: The Prevalence of Gun Culture
Gun culture should not be a justification for the high number of deaths caused by firearms. The value of a gun culture cannot outweigh the loss of lives due to gun violence. This will be further elaborated in the following contentions.

R2: Limited Impact in Certain States
The argument that gun control laws won't have a significant effect in certain states doesn't negate the need for such laws. While it's true that some states may not see a large impact, it doesn't mean that gun control laws should not be implemented. The fact that there are multiple factors involved, such as job and housing quality, education, and moral standards, indicates that a comprehensive approach is necessary.

R3: Guns as a Means of Self-Defense
The argument that guns are necessary for self-defense is flawed. Accidents involving guns, especially those involving children, are a serious concern. The case of Cassie Culpepper, who was accidentally shot by her 12-year-old brother, highlights the risks associated with gun ownership. Since January 1st, there have been 11 reported gun fatalities involving preschool children as shooters. This statistic only represents cases where a toddler is the shooter, and does not include the 71 children who have been killed by guns since the Newtown shooting. These deaths could have been avoided if adults had exercised proper discretion in securing their firearms. The outrage towards these deaths should be proportional to their senselessness and avoidability.

R4: Illegal Guns and Concealed Carry Weapons
While it may be true that some guns are obtained illegally, it is still relatively easy to gain possession of them. According to federal data, nearly 200,000 guns were reported lost or stolen last year. This indicates that a gun ban would make it much harder for people to possess guns, both legally and illegally.

C1: Accidents
This contention relates to the previous rebuttal regarding self-defense, but is more general and applies to all individuals. Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, while firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011. However, in 2015, gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. More than a quarter of teenagers who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents. The risk associated with guns is significant and cannot be ignored.

C

Unfettered right to bear arms would be too expansive

School rules need to have exceptions in relevant circumstances - if a child absolutely cannot follow a rule because of a disability, health condition, financial circumstances, distance from the school etc. Religious and other cultural requirements are considered a relevant exception. However, granting these exemptions needs to be a process we have strict control over and we should hand them out sparingly and only with thorough checks. Every time we grant an exception to a rule, it diminishes the rule, which then diminishes order within the school. Allowing a potential weapon to be carried in class is quite a major exception to the rules and therefore a bigger threat to the overall structure of order within the school. We need to think whether a school can take this much disruption.

The constitution is the basis for allowing gun possession within the US society. All court decisions go back to the Second Amendment text and interpret it either by the spirit of the law or by the letter of the law. The actual possibility of possession of guns within the US society is guaranteed through the existence of the amendment per se. Constant interpretations and different conclusions drawn upon the same text mean that any radical decisions regarding banning guns can always be argued against based on the same text of the amendment.If consensus is reached about enacting such a change within society such as banning guns than it must be legitimized by a change in the constitution .In this will reflect a common will of the people in the foundation of all the legal system within the US i.e the constitution.

Some interpretations of "keep" have hinted that it is simply to clean, maintain, and "upkeep" arms. This could be done in a barracks, in which case, the right to "keep" arms would have nothing to do with a right to individual possess. In Parker v. District of Columbia (to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court under the name District of Columbia v. Heller), this argument was made.

If the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms, as the Supreme Court officially ruled in 2008, then it is a fairly logical extension of that right that one should be able to exercise it openly. Making concealment a condition of that right hardly makes it a right at all. Free speech rights allow an individual to openly scream absurdities through a megaphone in Times Square. A right to bear arms, analogously, should also preserve the right to openly express that right.

The right to bear arms has become an important, lasting expression to many American individuals of their individual freedom and liberty. There are few symbols as powerful, particularly as the right to bear arms for the purposes of, potentially, joining a militia and fighting a tyrannical government is such a tangible concept. The rights to free speech and religion are much less tangible, and lack the power and threat of violence as a check on government tyranny. Such a symbolic expression of freedom resonates too deeply with many Americans to be deprived.

Only very few cities have currently gun ban laws enacted

Worldwide the ownership of handguns has been correlated with higher homicide rates

An assault weapons ban violates the presumption of innocence


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Legislation Be Implemented?

The issue of gun control is crucial as numerous criminals acquire firearms legally and use them to perpetrate crimes. In the United States, individuals purchasing weapons through private sales are not required to undergo a background check prior to taking possession of the firearm. This loophole facilitates sales to criminals, felons, and those with a history of severe mental illness. In 2011, nearly 33,000 Americans lost their lives to gun-related incidents, with an average of 268 citizens being shot each day. The presence of legal guns does not guarantee crime prevention, as even lawful gun owners can commit crimes. While it's nearly impossible to eliminate all illegal guns, it's essential to address the issue of legal guns ending up in the wrong hands.

Anti-terrorism legislation is not how we should fight terrorism

As with the previous argument this is an example of taking an argument against a specific part to a complete extreme. Maybe the government should introduce tougher regulations covering sunbeds such as strict supervision or an area where access is restricted or sunbeds have to have built in manual safety/ override mechanisms etc. The problem described does not give a licence for the government to ban sunbeds and deny people (with age restrictions) the right to expose themselves to legitimate personal risk.

Proper regulation of handgun use increases safety

Despite the fact that advertising campaigns such as those run in the UK over the past 30 years have been successful in reducing the incidence of drink driving, this success has not been mirrored in all countries. And even where it has, deaths and serious injuries caused by drunk drivers still run to the thousands each year. This is an unacceptable situation - alcohol should simply be banned.

Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. March 19th, 2008 - "JUSTICE GINSBURG: If we're going back to the English Bill of Rights, it was always understood to be subject to the control and limitation and restriction of Parliament. And I don't think there's any doubt about that. And that's what we're talking about here, are legislative restrictions."

A 1991 University of Maryland study by criminologists in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, even despite the fact that the number of deaths in the city had risen to 479 that year, 81 deaths per 100,000, earning it the title of the murder capital of the country. They argued the ban had prevented 47 deaths per year in D.C., both suicides and murders.[6] The point of the study is that the handgun ban has had a marginal impact in reducing crime and murder rates. Any such decrease is important and valuable, however small the impact may be. D.C. Council chairman Sterling Tucker said in 2008, "We knew there were problems we couldn't wipe out. But we had a little more control over it [with the handgun ban]."[7]

An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws ag...

The use of assault weapons was down 17% from 1994 levels in 2004, according to one report.

The Second Amendment applies to militia's, not private ownership.

Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, said in an interview: “nothing is 100 percent [but] The more difficult you make it for someone to conceal weapons, the fewer people who are going to be willing or capable of concealment.”[3]


Question: Should Stricter Legislation Be Implemented to Control Firearms?

The debate over gun control often involves considering various reasons for owning firearms. Hunting, for instance, is a legitimate reason to possess a gun, a perspective not aligned with PETA’s stance. In my sister’s country, the UK, and in my family’s homeland, the Netherlands, obtaining a hunting weapon is relatively straightforward. However, owning a firearm for self-defense is practically non-existent in the Netherlands and explicitly forbidden in the UK. It’s worth noting that keeping a gun at home increases the risk of accidentally shooting a family member or oneself by a factor of five. Countries with stringent gun regulations tend to be safer environments for their residents.

Some argue that Washington, DC is not a state, and so the constitutional right to bear arms does not necessarily apply. Yet, DC residents are United States citizens, even if they are not citizens of states. The constitution and the second amendment apply to them as much as to other citizens. The right to bear arms is a right conferred to all US citizens equally, including DC residents. If we assume that the constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, then we should assume that US citizens residing in DC receive the same privilege to exercise this right as do other citizens.

You will see that the other side of this argument makes a distinction between things that an individual can control and those he/she cannot. The argument is that fire and police protection are things beyond the control of individuals, but that healthcare is not. This argument is seriously flawed. Many healthcare issues are very much out of the control of individuals. Consider a bus accident. Many accidents are out of the control of individuals. While many accidents are a result of an individual being stupid or not being careful, so are many fires. There is no real distinction here. Either you should be opposed to fire/police protection and universal healthcare, or should support both. Picking one is a logical inconsistency.

