The Instigator
usernamesareannoying
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Luharis
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

A complete gun ban in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,477 times Debate No: 73401
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

I will be playing devil's advocate. I am fairly neutral with this subject, however, I want to try and improve my debating skills.



Format

R1: Arguments from Pro

R2: Argument from Con and refutations from Pro
R3: Arguments and rebuttals
R4: Pro waives, Con refutes


Acceptance

Ask politely in the comments if you want to accept. This should be impossible to accept.



Voting

Voters must provide justification for their vote, otherwise the vote can be removed.



Rules

Standard debating rules apply.



Good luck to my opponent...

Luharis

Pro

First off, I'd like to thank the negation for accepting me for this debate.

Now, as the affirmation on this argument, i normally would be fighting the uphill battle against the current laws and precedents set by the courts of the United States of America. The Second amendment, is quite possibly the most controversial guaranteed privilege in the entirety of the Constitution. It's exact wording, is as follows,"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." However, as we are debating whether or not to ban guns, rather than the more common, whether or not banning guns is legal, I am freed of any arguments on the legal side, i therefore may shift this debate to philosophy and morals, rather than a debate centralized on judicial precedent, and legal wording.

Now, what is a gun? A gun as defined by Webster's dictionary is: "a weapon that shoots bullets or shells." Well, how do we define a weapon then? A weapon is defined as follows, "something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you." We suddenly can derive a very clear picture from a philosophical vantage point. A gun is either a weapon that we would use to attack someone, which is bad to do, or as a tool to defend ourselves. Now, any gun advocate or supporter would tell you the merits possessing a gun in a defensive situation, yet, the opposite appears to be true. A study conducted by the CDC found that with gun usage, simply possessing a firearm would increase the risk of death three-fold and the risk of accidental death, and or suicide by a tenfold increase. Any increase in death, is certainly not good and as guns seem to increase the chance of death of the actual owner, does gun ownership really keep responsible people safe?

Furthermore, if hypothetically we could were to remove every gun off of the street, we would not need a gun to defend ourselves with. And this would drastically drop the risk of homicide as a disturbing study revealed that one in ten people with sever anger issue has access to a gun, and up to 20% of those people, are armed at all times.

To conclude, we simply do not live in a society that requires everyone on the street to be armed, and the truth is, as long as people have access to dangerous weapons such as guns, no-one is safe. Armed or not.

Thank-you con for the opportunity to debate, and i wish good luck in the next round

Sources:
http://www.pri.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://wellness.gwinnettmedicalcenter.org...
Debate Round No. 1
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

Pro rightly said that he need not touch upon the current laws and precedents regarding the Constitution. The debate format dictates that I can only provide case this round - so I will refrain from refuting Pro's case.


Arguments

Ineffective

Let's consider a hypothetical scenario, where the US pass a law to ban citizens from owning firearms... How do you plan to "collect" these weapons? Well, there are 300 – 310 million guns in the US (1) alone, or 90 guns per 100 residents (2), which is significantly higher than any other country (4). 47% of adult Americans admit that they have at least one firearm (5). Now, if guns all of a sudden were banned, what efficient method could the legal system devise to confiscate these firearms? The aforementioned statistics convey a cumbersome amount of firearms that ought to be removed. I assert that there is not a viable method to retrieve these fire arms. There are numerous ways for criminals to retrieve firearms (6), many of which evade legal documentation - meaning the transaction is not recorded. In fact, many people can do this. If guns were banned, no-one could officially know who has guns or not. Without a search warrant, if policemen were to go door-to-door, asking the residents to hand over their guns, if the transaction was not listed, policemen would not have a right to search their property. Albeit, most would legally purchase their firearms from stores all around the US, where their credentials would be recorded and stored in databases. However, these stores could not necessarily hand over their customer's details, since this would breach the American versions of the Data Protection Act (7)(8)(9). However, let's say this law could allow breaches in this form of privacy regardless, and would be able to find the listed firearms, that is only some of the many firearms out there. Legally bought weapons don't tend to pose a problem anyway - the most popular weapon type used for crime are handguns (10), yet 60% of handguns used in crime are stolen (11). It is said that 6% of murders are committed with legally acquired guns (12). 6%! That's tiny. Criminals acquire their guns by, straw purchasing, stealing, gun trafficking, black market etc. (13). If there was a gun ban, there is literally nothing stopping criminals from acquiring their weapon of choice. The next source I will provide shows that, once upon a time, Washington DC banned handguns, (bare in mind, the gun used to populate the majority of homicide and crimes), but to their surprise, the homicide rate had risen:
justFacts
(14)

