Instigator / Pro
7
1604
rating
19
debates
71.05%
won
Topic

Gun control is necessary for a functioning society

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Novice
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
4
1471
rating
8
debates
25.0%
won
Description
~ 164 / 5,000

Gun control will be defined as the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians.

Round 1
Pro
FRAMEWORK
  • Gun Control: as per the description "gun control" will be defined as the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians [1].
  • Necessary: required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential [oxford languages].
  • Functioning: work or operate in a proper or particular way [oxford languages].

OVRV1
  • As Britannica states: “'Gun control' refers to any legal measure intended to prevent or restrict the possession or use of guns, particularly firearms. (In a broader historical sense, the term also refers to legal limits on the possession or use of other arms, including those that predate the invention of gunpowder.) In most developed countries, gun control is strict and uncontroversial. In others it is a fraught political issue, pitting those who regard it as necessary for public safety against those who view it as a dangerous infringement of personal liberty" [2].

  • First, let's establish what makes a society function. Society needs ORDER to protect people and maintain organization to prevent the rapid spiral of chaos. Society needs laws that ensure the most equitable protection of individuals.
  • Society needs to have special protections for children, the youth, and the foundation of it. This includes protecting them from themselves and their undeveloped irrational nature.
  • My argument today is NOT that society needs to regulate every single aspect of guns or even ban them. I simply believe that SOME gun control is necessary for society to function, and I think everyone should agree with this, especially our voters. 

AGE RESTRICTIONS
  • As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives states, under the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 in the United States "shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 21 years of age or older" [3]. 
  • I believe age restrictions are a necessary gun control policy for a functioning society. Even if you don't agree with the age of 18, there should be a required age for one to be able to purchase a gun. 
  • The reason for this is children aren't mature and they are rationally underdeveloped [4]. We don't and SHOULD NOT treat them as if they are capable of making proper decisions. 
  • If every child is allowed to purchase and hold guns this would lead to significantly more shootings; shootings of parents, school shootings, etc. This harms society by causing more preventable deaths leading to suffering that can be prevented in an ethical way. 

BACKGROUND CHECKS
  • A 2019 study by Boston University and Harvard University medical researchers found that U.S. states with universal background checks for all gun sales had homicide rates 15% lower than states without such laws over a 26-year period [5].
  • According to EVERYTOWN: "Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever a person attempts to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer" [6].
  • Background checks are necessary for a functioning society because they literally prevent criminals; people with histories of violence from acquiring guns that they will potentially use to kill, rob, etc. And as shown above, background checks lead to lower homicide rates. 

CONCLUSION
  • My case is that it is important to keep guns out of the hands of people like children who are underdeveloped and irrational, and criminals who will use them to harm and kill people. This reduces unnecessary suffering placed on society that is ethically preventable. I have given two policies that I believe achieve this. Over to CON.

SOURCES
  1. https://libguides.cccneb.edu/gunlaws#:~:text=Gun%20control%20is%20the%20set,use%20of%20firearms%20by%20civilians.
  2. https://www.britannica.com/story/gun-control-in-the-us
  3. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee
  4. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?
  5. https://abcnews.go.com/US/background-checks-curb-gun-violence/story?
  6. https://everytownresearch.org/solution/background-checks/

Con
Let me start by saying that a gun is just a metal husk. A gun has no mind, no soul, no emotions, no thoughts, no heart, no sentience, etc. A gun also needs to be loaded with ammunition. Guns also do not tell men who wield them to "kill innocents", a gun is just a tool, and it can shoot projectiles that can be deadly. 

So from my first statement, my problem with gun control is that it won't stop criminals from using other weapons to kill. Criminals can also use other weapons such as:

* knives
* poison
* fists
* hammers
* baseball bats
* etc.

In fact, in the UK(where guns are banned) criminals have become so smart that they now use obsolete/antique guns to commit their crimes: https://theconversation.com/criminals-are-using-antique-weapons-due-to-a-loophole-in-uk-law-102666

So the first problem with gun control is that it will certainly not prevent criminals from using other weapons to commit crimes or buy guns illegally. 

So what will prevent crime? Well of course, more police force/crime control, giving doctors the ability to detect mental illnesses, etc.

2. States with more guns and more permissive gun laws tend to have low crime rate. For example:



So why is this the case? Well the answer is just common sense - The good guys who buy guns legally can just shoot up the criminals/bad guys and save the day.

other sources:



Round 2
Pro
FRAMEWORK
  • CON does not object to or address anything within the framework so it must be concluded that CON accepts my framework. 
  • Therefore the framework is agreed upon. Restating the main definition for the benefit of readers: 
    • Gun Control: as per the description "gun control" will be defined as the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians [1].

