Obama's "gun-control" will not lower crime

CON: "Not all mentally ill people can easily work their way around background checks like Lanza did. Background checks are a massive roadblock for mentally deranged people trying to get a gun, and to point to one instance and assume thats how ALL mentally ill people operate when they try to get guns is ludicrous" PRO: I never used the word ALL. I understand that not EVERY mentally ill person is the same. I was just making a point that a lot of people don't use legally means of obtaining a firearm, including the mentally ill. And seeing as his actions sparked Obama to "do something" about guns in the first place. This event is and young children is the fuel to Obama's gun control fire. CON: They do that all the time because of how underfunded those agencies are. There are 270 million guns in a nation of 300 million people, and the government agency meant to handle gun control only has a staff of 5,000 people. Not to mention, this same agency also has to track tobacco and alcohol along with firearms. If a state agrees to increase funding for background checks and existing forms of gun control, then the government will help fund the agencies within the state that would carry out these tasks according to this Executive order, which will help reduce crime.Police officers cant run a full background check before returning a firearm because what the FBI considers to be enough information is only a fraction of what other state departments use when running background checks to begin with. Most background checks only include criminal history, not any information regarding mental health or drug abuse. PRO: It's obvious we are not on the same page here. I am just trying to make a point that there is no way to prevent everyone from "slipping through the cracks". And increasing the research, investigation, personnel, regulations, incentives to states, rights to break privacy, etc. all to somehow make the background heck system better, is a waste of money and a lost cause within itself. Seeing to as most criminals commit crimes with guns obtained in an illegal manner aka bypassing the background check system. http://www.pbs.org... Yet, I do agree with you on EO4 for pushing to shutdown gun dealers that are illegally selling guns. I also agree with your argument for EO6. But, the goal, it seems, Obama is trying to get to is make a universal and federally regulated background check system with no state lines or privacy acts hindering it. It will end up being a waste and it won't work. It will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com.... And I am also very much against taking more rights away from the states and giving more power to the federal government. http://www.nationalaffairs.com.... CON: Then how come a three year old can get past them? Seriously, are you researching the things you say at all or are your arguments driven by your own opinions and imagination? PRO: I understand COMPLETELY what you are taking about. But, that only pertains to cheap electronic gun safes because they suck. I have never owned one and nobody I know owns one. They are simply put, NOT reliable. Guns are very dangerous in the wrong hands and locking them up should be taken seriously. #1 It should be stored very high up, away from the reach of children #2 Electronic locks should never be used, i my opinion, combination locks or keyed locks are the best choice. I also see you point on EO11, but there is no proof that the push will work. And there is no proof hat it will reduce crime. We will just have to watch the crime rates and how they change. CON: Oh yeah sure because the shootings at Newton, Virginia Tech, and the Aurora movie theater went so well right?..... Again this is just your own opinion on how you think everything works rather then the reality of it all. Its straightforward logic to conclude that if police officers are better trained to handle a shooter situation, it will limit how much damage is done, and could even intimidate potential shooters into not going through with their plan. Hell an officer may be able to take out a shooter before he kills a sinle person, which counts as lowering crime. PRO: Just because the Police were not doing their job "up to par" in a few isolate events, you think EVERY Police Department needs special trainig for shooter situations? If some guy at my work destroys a Signal Converter for our Reactor Control System at my job, and they make EVERY person in the company go through some crazy training on it just because one idiot. EVERYONE was already trained on it. It is up to the person on how they apply their knowledge. And the SWAT team has every skill required for dealing with shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org... CON: And you know this for sure because.....? Seriously dude, stop assuming you know everything that will happen and give actual arguments and sources for your claims.... Theres no reason to assume that this will turn up nothing useful. PRO: And there is no reason to assume that it will turn up something useful. CON: You must have a really bad definition of what gun control is if you think that safeties and trigger locks is all the gun control you need... Gun control includes conceal carry laws, handgun bans, assault weapon bans, ect. that are enacted on state levels which certainly are worth looking into to see which ones are the most effective and which ones suck. PRO: EO15 does NOT say anything about "gun control". It talks about "gun safety technology" and to "develope innovative technologies". So, your argument is on false grounds and is uncalled for. CON: OH THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, WE KNOW THAT ALREADY. Look, 99% of the Pro's arguments are based on his own opinion of how HE would do things and how HE thinks everything works, but in reality the systems in place have a lot of problems, are underfunded, understaffed, and not up to code. These executive orders are meant to fix these issues, which in turn will lower crime. Its as simple as that. PRO: First of all, in CON's reply to my argument: #18) Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. -More incentives That's more money. How about you let teachers, aid, etc carry concealed guns and use their 2nd amendment rights to defend themselves and their students. And there are only so many police officers to go around, if that is what he means by "resource officers". And if it is some kind of school security push, it still will NOT lower crime. The majority of crime does not happen in schools anyway. Maybe if you just let every teacher conceal carry and take the money spent on "Resource Officers" to pay for more Police Offices. Then, maybe crime might go down then. Con replied with: OH THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, WE KNOW THAT ALREADY. Now, I believe I have been posing good arguments. And seeing to as NONE of these 23 Executive Orders are executed yet. It is inevitable that this argument was going to based of of logic and opinion. Seeing to the fact that they don't exist yet. I believe CON posed very good logical arguments, although informal at times. Yet, I believe I came back with more logic and more sources to back me up. I have made my reasoning very clear as to why these executive orders will NOT lower crime and that they will just be a waste of time and taxpayer money. Whatever the outcome, thank you CON for accepting this debate. Take Care and Stay Safe