The Instigator
DaddyTang
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points

All firearms should be banned.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,479 times Debate No: 13292
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (12)

 

DaddyTang

Con

I've been in the NRA for about 4 years now, and many times I have been faced with the statement, "Guns should be banned because..." Now, I don't specifically blame Democrats/liberals on the issue supporting gun control, I simply look down on anyone who blatantly screams out "GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED." I've actually taken time to research some facts and statistics, but I'm not too big on those. We can all agree that facts and statistics can and are changed accordingly in favor of whoever is advocating or protesting the weapons. I've heard and seen various numbers or statements, most of which I've been unable to resolve through research. There's just way too much tampering with numbers, because we can agree that neither gun advocates nor anti-gun advocates want to lose their arguments. Though, true numbers exist. The only effective way I've found is comparing the statistics or facts to other statistics and facts from different sources, and if they are consistent, then I consider it evidence that they are true. However, my personally preferred way to disprove theories about why guns should be banned, is making the people who make those theories think outside the box. I look forward to arguing the simple point why firearms should or shouldn't be banned. I stand as being against the banning of firearms.

I will allow my opponent to state the initial contentions.
bluesteel

Pro

Weighing mechanism:
As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. When weighing the round, the judges should decide whether my opponent has proven that firearm legality has more benefits than detriments. As such, pretend he is actually affirming the resolution "firearm ownership should be allowed." He must win his case to win the round.

Since the topic is non-U.S. specific and theoretical ("should" not "could"), Constitutionality arguments should be excluded.

A firearm ban among the general populace would necessarily carve out exceptions for the military and certain special police units (like SWAT teams).

Since this is a controversial topic, I implore my judges to set their personal beliefs aside and evaluate only who did the better debating, since debaters are often forced to defend positions they do not agree with.

1. Effect on homicide rates

It is widely accepted that you are more likely to be raped by someone you know than by a stranger. The same applies to being killed by a firearm.

Guns in the home are far more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder because as far as homicides go, you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a stranger. According to an article in University of Chicago Law Review by Frank Zimring, a criminology expert at UC Berkeley, more than two-thirds of killings are caused by spouses, lovers, friends, or neighbors. [1] Zimring examines crime statistics in Chicago and breaks the numbers down by type of weapon, number of wounds, and location of the wounds. He finds that when the wound location was clearly intended to cause death, the use of a firearm instead of the next deadliest weapon (a knife) increased the chance of death of the victim by a factor of 5. This is called the "instrumentality effect" of guns.

In a broader analysis in Guns in America, Zimring and Hawkins continue to debunk the myth that if guns were not widely available, people would just find another way to kill each other (the classic "guns don't kill people, people do" argument). They point out that "if this were so, knife attacks in cities where guns were not so widely used would show a higher fatality rate" due to the expected substitution effect. But no such trend exists. Guns simply facilitate certain killings that would otherwise not be possible. As an example, Zimring and Hawkins explain that since guns are both more deadly and more versatile (can be used from a distance), they are used almost exclusively in police killings. Lastly, Zimring/Hawkins cite another study proving the instrumentality effect of guns: comparing wounds in the same location, attacks with higher caliber guns were much more likely to result in death than attacks with lower caliber guns. [2] Without guns, altercations (usually between family members, neighbors, and friends) would be much less likely to result in a fatal injury.

In addition, a study by Kellerman (1993) found that people were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than in a home without one, further underscoring the predominance of family/friend murders among the homicide statistics. [3] For the same reason, a regression analysis done by Mark Duggan in "More Guns, More Crime" found that looking at time lag data, local increases in gun ownership are soon followed by localized increases in homicide rates. [4]

To understand the next study, we must first explore an important legal distinction. A common misconception is that "assault" means an attack. However, in terms of the legal definition, "battery" means a violent attack and "assault" is a THREAT of bodily harm. Normally, an assault should result in nothing more than a heated argument, but the presence of a gun makes it much more likely than an assault will turn deadly. Zimring (2004) found that assaults (read: threats) were 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor possessed a firearm. [5]

All of the above studies combine to show that a gun ban would result in fewer homicides.

