Should more gun control laws be enacted?

There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...

There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S !

Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThis resolution can also be interpretted as the U.S. Congress Should pass stronger, more effective gun control legislation than we have now, to deal with the surge in mass gun shootings over the last three years and the 491,930 cases of gun violence the nation experiences on average annually. (On average, 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year [1], and contrary to popular belief, statistics show that gun violence has not decreased over the last decade [2]).First Round is for acceptance only. (However, Con make a brief statement about his position on this issue in ROUND 1 and even provide 1 to 5 sources to back up his claims.)[1] (http://www.americanprogress.org...)[2] (http://www.dailykos.com...)

The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws

Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", stated in 1998, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...

I would rather leave my debate unmentioned until round 2.

I argue for gun control(ie requiring a license to own a gun), Pro argues for the motionSeveral studies show that pro-gun legislation increases crime.Open carry laws increase crime - http://feeds.latimes.com...Another study shows: "The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis. Quite the opposite." http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Gun control decreases crime by making gun access harder and thus reducing the ability to commit violent crime.

The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.

This makes me a little sad, this debate was one of the most thought provoking I have had on gun control. I simply ask that all my arguments are extended. Thank you for the good debate.

The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime

Should guns laws be implemented and the second amendment abolished to prevent mass shootings. I personally feel as if we are safer with the right to bear arms. It is fairly rare for mass shootings to be committed by legally obtained weapons.

Should guns laws be implemented

I am for more Gun Control laws and policies in America. My opponent must be opposed to any further Gun Control laws being established in America.

Gun Control (Copy #2)

Sorry about the forfeit, thank you for postponing the debate. 1. An extremely high number of murders are committed by criminals. 2. It is a constitutional right to bear arms. 3. The reason for this is to avoid a tyrannical government.

Why more gun laws are a bad idea.

I believe that the lack of gun control in the Unites States is a serious danger to the public, in nations with full gun control the homicide rate, armed robbery rate, and suicide rates are much lower.

The US Should Have Better Gun Control

Gun control creates safer countries. Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so! I await your response.

That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.

Studies show that gun control laws lead to a lower firearm murder rate in the United States. I am strongly in favor of stricter gun laws. http://www.politisite.com...

Gun Control Laws

I've limited the words to 1,000 to keep things nice and simple, not too complicated. We've heard the arguments for and against it all before, and it's constantly the same thing, "constitutional rights" this and "safety" that. Well now I've decided to settle it. I'm not a US national but I have done my research, so I have solid facts. I believe that gun control needs to be enforced. It needs to happen because of the countless mass shootings we've seen, the unnecessary violence, the psychological effects of simply owning a gun. Research has shown that 97,000+ people are sho0t in the US every day. That's a daily average of 268 people. Research has also shown that, due to strict gun control laws in Washington DC, the murder rate remains at approximately 69 per 100,000 people. Contrarily, Indianapolis' high murder rate at 1,152 per 100,000 people indicates loose or non-existent gun control laws. Evidently, violent crime rates depend on each state's gun control laws.

Gun Control

So I will admit I got confused on this challenge. I read this as my opponent being Con against what was stated in his starting argument. However, I have no problem playing devils advocate even if it goes against my own personal beliefs. So I will argue my best in favor of Gun Control Laws and give the best debate possible despite the fact that it is against my personal belief. Now, that said, gun crime in the US has reached significant levels. Every few days it seems we hear of a new shooting or violent crime involving guns. In this debate I will argue for multiple proposed gun control laws and attempt to convince my opponent and the readers that these laws are necessary to stem the levels of crime that we have in the States. 1. Ban on assault rifles. 2. Ban on handguns. 3. Requirement for development of "Smart Guns" and technology to enhance safety. 4. Federal and State mandated buy back programs. 5. Increase in background check scrutiny. 6. High capacity magazine bans 7. Ammo bans. 8. Closing loopholes. 9. Limiting concealed and open carry laws 10. Changing castling clauses to eliminate deadly force with firearms and institute duty to run laws 11. And the most controversial, federal confiscation measures. Those are the points I will be arguing. I will allow my opponent to challenge these points now.

Gun Control Laws

There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.

Gun Control Laws

I will be accepting the challenge: gun control in the United States is necessary. For every 1 "justifiable" gun homicide there were 34 criminal homicides, 78 suicides, and 2 accidental deaths. The immediate aforementioned being an FBI, CDC source claim from 2012. Guns are a tool but they are also a weapon and it's our country's duty to control them to maintain a safer United States.

Should there be gun control

The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these "laws". According the the second amendment we are to have guns for self defense, or to protect against corrupt governments. Gun control disarms the public, making them easy to rule. Dont believe me? Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all implemented gun control laws to further control their populations, Making them easy targets for massacre. Im not saying that countries like Canada, and the UK are planning to kill off there people, but its just a form of control. If we let the government disarm us, whats next? My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet. No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves. If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? I think not, you would wait for some one who is weak, an easy target. The great thing is, as soon as you have a gun, your not an easy target anymore. Your something to be feared and respected. The governments tales of lower crime rates and safer cities are merely smoke shields for a bigger issue, that of total control.

the debate is about more guns means more homicides or not. not about what concealed carry laws do or dont do. they might just make more guns less bad, but the bottom line is more guns means more bad, more murder. concealed carry might make so many guns less bad, i dont know. i do know ninety percent of gun researchers think more gun control is better than none when it comes to homicides. i dont know the magic gun control if we have lot of guns. but the point isnt about this or that gun control, it's about more guns mean more homicides or not.

more guns means more overall homicide

Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. My dad is a cop he knows that the main reason people think twice about robberies is because the may be armed. Our Constitution says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control laws are unconstitutional.

The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.

Well...

More Gun control or less Gun control

Current laws are not enforced concerning firearms. New ones will not be enforced efficiently either.People have the right to protect themselves from terrorists, murderers, rapists, and even our own government. Our government can't rid the world of 30-40,000 ISIS militants. How would they stop 350,000,000 angry Americans when the military itself would be related to these armed people by blood? I trust the American people to know when to act in such matters, not the corrupt government of the United States.We will get guns, laws or not. We will make them and stockpile them if we must. The government will never truely be in control, nor should it be. We are this nation, not them. We have our own checks and balances by being armed and outnumbering the U.S. military 300 to 1. And even within the military, most would defect with no desire to kill their mom's, dad's and family. The government will never win, so it can just accept it. It's not in control. We are.

The US should adopt stricter gun control laws

I thank my opponent for this debate, I'm not against Gun control, as I believe it has worked it some states. But it cannot function in every state. I would like to mention that America doesn't necessarily have gun problem, but a homicide problem. A gun is only a tool, and cannot commit murders on its own. Banning guns is very impractical in the U.S. Nearly everyone owns a gun. All a ban would do is provide a gateway for black market for guns. U.S simply can't afford to spend billions on enforcing that law. On top of that, It is in the 2nd Amendment, and is deemed unconstitutional by many.