This depicts two things: a gun ban isn't necessarily effective, and if you ban the weapon of choice, it leads to a reagression to other weapons.

This brings me to my next contention, a gun ban would only result in a reagression of other weapons. Knifes already populate a significant amount of homicides (15). Despite criminals having easy access to guns, they could easily use a knife if they saw fit.

In fact, gun ownership can actually protect people. 67% of gun owners that had partaken in this survey, own firearms under the motive of self-protection (16).
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. Population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." (17)
A study conducted in 2000 deduced that "U.S. Civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year." (18)
Another study deduces "Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year." (19)
The last study I will be mentioning is a survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. And it found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"


• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""(20)

Conclusion

I apologize for a short round of case - my arguments mainly rely on refuting my opponents... Anyway, I have shown that a gun ban would be completely ineffective, would cause a reagression in other weapons, and I have shown that guns can be excessively used to protect people. Over to you, Pro.


Citations

(1) http://dailycaller.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://top5ofanything.com...
(4) http://www.reuters.com...
(5) http://www.gallup.com...
(6) http://www.pbs.org...
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(10) http://www.firearmsid.com...
(11) http://www.bjs.gov...
(12) http://extranosalley.com...
(13) http://www.pbs.org...
(14) https://www.justfacts.com...
(15) http://www.fbi.gov...
(16) https://www.justfacts.com...
(17) https://www.justfacts.com...
(18) https://www.justfacts.com...
(19) https://www.justfacts.com...
(20) https://www.justfacts.com...
Luharis

Pro

First off, before i begin my round of debate, i would like to thank the negation for his wonderfully crafted arguments. An secondly, I would like to apologize for taking so long in the posting of this round of debate, I've had a very hectic weekend, but that besides the point. On to the debate!

The con correctly stated that it would be a legal nightmare, and a lot of work to seize all of these guns off of the street, but as we are debating A complete gun ban in the United States, rather than the practicality of a complete ban, I may nullify this point and move. Yet, rather than do that, I will instead address this points for the sake of productive debate. What would make the most sense in the terms of massive gun seizures would be government approved gun collection checkpoints, where for a certain extent of time, people may turn in any now illegal firearm, and be pardoned of the crime. The next step would be after the collection, the national registry of gun owners could be pulled as they are in violation of federal law, thus allowing a legal way for law enforcement to address and seize any other illegal firearms.

Now on to the next part, "It is said that 6% of murders are committed with legally acquired guns (12). 6%! That's tiny. Criminals acquire their guns by, straw purchasing, stealing, gun trafficking, black market etc." Now according to a source cited and used by the con, most guns are illegally purchased through straw sales, or corrupt businesses. The con was also very quick to bring up how easily this law is circumvented through illegal trade, but would like to request the con to specifically address this following statement, and that is: "If we were to make illegal and seize a majority of firearms in the United states, which would lead to the elimination of straw sales and corrupt gun sales, how in fact would criminals acquire weapons effectively?" My answer, is simply that they wouldn't. By slashing the volume of firearms in the United States, and cracking down on the black market, we may in fact reach a point in which we will not see gun violence to the extent that we see it today.