OVRV2
  • CON's entire first round is completely irrelevant to the debate. 
  • The resolution is that gun control is necessary for a functioning society, and I have provided two gun control policies I believe are necessary 

AGE RESTRICTIONS 
  • Extend. CON does not object to or even address this argument.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
  • Extend. CON does not object to or even address this argument.

REBUTTALS
from my first statement, my problem with gun control is that it won't stop criminals from using other weapons to kill. 
  • This is true if someone is determined enough they can kill people through other means but gun control measures such as age restrictions, and background checks instill harm reduction by preventing them from doing INCREASED harm. 
  • A person may get a gun a shoot up a school for example, but if they are prevented from acquiring one they may enter a school with a knife and be easily taken down, or even be deterred from shooting in a school because the means of large scale destruction aren't accessible to them. 
In fact, in the UK(where guns are banned) criminals have become so smart that they now use obsolete/antique guns to commit their crimes:
  • It's much better than giving them free access to murderous weapons freely. You ADMIT yourself that these weapons are OBSOLETE. This shows that law enforcement is BETTER equipped to fight criminals who don't have advanced weapons.
States with more guns and more permissive gun laws tend to have low crime rates. 
  • Your sources don't support this argument. You show a map for "Gun Owndership By State, but just because more people own guns in a state does not mean it has more permissive gun laws.
III
  • In addition to both age restrictions and background checks, I essentially argue that really anything established by the United States Gun Control Act of 1968 is necessary for a functioning society. 
      • "After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over "destructive devices," including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices" [1]. 
  • These policies are necessary for a functioning society because as states society needs order and special protections for children to work in a way that causes the least ethically preventable suffering. 
  • CON argues that "States with more guns and more permissive gun laws tend to have low crime rate" but CON does CON seem to disagree with either age restrictions or any of the policies in the Gun control Act because EVERY STATE in the two maps he presents has these policies in place. They are of course subordinate to these federal acts and mandates. 

  • Ultimately gun control is necessary for every society. Even if guns should not be totally banned there needs to be some policies that regulate their sale and accessibility such as licensing.
  • It makes an almost completely irrelevant argument CON does not disprove the resolution. 

SOURCES
  1. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act

Con


you: "from my first statement, my problem with gun control is that it won't stop criminals from using other weapons to kill. 
  • This is true if someone is determined enough they can kill people through other means but gun control measures such as age restrictions, and background checks instill harm reduction by preventing them from doing INCREASED harm. "
 I agree that you must be 18 for a shotgun/rifle and 21 for a handgun. However, as I said previously a gun should not be faulted for the mental illness of a person. After all, a gun is not alive or sentient. So how do we prevent irrational children from even happening in the first place? Well here are my solutions:

>  promote Judeo-Christian values
> support the traditional/nuclear family structure
> have armed guards to scare off a potential shooter
> promote people who do the right thing
> fund the police
> ban/regulate street drugs
> etc.

you: "A person may get a gun a shoot up a school for example, but if they are prevented from acquiring one they may enter a school with a knife and be easily taken down, or even be deterred from shooting in a school because the means of large scale destruction aren't accessible to them. "

My response: You know that criminals can also craft bombs that they will use to kill people at areas right? The Oklahoma city bombing killed about 168 people. 

according to this graph from the fbi: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-link/2018-crime-statistics-released murder only makes up about 1.3% of all the crime that year

You: "It's much better than giving them free access to murderous weapons freely. You ADMIT yourself that these weapons are OBSOLETE. This shows that law enforcement is BETTER equipped to fight criminals who don't have advanced weapons." 

My response: The police in the UK don't even use guns. An antique, obsolete gun can still kill people(especially when the police have no guns).  According to this map https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559 crime rates were already falling in the UK before they introduced a gun ban in 1997. After 1995, crime rates fell at a rapid rate but after the gun ban was introduced the crime rate fell at a much-much slower rate and even rose up at some moments.

I agree that there should be some background checks but there are some problems with them:

* Background checks are expensive
* Criminals can get guns in a black market(90% of all gun crimes are done with illegal guns)
* If a mental illness is not reported in any medical tests then background checks will not help


You: "Ultimately gun control is necessary for every society. Even if guns should not be totally banned there needs to be some policies that regulate their sale and accessibility such as licensing."
My response: Crime control is more necessary than gun control. If we can catch and stop criminals more easily, we can stop crime without gun control.