2. Price elasticity

A ban on all guns would necessarily drive up the price of purchasing a gun because legal producers have many advantages over illegal producers, such as the ability to operate large factories that enjoy economies of scale and mass production technology. For this reason, most guns on the black market actually come from legal sources. 90% of the guns used by the cartels in Mexico actually originated from legal dealers in the United States. [6] In addition, a study commissioned by Senator Chuck Schumer found that 9 out of 10 guns used in crime originated in the legal market, and in fact pinpointed 140 gun stores that were responsible for selling 20% of all the weapons that eventually ended up on the black market. [7] For all these reasons, a gun ban would drastically reduce the supply of guns and make the remaining guns much more expensive.

In economics, there are goods where the demand is inelastic (people are not very sensitive to price) and where demand is elastic (people are very price sensitive and are likely to switch to another similar product [a substitute good] if the price rises). A number of scholars have measured demand for guns and found that the demand is elastic, meaning when price goes up significantly, people either stop buying guns or shift to another related product (a knife, axe, pepper spray). McDowell (1983): "gun demand is income elastic"; Epstein (1999): "the demand for guns is elastic"; Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006): "elasticity of demand for guns is very high." [8] "Philip Cook, a Professor of Economics from Duke University, noted . . . ‘Criminals' demand for guns is elastic, . . . and to decrease gun violence, we must make guns a liability for criminals, rather than the best, most cost-efficient weapon available.'" [9] Lastly, Bice and Hemley (2002) find that: "The demand for handguns is elastic; a 1 percent increase in the price of handguns lowers the quantity demanded by 2-3 percent." [10] By this calculation, a roughly 50% increase in gun prices would effectively eliminate demand.

In addition, a gun ban would make bullets significantly more expensive because bullets could no longer be mass-produced in large factories. "Bullet control" can be even more effective than "gun control." In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders." Although cottage industries can produce small numbers of guns, they cannot possibly create large numbers of bullets. With a gun ban, bullet prices could soar to the point where Chris Rock's vision is realized, where bullets are no longer affordable, even though guns might be. Bullet bans have empirically been more effective than gun bans, such as the ban on civilian ownership of armor piercing bullets.

Countries would start adding "gun enhancement" laws to their books, as well. The laws would state that dealing illegal guns would be punished by life in prison, and using a gun in a crime (like robbery) could change the sentence from a 5-year sentence to life in prison. This would deter gun use in a world where guns are banned.

Lastly, depriving non-state groups of guns (by making guns and bullets too expensive) would solve militia problems, such as in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, such as the Taliban. 500,000 people are killed worldwide each year by guns. [11]

[1] http://www.saf.org...

[2] Guns in America: A Reader, page 219

[3] New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 1084-1091, October 7, 1993

[4] Journal of Political Economy, 2001, vol. 109, no. 5

[5] Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 32

[6] http://www.vpc.org...

[7] NY Times, Criminals Black Market in Guns Detailed

[8] http://cowles.econ.yale.edu...

[9] http://www.udel.edu...

[10] U Chicago, Journal of Law & Economics
Debate Round No. 1
DaddyTang

Con

Thank you, bluesteel, for accepting the debate.

1. My opponent stated that "Guns in the home are far more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder..." He stated that "two-thirds" of killings are caused by spouses, lovers, neighbors, or friends. What I found was that the information by Frank Zimring was rather outdated, dating back to 1967. What pro failed to understand was that Chicago is known to have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, requiring a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) that includes extensive background checks and processing that takes anywhere from 3-12 weeks for any type of firearm.

