Instigator / Pro
Points: 35

SOLUTIONS to gun violence

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Debaticus
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 6
Description
It isn't night and day when it comes to preventing gun violence. You don't have to choose between a mass shooting a week when everyone has guns or nobody having guns and not being able to defend themselves.
Round 1
Published:
Happy first debate, curlyhairkid. 


My first solution is the most obvious one. Ban guns. Guns acquired legally are way too easy to steal, any gun can be dangerous, whether in good hands or not, and most big shootings happen with a stolen registered firearm. 

Each round, we will give our rebuttals for the previous argument, but con may not give a rebuttal for the last round for fairness.
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Another solution to gun violence would be strict controls, checking not only a persons criminal record, but their mental health, whether or not they have children, and their background. I have seen firsthand videos of little kids given free reign of assault rifles by entitled parents that forget about them seconds later.

Kids are a liability when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, surprisingly, as many school shootings in middle and high schools are by children who managed to obtain a gun. They cannot be trusted, even if conceal-carry owners can. That is justification enough as to why background checks should include children. 

A solution to keeping a gun if you have children: Everyone given a permit for a gun gets a specialized safe that can be installed in a wall with the price included with the gun. The safe can have a monitor that tells the owner:
1.) when the gun leaves the safe
2.) when the safe moves (In case it isn't installed yet)
This way, the gun is in full control of the owner, and children will be unable to take it and harm someone. 

I was thinking of giving my opponent another chance to refute the previous argument, but I already have once and I just want to keep moving.
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
Two debate in a row that ended in full forfeit. 

Guys, I'm trying to re-earn my voting privileges, I need an actual challenge to be able to win!

So, to the voters out there, this one's for you.

famous, classic and funniest limericks.
  1. A fellow jumped off a high wall,
    And had a most terrible fall.
    He went back to bed,
    With a bump on his head,
    That's why you don't jump off a wall.
  2. Limericks I cannot compose,
    With noxious smells in my nose.
    But this one was easy,
    I only felt queasy,
    Because I was sniffing my toes.
  3. There once was a man from Peru,
    Who had a lot of growing up to do.
    He'd ring a doorbell,
    then run like hell,
    Until the owner shot him with a .22
  4. There was an odd fellow named Gus,
    When travelling he made such a fuss.
    He was banned from the train,
    Not allowed on a plane,
    And now travels only by bus.
  5. There once was a farmer from Leeds,
    Who swallowed a packet of seeds.
    It soon came to pass,
    He was covered with grass,
    But has all the tomatoes he needs.