We need more gun control

con just restates points i responded to without responding to what i posted already as responses. you say they will just find another way to kill. but you didn't respond to the study that says the more guns there are, the more overall homicide there is. that means people don't just find alternative ways. you say they will sneak around to do it. this couldn't be true either, cause if they did there would be just as much homicide with fewer guns. plus it's common sense not everyone will be a black hoodie and go get a gun when denied one. con is arguing like we should get rid of crime laws, cause some crime will occur. you didn't respond to this, you just restated what i responded to. also, im not necessarily saying we take guns way, we should at least have background checks. this doesn't infringe on the second amendment. just like we have certain types of speech that can't be done per the first amendment.... there are just reasonable restrictions.

there should be more gun regulation

Should the gun laws be more strict?

Gun laws

I believe firmly that stricter gun control laws will reduce gun violence. Having grown up in a conservative family, I have heard every argument against gun control but none of them stand up to any honest evaluation. Let's have a good argument!

Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide

more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.

more gun regulation should exist

As my opponent has forfeited this round by not responding within 30 minutes, I'd like to summarize the points I've made during this debate. 1. Simple weapons should be legal for last-resort self-defence, while assault weapons should not. 2. Hunting weapons may remain legal. 3. Chicago may or may not have higher murder rates solely because of strict gun laws. 4. Enforcement of gun laws should be very strict, with several additional policies to prevent illegal ownership or usage. 5. Banning assault weapons will reduce the number of people who own dangerous weapons, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Gun Control

The belief that imposing stricter gun laws will reduce violent crime is an erroneous belief. If a person is going to commit a violent crime with a gun, how does it make sense to think that stricter gun laws will prevent them from doing so? Does anyone really believe that a hypothetical murderer becomes compelled to murder someone in cold blood, but then stops him or her self because it may be illegal to have a gun at the time? This was the first news headline I read when I logged on to Yahoo this evening (2/14/08): "DEKALB, Ill. - A man dressed in black opened fire with a shotgun and two handguns from the stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, killing five students and injuring 16 others before committing suicide, authorities said." Illinois is a state which already has strict gun laws, but that obviously didn't protect these people from getting gunned down. After this incident and the one at Virginia Tech, I reaffirm my position that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that gun laws should be relaxed so law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves in situations such as these. If the government were to take our guns away, or continue to impose stricter gun laws, it will only impede our ability to protect ourselves. The closer the U.S. comes to having full gun control, the closer we approach a time in which the only people with guns are cops and criminals. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it won't work for guns.

Extend. Notice that my evidence clearly shows that increased gun control regulation does not lead to lower crime rates; on the contrary, the Affirmative stance has actually been known to INCREASE criminal activity.

Increased restrictions should be put on firearms in the US

Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished

Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished

i dont see any graph from the UN in that link that talks about guns v homicides. my links are from harvard and oxford and an academic study. that trumps con's missing graph. i dont know what con wants when he talks about inherency. he somewhat acknowledges that i provided evidence gun control is effective. if i've done that, doesn't it follow that i can argue we should have gun control? i dont know what's not inherent about that.

more gun regulation should exist

There is no reason that some gun laws/ restrictions should not be in place. I believe in the second amendment that someone should have the right to bare arms, but that does not mean we can not have screening and restrictions on what guns we can own/carry.

Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished

Gun control is the way to go. Too many school shootings, too many deaths, why not just ban guns altogether for a safer America

We need more gun control

To make it clear I believe I am going to debating about why more gun control in the US is needed; meaning more stricter rules. And with that I pass it on to my opponent for the 2nd round.

More Gun Control is needed in the United States.

I am a little new to this site and will try to to best I can to get my point across on this platform. Be for I get stated you should know that some gun control is necessary but not to the extent that it has been presented by many. I believe you live in the U. S. so this response will be based on the U. S. unless you wish to extend to other nations around the world. Now we all after remember that criminals break the law. The laws we have in place now criminals have broken and we must not respond with feeling but with logic to the tragedies that occur. We currently have background checks and have many limitations on firearms now. What we should focus on instead of creating more regulations is to enforce the laws we have now. Examples of failures to act are in the recent Parkland Shooting when authorities failed to prevent the shooting while they had information of a possible unstable individual that could harm someone. We need to protect our second amendment. It allows us to protect ourselves from criminals or tyrannical governments. That is why we do not need to get new gun control legislation.

Should we have Gun Control

First, my name is 100% ORIGINAL! Second of all, even if we have gun control, Violent individuals can just rob the gun stores, and repeat the Las Vegas massacres anyway. What we really need is a better law enforcement. If there were more police, the Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have been as bloody. I affirm that stricter gun control doesn't need to happen, as it would be futile.

Gun Control

Beginning Argument: The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. The is in fact not true! The Second Amendment protects an individual"s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Now for some statistics: 270 MillionAPPROX. # OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA 200,000TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A GUN TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE4 3/5POLLED FELONS SAY THEY WON"T MESS WITH AN ARMED VICTIM5 Closing Statement: With the given data we can assume that Guns do not kill people, People kill People... therefore it can be assumed that Gun Control Should not be Implemented Into American Law. Thank you.

Should Gun Control Be Implemented Into American Law

con hasnt even attempted to negate the resolution, he finds zero academic support for his position. if his position were true, he'd be able to find something. what he does show is one form of gun control, which could be effective or not, who knows, but it's irrelevant to this debate. i do know that washington DC has been shown to be no effect from the ban on guns, not a negative effect but this is getting beside the point.

you can't find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

I feel that we need more regulations on guns to keep America safer.

Gun control

there should be more gun regulation

I will gladly accept. However, I will specify certain things. Resolved: Gun Control should be a law in the United States I will be affirming/upholding this resolution (Pro). You will be negating this resolution (Con) I hope we can be civil and I wish you best of luck! -LDBen

Gun Control

There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries and continents besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the United States. This includes Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.sunray22b.net... http://www.deseretnews.com...