Pro also failed to state the exact number of the "two-thirds" of the killings occur with, and the type of firearms the murders occur with. He is also implying that because a majority of murders in Illinois (a state with some of the highest crime in the nation) happens between people who know each other such as family, friends, or neighbors, then it must be a problem in states where the problem is less prevalent. Pro also states that guns "facilitate killings that would otherwise not be possible," as well as "guns are used exclusively in police killings." While both statements are true, the fact that "guns are used to facilitate killings that would otherwise not be possible" can also be applied to countless every-day objects. It is impossible to drown without water, it is impossible to get run over without a car, and is impossible to suffocate if there is no oxygen the same way no one can be shot if there are no guns. The point I am trying to prove is that there are many potential dangers in the world, and guns are being targeted simply because they are "scary." While the fact that "guns are used exclusively in police killings" may be true, Pro stated earlier in his proposal that "a firearm ban among the general populace would carve out exceptions for the military and special police units (like SWAT TEAMS)." This leads me to assume that the police are outmatched by civilians and criminals alike, which rather degrades their degree of training. However, this also displays hows police would be obsolete in protecting the citizens from crime when guns are banned, because guns will still exist in the hands of criminals under the black market, assuming it is criminals (not LAW-ABIDING citizens) who kill them. Even if a gun ban were to happen, there are 90 million in-counting gun owners

It is quite obvious that higher caliber guns are deadlier than lower-caliber guns, but Pro failed to be specific on what types of guns he was referring to. It is only assumed that "higher-caliber" guns refers to weapons such as hunting rifles or shotguns, and "lower-caliber" refers to handguns. However, Pro failed to state any facts or statistics that proves this point. While altercations may be more likely to result in fatal injury, the fact that guns are used between 1.8 million to 2.5 million times a year in self defense (which may include many deadly altercations) overrides this theory, because it is simply stupid to endanger that number of people in order to make family arguments less deadly.

It is simply absurd when Pro states that "gun ownership is followed by increased homicide rates." What Pro failed to understand was that homicide is the murder of a human being by another human being, and that it includes both self-defense and murder. Pro also failed to do was explain which concept is more prevalent in "increased homicide." However, the balance tips in favor of self-defense seeing as the 2.5 million times guns are used to save lives remains consistent.

2. Although the "bullet control" would indeed be effective, the inflation may not be as prevalent as theorized. For example, illegal drugs such as marijuana and meth are constantly being imported and produced into the U.S. People manage to smuggle and deal them at prices even average teenagers could afford. The marijuana is grown and the meth is created in labs secretly in houses, in underground hideouts, or countless other methods in hiding. The same would happen with bullets and guns.

When American firearm/ammunition companies (such as Winchester or Remington) or foreign companies (such as H&K, Glock, or Wolf Ammunition Industries) as well as countless more are shut down due to the ammuntion/gun bans, their products simply won't disappear. Especially in an economy crisis like the one in the United States, many employees will be looking for alternative ways to manufacture and sell their products. Worldwide, there are billions of guns (I've found inconsistent numbers between 12-36 billion), which most likely means there exists ammunition at an exponentially higher number. Even with bans and legislations, those guns and ammo will not simply disappear. They will continue to circulate in the same fashion they were before, but since they are illegal, it will be under a massive black market. A good example of illicit trading is the Bakaara Market in Mogadishu, Somalia, where fully-automatic AK-47's, as well as rocket propelled grenades (RPG's), mortars, and other arms are sold. Some manufacturers may even develop a way to once again effectively mass produce bullets and guns like they did before they were banned. There are, in fact, methods for reusing already-fried ammunition (called reloading) as well as availability of other materials needed. Even though the price and demand may rise, it will not be so exponential that not even a common criminal can obtain it.

A box of 9mm (a common handgun round) that contains 50 rounds is between $10-15 USD depending on the quality and brand. If it is outlawed, the inflation may slowly go towards $60-70, maybe more, but if teenagers, criminals, or average people can buy marijuana for up to the same amount of money for a bowl (it is surprising how many people are willing to pay that much), I don't see much of a problem of them buying ammunition. Not to mention 50 rounds is far more than enough to rob at least a dozen houses. Eventually, this rising inflation would rise to people using these outlawed products against each other to claim each other's money and products as inflation slowly rises, the same concept as the "now I got the money AND the weed" situation. To sum everything up, over a period of time, a gun ban would cause a disaster in underground dealing, as well as creating more criminals who don't want to give up their guns, and as a result, keep them illegally. Authorities would be at more danger as well, as they are attempting to confiscate deadly weapons that could readily be used against them in the event of a raid or other confiscation method.

