Gun Control

I apologize for the forfeit. I was really busy. I'm just asking because I do not know, is my opponent allowed to post another argument after I forfeit? Now I have to address two rounds with limited charecter space. That aside I will start with round 3: "Alright do you think that bad people are going to give up their weapons?" That doesnt mean anything. Gun control should be implemented. I don't know how they are going to catch the guys and it is not my job to prove that. I just have to prove that gun control should be implemented. "but a black market for these guns will soon arise." Unestablished and unproven point. "The good people will be the only ones who turn their weapons in, if that" The idea of gun control is not that criminals should just give back their guns. I agree with you that this will be difficult. The idea of gun control is to prevent future criminals from getting guns. And gun control does not necessarily mean that people cannot buy weapons at all, it just means that their needs to be a regulation of some sort whether it be how much they buy, what guns they buy, etc. "I used the example of drugs in the previous argument. Are drugs illegal? There's a dealing spot I pass everyday." When a person takes drugs, it does not directly affect another person. But, drugs may make a person want to kill someone, another reason for gun control. Guns on the other hand, can and has affected other people directly based on the examples I have already provided. "It's not like murder, how many people die in car wrecks each year?" 1. I do not know what "it" is. 2. Cars have a lot more benefits such as taking you wherever you need to go. 3. Then there should be a regulation of whose driving and making sure they are not drunk. Police are striving to stop drunk driving. 3. You are displaying bad conduct by indirectly vote pandering by being cheap and using a site to say the obvious fact "people die from car accidents". "Yes we have the army, but for how long? How long will America be respected for it's powerful military. You would have to live under a rock to not see that things are changing quickly for America. With the defense cuts made" My argument: There should be gun control because of instances I have mentioned that resulted in deaths. My opponent's argument: These killings are bad but we should worry more about murders that have not even occurred yet. None of these defense cuts have resulted in death of American civilians. So far I have proved that without gun control there has been deaths. You have not proved that there would be death of innocents with gun control. All you have given is a theory that the American army will get weak and we should have guns. The only way your argument can win is if there are more deaths from this scenario as opposed to the scenarios I have given. So as of now, this argument does not stand. "Are guns an important part of America's heritage? I would not be able to conduct this conversation with you had not our forefather's split from the mother country, and our military continue to fight for our freedom using guns" My opponent is referring to the military so this is completely irrelevant and I am disregarding it. "Without guns we would both, not be free men." Okay, in America, no one is completely free. You cannot steal, you cannot kill, you cannot park in a no parking area, you can't eat people, you can't rape someone, you can't plagiarize, I think you get the point. "I wasn't at the school when the man stormed the building, had I or someone else been there with a weapon do you think he would have gotten that far??" The fact is no one else had a weapon. They could have gotten a weapon if they wanted to but they didn't and kids died. Now let me ask you question: If their had been gun control of some sort, do you think that would have stopped at least some people from getting killed? "http://www.theblaze.com...... I would like to ask you to read this, I'm not saying I go along with it or not, but it is something to chew on" Both the voters and I could disregard this because this is not my opponent's argument therefore I do not have to refute. My opponent technically did commit plagiarism because he took someone else's argument in attempt to win votes for more convincing arguments and more reliable sources. "The leaders we have now are failing, look at the past!" Failing at what? You sentence doesn't make sense. What does the past have to do with now? "Dictators who have wanted to gain total control of their people start by taking away their weapons. Before you call me a biased, radical redneck, remember this - history repeats itself." 1. What does this have to do racism and how does history repeating itself stop me from calling you racist? 2. Well obviously. It is not an act of taking away their freedom, it is just that they do not want to be over powered by the citizens. 3. You have not proved a single thing you just said. Why don't you use sources where it is necessary as oppose to using cheap sources for vote pandering purposes. Round 4: "The 2nd amendment states that we as a people of the US have the right to own weapons" Okay I really hate this argument. Is the second amendment G-d's words? No. So why can't it be changed if there is a good reason? Second of all, the Second Amendment no longer applies to the US consitution. No members of The US National Guard use their personal firearm in service of the country, and this is because that practice is prohibited "Criminals are also keenly aware of the prospect of an armed citizen and will almost always steer clear of potential victims who may be armed." A citizen can get a gun I hope you know that. But people are still getting killed. Your quote of hitler: You didn't explain it. It seems irrelevant. "The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once" True but if there is gun control, those criminals will not have guns. Also if the gun control is simply to be more strict on the background checks, that means civilians could still get guns, criminals can't. "In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law which required heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than in 1981." Once again unproven point. It doesn't matter, it is still an undeniable fact that there has been deaths from guns. And burglary is not the same as killing.