The Instigator
revleader5
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
bcaldwell100
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

All citizens who have not committed a crime should have the right to purchase a gun.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,297 times Debate No: 831
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (14)

 

revleader5

Pro

Criminals will always get their hands on guns. You can ban everyone from using them, they'll take advantage of it and use them against the law-abidding citizens.

Isn't it scary that the government can decided at any time to have some troopers storm a house and kill you? Wouldn't you like to defend yourself?

Criminals always can get guns from outside of the US, they'll just use them against us, the law followers.
bcaldwell100

Con

OK, so running off of your 1st speech, it seems clear that this is going to be a positive/ negative impact debate. To clarify, whoever can make the best argument towards good things that will happen if they win, and/or bad things that will happen if their opponent wins, will be the victor. Fair enough?
Next, as the con, I am advocating for a system that would not allow citizens to own guns.
So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 3) As I am only advocating for CITIZENS not owning guns, it is safe to assume that on duty police officers will have firearms, and will provide as the defense for the "defenseless".
Your next impact is a question, not an argument, but I'll show its insignificance anyway. You provide no warrant, rationale, or precedence in which a citizen has been attacked by their government, mush less needed a gun to defend themselves. The only citizens that would normally be attacked by the government are law- breakers, which flows into my argument #3 on your 1st point.
So, at this point, I have made it clear why the bad things he said are not likely to happen, and why we shouldn't vote pro, I'll tell you why we should vote con. To do this I will use a series of negative impacts like my opponent, only I intend to support them with rationale and/or evidence.

Point 1: Do you like children? I know I do, I believe that children are our future, they are a good thing to strive to protect. Well, a Harvard University Study published in the February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma, shows that children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in states with the lower levels of gun ownership. Additionally, children in the top five gun ownership states were twice as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall.
VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "this study proves what common sense would dictate, a greater availability of guns has dangerous and deadly consequences. Firearms in the home pose an enormous threat to the well-being of our nation's children."
Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and lead author of the study, states, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in unintentional shootings. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children."
The availability of guns has a direct effect on the number of children being killed with guns. That's a good reason to vote con.

Point 2: Since we are clearly valuing the protection of citizens, domestic violence also increases due to firearm availability. The results from a Multi-Site Case Control Study by J. C. Campbell, D; Webster, J; Koziol-McLain, C., as published in American Journal of Public Health show: "Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no forearms. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners." Because firearm availability increases domestic fatalities, more citizens, in this case women are harmed by the presence of firearms.
Under this same argument, to preempt the argument that women could use guns to defend themselves, I turn to the article A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. (2001): "In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self- defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun." It is clear that domestic violence and deaths will increase due to domestically owned guns, a severe negative impact is placed on the pro's goal of protecting citizens.

Point 3: The ownership of a firearm is actually more likely to make you a victim of homocide. According to the findings from a recent case-control study (Kellermann et al. 1993) were interpreted as indicating that "persons who lived in households with guns were 2.7 times as likely to become homicide victims as persons in households without guns." An article published by the Harvard School for Public Health called "Firearm availability and homicide". "The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide. Two groups of ecological studies are reviewed, those comparing multiple countries and those focused solely on the United States. Results from the cross-sectional international studies typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Owning a gun actually statistically increases the harm that will be done to you, this directly opposes the pro's value of citizen protection because the ownership of guns does directly the opposite.

Point 4: The availability of firearms increases suicides. According to a study and case review done by: Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, PhO; IVIartin Killias, PhD; Urs Hepp, MD; Erika Gadola, MA; Matthias Bopp, PhD; Christoph Lauber, MD; Ulrich Schnyder, MD; Felix Gutzwiller, MD; DrPH, and Wulf Rossler, MD, MA. "This result is in line with the well-established association between availability of firearms at home and risk of firearm suicide.' Firearm suicides depend on the availability of the method more than other suicide methods. Firearm suicides result more often fixed impulsive decisions than other suicide methods and tend to be associated more often with alcohol abuse." Victims of firearm suicides were shown to have distinctly fewer previous suicide attempts (22%) in their psychiatric history than were victims of other suicide methods (360/0-70%). Furthermore, firearms are more lethal than most other suicide methods."
Increases in suicide rates are directly related to the availability of firearms, and these suicides are exclusive to firearms. This is another reason that the private ownership of firearms harms individual citizens that the pro was trying to protect.