As a brief summary of my findings, the heated arguments between families, friends, neighbors, or loved ones should be at their own discretion, and not blamed on guns. Even though fatalities occur from these situations, the 2.5 million times a year guns save lives far outweighs these events. I have also theorized that crime would evolve into a network of manufacturing and selling illegal guns and ammo, and would inflation would eventually lead to the industry falling into disaster, presenting a danger to civilians, criminals, and authorities alike.

Citations:
http://www.isp.state.il.us...
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...
(Please see comments section for a Myth: Gun Control reduces crime video)
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com...
http://www.pulpless.com...
http://www.guncite.com...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
bluesteel

Pro

2.5 million self-defense episodes with guns per year

This is really the only positive benefit my opponent has demonstrated from guns. However, his own arguments prove why these numbers cannot possibly be true. If guns are so dramatically necessary as a deterrent against crimes, studies should show massive increases in violence in cities that ban or restrict gun ownership, like Chicago. However, these cities follow broader crime trends in the rest of the nation (crime is cyclical and empirically relates to trends in poverty/demographics).

In addition, this 2.5 million number, widely touted by the pro-gun lobby, is preposterous. It is based on a survey done by Gary Kleck, asking people to self-report how often they used their guns in self-defense. According to The Times Online (UK), "Of nearly 5,000 American adults polled, 1.326 percent -- or 66 -- were determined by Kleck to have relied on guns for personal protection against criminals in the previous year. The rest is basic math -- too basic, some statisticians argue. Take 1.326 percent of all U.S. adults not incarcerated, and you arrive at the conclusion that Americans use their guns 2.5 million times a year for defense." [1] However, a similar survey that actually asked respondents to describe their "self-defense" episodes found that most of the episodes were actually "hostile gun displays" such as a gang flashing their guns at another gang (supposedly to "deter a fight"). The Times Online continues:

"‘Who knows what `self-defense' means?' asked David Hemenway of Harvard University's Injury Control Center. For instance, a thug who shoots in a gang clash might argue he was just defending himself, Hemenway said.

So Hemenway crafted surveys of his own.

From interviews conducted in 1996 and 1999 involving about 4,500 total respondents, Hemenway found that most acknowledged acts of self-defense were ‘hostile gun displays' rather than ‘socially desirable' moves to halt a crime.

Hemenway recently flipped through stories told by respondents describing their acts of self-defense.

Here's one: `The police called. The alarm in my building went off so I went there to shut it off. Two men were outside my building, so from my car I shot at the ground near them.'

Hemenway paused. ‘That's self-defense?' he asked.

‘Here's another,' the researcher said. ‘A 58-year-old male is watching TV with a holster strapped on him. He tells us, `I was watching a movie, and he (an acquaintance) interrupted me. I yelled that I was going to shoot him, and he ran to his car.'

‘I'm thinking, are these the best stories they can tell?' Hemenway said." [2]

So these 2.5 million self-defense episodes per year are actually extrapolated from a survey where 66 people claimed to have used their guns in self-defense, without providing the scenario for what they defined as "self-defense." Surveys that ask respondents to explain what they mean by self-defense find that the majority of the self-defense episodes were actually hostile gun displays.

A gun ban would reduce homicides:

My opponent takes issue with the widely acknowledged fact that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than someone you do not. Not only does this make intuitive sense, since strangers are not as likely to have a strong motive for killing each other, but it is also backed up by all the data. The FBI crime statistics record all homicides with a category for "relationship to the victim." The overwhelming majority of murders are "non-stranger" murders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, examining national data from between 1976-2005, in only 14% of all murders were the victim and the offender "strangers." The vast majority of murders were executed by a "spouse, other family, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other acquaintance." [3] The logical conclusion is that a gun ban makes it much less likely that a heated argument between a spouse, lover, or friend will turn into a deadly altercation.

My opponent has no response to the Zimring (2003) evidence that assaults (threats/arguments) are 7 times more likely to turn deadly if a gun is involved. He also has no response to the Kellerman (1993) evidence that people are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than one without a firearm. Kellerman excludes "self-defense" homicides from this calculation.