Since other gun classes have been banned, so too can handguns for reasonable ends.

Some argue that one of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment is to enable citizens to train with weapons so that they are prepared for military service or the draft. If this is the case, and if the military is fully capable of supplying citizens with guns upon entering the service or being drafted, then it is appropriate to restrict citizen gun-use to training purposes at gun ranges. In this case, there is no need for citizens to own guns, but only the need for citizens to train with them such that they are fully prepared to serve militarily.

If the intentions of the framers had been to protect an individual right to bear arms, they would have clearly expressed this. Yet, the Second Amendment is not at all clear about an individual right to bear arms. The natural reading of the clause would indicate that the right relates only to the first, qualifying clause that states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." It is a stretch to read into the language an individual right. If this were the case, why wouldn't they simply have explicitly stated that an "individual right to bear arms should not be infringed".

I agree. But most of the time the "punisher" does not know how to control himself so we have to keep the law in place. Majority rules. Also if corporal punishment were to be altered to not hurt a child, it would not be called corporal punishmen. It has no relation to why you should have corporal punishment the debate topic that we are discussing

An assault weapons ban leads to a slippery slope of gun seizures

So does prison, but you don't see anyone arguing for getting rid of that.

The handgun is used more commonly than any other weapons in self defense in the home. Roughly 80 percent of all self-defense occurs with handguns, according to some sources.[9] This is because it is small, can be easily stowed in a house where it may be of need, and because it is easy to wield and fire. To ban a weapon that is so important in self-defense would reduce the capacity of citizens to defend themselves, making citizens more vulnerable, and possibly inviting further robberies.

Banning semi-automatic weapons would harm small businesses.


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Legislation Be Implemented?

The notion of gun control is not a foolish concept. My adversary has dismissed my sources as unreliable, yet the data presented originates from official German police statistics, available on a site advocating for a more lenient gun control policy, "Liberales Waffenrecht." Even non-German speakers can understand the meaning of "liberal" in this context. This site, despite its stance, showcases the same statistic: a reduction in gun-related deaths despite Germany's gun control measures. This statistic is also referenced in the related article, where the title is clearly visible.

The resolution contends that gun control is a poor concept, yet ideas are not confined by national borders, and the opening argument does not specify any national limitations. In Germany and the UK, gun control has proven effective, with significantly lower gun-related death rates compared to the USA. My adversary now seeks to expand on his initial argument, asserting that laws are restrictions on freedom. However, are we now arguing that all laws are detrimental because they limit freedom? Did not my adversary state that "Criminals don't obey laws"? Therefore, the discussion about laws is irrelevant and serves as a distraction.

My adversary invokes Nazi Germany, an extreme example. We do not reside in Nazi Germany, and to assert that gun control played a significant role in the genocide is baseless. Germany, unlike the USA, has no history of armed resistance against the government. We were initially discussing "one thing": "What would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns and using them against an unarmed public?" Now, we are apparently discussing "tyranny"? Another diversion.

However, despite gun control, Germany has not experienced tyranny since the worst period in its history. There is no indication that gun control leads to tyranny. In fact, Germany and the USA are allies. The argument that the US Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms as a personal right due to the threat of tyranny and the need for self-defense is speculative. Do we have direct accounts of the founding fathers' intentions, or is this merely an inductive conclusion?

I maintain that tyranny does not exist in our society. It can be found in countries with armed militias and no gun control. My adversary must provide evidence for their claim. Regarding my explicit side note, I appreciate the opinion, but it does not pertain to our debate, so I will not delve further into it.

The assumption that gun control will eliminate all guns in circulation is a fallacy. However, my adversary cannot predict the future. In Australia, the implementation of a gun

Open carry helps educate public about guns

Concealed carry broadens deterrence by keeping criminals in dark.

If we were to increase the amount discipline that we have in schools than the people that don't respect authority will. If you make it clear to somebody that a particular action will result, not only in long-term consequences, but short-term consequences as well, than that person will make an effort to avoid the unwanted consequences. We need to increase discipline because children in schools are unable to comprehend the long-term consequences of their actions such as not getting a job. We need to provide more short term consequences that these children will understand and respond to such as detentions and the like.

If a person is committing a crime or are doing something illegal to themselves and the people around them then they are doing so at their own legal, social and physical jeopardy. Restrictive laws in Nicuragua and other countries are merely representing this and allowing for some sort of retribution by society to take place.

Most automatic weapons were already illegal under the National Firearms Act of 1934

Hunting need not be tolerated; it is cruel and can be made unlawful

Banning semi-automatic weapons would harm small businesses.

Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting

If the intentions of the framers had been to protect an individual right to bear arms, they would have clearly expressed this. Yet, the Second Amendment is not at all clear about an individual right to bear arms. The natural reading of the clause would indicate that the right relates only to the first, qualifying clause that states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." It is a stretch to read into the language an individual right. If this were the case, why wouldn't they simply have explicitly stated that an "individual right to bear arms should not be infringed".

From a security standpoint, nothing should be permitted in schools. Shoes can be used to beat people, what with martial arts trends taught to children even human hands can be used as effective death machines. A sharpened poked into the jugular vein causes fatal injury. When Britain banned guns, (kitchen)knife crime escalated, banning knives can mean the escalation of `pencil`crime and so on; it`s not a cycle that can really be stopped. Take pencils away and there will be a significant rise in people injuring/killing each other with their bare hands(and they do). [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm]] And the concerns are baseless since this particular kind of knife has not been used in any reported crime. Canada ruled for this and maybe Britain should too.


Question: Should Stricter Legislation be Implemented to Control Firearms?

Should all firearms be prohibited? It's irrelevant if we enact legislation against guns. Due to the existence of the black market, criminals can and will obtain guns whenever they desire. Only responsible gun owners will relinquish their firearms, leaving them defenseless when a criminal invades their home. Prohibiting guns will likely result in a surge in crime rates and an expansion of the black market.

The majority of violent encounters occur on the street, versus in the home. Hand guns are a particularly important means to protecting one self on the street. This is primarily the case because handguns can be easily carried by law-abiding civilians, and concealed so as to avoid scaring other citizens. Shotguns and rifles do not share these characteristics.

Tighter immigration laws and tougher entry measures can be used to reduce the chances of terrorists entering America. For example, travellers from certain countries can be made to get visa papers before their journey. Airlines flying to the USA now have to pass lists of their passengers to the authorities before they take off for America. Some passengers could be given searching interviews on arrival.

A ban on assault weapons is not a slippery slope to an all gun ban

The Second Amendment applies to militia's, not private ownership.

A handgun ban deprives citizens of the most commonly used weapon for self defense

Worldwide the ownership of handguns has been correlated with higher homicide rates

More home-owners are killed by gun-ownership than are saved

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "[Open Carry] advocates claim they’re simply capitalizing on the fact that there’s no law against strapping on a gun and walking around in public in most parts of the United State (even in urban areas). Yes, but— there’s no law against carrying a gun openly for the same reason as there’s no law against break dancing in the middle of Death Valley in July while wearing a fur parka. It’s something that very few people would even consider doing."

It has been empirically proven that among countries of the world the ones with the lowest private ownership of handguns have a significantly lower homicide rate

The fact that nationwide there are very few cities that have gun ban laws enacted goes to show that both the communities and their representatives on the political level do not support such actions.As the capital city of the US Washington D.C. takes a divisive position than most of the US.


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Regulations Be Implemented?

Gun Regulation Debate

As a newcomer to political discourse, I’m eager to engage in a respectful discussion. Here’s my stance: The concept seems clear and uncomplicated, remove firearms and the level of violence will decline. Yet, studies have demonstrated that stringent gun control measures may actually exacerbate violence and chaos within a society. The fact that a negligible percentage of lawful gun owners in the U.S. have misused their registered firearms for criminal activities indicates that these regulations could disarm compliant citizens, leaving them more vulnerable to the actions of lawbreakers and killers. This correlation is evident when comparing gun legislation across different regions; Chicago, notorious for its stringent gun laws, is plagued by a high crime rate, while Vermont, with its more lenient gun policies, boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Similarly, international comparisons reveal that countries with lenient gun laws, like Switzerland, have lower crime rates, whereas nations with strict gun control, such as Mexico, suffer from significantly higher crime rates.