Gun Control in the United States

Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThe U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that U.S. Congress has the right to pass gun control legislation as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment--but how is this possible? Easy. It's because most people don't truly understand the Second AmendmentBefore we get into the lively discussion of why U.S. Congress should impose sensible, more effective gun control laws than are currently on the books, I'm going to briefly explain that U.S. Congress has this power, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has historically and consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation [1][2]. Furthermore, the implied powers granted to U.S. Congress via Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution--the portion I'm referring to known as the "Necessary and Proper" Clause--give Congress the authority to pass gun control legislation, as long as it does not violate the Second Amendment [3][4].First of all, in order to understand why the U.S. Supreme Court has historically ruled that gun control is not unconstitutional, we have to look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment--which brielfy states the exact motive for having it inserted in the Bill of Rights."Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. [5]"There are actually several ways to interpret this, but the most conservative U.S. Supreme Courts (and by extension, U.S. Congress) have interpretted this to mean that people have the right to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defense--but not necessarily for anything beyond that [3]. In other words, the Second Amendment grants people the right to arm themselves in self-defense--but not to maliciously and criminally injure others, to rob other people's property, or to act against law enforcement or state and federal governments [3]. Of course, this fits in line with the most conservative rulings of the nation's highest court, but historically the Court has also interpretted the Amendment to mean that having arms is only constitutionally protected for military purposes [4]. In fact, this is a position held by several sitting members of the current U.S. Supreme Court, and also the recently retired Justice John Paul Stevens [4].Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about having moderate (conservative rulings) to abundant (liberal rulings) national gun control laws, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee the unrestricted, unconditional right to own firearms [1][3][4].In fact, because of historical U.S. Supreme Court rulings, U.S. Congress has already passed various laws restricting gun ownership or requiring gun registration and background checks on some gun purchases. As early as 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which required certain firearms and destructive devices to be registered with the U.S. government and which imposed a tax on sales of such devices; failure to comply with the act had criminal penalties, including up to 10 years of incarceration and between $10,000 to $100,000 fines for individual violations [6]. Over the years, congressional legislation signed into law has made it a crime for convicted felons, those convicted of certain misdemeanors, and for fugitives of justice to own and use firearms; people who illegally use drugs are prohibited from owning/operating a firearm, as are people who have been committed to a mental institution and who suffer a dangerous mental illness (however, not everyone diagnosed with a severe mental illness is prohibited from owning firearms); others are outlawed from owning and using firearms as well [1].Current Federal Gun Control Laws and Their Limitations In the last paragraph, I explained that certain people are probited from owning/operating firearms under federal law in the U.S. These people include [1]:-convicted felons/people convicted of certain misdemeaners-fugitives of justice-unlawful users of drugs-non U.S. citizens/non-permanent legal residents-people committed to mental institutions and diagnosed with dangerous mental illness-those with a criminal history of domestic violence (a single misdemeaner incident or more/greater)-some othersBut current federal gun control laws also place legal responsibilities (punishable with a fine and/or incarceration for not complying) on people who engage in the business of selling and buying firearms, also known as gun dealers.Current national law requires gun/firearms dealers to be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and federal restrictions make it a crime for them to sell firearms to people under 18 years of age and other people prohibited from owning/using firearms [1]. It is a crime for a gun dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm without the transaction first being approved by a prescribed source, after a background check has been conducted; the dealer is also required to document the sale of the firearm with federal form 4473, which identifies the purchaser's information and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm [1]. However, form 4473 is kept by the dealer, and the ATF is not allowed to put the purchaser's information in an electronic registry that can be later used by law enforcement; furthermore, current laws (the Tiahrt Amendments) require that the ATF destroy records on background checks after 24 hours that it approves a gun sale, and the ATF cannot use tracing data in some legal proceedings to revoke or temporarily suspend a dealer's license [1]. The ATF can only investigate dealers on an individual basis with regards to purchases, and can only collect 4472 forms after a gun dealer goes out of business [1].It's these limitations that place great strain on the ATF and that prevent it from more effectively carrying out its work. Because the ATF cannot create an electronic registry on gun purchases and must destroy information after it approves a gun sale (background checks are performed soley to determine if the gun purchaser is someone prohibited from owning/operating a gun), crimes committed with firearms take longer to investigate and provides the assailant with more time to break the law. The lack of an electronic registry on gun purchases in some cases allows assailants who use guns to avoid ever being detected and be brought to justice.The Bradley Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports that the current weak guns laws in place at the federal level have allowed tens of thousands of guns to leave gun shops without checks or records, one of the reasons being the severe restrictions placed on the ATF's role during transactions and the follow up [7]. Requring gun dealers to better keep records of all firearms in their possession and to register all gun purchases in an electronic registry would allow the ATF and other law enforcement to better track guns in this nation and would vastly reduce gun crimes and violence; it would also shorten the time between an incident of gun crime and apprehension by law enforcement.Gun sales and transactions between individuals is even less strict and unfortuneately a background check and federal form 4473 are not legally required in such sales, which increases the probability that someone prohibited from owning a firearm will obtain one through such a transaction, such as a convicted felon or a minor. It also makes it more difficult for the ATF and other law enforcement to track a gun sold in this way used in a criminal incident [7]. In point of fact, firearms sold by "occassional sellers"--people not required to abide with the federal background check--were used in the Columbine School massacre that killed 12 students and 1 teacher, not including the two young perpetrators [7], who committed multiple felony violations of federal in the days leading up to the school shooting [8].Firearms sold by "occassional sellers" in the U.S. have also found their way into the hands of terrorist organizations in the middle east, including the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, and across the Southern border into Mexico, where rivaling drug gangs have used the weapons to mow down each other and countless innocent bystanders [7].Shockingly, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that more than 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels originate in the U.S; 2000 guns are estimated to cross--illegally--the Southern border into Mexico per day [9]. Mexico, where guns are strictly outlawed, has seen over 100,000 people lose their lives in a drug war partly fueled by illegal firearms being shipped in from the U.S. [10]. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U.S. are made by unlicensed sellers who do not perform background checks, and that this is one major reason why guns are flowing across the Mexican border at such an alarming rate [9].But, as we shall see in the next ROUND, the U.S. is also suffering a major crisis all its own, for its weak/inefficient federal gun control laws currently in place.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://online.wsj.com...)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[4] (http://www.businessweek.com...)[5] (http://www.ushistory.org...)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[7] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

First debate here :) Anyways, I think stricter gun control laws should not be supported. Against popular belief, guns are much more useful than what people think. Reasons, I will state later. Thanks!

Stricter Gun Control in America

My opponent, THE_OPINIONATOR, did not state any contentions in his first speech and so I forfeit mine.

Gun laws need to be more strict rather than banning them

yes facts are facts. you cant find scientific support for your position. i can find effective consensus. again this isn't a debate about specific gun controls so i dont know why you are arguing about it.

more guns mean more homicide, more gun control leads to less homicide

Gun control is definitely needed in today"s society. The regulation of guns is an extremely necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. Gun control is basically the effort to stop the rise in violent and fatal crimes by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms (guns). These laws would reduce gun deaths being that guns are the leading cause of death by homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. It is said that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States a women's risk for being murdered increases by 500% if a gun is present during a dispute. Gun control can also lead to fewer suicides being that there were 270,237 gun suicides in the US for about 52% of all suicides. A recent study found that when gun ownership went down in the US, the overall suicide rates decreased. - There are way too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults and if guns are readily accessible, they can more easily fall into the hands of children. Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes such as the incident in Newtown, Connecticut which killed 20 children and eight adults (including the shooter himself). Even President Obama said that after the Newton incident, his administration would take action towards more gun control. In his speech at Newtown, he asked, "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" Lawmakers have also said it is time for the nation to take a look at its gun control laws.