Illicit guns:

My opponent points out that when a gun ban occurs, many bullets and guns will still exist from previous legal production. I acknowledge that a gun ban would not result in the immediate disappearance of all guns. However, police routinely seize large black market gun shipments and destroy the guns in a furnace. As the world adopts such a standard with both guns and bullets, within 10-20 years, most non-military, non-police guns and bullets will have been destroyed, driving up the price to such an extent that criminals can no longer afford the weapons.

My opponent takes issue with not all police having guns. This is fine. A gun ban would allow each country to choose what non-civilian exceptions to adopt. I merely described the system England currently employs.

My opponent claims that there are anywhere between 12 and 36 billion guns worldwide (no citation). This is empirically false. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, there are roughly 640 million guns worldwide, 40% of which are operated by government militaries. [4] Considering that there are roughly 7 billion people on the planet, and thus only 5.5% of them own a gun, a concerted long-term effort to disarm citizens, disrupt illegal drugs sales, and drive up the cost of guns (through harsher sentencing laws) should be effective.

My opponent has no answer to my harsher sentencing laws argument, that if a "gun enhancement" meant an automatic life sentence if a gun was used in commission of a crime (regardless of the crime committed) much fewer people would commit such crimes. In addition, harsh sentences for gun smugglers would deter them from gun smuggling (Chaudri and Geanakoplos of Yale say they would likely turn to drug smuggling if gun smuggling became too difficult).

My opponent says, "Some manufacturers may even develop a way to once again effectively mass produce bullets and guns." However, they would make easy targets for the military/police if they were mass-producing guns in a giant factory.

My opponent then does some analysis that since drugs are illegal and still bought (despite prices being drive up), then the same must be true of guns. However, first, this disproves his own argument: if drug smuggling is more profitable than gun/bullet smuggling, people will engage in the former and not the latter. In addition, the demand for drugs is inelastic (addicts are willing to pay anything to get a "fix" and are not price sensitive). However, I cite 5 studies proving that the demand for guns is very price sensitive (elastic): McDowell (1983), Epstein (1999), Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006), Cook (2004), and Bice and Hemley (2002). In fact, Cook has shown that due to high local prices, "Guns are quite scarce in some American cities, and scarcity reduces gun use in crime." Lastly, empirical evidence shows that drug legalization could makes drugs up to 5 times cheaper, which shows you what a comparative "illegality premium" might look for guns and bullets. If guns and bullets were 5 times more expensive 10 years from now, their use would effectively stop, based on the price elasticity of the demand for guns calculated by Bice and Hemley.

Much more expensive guns as well as a newly legitimate effort to disarm non-state groups would solve genocides like in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, saving up to 500,000 lives per year. My opponent has yet to show any sort of good impact for guns that could outweigh this benefit.

[1] http://www.thehighroad.us...

[2] Ibid

[3
Debate Round No. 2
DaddyTang

Con

My opponent made some fairly good points and pointed out many issues I failed to identify. He also pointed out that the 2.5 million times guns are used in self-defense is my only positive impact I managed to provide on guns. I noticed my opponent overwhelmingly cites other sources rather than my method of theorizing and analyzing. I will adjust my argument as such in this last round.

1. My opponent seems to be confused what the definition of "self defense" really is. In my own words, self defense is simply the prevention of bodily harm of oneself from a threat. Pro himself stated some instances of "self defense" that were rather absurd in how they were told, which I fully agree with. However, the scenarios would be great examples of self-defense only if the men who were scared off were actually threatening either of the people brandishing guns. We can't let plain stupidity like this be the reason that guns are prohibited if they ever are.

Guns can be used by others to protect others as stated by Larry Elder:

"...Moore, legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, pulled out his gun, and shot and killed the ex-husband. Ms. Cordoba survived the brutal attack and is recovering from her wounds." (Elder)

Larry Elder also criticizes how Dr. Kellerman, who stated the risk of homicide is greater with a gun in the home (which my opponent stated several times), failed to include some factors, which he identified, making his argument obsolete.