Summary: I have given 4 main points that show conclusively that citizens are harmed by firearms, more than they could be helped by using them for self- defense. I have given piles of creditable evidence to support each and every claim I make, something that my opponent fails to do. We are both valuing the protection of citizens, that's why he's saying we must have private ownership, that's why I'm saying we shouldn't. If a single one of my points stands in this round, we should vote con.

As a final note, I challenge my opponent to retrieve evidence that is not from or derived from the research conducted by the NRA. The NRA has a direct economic incentive to produce false evidence, and I claim that they have done so on several occasions. They are a tainted source and should not be used in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
revleader5

Pro

Quote from your argument- So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo.

1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain.
2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources.
3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no?
bcaldwell100

Con

OK, so your ENTIRE rebuttal was a defense of the attacks I made on your case. Keep in mind, you don't simply win if I don't land an argument against your case, I have given 4 well supported reasons why banning private ownership of guns would do FAR more good than bad. At this point, just by landing ALL 4 POINTS, I should win.
But, I still have plenty of room, so I'll cover your case and reiterate my own.
Quote: 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain.
2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources.
3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no?

Rebuttal:
1- My number 1 point was stating that a minority of Americans currently own a gun, therefore, many people are "defenseless" already. So if I was to ban guns, the number of victims wouldn't rise all that much, assuming my 3rd main point falls out. If my point 3 stands (which it has) You are actually increasing the number of people victimized by guns, while I am decreasing them. Essentially, even if this point is right (which it is not), you cannot win with it because my arguments show that you still pose a higher level of threat for the general public.
2- Yes Criminals will still get their hands on guns, but with a complete gun ban, it will be much harder for them to obtain these guns. The main effect of this argument is that, there is a high possibility that the number of criminals will actually decrease, or at least not increase, if my ban was put in place. Which is just one more reason to vote con. Again, even if I don't win this argument, I have shown with any of my 4 points, that MORE citizens will be hurt by maintaining gun ownership than of we ban it. Since the only reason that criminals having guns is bad is because they'll hurt citizens, I outweigh you at this point. Since more law abiding citizens die on your side, I should win.
3- I already argue this in my point 3 against your case. I say that you are incorrectly assuming that police officers will break into lawful citizens houses and kill them. You give no reason whatsoever why this would happen. I see no examples, studies, rationale, or evidence of any sort to support this claim, there is no reason any voters should use it to vote pro. The only time a police officer would break into someone's home is if they were suspected of crime and the police had obtained a warrant. This means that your argument is actually defending CRIMINALS' rights to own guns and shoot at our boys in blue. This alone is another reason to vote CON!!!

OK, on to my entirely unscathed case. If you look back to my main points, you will se that I firmly establish, with evidence, that:
1) More children will die if a gun ban is not established. Children dying is a bad thing, and therefore we should vote con to avoid it happening as often.
2) Domestic violence is more common and more deadly with the private ownership of firearms. This means that more women will die if we don't establish a gun ban. Since women dying is a bad thing, we should vote con to stop it from happening as often.
3) The private ownership of a gun is MORE likely to get you murdered. This is a huge argument because it directly disproves the idea that letting criminals have guns will increase the number of innocent citizens that will die. I support this with mounds of evidence and you provide none. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, so we should vote con to reduce that.
4) More people will commit suicide if firearms are more available. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD!!!!!!! So we should vote con to prevent it from happening as often.

Let me make this as simple as possible. You hurt MORE citizens than I do, therefore, you lose. Because KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD!!!!! If you kill people, while I do not; or you kill more people while I kill less; I WIN.
At this point, you don't have a leg to stand on and I have 4 main reasons why you conclusively LOSE.
Debate Round No. 2
revleader5

Pro

You've forgotten the most important fact of all. You know how the Constitution states our god-given rights that cannot be taken away by anyone?

The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land."

Explain to me how you plan that we could create laws that infringe upon the Constitution, the document under which the USA was founded?