With many thanks to mongoose for continuing this debate, I would like to respond as follows: My opponent wrote: "I was the founding father of a new land, I would let them have guns. The alternative would be to set up checkpoints all around this land and make sure that nobody was bringing in guns, then check to make sure nobody had guns." Drugs such as cocaine, heroin and cannabis are illegal in most Western countries but there are no checkpoints manned by law-enforcement officers, no searches of members of the public for contraband narcotics. Instead, in addition to anti-smuggling measures implemented at borders, the police launch intelligence-based operations and raid the homes of suspected drug traffickers and users, and the same approach could be applied to guns. Of course, drugs are still in circulation and it will not be possible to completely rid society of the menace of guns, but it will help to reduce the number of innocent lives lost as the result of gun crime. And, by the way, it is a myth that most gun crimes are committed using illegal weapons, the majority of recent shooting massacres were committed with legally held weapons. The attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11th, 2001, caused 2,606 deaths. America's reaction to this terrorist outrage was, understandably and justifiably, resolute and robust. Meanwhile, however, there is over ten times that number of gun-related deaths every year in America – equivalent to ten 9/11's every year – yet the US Government do little or nothing about it. The fact is, and there can be no denying this, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of households with firearms and the number of intentional firearms deaths: the higher the percentage of gun owners in a country, the higher the number of gun-related deaths per capita. Finally, regarding the knife analogy: in Britain and elsewhere, carrying a knife is illegal: in Britain the penalty is four years imprisonment and is set to increase. As a result, knife crime is being driven down and the same can be done in the United States with stricter gun regulations. Naturally, intentional gun deaths will never be completely eradicated, but any measures that can be introduced that could save innocent lives must be worthwhile. Thank you. Sources: ---------- http://www.gun-control-network.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

I will first start by addressing your issue of allowing the citizens to arm themselves to the same extent as the government to protect themselves against it. If every citizen was allowed to buy every piece of military hardware the government has we would have a continuous civil war going on. The guy does like the winner of an election and launches a few artillery rounds at the white house. I realize this example is extreme, but so is your claim that there should be no limits on gun and weapon control. You said, "You could argue that they didn't have full-autos back then, but neither did the military." Well the government has nuclear bombs (which only a small number of countries possess) but like you said we should be able to defend yourself against the government on equal grounds. Well the government has chains of command and they do not randomly go crazy and massacre people in the streets or kill citizens on a daily basis. Now I"m not saying the government might not become oppressive in the future, but this would be exceedingly hard under the present constitution and they don"t shoot people daily because they don"t like what side of the town you live on. Imagine if every gun crime was done with a mini gun, like you talked about. Gang battles would evolve to wars. Whenever someone got mad they could just nuke Washington. Sure they would have to suffer the consequences for the millions of people just killed, but they still killed millions of people. It"s the government"s job to protect the welfare of society and they cannot do that if the citizens processed the same weapons as they did in the off chance, one day in the future, the government was oppressing them. Citizens do not have the right to make a military which is what you would be allowing if you give them the same weapons as the government. N.A.T.O. is the person who watches the watchmen. It"s pretty simple. When there is something wrong in another country N.A.T.O. votes whether it"s wrong and if it should help. They have put down many tyrannical governments throughout history, which is their purpose. Mandatory waiting periods will stop rash decision, in the heat of the moment. If the person is forced to wait a week before killing his mom there might be a change in thought, where rational thought is reacquired. You specifically said in your argument that gun sales and gun crime is going up. If you ask me and pretty much every person in the world if they see a correlation there they will say yes. You say overall crime is going down, that"s good, but I"d rather someone steal my car then shoot me. There are more guns and more gun crime. There is a positive correlation there. Now, theoretically if there were significantly fewer guns there, most likely, would be less gun crime. It doesn"t take a rocket scientist to understand that more guns equal more gun crime and more gun violence.

Current laws are usually poorly enforced. Criminals are often able to buy guns even when the law says they should be prohibited. We need to enforce the laws we have right now first.Guns do not kill people. People do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and focus on the role the media plays in giving glory to violence and the lack of respect for law and law enforcement.Denial of firearms is comparable to the "war on drugs". If people want the item, they will get it whether legally or illegally. It doesn't matter. With the war on drugs, meth and marijuana are illegal in most states, so guess what? People started making and growing their own. And then Mexican cartels saw a new underground business to pursue, so we now have illegal drugs from Mexico being snuck in, drugs being made in private homes, and people growing their own. It didn't make it better. It's worse. The same would happen with guns.Mexico would have a new underground business. People would begin making their own, and the market would yield great money for private individual makers. And now, we would have unregistered illegal guns everywhere with no way to trace them. Here's a web site showing just how easy it is to make a gun.http://m.wikihow.com...And here's another.http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...Point? You will never stop people from having guns. The only thing you even have a prayer of accomplishing is disarming law abiding citizens. Congratulations.

Well. the constitution can be bent becuase you can not and should not allow situations 200+ years ago to govern how the supreme law in the land dictates our judicial system.... at the time of the revolution due to hostilities btween the natives and settelers, native american raids were common. Hence the reason why most families kept guns....we just finished fighting a war with no guarentee to our nations future and the gov't couldnot afford to arm everyone...that is also another reason for the amendment... and another argument for the viability of altering the constitution is that this whole debate you have been defending an alteration of said constitution, becuae the bill of rights themsleves were added onto the orignal document... therefore since you aruge that the constitution must not be altered you should naturally be agaisnt any amendments to it... and seeing as the right to bear arms was an addition to the constutution, you must therefore concede defeat here...:D(obviously i do not expect you too or desire you too) When it comes to murder and guns reducing murder rates...I say that murderers will not think twice about going into a persons home who owns a gun, because( and you yourself stated this) that most murders are not pre meditated...holding a gun gives people an empowering feeling, which a bit of straw would not... Now my argument is that we cannot have complete freedom to bear arms, nor can we completely ban guns.... we must reach a compromise betweent the two sides

I have a firm conviction that gun control legislation is not only an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, but it isn't a deterrent towards criminals. In the recent massacre on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, the shooter Adam Lanza who killed 26 people; 20 defenseless children, and 6 courageous teachers. This event was one of the most catastrophic events that has ever occurred in the history of America. But gun control legislation would not have stopped Adam Lanza from doing what he did. Everything he did that day was illegal. He stole his mother's gun, he killed her, stole her car, broke into the school, and caused destruction to 26 lives. He knew what he did was illegal, but still did all of those illegal acts anyway. So how will gun control legislation help the law abiding citizen who is responsible with practicing their rights? The legislation will not stop criminals from the commission of a crime because committing crimes is what they do. The only people that this legislation affects is the law abiding citizens who are being restricted. I along with many others in this country share this belief and also that if there were armed guards at the school, then the number of lives taken on this terrible day would have been substantially lower due to the fact that they would have had the capability of protecting themselves opposed to being entirely destitute. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a well known crusader who has spent millions of his own money on gun control efforts, called the NRA's idea for armed guards in schools "a paranoid vision of America." But teachers appear to disagree with Bloomberg's assumption. Almost 90% said an armed police officer would improve safety in their schools, not make them less safe, according to the survey. (Sperry) The statistic speaks for itself, and already school districts and towns have passed budget plans to keep kids safe in the school by using security guards and other security alarming systems. This money is well spent for the safety of the children attending schools all across America, and this perception is a real deterrent for criminals. A criminal will not try breaking into a school when multiple security guards are guarding the schools with firearms or alarming systems make it much more of an obstacle to complete their unjust attempt of committing a crime. Sperry, Todd. "Survey: Teachers Don't Want to Carry Guns, Do Support Armed Guards." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