"The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's website displays this oft-quoted "fact": "The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns." Their website fails to mention that Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the "expert" who came up with that figure, later backpedaled after others discredited his studies for failing to follow standard scientific procedures. According to the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Kellermann now concedes, "A gun can be used to scare away an intruder without a shot being fired," admitting that he failed to include such events in his original study. "Simply keeping a gun in the home," Kellermann says, "may deter some criminals who fear confronting an armed homeowner." He adds, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide – i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat."

Police, with or without guns, cannot be there in time to protect someone from a crime. Whether the person is under attack by a family member, a friend, a neighbor, or lover is irrelevant. As stated:

"Police officers are armed precisely because guns are an effective means of protecting life and preventing violence. However, police can't always be there when a violent crime is in progress -- in fact, criminals plan it that way. Nor would it be desirable to grant police a monopoly over armed self-defence." (Joly)

My opponent stated that between 1976-2005, 14% of murders were "stranger." Using information from DisasterCenter about murders between those years, I have averaged and estimated the number of murder per year in the this time period to 23771. Again using math, my opponent states that a 20444 of those murders are from a non-stranger. I also acknowledge that self-defense is NOT included in the equation. While it is commonly believed guns are only used for taking lives, they are also used for hobbies, such as trap-shooting, target shooting, and hunting (which is necessary in order to survive for some people). According to UnitedJustice, 114 people, or 41610 people, die a year from car accidents. According to DrugWarFacts, every tobacco kills 435,000 people, and alcohol kills 85000. I am aware of the inconsistency of car deaths between UnitedJusice and DrugWarFacts, but the numbers are still higher than guns. Even though my opponent makes good points about domestic violence, he continually alienates gun deaths compared to many other things that kill a larger number of people.

However, my actual argument toward the non-stranger murders remains the fact that the right to self defense should not be taken away. Pro emphasizes every situation as the participants in the altercations are blatantly having firearms during their argument, but as seen above Dr. Kellerman excluded many factors that he later identified. Even if people are murdered by familiar people, they are no different than a criminal, because "battery" as my opponent would say, would make the family member/friend/neighbor/etc. a criminal. It's quite sensible for a person with a disadvantage, such as a 120lb woman with a violent, 250lb pro-wrestler as a husband, to have some sort of self defense method, which may include a gun. In scenarios where a non-stranger blatantly attacks, breaks in, robs, etc. a victim, just because they are a family member does not make the idea of self defense with a gun obsolete. The fact stated by Pro that violent altercations that are made 7 times more dangerous by a gun is limited by the numbers it shows above. It should be left to the discretion of the people involved in any situations both my opponent and I have mentioned on what to do, what not to do, and how to do it. With or without guns, the altercations could still become deadly in a variety of cases including but not limited to blunt objects, physical size and strength, etc. My opponent's ideas as only a hope no one is killed or injured in the event a deadly altercation whether or not it involves a gun.

2. I have noticed that my opponent acknowledged many possibilities of what could happen in the aftermath of a gun bath. The next paragraph works in conjunction with my previous argument, and should be compared as such.

My opponent states that 5.5% of the 7 billion people on Earth own a gun, which equates to 385 million people. My opponent states his points as if this many people will hand over their guns, and all who don't will be found and persecuted over a long period of time. What my opponent and I both neglected to mention was that many people are dedicated to their right to bear arms, such as the United States and the Bill of Rights, or Switzerland and their requirement to own a gun. The number of people with guns outnumbers the combined world military. It should be a safe assumption that the members of said military powers who observe their rights may break away and become renegade, providing an advantage with any stolen military equipment that could be commandeered, along with the overwhelming number of people who will not give up their weapons. The search and seizure of weapons, driving up of gun costs, and an overall long-term effort to disarm citizens, as my opponent had stated, would result in a disastrous and deadly wave of protest, which in turn could lead to rioting, which may eventually lead to a full-scale rebellion. Despite whether the governments or rebels are victorious, the effects would be devastating on the people and the economy of the world, which ultimately would cost many more lives than the gun ban was meant to save. An almost guaranteed assumption would be that gun owners will not go down without a fight.