And finally, the last major point by the con side, "This brings me to my next contention, a gun ban would only result in a reagression of other weapons. Knifes already populate a significant amount of homicides (15). Despite criminals having easy access to guns, they could easily use a knife if they saw fit. " This may probably be true, but i ask you this, Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing? a knife Bank heist? The truth is that while we may find new ways to attack each other, we should not let that form keeping us from banning the especially dangerous ones.

I wish the con the best of luck in their 3rd round, and I eagerly await their response.

Source:
http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
usernamesareannoying

Con

I thank my opponent for a thought provoking refutation :)

Rebuttal:


Ineffective

"but as we are debating A complete gun ban in the United States, rather than the practicality of a complete ban, I may nullify this point and move."

I extensively disagree. If we were debating under the following resolution: "Should we travel to Mars?" a valid contention would be that we do not have the necessary technology to travel there, so if we were to attempt to land a spacecraft on Mars, it would likely be a failed mission. I commend to Pro that practicality is a variable that we ought to deabte.

Pro then proposes a very idealistic method of retrieving the weapons. As I have stated, how would the Police know who or who does not have firearms? People could easily not hand in their weapons, without any legal repercussion unless they are caught. If they do manage to retirieve the already legally bought weapons, I have stated that they only provide a infinitesimally tiny contribution to crime and murders.

Pro states: "If we were to make illegal and seize a majority of firearms in the United states, which would lead to the elimination of straw sales and corrupt gun sales, how in fact would criminals acquire weapons effectively?" My answer, is simply that they wouldn't." But provides no evidence for necessary justification. Pro merely opines that this is the case.

"Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing? a knife Bank heist? The truth is that while we may find new ways to attack each other, we should not let that form keeping us from banning the especially dangerous ones."

This is an appeal to extremes fallacy. Just because one weapon is not the necessary weapon of choice for a very unlikely incident, does not mean that the point is invalid.

Refutation:

Weapons

This argument Pro opines that guns are dangerous because they are a weapon. However, the assumed syllogism could be used to ban anything.

P1: x is a weapon
P2: x can hurt people
C: x should be banned

This logic can ban anything. As Pro define earlier, a weapon is something that: is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you". A car could necessarily be used as a weapon, therefore, we should ban cars. Fruit and vegetables can be used as a weapon, therefore, we should ban fruit and veg. The possibility of death does not necessitate a gun ban.

His next argument assumes the following syllogism:

P1: Risk is bad
P2: Guns increase risk
C: Therefore, guns should be banned

Being in a car increases your chances of dying in a car crash. There are numerous entities that increase the risk of death. Increased risk does not necessiate a gun ban.

"Furthermore, if hypothetically we could were to remove every gun off of the street, we would not need a gun to defend ourselves with."

I agree. However, this is completely idealistic, and Pro has not proposed a viable method to collect all 300 million firearms.

"And this would drastically drop the risk of homicide as a disturbing study revealed that one in ten people with sever anger issue has access to a gun, and up to 20% of those people, are armed at all times."

Pro commits the slippery slope fallacy, or the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Pro states that these angered people would definitely kill people if they had access to guns - yet provides no evidence for it.

Conclusion:

I have shown that Pro's method of retrieving the guns are impracticle and non-viable and I have shown that Pro's arguments does not necessiate a gun ban, since we could use the same logic to ban everything. Thanks for the response Pro and I wish you good luck in the following round :)




Luharis

Pro

A strong refutation by con.

I believe it is time for me to address the main issue in this debate, and they are as follows: protection, collection, and risk

Now, i personally feel that it is an entirely different topic altogether to discuss the practicality of the matter, and i would like to take your example, "If we were debating under the following resolution: "Should we travel to Mars?" a valid contention would be that we do not have the necessary technology to travel there, so if we were to attempt to land a spacecraft on Mars, it would likely be a failed mission." as a point on why feasibility is not an issue. In the 1960's, the United States put a man on the moon, yet at the beginning of the decade, the technology was considered unfeasible and highly theoretical, yet we decided after much debate to go forth and achieve it. Now in the debates, practicality was NOT an issue, as this was an argument to merely set a goal and work to achieve, not to design the entire program at once. Now with have been said, i shall provide the con with a practical plan of disarmament as there has been much demand to see one.