Well, for one, look at all the other countries that have gun bans, and look at their deaths from firearms, and then look at us, who don't have gun bans and look at OUR deaths from firearms. There's your proof. Personally, I blame the screwed up American mentality, and I think that if we could all be more reasonable then we wouldn't have to do this, but since people just don't seem to understand that guns are dangerous, and that you shouldn't have ten guns stockpiled in your basement, we need to impose this ban, mainly to make sure that all Americans know how dangerous guns are. ' I thought my examples that I gave you made it clear that it WOULD save lives overall. It would stop any amateur murderers, murderers who were normal people until they snapped, since their crimes were crimes of passion, not plan. I think that it is pretty obvious that a gun ban would lessen the amount of guns people have, and therefore prevent people from dying since, without a gun most people suck at killing. I think that is really just simple knowledge, but what I'm interested in is the psychology of it. A lot of people support making marijuana legal, liberals especially, and conservatives argue that if we do that, people will think that it's ok and it's right to do drugs. Well I see the same basic concept here. Guns are dangerous killing machines, but a lot of Americans don't seem to understand that. I've said this before and I'll say it again, children as young as 6 in some places are introduced to guns, how to shoot, how to load, and the glory of being a good shot. Americans are pretty loose with their guns, and I'm almost certain that it is because they are gun-friendly, and they don't realize the magnitude of what a gun really is, and what it's true purpose is. A gun is not meant to be used lightly. I am also horrified that children are given toys like airsoft guns and paintball guns. I am horrified at how guns are being painted in children's minds as toys. I believe that this ban will fix it, because children will reason that the government must have a reason for banning guns. And how are numbers misleading? I am very confused with that argument of yours. Sure, the context they're in can be misleading, but numbers are not misleading. In the situation you are describing, then they WOULD be misleading, but thankfully, that is not the case here. It just makes it that much simpler to see that guns ARE the problem. You say that if this is the case, but PurpleDrink, it is not, and we should thank whatever deity or deities there are for that. :)

The issue as I see it is about the relationship between limits to the accessibility of deadly firearms and public safety rather than an issue of glib ideological notions of 'God given rights' from a bygone era. The U.S. Second Amendment, which makes reference to the rights of a "well regulated Militia", was drafted during the early stages of US nationhood after the US War of Independence. Scholars suggest the amendment was created at the time, in part to enable the citizenry to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, as well as foreign powers, particularly the British Empire. The available firearms at the time were single shot barrel loaded muskets. They were not 30 bullet magazine weapons enabling citizens to kill large numbers of their own citizens in a short period of time. There is no evidence that the legislators drafting the original passage for the amendment, foresaw the availability of powerful high calibre high round magazine weapons, and the havoc of citizens arbitrarily using the weapons on eachother. The law was drafted in a bygone revolutionary era, when there were threats to US nationhood, threats which do not apply today, when the US has the largest most powerful military in the world. The Second Amendment should not be an immutable eternal law but should change and be reinterpreted with a changing society and with changing threats. The threat today being the threat to public safety from the havoc caused by citizens using high powered high calibre weapons on each other. In any case, the Second Amendment with its reference to a "well regulated Militia" implies that limits can be placed on the right to bear arms. With no limits on the right to bear arms, one could argue that you should be allowed nuclear weapons to defend yourself. Fortunately most of us quickly realise the catastrophe that would occur if we allowed the circulation of nuclear weapons in the general population. The limits to the availability of deadly firearms in the cause of public safety is the issue at hand. The argument is that a better, safer and less violent society can be created through setting limits on the availability of deadly firearms. Using Australia and other comparable nations as a test case, the following facts point out the strong circumstantial evidence on the effectiveness of gun control in creating a safer and less violent society: -There were 13 mass shootings (defined as the shooting of 4 or more people in a short period of time) in Australia during the period 1979-96, and there have been none since the introduction of gun buyback and control laws in 1996. -The withdrawal of 3500 guns per 100,000 individuals from the the Gun laws introduced in Australia in 1996, reduced the firearm suicide rate in Australia by close to 80 per cent, and had no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates (source Leigh paper). Similar dramatic declines were also exhibited in the gun homicide rate. - States in Australia that had a larger uptake of gun buyback (where the government bought guns off firearm owners) saw a larger reduction in the suicide and homicide rate (source Leigh paper). This point indicates that there is a causal relationship between the reduction in guns and gun related violence. This piece of evidence indicates that the drastic reduction in gun violence and mass shootings is not just a coincidence with the introduction of gun control laws in Australia (source Leigh) -Murder rates in Australia are close to 1 per 100,000 whilst the murder rate in the US is closer to 3.8 per 100,000, despite the much lower rates of gun ownership, invalidating your assertion that higher rates of gun ownership leads to a reduction in violent crime through deterrence; -France, Italy, Germany, U.K, each have stringent gun control laws and have much lower rates of mass shootings and gun homicides (all have rates of around 1 per 100,000 source below) - There were 133 mass shootings in America within the past 7 years. Researchers counted 23 mass shootings in 13 European nations in addition to Russia from 2000 to 2014, with 203 deaths. During that time, the U.S. saw 133 shootings and 487 dead. - It should also be noted the 12,000 gun related deaths and 51,000 gun incidences in 2014 in the United States. The Second Amendment implies that limits can be placed on your 'God given rights'. Limits to the access of guns, particularly of high powered high magazine weapons, into the hands of the mentally or criminally defective is just sensible policy. If you want an argument based on evidence then it should be compelling that limiting gun accessibility will probably lead to fewer mass shootings and gun related deaths. I could accept an argument that you simply just like and enjoy guns based on the way they make you feel when firing them and how cool and fun they are to fire. However, I can't accept an argument that guns promote public safety or that they reduce the level of gun violence. The evidence from around the world simply shows this not to be the case. Sources http://ftp.iza.org... http://www.wsj.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... http://www.gizmodo.com.au...

argument, hard to enforce private background checks. still, it can be done, all one has to do is bring the gun to some place to ensure a background check. same way cars are transferred. to help pay for this enterprise, they can charge a nominal fee, just like with car sales. would it always be worth enforcing? maybe not, but that doesn't mean we dont have laws and enforce it some times. just like marijuana sales and how lax yet sometimes not they are about it. and on that point, should we just get rid of all drug laws just because people won't always follow them, no of course not. perhaps you might be against most drug laws for libertarian purposes, but the point remains that you can't just argue it won't make any difference when it would make some difference. it would all make a difference. i'm not really sure what you want me to say about the background check points. all you really said was that it's hard to belive so many people support it, and question the validity. but you seem to be familiar with it, and it's very well established. just type ninety percent background checks into google, and tons of reputable websites report it. 74% of NRA member support background checks, check that out while you're at it. it's not hard to believe about background checks, cause they don't really cause much of any hindrances aside from mere inconvenience. it might seem like it is controversial, but that's only because of the way the media reports stuff. they make people think there's division here there's not. they even make people who don't think for themselves adhere to whatever issue they're suppose to, like 'im republican so i must follow all republican gun talking points'. even ronald reagan was against assault rifles being legal and stuff like that.... just a show of what it was really like before media partisianship, and what 'common sense' used to be. and to a big extent still is. the washington post and yahoo news were top google hits. here's another. http://www.politifact.com... a total ban is not the only way to make some difference. i agree the political support isn't there for a total ban. but it's just common sense and statistical that if you don't have a gun when you'd commit a crime, the crime might not be committed. and that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun, thus not having a gun hwen a crime would be committed prevents the crime. i agree that guns are at least legally rights, and cars are treated differently, but that doesn't mean we can't treat them the same, all the legality aside. your point is more just good to note but doesn't change anything about the fundamental policies that we're trying to determine and talk about. plus if you wanted to argue driving is a right, you could. it's only legislatively created and not constitutional, but it's still debatealy very similar. and guns are similar to something that could be driven on the roads, because they can be used to kill people.... more so than most weopons. that's what they are designed for. and it's not just hunting, and it wouldnt matter if it was. handguns aren't primaril made for shooting a moose, for example. we're not trying to stop most people from having guns, just making it all more tranparent and preventing some from getting them as easy or at all. yes the second amendment is designed for protection against the government. but that doesn't prevent you from having a gun if we just have more checks, so you are still protected. it's still your right. and that was then that the concern was so real for guns, and this is now where it's not that huge of a concern.... which means we focus on the real world now reality of murders, instead of far fetched future concerns of government take over. maybe we shouldnt get rid of guns for this reason, but it doesn't mean we cant have more checks etc. so all you've basically said was 'yes but it was designed for protection against the government' and haven't really established how that changes anything.