You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed.
bcaldwell100

Con

First of all, I'd like to point out the abuse of this situation. It is round 3! He has completely trashed his original case and started an entirely new debate! I am expected to leave the case I have worked on and answer an entirely new pro case like it is round 1, this is a dirty trick and you should be scolded for it. But, I was never one to back out of a debate, no matter how unfair my opponent is being.
Let me just wine a little more about the antics of my opponent.
"You've forgotten the most important fact of all"
That's because it is a new goddamned argument!!!! It wasn't part of the debate until NOW!!!
"You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed."
He essentially says in his speech that there is NO WAY I can win this argument, because he tells me I cannot use the only route he leaves me with, this is madness, for everyone who might ever vote on this topic, please see the abuse this man is putting upon me.
So I'm going to reject your demand and argue past the Constitution.
You are correct that the Constitution is an extremely important document that ought to be respected, however the claim that the USA was founded on the document is false. The Constitution was written after the establishment of the United States, the US was founded on an idea, not a text. The intentions of the Constitution supersede the text written there because without the intention of the law, the words are meaningless.
The purpose of the United States government, and every western government was to protect and serve the citizens under it. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect citizens that might be attacked by british solders or Indians. At the time that the constitution was written, guns helped citizens far more than they hurt them, therefore, to fulfill their obligation to protect citizens, they had to make guns a right.
Today, however, the US has the same obligation to protect us, but, we are now hurt more by the ownership of firearms than we are aided. This goes back to my con case. If private gun ownership is unnecessarily detrimental to citizens, it is the FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATION of the US of A to change the Amendment. The Constitution was made to preserve America, once the Constitution serves a purpose contrary to that of the reason it was MADE, it MUST be reformed.
Since all 4 points in my case stand, PEOPLE WILL DIE UNDER YOUR CASE!!!! This is contrary to the fundamental purpose of your precious American government, and must be stopped.
There, I have defeated your first and second case. I hope you regret changing your case, because now you cannot respond to any of my arguments, and I should win both cases.
To summarize for voters: Under the pro case, I have firmly established that people will die. This is a bad thing. So bad, that no voter should vote pro, no government should agree with the pro, and the Constitution must be changed in order to PRESERVE the democracy known as the United States of America!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by NeenahLibertarian 9 years ago
NeenahLibertarian
I have to vote con even though my personal beliefs lie with the pro. The pro is non-responsive to the majority of the cons arguments and even the ones that he responds to aren't well documented. I have no problem with lengthy arguments, I believe it is a great strategy because it forces your opponent to put effort into winning the round, if he doesn't want to put effort into it then he will drop a lot of arguments and thus lose. As for those of you who don't want to read the arguments, if you're not going to read them, don't vote.
Posted by bcaldwell100 9 years ago
bcaldwell100
fenderjazzer, I'm sorry my arguments piss you off, and I am very lengthy. I will try to simplify my arguments in the future.
Posted by yarni 9 years ago
yarni
How about instead of banning all guns we ban handguns and make it so the only gun legally purchasable would be hunting rifles and only if you had a hunting license.
Posted by fenderjazzerguy 9 years ago
fenderjazzerguy
Even if we are voting on the debate your argument pisses me off. I'm not gonna take 15 minutes out my life to read your argument. Learn to summarize.
Posted by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
Guns don't kill people, guns kill dinner.
Posted by bcaldwell100 9 years ago
bcaldwell100
Look, it is your job to vote on the debate, not the issue. At the point that you vote on your own arguments, that were not presented in his speech, then you are not voting on the debate.
Posted by jlholtzapple 9 years ago
jlholtzapple
I agree with revleader5, because guns dont kill people people do, if you take away guns then they will find a way to get them, but if you can find a way to make sure there is no possible way at all to get them then whats next knives, pardon me but I thought this was a free country. If the person has it in there mind that they are going to kill someone then they are going to find a way to do it, taking guns away is not going to solve any problems
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by NeenahLibertarian 9 years ago
NeenahLibertarian
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by nassif.nicholas 9 years ago
nassif.nicholas
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by shintsurugi07 9 years ago
shintsurugi07
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by invertman 9 years ago
invertman
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wedoada 9 years ago
wedoada
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ziege19 9 years ago
ziege19
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Skanarchy 9 years ago
Skanarchy
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
revleader5bcaldwell100Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30