The plan would be as follows:

1. The gun ban is adopted across the United States
2. As gun ownership is now a crime, local law enforcement throughout the country now have the right to access the national registry of gun ownership
3. Local police departments would set areas where guns would be collected and processed, in exchange for complete amnesty for ownership. This phase would last for 6 months
4. After the 6 months have expired, law enforcement would seize weapons from any registered owner who refused to comply at they would be fined for each offense.
5. After another 6 months, any gun found would be seized by law enforcement, and those who broke the law would face jail time
6. Local law enforcement would expand it's patrols in order to guarantee the safety of the citizens

Now on to the protection issue, the murder rate would plummet following a gun ban, because while the con was quick to bring up how little handguns contributed to murder, it was a lie through omission that legally owned guns contributed little to violence, as handguns are but one type of firearm, in fact 3/4 of guns used in mass murders an shootings were legally purchased. We would also see an end to the disturbing trend of rising gun related injury and homicide. And that is despite all of the advancements in treating gunshot wounds and the resulting trauma. Besides a majority of the population favors these bans on weapons. To be exact, 54 percent or 17 million more voters are in favor of a total ban.

Now on to the final point risk. Yes the pro was very quick to make a mockery of my stance that an automatic assault weapon capable of firing multiple rounds per second with an easily re-loadable magazine capable of penetrating police body armor and with effective range of 200 meters is dangerous. That must have been a foolish to think. In the united states, every day, 289 people are shot and 86 people are killed by guns daily on average. Now let say we were to ban guns, and lets say that 30% of guns are then illegally smuggled, which of course is a gross overestimate, we would save over 20,000 people a year! But what about the benefits you may ask? People feel in control and as a result make poor decisions. A study conducted by the NRA stated that at the shooting of Charlie Hebdo, if everyone was armed, there would have been more casualties suffered by the staff, not fewer as was the popular misconception. I'm am in no saying we should ban everything dangerous, i merely stating that guns tend to put people in high risk scenarios and does very little to actually protect them. This may be iconoclastic, but it is simply the truth, guns offer very little benefits while putting the lives of everyone at risk.

My next contention, con says, "Pro states that these angered people would definitely kill people if they had access to guns - yet provides no evidence for it." I really did not want to discuss these ad events, and if the con wished to see the effects of anger and gun violence, i would urge to look at the news every now and then.

I would like to thank the Con for this wondrous debate, and i wish him best of luck in the last round of debate which i shall waive as per agreements.

Your move con!

Sources:
http://www.thewire.com...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...
http://news.discovery.com...
http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 3
usernamesareannoying

Con

Ineffective

Pro says that my analogy for practicality is invalid, because the technology is considered unfeasible. However, this is completely false. Pro's logic is, if it is unfeasible, we should apparently do it anyway. It isn't feasible to leave our solar system, but apparently we should invest billions of dollars to try and do so regardless. He also provides no sources for why the landing was theoretical. Why should we believe him? Therefore, the variable of practicality is a factor that we ought to debate.


"1. The gun ban is adopted across the United States
2. As gun ownership is now a crime, local law enforcement throughout the country now have the right to access the national registry of gun ownership
3. Local police departments would set areas where guns would be collected and processed, in exchange for complete amnesty for ownership. This phase would last for 6 months
4. After the 6 months have expired, law enforcement would seize weapons from any registered owner who refused to comply at they would be fined for each offense.
5. After another 6 months, any gun found would be seized by law enforcement, and those who broke the law would face jail time
6. Local law enforcement would expand it's patrols in order to guarantee the safety of the citizens"


Pro plays the act of a visionary - his plan is completely idealistic... However, in pragmatic reality, the plan would not be effective. This would only work for legally bought weapons. As stated in my opening round: "It is said that 6% of murders are committed with legally acquired guns".