Forfeited
Added:
noooooo banning guns is NOT the answer
#14
Added:
--> @Alec
I just had PE and I'm exhausted so I'm gonna stop arguing with you and save my written rants for my contender. Your points are all valid though
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @Debaticus
During the time of a shooting, the doors will be locked, so the cops won't go in unless there is a shooter in there. The cops would be searching the halls for the shooter. The armed teachers in the meantime would be prepared to shoot if they hear gunshots at their classroom. Using your logic, we could make the guns the teachers have bright red. That's fine. The only teachers that would be armed are teachers that are fine with being armed. Many of these teachers probably train to shoot in at least some of their free time, so they probably could at least do some damage to a school shooter.
If the shooter aims to have their shooting during class time and there is a lockdown once a shooter is discovered, then it gives teachers time to arm themselves for protection. If the shooting is during transition times, then arming teachers won't work, but guards I guess could work for protection in the hallways. Guards are in the hallways and would be in a uniform to distinguish themselves from a shooter.
How would a GPS system shut down guns? a 12 year old probably can't get his father's gun because it is stored in a safe that is locked either with a combination or a lock and key. If they stole the safe, they couldn't access the gun.
A good way to prevent gun violence is to encourage good people who don't want to do harm to others to arm themselves. What I'm worried about with tracking guns is if the government knows who has guns and who doesn't, then the government could act tyrannical towards those who didn't arm themselves. Banning AK 47s and AK 15s are not a good idea because those guns defend against multiple criminals and a potentially tyrannical government.
#12
Added:
--> @Alec
(2/2)
Another solution is using GPS to shut down all firearms in proximity/visual range of possible targets. Shut them down in cities, shut them down within 2000 feet of schools. Make the system that shuts the gun down essential to the gun being able to fire in the first place, so it cant be removed. This method will prevent all school shootings if done right. There would still be shootings outside of schools, but an advanced tracking system can let police catch and prevent past and future criminals.
(Future criminals meaning, hypothetically, a 12 year old boy stole his dad's magnum to take revenge on the gang that jumped and killed his older brother by stabbing him to death. A notification is sent to the dad's phone, the dad reports that he didn't take the gun out of his safe, the gun is tracked, and police show up and arrest the boy before he shoots at a crowd of people with the gang members inside.)
The solution to gun violence isn't more guns. Take away weapons that can be used against crowds with ease, track and mark all guns, prepare for the worst and hope for the best, and prevent crimes before they happen.
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @Alec
(1/2)
Looking at the hypothetical, cops have a history of shooting before asking questions. Maybe not all cops do this, but there are certainly some itchy trigger fingers in the force. If a teacher panics even a little and starts shooting on site, they might shoot at a cop, which will cause a firefight between two people on the same side, which might lead to unnecessary injury. Having bright red guns that are tracked and acknowledged in a shooting will help cops determine who the shooter is by more than just body language. Also, I am curious, how many teachers would be armed?
For an example, we can use my school. there's a separate gym building, some portables in a cluster, and 6 pods. There are also classes along many of the in-between halls. There are roughly 2000 students all dispersed among these places at any given time. If the shooter times their attack when everyone is in class, there may be many undefended classrooms "ripe for the picking"
On the other hand, this could be entirely negated if the shooter learned the schedule and struck at lunch or between classes. The teachers would be in their classrooms, but the students would all be in the halls and outside.
Obviously, you can't arm every teacher, because only trained and trusted teachers can have a gun. Even if you had a dozen armed teachers, there are still some weak points that can't be defended.
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @Debaticus
As you can probably tell with my profile picture, I'm going to be biased.
To address the cons, I think the cop can tell the difference between a person with a machine gun using it to mow down kids that is probably in the hallway or close to that and a person who has a pistol/rifle, far away from the hallway, shooting on sight because during a real life lockdown for lack of better terms, the only one who would enter is the shooter.
Since the teacher is trained with a gun, I don't think they would miss with a rifle. Rifles are very accurate due to their spot. Teachers wishing to arm themselves probably could buy something to keep the rifle steady so they are even more accurate with it.
I don't think arming guards/police is the best way to reduce shootings because they are expensive and ineffective, although it's safer then having gun free zones. If there is a guard at one end of the school and there is a shooting at the other end of the school, by the time the guard gets there, some people would have already died. One thing good about arming teachers is the teacher is right there when the shooting happens. The guard has to get to where the shooter is and by the time he gets there, people are already dead.
I don't know why you want the guns to be red, but I don't care what they color they are as long as they do their job.
You advocate for special guns for teachers(ones with perks like fingerprinting, the police get called upon reloading the gun, and the gun is basically a taser). This would require the NRA to manufacture guns with similar features for teachers. I'm fine with this, but in order to satisfy the NRA for their hard work of manufacturing and inventing modified tasers, the government would have to promise the NRA a lot of money for these modified guns.
#9
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
There aren't two pro options, but I am not taking a right or left wing solution, instead I am arguing my own solution versus either option
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @Debaticus
So what is your debate position? You are "pro" solutions to gun violence? Who wouldn't be?
#7
Added:
I'm 100% in favor of brainstorming moderate solutions to gun violence. Brainstorming makes a good forum topic but a terrible debate subject. Good brainstorming evaluates even half-formed or stupid ideas for potential solutions. Good debates do the opposite- delegitimizing any ideas not already well supported.
#6
Added:
--> @Alec
In the name of solutions, let's consider how this might work.
Cons:
If seen, teachers could be shot by cops who mistakenly believe the teacher is the shooter
The teacher is the one to commit the shooting, and being armed and in school makes it so much easier for them.
The only thing safer than bullets going one way, (Through walls, ricochets, accidental hits) Is bullets going two ways.
Pros:
Adept teachers can quickly put down a shooter if they are able.
there are two armed cops at my school that could put down a shooter (and are redundant to have at least one defender in the event)
Jobs for veterans
Solutions: Armed teachers get bright red custom guns
Armed teachers' weapons are tracked and acknowleged in a shooting.
Guns can only be used by teachers. (Special code or fingerprint ID or something)
Guns can only be loaded by pressing a button that warns the police.
Guns are non-lethal and stun/disable/bind shooters instead of killing them.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @Debaticus
If you ban guns in schools, then shooters won't face retaliating gunshots when they are committing a mass shooting. As a result, school shootings become more common and more die in them if you ban guns in schools then if you arm teachers.
#4
Added:
I'm going to resist trolling this... however, I do suggest refining the resolution to have a more clear meaning.
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
Personally I think there might be a technological solution. Certain "safe spots" that shut guns down in areas near schools, guns that only work for the registered owners, guns that track when and how they are fired, but not where, and many more solutions.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Debaticus
Both the left and the right want to prevent mass shootings and to save lives. The left wants to ban AK 47s and AK 15s. The right wants to arm teachers.
#1
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
full flippin forfeit
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
POOR CONDUCT
Con has ff the majority of the rounds of the debate which is poor conduct
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture. ... Good luck if opening this challenge again for another contender.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
full forfeit