Illicit guns was a rather tricky topic to debate, since both my opponent and I are speculating "what would happen." Note that since I purely speculated about the economic results, and I did not cite sources for it.

I wish my opponent luck in the last round, and the voting period.

Citations:
http://www.wnd.com...
http://www.pierrelemieux.org...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
http://www.disastercenter.com...
http://drugwarfacts.org...
http://www.unitedjustice.com...
http://www.legal-explanations.com...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
bluesteel

Pro

I thank my opponent for a fun and civil debate.

I begin by refuting my opponent's arguments.

My opponent's Kellerman indict is true of Kellerman's statistic that "you are 22 times more likely to be shot by the gun in your own home than use the gun to shoot an intruder." The same indict, however, does not apply to the statistic that "people are 2.7 times more likely be killed in a home with a handgun than one without." A methodology problem in one area of a study (the self-defense section) does not invalidate the entire study.

My opponent points out that other things besides guns kill people. Firstly, two wrongs do not make a right. If the topic were: the U.S. should legalize private ownership of nuclear weapons, my opponent could point out that cars and tobacco have killed far more people than nukes have. That is not a good reason to legalize private ownership of nukes.

In addition, applying a utilitarian framework: cars have more benefit than detriments in terms of ease of transportation and productivity gains in the commute to work. In addition, I refer you to an example my opponent used in a previous round: "it is impossible to drown without water" (arguing that guns are just a tool). However, the benefits of water (the ability for all of us to live, instead of dying from thirst) outweigh the harms of drowning. My opponent has yet to prove that the benefits from guns outweigh the harms (500,000 deaths per year).

Self defense

First, it needs clarifying that the Zimring (2003) evidence is saying that when the AGGRESSOR during an assault (threat/argument) has a gun, the victim is 7 times more likely to die. This turns my opponent's point against him. A 120-pound woman has a better chance against a 250-pound wrestler husband than she does against a 250-pound wrester husband who is pointing a gun at her head (note: men have much higher gun ownership rates and are also much more likely to be the aggressor in an altercation). My opponent points out that the aggressor could use other instruments, but remember the instrumentality effect of guns (guns are more deadly). Zimring actually finds that in many cases of single bullet wounds, the attacker regrets his or her action. An impulsive (and later regretted) knife slash is much less likely to result in death than an impulsive (and later regretted) finger pull on the trigger of a gun (because guns are much more lethal).

Secondly, my opponent does not answer the crux of my argument: self defense as a justification for gun legality presumes that the two primary usages for guns are 1) self-defense and 2) criminals trying to kill/harm us. These assumptions are not true considering that 86% of homicides are committed by a spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, family member, or acquaintance. Therefore, removing guns from the household make it less likely that someone close to us will accidentally or purposely shoot us during a heated argument.

My opponent claims, "An almost guaranteed assumption would be that gun owners will not go down without a fight."

According to Time Magazine in "Locked & Loaded: The Secret World of Extreme Militias," the number of people who join private militias and would/could seriously defend their right to bear arms are a tiny fraction of gun owners. They would not fair well against U.S. military tanks, drones, and close air support. Our military's superior technology is what allowed us to easily take over Afghanistan and Iraq during the initial stages of the invasions. A few high-profile displays against extreme private militia groups (using all our military's firepower, if they refused to acquiesce) would quickly convince all gun owners to give up their weapons without a fight.

Lastly, my opponent points out that: "both my opponent and I are speculating" when it comes to the black market. While my opponent's arguments in this area are actually pure speculation, I would rather term my analysis "informed conjecture." I base my predictions on 5 different studies showing that the demand for guns is elastic, meaning that when prices go up, people buy fewer guns. Cook even went to cities, like Chicago, where illegal guns are hard to buy and expensive, due to strong gun control laws, and found that due to higher prices, far fewer guns were used in crime. Because demand for guns is elastic but demand for drugs is inelastic, smugglers would find drug running much more profitable than gun-running, and the number of black market guns would quickly shrink.

Round summary:

When evaluating this round, you as the judge should remember that my opponent (the instigator) has the burden of proving that guns should be legal. You should weigh the round using a utilitarian framework: would banning all guns result in the greatest good done for the greatest number.