Gun law Regulations

We should not countinue to make more restrictions on gun laws. There are many reasons for this, crime prevention, protection, rights.

Why more gun laws are a bad idea.

My objective with this debate is to educate both debaters and the readers about firearms violence inside the United States and how it compares to other industrialized nations, and about troubling weaknesses in federal gun control laws and the loopholes specific prohibited individuals use to get their hands on these powerful, remarkable weapons. Loopholes & Weaknesses in current Federal Gun Control LawsAs I discussed in the previous ROUND, there are certain limitations with current federal gun control laws that make it difficult for the ATF and law enforcement to reduce gun violence in our nation and to sometimes quickly apprehend a culprit following an incident of gun crime or violence. Among the restrictions placed on law enforcement are the Tiarht Amendements, which prevent law enforcement from creating an electronic registry of gun purchases and gun owners at the federal level (therefore limiting the ATF and other national law enforcement agencies from being maximally efficient in their work and prolonging gun crime/violence investigations) [1]. The Amendments require law enforcement and the ATF to destroy records following gun transaction background checks and they prohibit law enforcement agencies from diseminating what information they might have (such as forms 4473, collected after firearms dealers go out business) to the courts [1]. Furthermore, firearm sales between individual persons is hardly managed at all by current federal gun control laws and such transactions do not legally require a background check to take place [1], providing convicted felons and other individuals prohibited from owning/operating firearms with an opportunity to get their hands on one. Indeed, the ATF estimates that a whopping 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks [2]. But, as I will demonstrate in this ROUND, current federal gun control laws are also weak in other ways and they're presently riddled with loopholes that make it easy for some prohibited people to get their hands on these lethal weapons of war. Currently, millions of fugitives across the country can pass federal background checks and buy guns illegally because police departments are not required to enter names into a national database that tracks criminals on the run [3]. This dreadful gap is largely a byproduct of the fact that police and prosecutors are often unwilling to spend the time or money to pursue fugitives across a state border. Because state law enforcement has no intention of pursuing these fugitives of justice in a different jurisdiction, these criminals travel relatively forgotten; the fact that there's no federal law requiring state law enforcement to enter fugitive names in the FBI fugitive database--the National Instant Background Check System--makes this problem a serious weakness of current federal gun control law [3]. Investigative reporter Brad Heath of USA Today recently found that in five states alone, law enforcement agencies failed to provide information to the FBI database for at least 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants, according to police and court records on file [3]. What's shocking is that tens of thousands of these fugitives on the run are wanted for violent offenses and felonies [3]. According to USA Today, the federal databases used to perform background checks are missing more than 900,000 Michigan arrest warrants, 150,000 Ohio arrest warrants, 184,000 Washington arrest warrants, and many more from other states [3]. In response to this alarming discovery, Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has said, "It is. .. not surprising to me the extent to which there are holes in our system, given Congress' lack of success in addressing them" [3]. In many cases, entering fugitives' names in federal databases would be as simple as checking two boxes in a state law enforcement's computer system, but the lack of courage by Congress to pass additional gun control laws, such as requiring state police to report names to the FBI database, allows this major lapse in background checks to continue [3]. And fugitives on the run are taking this opportunity because of Congress' inaction. Fugitive Deandra Smith, who was already wanted for a nightclub shooting (and multiple felony charges), was able to purchase a variety of guns at an Arkansas Pawn Shop in 2013 because his name was not entered in a federal or even a state database [3]. To quote his lawyer, "Without that [entering his name in a database for background checks], it wouldn't matter how many background checks. .. [firearms dealers] ran [3]. " Every year, hundreds of thousands of fugitives on the run and people prohibited from owning firearms, like Smith, attempt to take advantage of the current set-up [4]. According to a new report by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Program, which observed 78 gun shows in 19 states, loopholes in present gun control laws allow for easy access to guns that can be purchased by just about anyone, whether legally prohibited from purchasing a gun or not [5]. Among the findings [5]:--illegal purchases, where surrogates buy a gun from a licensed dealer, is common at gun shows--anonymous, undocumented gun sales are common--parts used to make untraceable guns are widespread and easily attainable at gun showsGaren Wintemute, professor of medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine, found that “illegal" purchases "were often conducted entirely out in the open" [5]. Wintemute asserts that more has to be done to prevent both unregulated gun sales and illegal guns sales at gun shows; “law enforcement needs to have an expanded, proactive program at gun shows to prevent the illegal sale of guns” [5]. If not, individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, like the dangerously mentally ill, minors, and convicted felons, will find gun shows to be an excellent source to obtain firearms--weapons the law states they shouldn't have. Currently, 44 states have laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, but few states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill to the national database for background checks; in fact, just seven states account for 98 percent of all names prohibited for mental illness [4]. A frequently cited example is that of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter who passed a background check to obtain the gun he used with which he killed 32 people on the university campus (and wounded 17 others), despite being declared mentally ill two years prior [4]. Different states also have varying degrees of additional gun control laws in effect, but some have very few, almost entirely relying on current federal gun control laws (some state governments have also tried to abolish federal gun control laws within their state borders, even calling for the arrest of federal agents who dare to enforce firearms legislation; something not permitted by the U. S. Constitution [6]). What Federal Gun Control Laws Ought to DoCurrent federal gun control laws do not go far enough to prevent fugitives, convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors from obtaining weapons they clearly shouldn't have. The Tiarht Amendments, though understandly trying to protect the anonymity of gun owners, create a stumbling block for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies charged with apprehending culprits of gun crime/violence. They frequently act to prolong the time between an incident of gun crime to final apprehension of the assailant, and in the case of new criminals or fugitives/convicted felons, like Deandra Smith, that's simply more time for them to engage in gun-related criminal activity. It would better serve law and order in this country to establish an electronic registry that law enforcement can use to link an individual gun owner with a registered firearm make, model and serial number. We can still protect the rights of gun owners to defend themselves while more effectively restricting criminals and others prohibited from owning guns. We shouldn't have to make the ATF and other law enforcement agencies jump through hoops and expand their investigations just to determine the individual that owns a gun make with a specific serial number. Determining who owns what gun should be as easy as it is to link a driver with a specified, registered automobile, especially for criminal investigations. Gun transactions between unlicensed individuals should still require a background check; it's simply way too easy for someone prohibited from owning a gun to purchase a firearm through these transactions. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks--well that's just an incredible opportunity for minors, the mentally ill, fugitives of justice, convicted felons, drug peddlers and others to abuse! Gun Control Laws need to be expanded so that all gun transactions require a federal background check. Federal law should require state law enforcement to register a fugitive's name in the FBI fugitive database to better enforce current restrictions with gun laws. Our current gun laws would be so much more effective if this was already the case. Likewise, the names of the prohibited mentall ill should be required to be submitted to the national database for background checks. (Additional recommendations exist. )[1] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (. http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[3] (. http://www.usatoday.com...)[4] (. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[5] (. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...)[6] (. http://www.nytimes.com...)

