Gun Control

"I am sorry, but I feel like this is a little unfair. I would not have accepted this debate if I would have known you would be making these types of arguments. The thing I find unfair about this, is that you don't give the voters a choice in whom……" Ah, I don't believe this is unfair at all. You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1. You also stated before the debate started that I am to argue for gun control. The definition of gun control is, "any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens." Throughout this debate I have clearly defined the problems with the current gun control system in the United States, and I have clearly argued why we must have more and why it would be effective. I have also refuted your arguments in regards to the US having more gun control. I have also clearly laid out why certain guns shouldn't be prohibited, and why other guns should not. By giving examples of what guns would be okay and in what situations, I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles. So I ask the audience to not ignore these types of arguments, because they are the core of the debate and my opponent seeks to detract from that. Furthermore, before my opponent says anything, this is not semantics, because gun control has a clear definition. "This doesn't make sense. So your saying you agree that people need self defence and thus guns are justified, but then go…" I am not contradicting myself at all. I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging. "Gun laws require that in order to obtain a fire arm in your home, you must have a safe to safely store them in. http://en.wikipedia.org...... This deters children from entering, criminals from entering, etc. The only person who should know the combination should be the owner of the gun. So this argument cannot be looked to as a child cannot harm themselves in this scenario." Firstly, your source says nothing about the gun safes being required by law, and you used Wikipedia. Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense. [1] So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home. This on top of the fact that the presence of firearm makes homicide and suicide between family members more likely in the home, shows that a firearm in the home is more likely to cause tragedy than prevent it. "In order to own a gun, an individual must complete basic gun courses in order to purchase one. http://corneredcat.com...... You must show proof of completing the courses neccesary to own a gun as well, among having several other things. Gun laws are strict, and not so easy that any one and their kids can purchase one without the neccesary requirements being completed. People who own gun have a basic understanding and knowledge of how to operate them. Thus we would be giving the government too much power if they are the only ones who own guns. The reason we have gun laws in the first place is to prevent government intrusion. Just like in the revolutionary war, owning and operating guns will prevent government from transforming into a dictatorship." Gun safety training is not the same thing as military training. You know, the military training you'd need to take part in a "well-regulated" militia. Again, the arming of the citizenry in a time of conflict in best left to the National Guard, which can properly train the citizens and integrate them into the state militia. Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us. "So you do claim that a person has a right to self defence, and you give an example..." The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one. "Here you contradict your whole argument….." I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. "Hand guns have the same ability to stop a persons life as an assualt rife does. When used the right way, and fired at the right part of the human body…." No, no, and no again. I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle. This is a clear absurdity. "Again, as I have said before, You are thinking nationally. We must think internationally here. Just like criminals can still obtain drugs, they can obtain guns….." Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up. Opponent's Arguments "This is exactly why gun control is a horrible concept. It limits citizen protection from the exact scenario you are showing." This is why no gun control is a horrible concept. The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals. Conclusion I've stated my case. I have argued successfully for more gun control in the United States. I have given you examples where guns are necessary in our society, where they serve for more good than harm. I have also plainly spelled out what is wrong with the current gun control system today, and how and why it needs to be improved. I have refuted my opponent's arguments, sometimes more than once. I thank my opponent for a strong argument, and wish him luck in the voting period. I believe my argument is stronger, and that you should vote Pro. [1] http://www.vaultandsafe.com...