R1: Correlation is not Causation My opponent agrees that correlation is not causation in his R3. Yet it continues to be argued that a statistically significant relationship exists, but the factors between the two states that differentiate one another remain unaccounted for. Again, correlation is not causation. The information is anecdotal in nature. That's awesome that we can compare two states, but what makes them similar enough, minus the one variable that needs to be changed (in this case gun laws) to be able to compare them? It seems as though the two states compared are cherry-picked, rather than done to control the other variables (poverty for instance) to show a relationship. R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire My opponent compares these two states, and claims that homicide rates differ: the tighter gun regulated state has more homicides than the non-gun regulated one. Except, with all due respect to my opponent, again this is anecdotal. Homicides can be committed with a wide variety of tools. Knives, vehicles, fists, etc... can all be used in a homicide. Even if we take this relationship at face value, it does not show that gun-related crimes are somehow more desirable in a more gun friendly state than vice-verse. Again, correlation is not causation. R3: Psychopaths by Nature Lack Empathy/Fear My opponent cites response times in the Virginia Tech Shooting as justification for a more armed populace. Fair enough, however even if the school had armed guards, it would not have mattered. That's because psychopaths, literally by virtue of being a psycho, lack empathy and fear by their actions. That's part of the purpose of being diagnosed with being a psychopath in the first place. Furthermore, my opponents argument means taking the actions of a shooter, and making vigilante justice happen. While police are certainly not perfect, the police by nature are suppose to enforce the law. The very purpose of their being. The claim that police cannot always help ignores the fact that no one can ever be somewhere in an emergency fast enough, and that the argument itself is a slippery slope to lawlessness. If police are never fast enough, why even have a police force? As for my claims, I showed with two cases (Fort Hood and Naval Yard) that if background checks (a form of gun control) went farther, those shootings could have been prevented. When a shooter is able to legally purchase a gun, even though he thought microwaves could talk to him, we have a serious issue here. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... R4: Source Issues For some weird reason, DDO coding is not giving my opponent the proper coding to see the sources. I'll repost them here: http://smartgunlaws.org... https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu... As for my Harvard Health source, it actually does link each study in a peer-reviwed journal showing without question causation links between gun crimes and relaxed gun control laws. The main reason behind it is simple: guns are emotionally empowering. When guns are used in a “self defence” claim, the Harvard Journals pointed out that most folks used them ended up escalating violence instead of stopping it. Worse yet, it almost always was done illegally in the first place. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Even in cases where one claims self defence, how do we know? No one actually wants to go to jail (unless they do not care of consequences) ergo we must look ourselves with an objective eye. What we see...isn't good. Its rather frightening. Furthermore, my opponent claims it only shows higher rates of suicide. That isn't true. It clearly shows higher rates of both suicide and homicide. Otherwise, here is another study proving my point further: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu... R5: CasesHere my opponent conceeds that if background checks (a form of gun regulation) were to have been furthered, both the Fort Hood Shooting and Naval Yard Shooting would have been prevented. In fact, he almost furthers my case: Hasan had people investigating him, same with Alexis. The failure of the military and FBI to deem them unfit for weapons carry results in them gaining and utilizing their arms. Other factors were an issue here (personal psychology) however, in both cases, both were displaying troubling behaviour, which caught attention, and no one decided to act on it. This argument highlights why gun control needs to go further. They both had guns, and should not have been able to aquire them, and if they were unable to have posessed those weapons in the first place, the crisis could have been averted. Worse yet, personally, I cannot think of a more bold move than having a shooting right where the military is. Literally, the most armed group one can find. If the logic of my opponent was correct, this would never have happened, as the military is most heavily armed. It still happened regardless. In particularly bold fashion too for both cases. R6: CausationI just wanted to remind everyone reading his, that causation can be established through several methods when statistical significance is shown. If we were to roll dice over 100 times, we would have an equitable distribution among numbers, meaning no statistical significance is shown (its falling where its suppose to with chance). If thew dice were loaded, then statistical significance would appear, thus showing something is up with the data, the distribution isn't being hit, and thus we have to examine the dice. My Harvard studies show statistical significance with gun control. Its pretty clear: less guns, less crime. http://en.wikipedia.org... Meta analysis on the issue: http://jonathanstray.com...; And for your comedic pleasure. Please enjoy this (funny) comedian take on gun control. Cheers guys! (source: ) Over to my opponent

My opponent seems to be misunderstanding my argument. He states it is bizarre, but it is quite sound. I apologize if I have phrased it in such a way as for it to be difficult to understand well. You see, my argument is that banning guns does NOT take them off the street. If you could simply remove every gun from the streets, that would decrease murder rates and possibly other crime also, but since there are so many guns in circulation already, along with the huge numbers of illegally manufactured or illegal guns, banning them legally will not, even under ideal circumstances, remove all of them. It will merely disarm the law abiding, and prevent them from being to defend themselves or deter crime with their presence. Statistics show that criminals are more frightened of running into an armed civilian than an armed police officer[1], and the reason is simple. An armed citizen will be more likely to try and kill the criminal. Versus a police officer, where they will try to take the criminal alive. Crime Rates: While my opponent's argument reasonably holds up in theory, in practice, such actions have always increased crime. In fact, not a single academic study has found a single case in which gun control in any form has been imposed, and crime rates have dropped.[2] In every single case, crime rates have gone up. Chicago, DC, England, Mexico, the list is endless. While my opponent may point to instances where there are strict gun laws and low gun crime, he ignores the fact that the rates of crime were even lower before the ban.[3] Regardless of how low the number of crimes is after the ban, it was in every case, lower still before the law was put into place. An even stronger example of this is how when Washington DC lifted one of its extremely strict gun laws, crime decreased. My opponent states that I have ignored Canada, but to address that, it has less gang related violence, and cultural issues have a part also in crime. But still, as with all cases, crime has increased in canada following its strict regulation. As for suicide, I believe that it is a person's right to end their own life if they so choose. Sitting duck argument: Yes, I was mistaken. I misread my opponent's argument and was led to believe that he stated that most crimes are committed with legal guns. And yes, if that was the case, my opponent's argument would beat mine. But the majority of guns used in crime are either illegally manufactured or imported, or stolen.[4] And I know my opponent will say that stolen guns would not exist because they were legal prior to the suggested ban. But with so many guns out there, it is impossible to collect every gun. Also, even if there are no guns to steal, this drives the substitution effect, which is a phenomenon which would increase the market for illegally imported or manufactured guns, until the black market has achieved its original size.[5] (Also, my opponent states that I have used a biased source, but it is likely less so than an anti-gun website for my opponent's fourth source) The criminals will not turn them in, so they will be the only ones armed. This puts criminals at the advantage, and crime increases. Criminals only following certain laws: Your psychology argument is valid and reasonable, and yes, you are correct, I should have provided you with a source for mine. But you see, I have actually personally met a felon convicted of robbery and he told me that many of his fellow inmates confirm this argument. I cannot give you a written source, but I did get my information from a first-hand person who experiences these things. Self Defense: Many instances of self defense with guns are instances in which the victim used a gun to defend from a knife, a bat, other blunt objects, or fists.[6] These are potentially lethal weapons, but are not very effective at self-defense. Without the gun that the victim had, many innocent people would die. The majority of these crimes are not committed with guns, but the ones that are, almost always take place with an illegal gun. And again, although my opponent is correct in theory, in England, for example, we banned handgun ownership, and heavily regulated long gun ownership, (effectively a ban), and gun crime went up 35%.[7] My opponent's argument clearly does not hold up in practice. Guns vs. Drugs Again, my opponent claims that most guns used in crimes begin legally. But that is the case in many countries. Then, guns were banned, and even without legal, registered guns, crime still went up.[8] On an unrelated note, hunting animals is much less cruel than killing them in a slaughterhouse. Police officers: My argument about illegal gun markets shifting to accommodate a lack of guns to steal holds here too, and my argument is not about police officers' need for guns. It is a demonstration of the need for guns for self defense. Say a police officer was attacked with a knife or another weapon. What would he do? He'd reach for his gun. Because guns are an effective tool for self defense. Although yes, most police are killed by guns, that is a risk that exists in their work. They deal with criminals and their illegal guns. Mass shootings: Shooters routinely plan these attacks well in advance.[9] Such a window of time allows sufficient time to obtain an illegal gun, as was used in columbine, and a few other mass shootings.[10] So the characteristic that the most mass shootings share, is that virtually all of them take place in gun free zones.[11] These are places where citizens are not allowed to carry concealed handguns, and criminals avoid these places. If we allowed guns to be carried in more places, it has been proven to deter criminals.[12] Lastly, an example. Say someone wanted to commit a horrible mass shooting. Guns are banned, so he decides to go get one off the black market, which has grown to import and manufacture illegal guns. He goes to some crowded place, and everywhere is now a gun free zone. He starts shooting. What would you like to see happen? There is only one way to stop him. An armed civilian. Sources: 1. The Armed Criminal in America: A survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice 2. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 3. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 4. BATF, 1999 5. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 6. BATF, 1998 7. The Guardian, Oct. 5, 2003 8. The Guardian, Oct. 5, 2003 9.http://journalistsresource.org...# 10. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 11. http://www.cabinet.com... (this one is very informative) 12. http://www.cabinet.com...