There are two key aspects to this discussion. One is a constitutional outlook and one a statistical outlook. As Americans we are expected to value our constitution. Regardless of whether or not people agree with the second amendment, while it is on the books it needs to be respected. For people who desire to infringe on citizens' right to bear arms, they need to pass an amendment that repeals the second amendment, not passing legislation. Even if people want to utilize the correct method of changing law, they should not want to. People who want to control guns, typically have a lack of understanding of how guns work and what benefit they yield. While guns are used to commit crimes, they are also used to stop them. With the use of guns, a 100 lb female would be able to defend her house and family from a 200 lb male, something that would not so easily be done with any other type of self defense, regardless of the amount of training. Guns level the playing field giving Americans equality that is clamored for in so many other aspects of life. The net number of lives saved by guns is higher than the net number of lives lost by guns. On top of this, there is no reliable data that shows increasing gun control will reduce the amount of gun related homicides. Since there is a benefit to be had from people legally owning guns, and there is no proof that passing laws will lead to a decrease in gun violence, we should stay away from legislating guns out of the hands of people that can use them to protect themselves.

Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated.

Gun control can be defined in many different ways. Background checks, banning automatic or semi-automatic guns, or the banning of guns altogether all fit under the range. I decided to argue to banning fire arms to make the topic more specific, and that is a perfectly valid argument. Anyway, thank you very much for accepting the debate. As Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's vice-president once eloquently said "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, his argument certainly has a good point. Police carry weapons, but when they are minutes away at a station or across town, the criminals come out of nowhere fast. In a gun-free zone, or a world without easily accessible firearms due to heavy restrictions, the few minutes it takes for the police to reach the destination, lives could be lost. Russia has some of the tightest restrictions in the world when it comes to gun control. People only own nine guns per 100 people in Russia, while America has close to 100 guns per 100 people. Yet, in 2009, Russia had 21,603 murders and America had 13,636 (see link). Especially considering that America is approximately three times more populous than Russia, it is safe to say that guns to not have as much correlation to violence as some previously thought. Tightening gun control laws in America would most likely have a similar effect, and we could unfortunately see a spike in the murder rates. This is why gun control laws should stay just the way they are, or if anything, even be loosened. http://www.npr.org...

American Gun Control

Opponent Forfeits.

more gun control should occur

Limited restrictions on ownership and use are different in nature to absolute prohibition and are more easily enforced.  Statistical analysis shows that that gun control laws do have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths and that the magnitude of the effect is dependent on how well the rules are enforced.[1]  The ineffectiveness of badly drafted or enforced gun control regulations is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of well drafted and enforced regulations.  [1] Kwon et al. ‘The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Jan

Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership

I am looking to debate with someone for gun laws. I believe that as an American citizen guns should be allowed to be carried by any person other than those with a mental disorder, or a prior record involving any type of violence. This is one of the fundamentals the America was raised on. My evidence that gun laws do not work and keep guns from the people that will use a gun for good use is Chicago. Where crime is 2.36 times higher than the national average. This is the city that has the strictest laws in the U.S. but yet their crime is through the roof. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... Another argument made is California. According to the Brady Campaign score California has the strictest gun laws of any other state. You would think that they would be below if not at the bottom of the national average, WRONG! California is above the national average by 5%. http://www.deseretnews.com... http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... New Jersey is the second state with the most strict gun laws. Guess where 3 of the top 10 cities with the highest murder rates are. NEW JERSEY! http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... http://www.deseretnews.com...

There should be more gun laws

Regardless of how I MAY have gone off topic, my main statement and idea is that the gun control laws should be better upkept. The gun buyers and sellers are the main part of the issue. If we keep hold of the gun buyers and sellers, the guns will follow. Double checking, triple checking and even more checking after that is necessary to uphold the safety of the people.

Gun Control in America

Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. Our Constitution says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control laws are unconstitutional. Our police spend a lot of their time fighting victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, and drugs. No body is hurt but the police are being overstretched for these crimes. Our jails are filled with drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers. Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded. If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly and people would not expect to get parolled and would be less likely to commit crimes. Plus, we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year. That money could go to other forms of crime fighting or anything else including lower taxes.

Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control

While the poverty rate in America may be higher, surely if guns were more tightly regulated, there would not be as many gun crimes? This would reduce the need for police and even normal citizens to carry arms. What about mass shootings? If civil gun ownership was made illegal, citizens carrying arms would immediately be breaking the law and the police would be able to make an arrest much sooner. And, while the US Constitution's 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, which is more important in the long term - a "right ", or the safety of the general public?

Gun Control

More regulations on the possession and sale of guns are needed in the United States.

Gun Control

Please state your opening argument.

Why more gun laws are a bad idea.

Hope this doesn't end in a pointless debate. Thank you.

Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished

If we have more gun laws we will have more crime.

Gun control

I commissioned this challenge after reading my opponent's stance on gun rights. His opinion is simply based on facts that are just not true. I ask any following this debate to just check it out on their own. Gun crime is higher with more gun control. In major cities of America that have more gun control, there is more crime. [1] Chicago has some extreme gun control, against both open carry and concealed carry, and yet it ranks at the top in gun crime. Countries that have more gun control demonstrate worse stats. Countries like Honduras, which has approximately 5 guns per 100 people has a homicide rate off the charts compared to that of gun-loving countries. [2] Gun crime is lower without gun control. In Switzerland, every household is REQUIRED to posses one Sig 550 assault rifle, and are encouraged to have one Sig P226 sidearm.[3] They have some of the lowest gun crime and mass murder in the world. Israel, the US, and several others demonstrate similar trends. I now place the shared burden of proof on my opponent to prove to me that gun rights are harmful to society. (P.S. My opponent can rely on his anti-gun posters to protect him. But when my family is in danger, my Mossberg Maverick will do the job.)

Gun rights

This debate will cover whether or not we should have stricter gun control. For the first round, we will set up the perimeters and definitions. We should not have arguments/points/etc. in the first round, only introductions. From the second round onwards, we shall flesh out our arguments. Gun control would be considered as how easy it is to attain guns (meaning eligibility and sales), how strict the regulation on concealed weapons is, and how much power our government should have in terms of regulating guns. Gun control should not be considered on the levels of military and law enforcement. It is my position that we should not have stricter gun control.

