Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5625
Gun control laws are completely useless.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Guns are no more hazardous than knives , matches, paper and thumb tacs
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Gun control laws are completely useless.
Gun control laws are completely useless with people that can't be controlled or are out of control.
Now who are gun control laws for?
Are they for people that are out of control or people that have control of themselves?
What are gun control laws for?
These laws are for the safety and betterment of society.
To decrease the innocent bloodshed. To improve justified means of defending yourself. Ensuring those that are fit to have weapons are only the ones that possess them.
The situation is what is regardless. Excessive gun violence occurs. This would be the case with or without the regulations.
We still have those that are in control of themselves that are responsible and are law abiding.
We'll have those that will be negligent, irresponsible, careless, wreckless, ruthless.
These people are out of control which is why they have to be contained in a cell.
Before guns were, innocent bloodshed was occuring. Why?
People were out of control. Not civilized. Not humane...etc.
Now what can we do ?
Not really my stance to take. Not the topic. The issue isn't guns. The solution is not gun control.
The issue is out of control people. The sufficient solution is not up for discussion. The temporary fix in the mean time are the laws that enforce illegal killing and the prisons obviously to hold out of control individuals.
We can see that gun control laws are useful if they:
1. Reduce accidents which result in death.
2. Reduce accidents which result in wounding.
3. Reduce intentional attacks which result in death or wounding.
My opponent didnt provide any statistics or data about the issue.
We can see by simple logic that giving child a gun is a bad idea. Yet the very existence of guns in houses results in some children finding them and using them to kill or would.
So unless my opponent can explain how it is useless to prevent children from having guns, we dont have much to go on.
Round 2
"We can see that gun control laws are useful if they:
1. Reduce accidents which result in death.
2. Reduce accidents which result in wounding.
3. Reduce intentional attacks which result in death or wounding."
Do people have anything to do with control over accidents and intent?
"My opponent didnt provide any statistics or data about the issue.
We can see by simple logic that giving child a gun is a bad idea. Yet the very existence of guns in houses results in some children finding them and using them to kill or would."
Well you're providing additional data for me. You said "giving child a gun". How is the child given a gun ?
There has to be some kind of control executed there with cause and effect. Long story short, control ultimately is coming from somewhere.
"So unless my opponent can explain how it is useless to prevent children from having guns, we dont have much to go on."
The opposing side is making huge leaps here. Who says preventing someone to do something has to do with a law?
The topic is about the control laws. These gun control laws are useless without people controlling themselves. Without the laws , people can still control themselves, the ones that will. So the laws are ineffective.
The opposing side just indirectly made my argument by saying " prevent ".
A person that is able to prevent something or someone has complete control right.
Regardless of a "control law". So the use is in the person or people, not the law which solidifies my stance.
Countries with gun control have less violence.
USA has little to no gun control and has more violence than almost any other developed country.
Round 3
"Countries with gun control have less violence."
Violence is committed by people. People that have more control of themselves can control the violence.
"USA has little to no gun control and has more violence than almost any other developed country."
Violence is committed by people. People that have less control of themselves can be more violent.
No matter which way you go, it's the character of people that choose to abide by sociative contract and order.
Forfeited
Round 4
The opposing side might as well concede.
It all comes down to the people. The laws are what they are at controlling criminality as the people controlling themselves within them.
Open and shut case .
As I said.