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Legislation Be Implemented?

Gun Control Measures are Ineffective
In response to your points, I will address them to show why gun control measures are often ineffective. The relevance of an economics professor's views on gun control is questionable, but the principle of evaluating policies based on outcomes rather than intentions remains pertinent. Gun control advocates often overlook historical evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Consider Venezuela, a country with a total gun ban that still ranks first on the international crime index. Additionally, mass shootings predominantly occur in "gun-free zones," and Australia experienced a significant increase in gun crime following its gun ban. In 1987, Canada's prohibition on handguns for self-defense led to a 25% rise in breaking and entering crimes. Furthermore, the U.S. government has found no substantial evidence that gun laws effectively reduce crime.
Your suggestion of a world without guns is unrealistic, as criminals would simply find alternative weapons. A 1995 study by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that people defend themselves with guns 2.5 million times a year, or once every 13 seconds. While increasing police presence may seem like a viable solution, it is not always practical. In fact, arming citizens can lead to a decrease in crime, as demonstrated in Kennesaw, Georgia, where a mandatory gun ownership law resulted in an 89% drop in residential burglaries.
Your argument that guns play a significant role in deaths is flawed. The same could be said about other objects that contribute to harm, such as spoons and obesity. The effectiveness of gun control measures should be evaluated based on empirical evidence, not emotional appeals or hypothetical scenarios. How do you reconcile the fact that most mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones," criminals are more concerned about armed victims than the police, and mandatory gun ownership has led to lower crime rates? I await your response.

An individual right to bear arms can be interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to bear arms of some kind, but not necessarily every kind. Most would see bazookas as a class of arms that should not be widely held. But, this does not limit the right of individuals to bear other arms. Similarly, banning handguns will not limit the ability of individuals to bear a rifle or shotgun. Therefore, a ban on handguns only limits the right to bear arms, but does not seriously impair it.

Assault weapons are used to kill a greater number of people

A strong majority of DC residence support the DC handgun ban.

I agree. But most of the time the "punisher" does not know how to control himself so we have to keep the law in place. Majority rules. Also if corporal punishment were to be altered to not hurt a child, it would not be called corporal punishmen. It has no relation to why you should have corporal punishment the debate topic that we are discussing

The use of guns and violence is not a necessity, but a symptom of inequality and a culture of resolving conflict through violence. Arms and violence are a disturbing symptom of socio-political power used by a segment of the population (some white male citizens) to subordinate Native Americans and African-Americans, or to sustain class and gender divisions.

Tighter security controls at airports and borders will help prevent attacks and loss of life.

Legal scholar acknowledge that the individual right of keeping arms can be limited for the safety of the community.This limitation occurs through regulating the possession, use and tracing of guns within society.

The handgun ban is ineffective at stopping handguns homicides

It is true that American history is filled with violence and bias towards ethnic minorities. However, the path to resolving this issue is to ensure every individual, regardless of class, race, or gender, has the right to bear arms, not to restrict that right to a militia.

Assault weapons are military caliber weapons not suited for home protection purposes


Question: Should Stricter Gun Control Regulations Be Implemented?

The existing regulations that classify firearms as unlawful are crucial; that's why they're referred to as "illegal guns." Without stringent enforcement, these prohibited weapons fall into the wrong hands, facilitating the occurrence of tragic incidents. What's required is not just more gun control legislation, but a robust enforcement mechanism to prevent such tragedies. These regulations are essential in a world without gun control, where obtaining firearms would be effortless for everyone, regardless of their intentions—be they hunters or criminals. So, why advocate for the absence of gun control laws?

Critiquing your stance, you argue that the implementation of gun control laws correlates with an increase in violence, but you neglect to explain why. My evidence, however, elucidates the reason behind the rise in gun violence—it's poverty. My statistics directly counter your claims, establishing a clear link. Regarding your conclusion: Your assertion that poverty has no bearing on gun violence has been refuted by my statistics and your own admission. Poverty is a primary driver of gun violence, a key rationale for gun control laws. As for your second point, consider empirical evidence from countries like England, which has stringent gun control measures and a significantly lower per capita gun violence rate. Also, reference Canada's 1977 gun control laws, which have resulted in a markedly reduced gun violence rate. On your third point, you've failed to substantiate why a lack of gun control leads to reduced gun violence, as your arguments lack the explanatory "why." The claim that more armed citizens deter gun violence is misleading. Examine the cases of Canada and England for a reality check. Therefore, voters should not be swayed by logical fallacies but should consider the empirical evidence I've presented.

First, my opponent proposes that along with conventional gun control, we ban 3d printers. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of extreme authoritarianism. 3D Printing is a developing technology that is sure to be used widely by civilians in the future, for countless purposes other than guns. I mean, what my opponent proposes is basically equivalent to banning typewriters in the late 19th or early 20th century, or banning fax machines when they first came out, or the internet in the mid 90s. It's ludicrous and tyrannical. Besides, there's still the possibility that somebody could simply make their own 3D Printer, considering that blueprints for the technology is probably available by now on the internet. Of course, gun control would definitely reduce the number of guns available to civilians. But then you'd have repeats of the 2011 Utoya Massacre, where 67 people were killed by gunfire. That's what one wolf let loose among a flock of sheep can accomplish; the shepherd is not constantly present. Imagine a large indoor event where there's no armed security, everyone's disarmed, a shooter enters, and he's prevented the doors from opening. Everyone there would be at the mercy of the shooter, and he could kill everyone there. Simply put, a few criminals with guns would have their destructive capabilities vastly increased, with no chance of a civilian stopping them. In fact, considering that the number of illegal guns out there would be sky high, the number of deaths prevented would probably be offset by the number of deaths caused. Next, the purpose of guns. My opponent claims that the original purpose of civilian handguns is for killing. Absolutely; that's why it clearly reads "Go shoot your neighbor" on the box one's gun comes in. Even in the good ole' days (that is, centuries in modern American history prior to 1900), the primary purposes for guns would've been to hunt animals (seeing as how wild animals were a legitimate food source back then) and protecting one's self and one's family from hostiles, be it outlaws or attacking Indians. There are different kinds of guns, used for different purposes. Currently available civilian guns are not intended for killing human beings, though they certainly have the power to accomplish this. Also, if original intent was what mattered, then pacifists everywhere should shun the internet as a tool of the military-industrial complex. Finally, my opponent addresses Government corruption. The reason that it is such a matter of concern is that it's permanent. Seeing as how the vast majority of Americans believe in Evolution, I'll use Evolution as my analogy. According to the theory of Evolution, Species A, which is extremely primitive but able to reproduce, appears. There have been countless "attempts" by nature before this to create lasting life, but this one "sticks" for billions of years because it meets the requirements needed to survive indefinitely (that is, this life form's descendants). Only a global extinction event that could make Earth like Mars could end life after it "sticks". In this same manner, a Government that is able to assert total control over its populace will "stick" (that is, remain in power) indefinitely, for billions of years and possibly until the end of time itself. It would be, in every sense of the word, permanent; only some significant external factor could end it. That's why Authoritarianism in a technologically advanced era is exceptionally dangerous. That is why it must be prevented at all costs. The best way to accomplish this is to ensure that there is not a power imbalance between the capabilities of the populace and the Government. My opponent has stated that it (the Government's sufficiently detract corruption) won't happen; maybe in the short term it won't. But over the course of millennia, eventually it will. And when it does, you can be sure that it will "stick" forever if there's a major power imbalance when this occurs. Before I end this, I'd like to note one more thing. A sufficiently moral populace will mean a "good" majority that will be able to keep the bad apple members of the populace in check. An armed populace enforces justice; a good majority will be protected by its power which it has through weaponry. A bad majority will destroy itself, and rightfully so. Done.

Since you are so much for gun control lets see if you can argue it with a 14 year old

In my opinion I am for gun control. First of all I don't care if your black, white, Yellow, or orange. If somebody wishes to own a gun they should be allowed to. A backround check should be checked first though. Many kids lately have been caught with weapons such as guns. I am not trying to be racist but every night when I turn on my tv to watch the news there is always somebody being shot, or stabbed, or robbed. But there is one thing in all of these murders that has one thing in common. They are mostly black people. Either getting shot and killed or being the shooter. I have said this before I am not trying to be racist. I think that I including black people or whatever race you are you should be allowed to have possesion of a firearm. Although when using your firearm you must use it for only good matters. Not for killing somebody unless you really are in danger.

If there were a better system, criminals wouldn't be able to access guns. How come in the UK, mass shootings are rare? Because they have good gun control, but if you talk about America for example, there's total chaos because people are too "free", they will carry their bible and their shotgun and their confederate flag. Moreover, "they don't do background check on criminals?" They should, and in most cases (the USA yet fails again) people get asked for their criminal records, hell you even need one to apply for a job. Guess you're the one debunked.

Alright, given that this is the last round, I'd like to sincerely thank (not to my other thank yous weren't sincere) my opponent for engaging with me on this debate. I really do appreciate his arguments, even if I fervently disagree with them. with that, I'll launch into some crystallization, which will include rebuttals of my opponent's arguments from last round. If you'll recall from the start of this debate, there were three basic reasons why I believe that the gun control measures I've espoused will be beneficial. The first of these was accidental shootings. Con provides some argumentation on this, but in each case, he's just said that the onus should be elsewhere. I've explained why this is unimportant to the debate, and why these measures would reduce the amount of accidental shootings (and therefore injuries and deaths) regardless of where the onus is placed. As he has provided no additional arguments here, every single one of those shootings is a reason to vote for my side. The second was suicide. As soon as Con admits that "Suicide is wrong," this should be an easy place to vote Pro, especially since, in R3, he admitted that guns do increase suicide rates. That's tens of thousands of people a year dying unnecessarily. He argues that a mass murderer committing suicide is beneficial, but never provides any reason to believe that even one of these cases of suicide would otherwise become a mass murderer. These suicide cases are almost all innocent of any crime, and their deaths are tragedies that weigh heavily on their families and friends, plain and simple. He says that an individual can survive a bullet and that knives are still pretty easy to kill yourself with. I've already made all of the arguments I'm going to make here, but just to summarize, I've shown that killing oneself with a knife is significantly more difficult and time consuming, allowing ease of intervention and higher survival rates than those with guns. The fact that one can survive a bullet doesn't make it less deadly. The third was homicide. I went over mass shootings, individual homicides, criminals brandishing guns to commit their crimes more easily, and murders in the home of women and children. None of these were specifically refuted by Con. In fact, the most Con manages to do is provide some mitigating reasons why some criminals will be able to acquire guns. He provided an assertion of their effects in deterrence that I've proven false, and has repeatedly argued that other weapons are just going to be used instead. Since he's no longer arguing them in this round, he apparently concedes that knives, hammers and cars are very different monsters, the former two found extremely lacking in deadliness, and the latter being massively regulated in ways that guns are most certainly not. The only thing he continues to argue here are that bombs will be used. I've already put out a number of rebuttals to this regarding the difficulties in manufacturing, transport, and detonation of the bomb, how they're less safe to utilize, that they're already banned, and that those seeking to make them will be tracked closely. I've also argued that just because people are likely to defy the law doesn't make the law unimportant, and in this case, I think that comes across easily. Just because some people are likely to acquire bombs doesn't mean we want to make it easy or legal for them to do so. But he argues this further, bringing it back to the realm of terrorism. Again, as I stated earlier, I don't have to argue that my policy ideas are capable of preventing terrorism, something that will remain just as potent following implementation as before. Terrorists have tried detonating bombs (though I'm not sure which situation he's referring to in 2010), though I'm not aware of terrorists attacking the Sochi Olympic games, nor am I aware of terrorists distributing their bombs to random people in this country who would otherwise go out and shoot people. I'd say that even if that's the case, the benefit is that those bombs are being removed from an organized group and given to people who are unlikely to use them successfully. That's a net win. Those are the three main points, and I think it's pretty obvious that and how I am winning them. But several more have come up over the course of this debate. Recall my points about the ability of assault and semi-automatic rifles to distribute death. The best response Con comes up with is that handguns are good at killing too. I think I've proven that handguns are ineffective by comparison, and that I'm still at least partially solving for handguns with registries and universal background checks, both of which remain mostly untouched by Con. And speaking of those two pieces, Con has completely dropped my point throughout these rounds that these will allow us to track down gun traffickers, effectively cutting off any sort of back-alley system for criminals to acquire their guns. He hasn't argued in the slightest that registries will encourage individuals to keep their guns more responsibly, reducing theft and accidental shootings. So there's a lot going to for my side in this debate. How about for Con's side? Well, he's got rights. He hasn't argued specifically how rights are denied by the laws I'm suggesting, nor how these perceived violations are harmful. He hasn't stated why these expansions of gun control demonstrably reduce rights from their current position, given that background checks currently exist and there are many other gun control measures already in place on a federal level. I've already made it clear that the Second Amendment doesn't afford the rights he thinks it does, how the USSC has stated that it isn't inalienable, and how his own argument seems supportive of certain measures. He inserts a new argument in this round, stating that: "People wont obey the laws and they wont listen they would either try to assisnate the person incharge of gun control." Several responses. One, it's not one person who's in charge of gun control. These would be laws passed by the legislature, signed into law by the president, and enforced by the ATF and FBI. That's an awful lot of people to assassinate! Two, they'll have a much harder time doing this if they have a criminal background, since they won't be able to buy a gun following its implementation. Three, I highly doubt this would happen. As I mentioned earlier, there is currently gun control in our laws. Why is this specific increase going to suddenly force people over the edge into a murderous rampage? All he leaves us with is that crime will still exist. I admit, I'm not ending crime with this policy. That would be a great thing to claim, but it's impossible. The fact that I cannot control for all of crime doesn't make my argument net harmful. Con asserts that crime rates will go up, but never warrants or sources that argument. It's simply not true. So, that's a rather long summary, but that's what happens in 5 rounds of debate. I think it's simple to see that voters should side with Pro given these arguments, especially as I appear to have persuaded my opponent as well! I look forward to his concluding arguments, and leave the rest to him.

Some people in this world believe we should ban guns from the streets and from honest people who don't use them to do harm. I saw this is a load of crap, i mean its not like banning guns is gonna make all the criminals give up there guns. And besides its not like they got them legally anyway. Taking away guns would just endanger more people because they wouldn't have a way to protect themselves and fight back.

Alright. I'm going to go point by point down my opponents statements. First my opponent points out the fallacy between linking gun control and rates of homicides in the United States. To some extent I agree with him, however it is obvious that if we didn't have guns we would have a lower rate of homicide with them also. Furthermore my opponent goes on to conjecture, "I would attribute the higher rates of homicide to largely flaws in our legal / prison system / police state, which serve to worsen conditions for criminals instead of correcting them in any way" I find myself in accordance with my opponent here however I can not deny that the availability to weapons has helped these criminals. Next my opponent states that school shootings don't happen with full Autos however I would challenge my opponent to back up this claim or prove beyond a doubt that school shooting have occurred with only small scale handguns. Anything but this would be superfluous and should be illegal under my arguments. Secondly my opponent goes on to tell me that full autos are illegal in the U.S yet this isn't entirely true. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited importation of non-sporting weapons from other countries. It also prohibited registry of most automatic firearms after that point. The The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 on the other handed restricted some semi-auto weapons and banned the production of the machine gun. This however still allows for the sub-machine gun, assault and auto rifles, and machine pistols. My opponent also makes it seem as if fully-automatic guns are nearly impossible to register however a quick glance at wikipedia reveals that nearly 175,000 have been licensed to date in the U.S. This does not account of unlicensed guns. By the way here is an entertaining link to 72 articles on the AK-47. A quick glance over the list shows at least a few of them to be shootings. http://topics.cnn.com... The third story about the mall shooting 2 months ago should be observed. Next my opponent argues that making guns illegal will only cause them to go underground. I partially agree with this statement however at the same time it still does make it harder to people to come across these guns. The amount of work required to attain an illegal gun is substantially more than that required to buy the gun or grab your dads gun (if you are a school child). My opponent goes on to state that a person who is compelled to commit mass murder isn't going to change their mind because a mass murder gun is illegal. So here I must state that any mass murderer would want a full auto machine gun as it would be one of those effective guns in doing such a task. However the fact that the machine gun is illegal within the United States has prevented this from happening. My opponent spreads some light on this issue when he argues that school shootings do not happen with full autos. School shootings typically happen with the easiest weapon to come by. My opponents third point is that a person walking into a classroom with a hand gun vs. a full automatic will do just as much damage. This is simply not true, a person walking in with a handgun will be 1. Forced to reload 2. Forced to actually aim and 3. Forced to take more time between each shot. These factors allow for nearby people to attack said person. If my opponent would like we could expand this idea to a school cafeteria, the larger scale shows the benefits of full auto over handgun. Fourth: In the odd even we as a people face tyrannical oppression I doubt guns will do anything to protects us from what the government has. Either way unless you can prove tyrannical oppression will be happening on this scale the point is moot. Next my opponent goes on to argue proactive vs reactive. I care little for such an argument, I am simply arguing preventive. My argument takes the guns off the street which lowers the chance of them falling into the hands, legally or illegally, of criminals. From here he argues that students should be allowed to carry guns. This is a bad idea, to have the gun there simply promotes the idea of violence. As I said earlier if a school shooting like this did break out it would simply result in chaos. Next my opponent argues once again that we need weapons in order to fight the government should it repress us. I would simply like to offer alternative versions such as peaceful diplomatic democratic discussions. Finally my opponent finishes his speech by attacking my school cafeteria chaos point. He does so on two levels. A. He questions why anybody would start a shooting if they knew everyone was going to shoot them back. My answer is simple, because at the point when someone walks into a school intending to shoot many people they have already given up their will to live. This can be seen through the AK-47 link above and many other incidents where the criminal commmited seucide afterwards. B. My opponent states, "Historically, similar situations have occurred on numerous occasions. Think about the exact same scenario playing out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries if a person walked into a bar full of people carrying a gun intending to kill many or all of the people in there. Do you think they'd all panicked and kill each other?" This is his downfall and an example the clearly proves my case. As I recall from many old westerns such shootings resulted constantly in anywhere from 1 to 10 people dieing. It was incidents like this that started the whole "gun control" idea in the first place. The fact that we don't have these incidents any more simply proves my point. The fact that it is now illegal to carry guns like that has prevented many needless homicides. In summary my opponent advocates for a proactive stance on this issue; everyone should have guns to preempt other people. However my opponent never answers my argument stating that it is impossible to preempt someone who pulls a gun on you. I on the other hand advocate prevention, my case stops the gun crimes before they ever happen by making the guns more and more difficult to come by. Examples of this are the western scenario my opponent offered or the lack of school shootings involving full auto machine guns. I do not advocate the complete restriction of guns I simply advocate all guns above the common handgun and hunting rifles should have stricter control laws. Thank you.

This is Round 2. Good luck! :) It is true that if someone came up to a school with a semi-automatic, the school would probably be notified and a lock down would be held. However, holding a lock down does not necessarily mean that the school has a high enough advantage to prevent the shooting. This was grimly shown in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, when Adam Lanza, armed with three semi-automatic firearms, killed twenty first-grade students, four teachers, the school principal, and the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary. He killed his mother earlier and himself when the police arrived, bringing the total death count to 28. Also, why would a totalitarian government arise from our own? A president could become corrupt, but without the approval of the Congress, he would not have any tyrannical power. Besides, a dictatorship rising from a democratic first-world country would obviously attract attention from other countries. Third, the military and government already have much more advanced guns than citizens. The military had access to machine guns the 20th Century, and citizens still don't have access to fully automatic rifles. The government will most likely always have more advanced weaponry than the citizenry. Finally, most adults (Even most gun owners) agree that there should be extensive background checks for private gun sales. 40% of gun sales are private party gun sales that do not require background checks: Someone who is mentally ill or has a criminal record (Even a felon) could get ahold of a gun. 90% of gun owners approve of laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. 79% of gun owners also approve of background checks for private party gun sales.

Okay, let us start with why the 2nd amendment exists. It was made to make sure that the Citizenry will be able to keep control in the event that a Tyrannical Government came into power either through a coup d'etat of the "state" or foreign invasion. In an expanded interpretation this can include defence of private property such as fending off a robbery. Here's the problem and this will serve as my argument for this round. According to FBI, more people are called with blunt objects and human hands than by Guns. Should we abolish blunt objections, how about hand to hand combat? If there are things that contribute to mass scale deaths such as smoking, drunk driving and let smoking isn't illegal, cars aren't illegal and why because as with everything that is illegal, the black market will take over and going forward you'll end up with an internal war with gangs and other black market members. Also what about Police officers and Law abiding citizens? Should we disarm police? How will we keep order? Also, why should I a law abiding citizen lose my gun rights? You see basically the argument is this. P1. The issue of shooting crime is not enrooted in Guns P2. Gun Control will make the situation worse Com. Therefore Guns should not be abolished.

I agree to terms. Gun Control: "Gun control generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms." Firearms: "a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun" For me, what is particularly interesting about this debate, is the fact that I too am American, but have been living in Canada for years. Its strikingly odd to me the American obsession with guns. None-the-less, I acknowledge that this debate shall be in the US only, and hereby look forward to the views of my opponent. Its a strikingly odd claim to claim that it works everywhere else, but not in the US. Either way, this is going to be fun. I further want the audience to note sources here. Lots of bad evidence, I have no doubt, tend to be used in debates like this, so audience please be objective as much as possible. Good luck, and let's do this!