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

Current laws are usually poorly enforced. Criminals are often able to buy guns even when the law says they should be prohibited. We need to enforce the laws we have right now first.Guns do not kill people. People do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and focus on the role the media plays in giving glory to violence and the lack of respect for law and law enforcement.Denial of firearms is comparable to the "war on drugs". If people want the item, they will get it whether legally or illegally. It doesn't matter. With the war on drugs, meth and marijuana are illegal in most states, so guess what? People started making and growing their own. And then Mexican cartels saw a new underground business to pursue, so we now have illegal drugs from Mexico being snuck in, drugs being made in private homes, and people growing their own. It didn't make it better. It's worse. The same would happen with guns.Mexico would have a new underground business. People would begin making their own, and the market would yield great money for private individual makers. And now, we would have unregistered illegal guns everywhere with no way to trace them. Here's a web site showing just how easy it is to make a gun.http://m.wikihow.com...And here's another.http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...Point? You will never stop people from having guns. The only thing you even have a prayer of accomplishing is disarming law abiding citizens. Congratulations.

Hello. In our society, many people wish to implement stricter gun control laws in our society. I am against the proposals, and am taking the con side of this argument.The link we will be using is here.http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...This is a very confusing legal document, so we will be quoting from here. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...Yes, I know that there are quite a few gun control debates, but I think that this is a topic worthy of its controversy.First round is for acceptance, second round is for stating your initial arguments, then we can post our rebuttals. Thank you for the debate, and make sure it's serious. I do not want 50 word posts stating one argument. Good luck!

Gun control laws

i showed a correlation that said one thing about guns and homicide, you showed one that said another. im not sure what to make of it. where did you get your chart? i dont see a citation for it while mine is from harvard and oxford

more gun regulation should exist

I accept and look forward to a meaningful debate. Personal beliefs on gun control: I think it is unacceptable that criminals, terrorists, mentally ill, etc. are able to legally and easily access the guns they use for their crimes. I think firearms and the right to bear arms have enjoyed an undue immunity from any sort of regulation and this refusal to give any ground is costing lives. I do believe there are "common sense" gun control measures that will protect responsible gun owners' rights while preventing firearms from getting into the wrong hands. In the wake of acts of terror, natural disasters, and epidemics the U.S. takes drastic response measures, it is time we treat gun violence the same way by enacting gun control legislation.

Gun Control

Since my opponent forfeited the round, I will be making no arguments in this one.

There should be more gun laws

Although the government is leaning towards stricter gun control to decrease armed criminal activity, I believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed because it is unconstitutional, it will backfire and promote criminal activity as a whole, and criminals will always find a way to obtain guns.

Gun Control

Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.

Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Hi, so I saw your opinion on assault weapons and I thought you may like to have a debate concerning the 2nd Amendment and Gun Rights. My position is that more guns = less crime, whilst your position will be the opposite (more guns = more crime). If this debate is not satisfactory to you, please counter-propose a debate or send me a message.

More Guns Creates a Safer Society

I accept the... 'terms.'

Should guns laws be implemented

Criminals and gangsters don't follow laws. If they want guns they will get them at any means necessary. If there was a gun control law passed, it would increase the death rate for the law abiding citizens because of lack of self defense options. It would in crease the number of break-in's because an intruder will know that he wont be shot because of current gun laws and they will have a gun they got on the black market. Speaking of which, with gun restriction laws in place, it would increase the black market so that people can get the guns back that they were forced to give up. And look at Switzerland. Every family is required by law to own a fire arm and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

Gun Control

For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls." This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.

more gun regulation should exist

Extended

There should be more gun laws

I believe there shouldn't be more gun regulation. First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away or controling guns is just going to cause people to sneak around and do it, or find another way to kill people. Also the second ammendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." People should have a right to have guns.

there should be more gun regulation

It would be productive to state what your utility is for saying one thing is better than another. And if more gun control would produce that effect then it would be deemed superior. Safer doesn't suffice in my opinion. Also i think it would be good to state what is your specific definition of gun control, such as stricter background checks, no gun permits at all, or whatever your preferred method of gun control is. I assume the burden of proof would be on both parties since it was not stated otherwise. Thanks for the debate in advance.

Gun control

As is with my previous round, I remain adamant that her latter two arguments are unnecessary for this debate. Since I have been bent on proving one rather simple premise, this round need not be long. Let me go back again: we both agree that preserving the human life and the quality of living is important, which we both agree to as a presupposition in this debate. Thus, we also value a method that would decrease the amount of criminals (or at least a criminal's power to do harm). As a consequence, we agree that a method which will overall decrease the amount of criminal power in relation to law-abiding citizen's freedoms is a method that SHOULD be undertaken. This general movement stemming from an ethical foundation to pragmatic considerations is what unites much of our beliefs. So the more focused question is whether or not stricter gun control laws will decrease the amount of criminal power - I'm sure we both agree that, at least to an extend, IT DOES. However, the negative must also observe that stricter gun control laws can impede on the freedom (and safety) of law-abiding citizens as well. Therefore, we must look at the BALANCE between the too -- if some certain gun control laws were to be implemented that would tip the scale towards impeding on the freedoms of citizens, then my opponent would have palpable contentions against my position. On the other hand, if some certain gun control laws were to tip the scale towards decreasing the amount of criminal power, then I would have similar grounds to support such a change. So the question remains: do stricter gun control laws on balance decrease criminal power more than impeding the freedom's of law-abiding citizens? I would argue that most gun control laws have a much more significant impact on criminals than law-abiding citizens, allow me to explain in further detail: Take on gun control law: more extensive backgrounds. For a law-abiding citizen, this shouldn't be a problem since there shouldn't be anything to hide. For a criminal however, things such as suspicious connections or a tainted background can lead to higher attention at their activities or even rejection can curb the amount of potential gun-related violence. Another law is a waiting period; though any dedicated criminal can wait for the time, often criminals buy guns soon before committing a crime while a law-abiding citizen does not, on average, need it as urgently (there will probably be only one or two occasions in their life when it ever comes in crucial use - it's otherwise mostly rotting in their drawers). There are many other examples, but the point is that given the purpose and situations for criminals that obviously differ in comparison to law-abiding citizens, gun control laws will have a much more significant impact. Gun control laws, on balance, have a much more significant impact on impeding the powers of criminals. This is evidenced in the needs of criminals rather than citizens, thus amplifying the effects.