Pro makes a bold statement and says that I lied, but provided no evidence for it. was not just 6% of handguns, it was 6% of all guns. He states "3/4 of guns used in mass murders an shootings were legally purchased." If we were to accept this at face value, it would still contribute to an infinitesimally small percentage of homicides a year. How often does one hear about a mass shooting? According to this source, only 900 people have died in mass shootings over the last SEVEN YEARS. Therefore, on average only 128 people die each year to mass shootings. And only 96 are committed with legally bought weapons! Therefore, Pro's contention provides an abysmal point.

"and lets say that 30% of guns are then illegally smuggled, which of course is a gross overestimate, we would save over 20,000 people a year!"

Where did Pro get theses figures? Illegally bought firearms contribute to 94% of all gun homicides. So, if we were to take the 6% of that would equate to: 594 people since the sandy hook incident. Since the incident happened three years ago, on average, if this plan was initiated, we would save 198 people per year. Well, I don't know about you but I believe the reasons that Pro dropped:

"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. Population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." (17)
A study conducted in 2000 deduced that "U.S. Civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year." (18)
Another study deduces "Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year." (19)
The last study I will be mentioning is a survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. And it found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""(20)"

completely outweigh a saviour of 198 people per year.

Pro then attempts to debunk this with referring the Charlie Hebdo shooting, however, this is an appeal to extremes fallacy.

Conclusion

I have defended all of my arguments, and I have refuted all of my opponents. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. And I wish him good luck in the voting period.

Citations (ALL)

(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) http://dailycaller.com......
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org......
(3) http://top5ofanything.com......
(4) http://www.reuters.com......
(5) http://www.gallup.com......
(6) http://www.pbs.org......
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org......
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org......
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org......
(10) http://www.firearmsid.com......
(11) http://www.bjs.gov......
(12) http://extranosalley.com......
(13) http://www.pbs.org......
(14) https://www.justfacts.com......
(15) http://www.fbi.gov......
(16) https://www.justfacts.com......
(17) https://www.justfacts.com......
(18) https://www.justfacts.com......
(19) https://www.justfacts.com......
(20) https://www.justfacts.com......

Luharis

Pro

I would like to thank the Con side for their arguments, and i shall waive this round as per agreed at the begging of this debate. However, before that happens, I must say that i am disappointed with the fact that con would repeatedly state that I as the pro would not post sources, as i provided links to the sources at the bottom of every argument, under a part named Sources. Rather than just copy and paste material directly into my arguments, I felt it would be better to just state my reasoning, and provide the sources used.

I wish you best of luck in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
No problem, good luck.
Posted by Luharis 2 years ago
Luharis
Alright, just give me some time to put together my arguments. Thanks!
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
@Luharis

Remember, you have to provide case for round one.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
@Luharis

Cool, if you have debating experience I am sure you will prove a challenge; you can take Pro stance.
Posted by Luharis 2 years ago
Luharis
I'd like to debate this. I've actually had a bit of experience with the arguments on gun rights, and i admire the fact that you aim to improve your skills, as i myself am on my school's debate team.
Posted by Luharis 2 years ago
Luharis
I'd like to debate this. I've actually had a bit of experience with the arguments on gun rights, and i admire the fact that you aim to improve your skills, as i myself am on my school's debate team.
Posted by debate_man98223 2 years ago
debate_man98223
i want to join
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
@thatguyyouonceknew

I am at the Con position.
Posted by thatoneguyyouonceknew 2 years ago
thatoneguyyouonceknew
Why in the world would we try to get rid of all guns? Does the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States mean nothing to you?
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
Really? I might switch positions then...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
usernamesareannoyingLuharisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: