The Instigator
Valar_Dohaeris
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
TheChaoticVoid
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

A complete gun ban in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 864 times Debate No: 67918
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

Valar_Dohaeris

Con

its a bad idea to ban gun
TheChaoticVoid

Pro

I accept this debate. I will be arguing for a complete gun ban. I would request the Instigator to post the rules of the debate. I accept the BOP.
Debate Round No. 1
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

Pro has accepted the BOP.

Resolved - A ban on all guns in the US


Negative Impact

Starting a complete and total ban on guns will not solve anything. The only effective way to actually implement this idea is by having a buy back accompanying it. A buy back or the removal of guns on a compulsory basis, would incite a great deal of harm in the US. People want to have guns, and they think it is their right under the amendments and the constitution. Forcing a removal of those guns, would have long term negative impacts that could lead to another civil war. Countless people have said they would not give back their guns if a buy back happened, and others said they would fight or defend their right to bear arms. The overall negative impact of trying to force people to give up their guns, or stopping their right to defend themselves is a net detriment in the US


0 effect

Banning guns would just result into a regression of other weapons. You ban guns, people go to knives. You ban knives they go to their fists. People will always find ways to hurt people and banning a catalyst for the harm will just result into another catalyst forming.


More regulation but not a ban

The more effective thing would be to issue stronger background checks, limit high capacity magazines, etc. It is something that would have a more positive effect without the fallout of a total ban. More regulation can be a good thing, but a total ban would result in citizens fighting back.

Guns reduce Crime

If you ban gun from civilians, they lose their self defense. Guns will still be around via under ground purchase. A citizen has the right to defend themselves and allowing guns in homes actually reduces robberies and other types of crime because it acts a deterrent. Allowing criminals to have guns, while removing them from civilians would actually increase the crime and murder rate by a significant margin.
TheChaoticVoid

Pro

I'd like to thank the instigator for this debate. I also wish him the best of luck.

Rebuttals


"Starting a complete and total ban on guns will not solve anything."
A complete ban would actually solve things. Here is a graph from the Bureau of Justice statistics:
[1]

Homicides are mostly committed with handguns, while decreasing, it is still a lot larger than other weapons, while other gun homicides are increasing, with knifes actually being the weapon least used on this graph.


"they think it is their right under the amendments and the constitution"
First off I would like to quote the segment of constitution relating to weapons:

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.

I would like to point out that it is not their right to bear firearms. The constitution gives the people the right to bear arms. Arms is defined by the Oxford dictionary as: Weapons and ammunition; armaments. While arms is often referred to as firearms, it actually means weapons in general. So the people have the right to bear weapons, but it will not be against to the constitution to ban guns.


"Banning guns would just result into a regression of other weapons. You ban guns, people go to knives. You ban knives they go to their fists. People will always find ways to hurt people and banning a catalyst for the harm will just result into another catalyst forming."

Other weapons are less harmful. While yes people will find ways to harm people, knifes and fists are less dangerous. You have a much higher possibility to survive an attack from a knife, and a fist than a gun. You can outrun the person, or try to fight back. With guns, you can't outrun the bullet.


"Guns will still be around via under ground purchase."

In this case, I would like to point out that with restrictions set, guns will also be still able to be obtained by criminals, through that way. However I suggest that by stricter security at ports, and airports to ensure that little to no firearms enter the country unless authorized (ex: For the military, or police officer). This would guns hard, or even impossible to obtain even through underground purchase.



People lose family and loved ones

I would like to show you another graph from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
[1]

You can see from this graph that the most people that die are between ages 17 to 30, with still a significant amount of people under that age and above that die. In fact even infants get killed. This can cause a lot of emotional damage to a person, even driving them to the point of suicide.

Suggestion on how to enforce gun ban

I suggest stricter security at airports and ports, including higher grade weapons for security personnel. More thorough checks of everyone can be implemented. I also suggest that all airlines, not just commercial ones get checked, and pass through normal inspections. I also suggest that the death penalty is put back in all states, and be used in the situation of a gun homicide.



[1]:http://www.bjs.gov...
[1]:http://www.bjs.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

R1) Second Amendment

My adversary is bringing up constitutionality in question, and defines it a certain way. He does not understand the impact of this argument. What the actually constitution is defined as and what people define it as are two different things. In fact two supreme court rulings have found it lawful and constitutions to posses firearms and not weapons ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) if you review that case the supreme court actually struct down firearm control regulations and ruled it as unconstitutional. So yes the constitution does give us the right to bear arms, and arms are defined as firearms and that is shown by that supreme court ruling.

Again that is not the key argument. The argument is that people will perceive it as their right no matter what occurs. It does not even matter what is actually ruled, because people think they have the right to own guns. Issuing a mandatory ban or buy back would literally start the next civil war. All of america loves gun, and people will stand and fight if you try and remove those guns. This even extends into property rights in ways. If you try and take the property of a person in which they can lawfully posses and are promised the right to possess or which they think they have the right to possess, people will fight back. That is a fact.

(a) It is ruled by the supreme court that we have the right to bear arms, via those two cases
(b) Even if that was not the case the point would still stand. People would perceive it as their sight and rebel against it leaving a net negative impact.


R2) Regression

This is about impact mitigation, if you ban guns it reduces harm. It really does not. If you ban guns entirely, it opens up a black market for them. So the crimes that occur already will keep occurring, but now you have unarmed your citizens. People will still get guns through illegal avenues, still cause crimes but not it's even harder for people to defend themselves. You are literally telling them to take a knife to a gun fight. Not only that people will find ways to harm people in bad ways, they will go to chemicals or bombs. If someone wants to harm people they will find ways to harm people. So even if the ban hypothetically had no black market effect, people will just fall back to other things to cause mass harm with. this is not the case though, criminals will still have the guns after the bans and the citizens wont. The black market effect is a very real thing


R3) Guns Reduce Crime

If you examine the Austrian or american buy backs you will see a similar pattern. If you ban guns, crime increases. That is because of the black market effect. People will commit crimes, murders, etc without fear because you have unarmed your people. You can cleary see this in the Australia buy back because robberies and crime drastically increased as soon as the ban was imposed. (
http://www.loc.gov... ). Pros entire contention about it stopping crime is false. It does not stop crime, it increases it and by a large scale. Guns for all practical purposes decrease crime because they act as a deterrent ( http://www.loc.gov... ). If you actually examine the Australia buy back you can see no effect or no effect at all regarding it's impacts on murders, and a huge spike in robbers , and other types of crimes right after it. The same remains true with US buy backs. You see the same pattern. If you take away guns crime always increases despite what my adversary says. That is a fact when you examine any previous ban.


Dropped ) More Regulation. Including high capacity bans etc. Pistols are a primary cause in deaths. My adversary is trying to build a case for mitigating harm, reducing the magazine size of pistols allows that to happen while giving people the right to bear arms and defend themselves reasonably.
TheChaoticVoid

Pro

Rebuttal

This part of the rebuttals will address the instigator's counterarguments 2 and 3. The instigator states that people will resort to black markets. I would like to point out that I have already stated that through higher security, and the death penalty for gun homicide, and selling guns that can be made so that it is hard or even impossible to obtain the firearms.

"criminals will still have the guns after the bans and the citizens wont"

This can easily be prevented through a monthly check on citizens by local authorities, starting immediately after the law is passed.

I will now address the magazine limit regulation suggestion by the instigator. The instigator pointed out the black market effect previously. I would like to point out with magazine limit regulations, through the black market people can also acquired high capacity magazines. What is to stop the black market from selling high capacity magazines.

I would like that point out that while the instigator said that crimes drastically increased immediately after the ban, that was not case, I have looked over the webpage the instigator provide, and would like to show this:

[i]n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period.

There was a 47 percent decrease at 2001 in firearm deaths according to the website he provided. So from his own source we know that instead of a drastic increase the firearm deaths have drastically decreased.


I now like to thank the instigator for this debate, and look forward to seeing the results whether I win or he does.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1)

Lot of assumptions going on on both sides. I'll quickly go through the debate and give some modest feedback on how each position worked out.

1. Second Amendment

So, I'm not sure why Pro brought this up. Emphasis on the "Pro" here. Con never argued, before R3, that the second amendment was a reason not to ban guns. Bringing it up opened the floodgates for numerous arguments about why guns are upheld by the USSC as important pieces of property that are enshrined within the Bill of Rights.

However, Con never really exploits this. He never gives me any information on why I should specifically view the second amendment as a reason not to institute a gun ban. I don't doubt that the law does enshrine gun rights, but Con had to do more than just point this out to get much traction on this point. Still, I have a legal impediment to Pro's action, so that's something... even if the problem comes from Pro himself.

2. Rebellion

This point is definitely going towards Con, since Pro never provides me anything in the way of rebuttal. He basically just gives me mechanisms for preventing access to guns AFTER all guns have been removed from everyone's persons. He never states anything about why the likely violence that would accompany such a round-up would not be problematic.

Admittedly, Con doesn't do much to support this point. He only asserts that the problem exists, doesn't provide any support for a willingness of any group of people to act violently in response to a gun ban, nor does he really take the time to explain how a gun ban would force many of them to act. Those things could have made this point huge, and I wouldn't have to look at the rest of the debate if I'd gotten some numbers here. I didn't, so it's important, but not an automatic win.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

3. Black Market

This comes off as a win for Con too. Pro points out multiple means by which this problem can be reduced, but none of the mechanisms he proposes solve the problem. Con points out some circumstances in other nations where such harms occurred, and I get no response to that. At best, I'm buying that this acquisition won't be common, but not that it's impossible.

Again, I don't get the analysis from Con to give this a lot of weight, though. It's worth explaining why it is that a black market getting extra funding is really and truly problematic (funds crime). It's worth explaining that criminals are going to get access to more dangerous weapons with illegal attachments, since that's what they're pushed towards, now that they don't have legal options. It's worth going into depth on how it turns law abiding citizens into criminals, since their desire to protect themselves and their families becomes a crime and, thus, their desperation to do so a criminal activity. Lacking that, I only have the basic argument that fewer people can defend themselves and more criminals have guns.

4. Deterrence

I'm basically shocked that Pro didn't attack this. There's a lot of very reasonable debate over whether guns actually deter crime. Con manages to provide evidence from Australia that shows that crime increased (Pro wrongly assumes that firearm homicides decreasing = a decrease in crimes, and doesn't build any case for why homicides should be most pertinent, even if I believe that is the case). So I'm buying that Con is leaving crime the same, while Pro is increasing it. I'm buying that Con is allowing increased homicide, but Pro never gives me a reasonable estimation of the homicide rate difference between Con's restrictions and Pro's outright ban. So that's difficult for me to assess, whereas Con's argument that crime is no longer deterred is easy to assess.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

5. The Cases

Pro shifts his case between R2 and R3. The monthly check is brand spanking new in the final round, not to mention intensely confusing. A monthly check? Of all possible residencies? Pro is now essentially allowing unlawful search and seizure, requiring the addition of countless police officers, and further risking tremendous reprisal by citizens. I don't know why Pro included this, but it just buys into Con's case.

Con's case is more straightforward. I'm not sure it's entirely necessary, as I think a basic discussion of whether the ban is beneficial would be enough, but it makes sense and garners at least some of the benefits of Pro's case without the harms.

6. Other Weapons

Con tells me that other weapons can cause as much harm. Pro tells me that knives can't. Con tells me bombs can. Pro is non-responsive. So now I'm believing (against my better judgment) that bombs are very easily created, moved and utilized and would be broadly employed in the U.S. following such a ban, making it essentially pointless. Which leads me to the last point.

7. Legal Gun Harms

By the end of the debate, this is basically Pro's only contention. He shows that guns harm society now more than any other weapon. That's not enough. Con is actively telling me that the situation will change dramatically, with other weapons moving up while guns, as a mechanism of death, may go down, but may also go up due to the black market. Yes, I believe guns are bad. I also believe illegal guns and bombs are bad. Those things weigh on me, at least mitigating this into oblivion, at worst functioning as a massive turn.

Conclusion:

Con is just winning too many arguments. Weak as they are, Pro needed to rebut them, and instead he spends his final round hurting his own case by expanding it and misrepresenting his argument. Lacking that, I can do nothing but vote Con.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Kron. You do know that Pro has BOP, not Con, right? So Con's not the one that needs to prove anything.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is having the BoP. So, he must fulfil it. Firstly, Con says that people still can find other ways to harm each other through chemicals or bombs. Pro also did not elaborate why monthly check is effective nor the reports have shown that it is effective. Con also has shown that people will fight back if there is a BAN of gun. As a whole Pro's arguments are not stable and lack of elaboration.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Stronger rebuttals from Con. Pro could have maybe benefited from outlining more in his closing argument.
Vote Placed by Eli01 2 years ago
Eli01
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: CON's sources do not support their claims. PRO actually pointed that out in the last round by saying "I would like that point out that while the instigator said that crimes drastically increased immediately after the ban, that was not case, I have looked over the webpage the instigator provide, and would like to show this: [i]n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period." Win for PRO.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented several challenges to Pro in regards to the 2nd amendment, black market, regulation, and a link between banning guns and an increase in crime. Pro attempted to counter the 2nd amendment by showing the difference between firearms and weapons in general. Con was able to show supreme court rulings in his favor, thus this goes to Con. Pro pushed for very strict regulation, but never presented reasonable means to enact them, and instead relied on assumptions and hypothetical scenarios. Con presented evidence of the black market trading that occurs if weapons are taken away, Pro never effectively rebutted that except with more hypothetical scenarios. Study-wise, I found them to be somewhat contradictory. Given that there is no clear consensus, source-wise, neither side really stood out in that regard. I did find Pro's case regarding gun bans = less deaths to be compelling, but it was not substantial enough to outweigh Con's two successful challenges. Con's case was stronger.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BOP in this case. While both cases made a number of claims, the part of this debate that stood out was Australia's Gun Ban. Pro brought my attention to issues in Con's study... Issues that helped Con win this. Pro must understand that there are two sides here... Yes, and No. When discussing policy, Uncertainty is No. To pass a policy, one must prove there is certainty that the policy will work, or they fail to prove their case. Con only needed to Prove No or Uncertainty, as both are the same. Con's study did say the Fire Arms bans decreased crime... And it also said it didn't. It said Firearm ownership decreased, and then it said it didn't. The page listed a lot of studies that left the impression that we simply don't have a solid certainty. The study shown that many studies contradict on the matter, and left me, as a voter, uncertain of if the policy worked. This was a major hit to Pro's need to fulfill his BOP. Pro was unable to produce certainty.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the BOP. Pro provided extensive evidence that gun bans would not reduce crime rates and that it would be unconstitutional. Pro argued guns were an issue, but failed to prove gun bans would be a viable solution.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 2 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Valar_DohaerisTheChaoticVoid
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con's sources do not support their claims, simple as that...and Pro pointed this out (in the last round). I could not find a single quote of "increased" or "deterrant" in Con's linked "source" that supports their claims.