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

Alright. I'm going to go point by point down my opponents statements. First my opponent points out the fallacy between linking gun control and rates of homicides in the United States. To some extent I agree with him, however it is obvious that if we didn't have guns we would have a lower rate of homicide with them also. Furthermore my opponent goes on to conjecture, "I would attribute the higher rates of homicide to largely flaws in our legal / prison system / police state, which serve to worsen conditions for criminals instead of correcting them in any way" I find myself in accordance with my opponent here however I can not deny that the availability to weapons has helped these criminals. Next my opponent states that school shootings don't happen with full Autos however I would challenge my opponent to back up this claim or prove beyond a doubt that school shooting have occurred with only small scale handguns. Anything but this would be superfluous and should be illegal under my arguments. Secondly my opponent goes on to tell me that full autos are illegal in the U.S yet this isn't entirely true. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited importation of non-sporting weapons from other countries. It also prohibited registry of most automatic firearms after that point. The The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 on the other handed restricted some semi-auto weapons and banned the production of the machine gun. This however still allows for the sub-machine gun, assault and auto rifles, and machine pistols. My opponent also makes it seem as if fully-automatic guns are nearly impossible to register however a quick glance at wikipedia reveals that nearly 175,000 have been licensed to date in the U.S. This does not account of unlicensed guns. By the way here is an entertaining link to 72 articles on the AK-47. A quick glance over the list shows at least a few of them to be shootings. http://topics.cnn.com... The third story about the mall shooting 2 months ago should be observed. Next my opponent argues that making guns illegal will only cause them to go underground. I partially agree with this statement however at the same time it still does make it harder to people to come across these guns. The amount of work required to attain an illegal gun is substantially more than that required to buy the gun or grab your dads gun (if you are a school child). My opponent goes on to state that a person who is compelled to commit mass murder isn't going to change their mind because a mass murder gun is illegal. So here I must state that any mass murderer would want a full auto machine gun as it would be one of those effective guns in doing such a task. However the fact that the machine gun is illegal within the United States has prevented this from happening. My opponent spreads some light on this issue when he argues that school shootings do not happen with full autos. School shootings typically happen with the easiest weapon to come by. My opponents third point is that a person walking into a classroom with a hand gun vs. a full automatic will do just as much damage. This is simply not true, a person walking in with a handgun will be 1. Forced to reload 2. Forced to actually aim and 3. Forced to take more time between each shot. These factors allow for nearby people to attack said person. If my opponent would like we could expand this idea to a school cafeteria, the larger scale shows the benefits of full auto over handgun. Fourth: In the odd even we as a people face tyrannical oppression I doubt guns will do anything to protects us from what the government has. Either way unless you can prove tyrannical oppression will be happening on this scale the point is moot. Next my opponent goes on to argue proactive vs reactive. I care little for such an argument, I am simply arguing preventive. My argument takes the guns off the street which lowers the chance of them falling into the hands, legally or illegally, of criminals. From here he argues that students should be allowed to carry guns. This is a bad idea, to have the gun there simply promotes the idea of violence. As I said earlier if a school shooting like this did break out it would simply result in chaos. Next my opponent argues once again that we need weapons in order to fight the government should it repress us. I would simply like to offer alternative versions such as peaceful diplomatic democratic discussions. Finally my opponent finishes his speech by attacking my school cafeteria chaos point. He does so on two levels. A. He questions why anybody would start a shooting if they knew everyone was going to shoot them back. My answer is simple, because at the point when someone walks into a school intending to shoot many people they have already given up their will to live. This can be seen through the AK-47 link above and many other incidents where the criminal commmited seucide afterwards. B. My opponent states, "Historically, similar situations have occurred on numerous occasions. Think about the exact same scenario playing out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries if a person walked into a bar full of people carrying a gun intending to kill many or all of the people in there. Do you think they'd all panicked and kill each other?" This is his downfall and an example the clearly proves my case. As I recall from many old westerns such shootings resulted constantly in anywhere from 1 to 10 people dieing. It was incidents like this that started the whole "gun control" idea in the first place. The fact that we don't have these incidents any more simply proves my point. The fact that it is now illegal to carry guns like that has prevented many needless homicides. In summary my opponent advocates for a proactive stance on this issue; everyone should have guns to preempt other people. However my opponent never answers my argument stating that it is impossible to preempt someone who pulls a gun on you. I on the other hand advocate prevention, my case stops the gun crimes before they ever happen by making the guns more and more difficult to come by. Examples of this are the western scenario my opponent offered or the lack of school shootings involving full auto machine guns. I do not advocate the complete restriction of guns I simply advocate all guns above the common handgun and hunting rifles should have stricter control laws. Thank you.

You said it well when you said, "Like I said the problem isn't the laws themselves it's enforcing them." We aren't talking about a gun-ban, nor the enforcement of gun control laws. We are talking about are gun control laws a good idea in general. We aren't talking about adding extra laws either. My position is simply gun control laws are a good idea to have, but not to go overboard with.

Gun control

more guns =/= more safety but having more restrictions is pointless if it has no actual effect on homocides. However, this is completely contradictory because if more guns = more crime, less guns will = less crime. Furthermore, your statistic doesn't actually say "92" in it, yet states that criminals find it easy to acquire guns illegally, but does not give a number of how many actually acquired them illegally. It merely states that only 8% stole guns. Adding restrictions on guns takes away guns, leaving fewer guns in houses, which as I have already stated will lower crime. All of my arguments still stand as my opponent has made no clash.

Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened

1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. An overarching theme of gun control is whether the strictness of its regulations has a correlation to how much it controls and/or reduces crime. Stricter gun control laws include longer waiting times, stricter eligibility for the privilege to conceal arms, as well as tougher requirements for background checks. I contest that stricter gun laws will either have no impact on crime rates, or it will have a negative impact on crime rates. Firstly, statistics and studies on gun control show that a longer waiting period does not impact firearm crime rates at all. Moreover, all commercial gun dealers have to run a background check; there is no loophole during "gun shows", as many people assume, either. Background checks are a gauge of how lawful a person is on paper; it's impossible to gauge everyone's intentions and what they might do in situations that cause them spur-of-the-moment violence. Finally, the real kicker is that gun control laws do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. In fact, the 31 states with "shall issue" laws (the law to conceal weapons) "have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. " The nine states with he lowest violent crime rates all have right to carry laws. (. http://www.cato.org...) Gun control laws do *not* work, and it is not a theoretical statement, but a statistically proven one. To make guns harder to obtain simply makes no difference to crime rates. To pass laws that forbids someone to conceal weapons makes crime rates go higher. Gun control laws not only do not work, but they even bring up crime rates. 2) Guns save lives. Despite it being an incredibly corny line, guns don't kill people, people kill people. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, someone pro-gun control might say that guns make it easier for people to kill, and guns make harm more accessible to people. We have to consider that people are using the guns to harm others. How, then, will people defend themselves? Consider this: rape victims are mostly female and physically weaker than their predators. What's a quick way to bridge the gap between the physicality? With a gun, of course. A victim with a gun is far more likely to have a winning chance to defend themselves. One, of course, also needs to look at the numbers. "Guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. " (. http://www.cato.org...) Guns save lives. To the weak, easily victimized, guns are a way for them to give themselves a fighting chance. 3) Guns are a form of liberty. We all know that weapons are power. Time and time again we've been shown that whoever has the weapons, has the power. For example, Hitler himself said that the "most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms". (. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...) The only people that could have guns were the German military, the military that ended up being the law and order of all of the Nazi-occupied countries. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we are putting more power into our governments' hands. What makes America a democracy is that the people hold the power. To hinder America's accessibility to arms is to hinder America's liberty. Just because America, at the moment, seem to be at a point where the people hold the most power, we shouldn't forget the recent events of World War II, where anyone Japanese in America by heritage, whether they are an American or not, were put into concentration camps whilst their property was taken away. 4) Conclusion Not only are stricter gun laws not effective or negatively effective, they are also a great component in people's safety. Statistically, and realistically, stricter gun laws will not save lives. In fact, it will cause more lives to be harmed. Even though the laws might be well-intentioned, they have to consider how the laws would work- and they wouldn't. Gun control doesn't work. I challenge Pro to come up with laws that aren't redundant or reductive. Just because we have a problem (gun violence) doesn't mean there's a solution to it. Stricter gun control laws are not a solution. My final argument is that yes, we have a problem, but the proposed solution (gun control) does not work. I look forward to hearing my opponent's side of the debate :).

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.

There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws

Lets get started I. No correlation between more gun control and less crime "…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world." -As presented by Harvard gun studyThe idea that banning guns will lead to less crime is false. In reality, it is actually the complete opposite. II. 60% of guns are used purley for self defense No, all gun owners are not criminals, and many have not commited any crime related to gun. 60% of guns are used for self defense and banning them may in fact lead to an increase of crime. It is really no supprise that a criminal would not try to break in to a house with person that owns a gun. Why should others suffer because of shootings , due to someone's stupidity or mental diesese? III. Decrease in gun ownership lead to an increase of crime"If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)"-As presented by Harvard gun study So, less guns do lead to more crime. In Ireland and Jamica, after banning guns, it has shown a steep increase of crime. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...http://www.theacru.org...http://www.gallup.com...http://www.bostonmagazine.com...

Severe gun control

since my opponent forfeited I will hold my arguments for another round.

Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished

I am fantastically awesome in my own mind.

Definitions and premises may be challenged or agreed upon. Arguments should be in regard to morals as well as plausibility. Resolution- Increased Gun Control is Unconstitutional Definitions: Handgun- firearm designed to have the potential to be held and operated by one hand although not necessarily used that way. Unconstitutional- not in accordance with an applicable constitution of a nation. Constitution- The document referred to as the supreme law of the land adopted on September 17, 1787 at the U. S Constitutional Convention. Premises (Open to Challenge) 1) Guns are not inherently evil and fulfill functions that have been crucial and useful to human society. 2) The right to bear arms is stated explicitly in the US Constitution under the fundamental Bill of Rights

Increased Handgun Control is Unconstitutional

more guns correlates with more homicidehttp://www.amjmed.com...i can find plenty more of those types of articles. so shouldn't we at least consider getting rid of guns, if we could reduce murders by say eighty percent? not everyone will stop at nothing to get a gun. most people if they dont have a gun, aren't as likely to kill. they dont just get a gun cause they dont have one.

Complete Gun Control

My opponent has forfeited, I will allow him another chance to state his opening argument.

Why more gun laws are a bad idea.

Is that all you can come up with?. Please give me something to debate you on.

Gun bans and strict gun control increases crime and homicide rates.

lol

First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders. With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease. 1. . http://www.iep.utm.edu........., primarily the philosophy of John Locke

Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

For my first debate, I would like to challenge a conservative with a strong commitment to the 2nd amendment. Opening Arguments in first round. In the wake of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting (in which the gunman legally obtained weapons that granted him the means to murder 49 Americans and injure 51 more) and other mass shootings in recent years that seem only to intensify in frequency and damage, I will argue that gun control, at least its consideration in Congress, is a necessity. What type of gun control is needed? I believe the federal government should implement a universal background check system, close gun-purchase loopholes, and ban the purchase and sale of assault rifles. Only providing prayers to the victims of these tragedies is no longer an acceptable response. We cannot preserve absolute gun purchasing freedom at the expense of innocent American lives and our inaction in preventing mass shootings is shameful as well as complicit in their occurence.

Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

With all the heated debate about banning guns in America amidst all the recent shootings, it would be foolish to ban and or confiscate all semi automatic rifles as recent Democrats have suggested. Every major study in recent history has proven that there is no correlation between the number of gun owners relating to the number of homicides. In fact the areas of the country that have the strictest gun control have the highest number of homicides whereas the places that have relaxed gun control see the fewest homicides.

Banning guns places Americans in greater danger of being a victim of crimes.

My intentions for this debate are simple: I want to discredit all the myths that gun control makes law biding citizens safer. Gun control is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous for Americans. The 2nd Amendment was put in place not to protect the Nation, but to protect the people within the nation. I will go on in the later rounds to clarify, but I want to keep my opening statement brief. Thank you, and good luck.

Gun control laws do not make America safer for law biding citizens!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I defined gun control I said laws and regulations regarding guns which don't necessarily mean a ban on any type of gun it just means more laws regarding guns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly, Unsurprisingly America has more guns than any country in the world. A staggering 89 guns for every 100 people. This is far more then doubling the second leading country in this area. The USA also has the most gun homicides (A staggering 22 more per million then the second leading country in the world) and also the most deaths because of guns in general. This data was all collected by the United Nations. There has been research conducted by Leah Libresco that shows that these two things are directly related. Another smart group of individuals, who also found that these two things were connected are the Harvard School of Public Health"s Injury Control Research Center. The Boston University School of Public Health found similar findings showing that a 1 percent increase in guns was most likely to create a 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicide rate at the state level. In all these findings the variables were controlled and the research was performed by experts. All this data proves that America's easy access to guns and quantity of guns leads to more violence. Having so many guns makes it incredibly easy for criminals and felons to access. To fix this problem America would have a limit on the number of guns made and imported into America. We could also have stricter laws on who could have guns. An example of a few is making background checks mandatory so that there would be less of a need for guns in America. We could also make an age restriction on guns. Don't you think its a bit weird how kids aren't allowed to drink until their 21 but they're allowed to have a weapon that kills humans? Thank you for reading my argument and I hope you consider it deeply. Sources: https://www.vox.com...

Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America

America's obession with guns is too much. It needs to stop. Obivously, nobody learned anything from the Newtown shootings. You won't need to defend yourself if you there weren't guns in the first place.

We need more gun control

Gun control should not be implemented because it violates the second amendment that was adopted into the bill of rights that gives us Americans the right to bear arms.

Gun control

Someone please convince me that the govt. should institute gun control legislation. Taking and banning weapons from the citizens.

Gun Control

I beg to differ. According to " usatoday.com", States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower" (Alcindor, p.1, 2013). It was retrieved online at http://www.usatoday.com.... P1 This quote shows that stricter gun laws do in fact lower violent crimes. P2 states that have stricter gun laws have less violent rate conclusion The second amendment influence violence because most states have lenient gun laws Issue: whether the Second Amendment influence violence because of the lenient gun laws

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.