My opponent has nothing on his side of debate at the end of the round, except one vague anecdotal example of a gun that was used in self-defense. With his "2.5 million self-defenses" number completely debunked, it is impossible for us to know, as far as this debate goes, how many legitimate self-defenses there are each year using guns. In fact, most of those 2.5 million "self-defenses" are actually a reason to vote for my side of the debate: upon further review, a majority of them were actually dangerous incidents, such as gang brandishing or aggressive threats using a gun (Hemenway).

Without an exact number to weigh, my opponent cannot make a case against the 500,000 lives per year that could be saved by banning guns.

My opponent agrees that most homicides are committed by people we know, not strangers. He also agrees with the Zimring (2003) evidence that when the aggressor has a gun, a verbal altercation is 7 times more likely to turn deadly. Therefore, my opponent agrees with the analysis of why having a gun in your house makes you more likely to die than not having a gun in the home: because when family/friends fight and the fights get extremely heated, it is much safer when there are no exceedingly deadly objects (like guns) nearby. A gun ban would prevent countless such homicides from occurring.

In addition, my opponent agrees with my analysis that within 10-20 years, guns can be largely eliminated from the world. By passing gun enhancement laws, countries can dissuade criminals from using guns (automatic life in prison) and from selling illegal guns (automatic life in prison). Because fewer people would be willing to sell guns (especially since drugs would be more profitable and a lighter prison sentence), the number of illegal firearm dealers would decline immensely, shrinking supply. As gun shipments are captured/destroyed and legal factories are shut down, the global supply of guns/bullets will further diminish, drastically driving up the price of guns/bullets. Because purchasers of guns are price sensitive (according to 5 studies), when prices massively rise, people will choose to pursue other sorts of weaponry or forgo buying a weapon altogether.

When the price of guns on the black market has soared to astronomical levels, non-state groups (like the Janjaweed in Sudan and the Taliban in Afghanistan) can be disarmed and will not be able to purchase new weapons. This will solve most global conflicts, saving up to 500,000 lives per year.

At the end of the day, as long as I prove that at least 2 deaths could be prevented by a gun ban, that outweighs my opponent's one anecdotal example of a self-defense occurring with a gun. And remember, self-defense would not be necessary in a world where guns become too expensive for criminals to afford or in a world where criminals are too afraid to use guns, fearing life sentences from "gun enhancement" laws.

In order to achieve a gun-free (except military/police) world, I urge you to affirm.

I leave you with the immortal words of Chris Rock: "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders." Let's make this a reality.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OrionsGambit 3 years ago
OrionsGambit
Yet according to the proper definition of vote bombing (as I found a topic about it on here and the person who came up with the term posted in it), I'm not "vote bombing". I'm voting exactly how you are supposed too. If anything Sieben is vote bombing as he isn't even reading the debates and is just following me around like a lost puppy countering everything I vote for in the opposite direction because he's mad and throwing a tantrum.

But complaining that I commented and voted against you is very whiny.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
Not really, I'm trying to get you to stop vote bombing people. I don't care, I just couldn't understand how a member in good standing could vote all 7 points to my opponent without justifying his vote. Now I understand.
Posted by OrionsGambit 3 years ago
OrionsGambit
I believe he did a better job and I agree with him more as such and voted for him. I don't see how this wrong. You're running around trying to get me to change my vote on a month old debate that you're winning anyway. Again, cry much?
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
I'm not crying, I'm asking you to justify your vote. It's pretty simple: you say "I liked X argument that DaddyTang made, X source was better than Y source, Z comment lost bluesteel the conduct point," etc.

The fact that you say you "agreed with him more than me" proves you don't know what the point of this site is. You're supposed to vote for the side with better argumentation, not the side you agree with.
Posted by OrionsGambit 3 years ago
OrionsGambit
I brought it up because you did in your final round. It was a separate comment.

Are you seriously going to cry because someone agreed with him more then you?
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
@OrionsGambit

Am I debating you or him? He never made that argument about the black market. You're supposed to vote only off information presented in the debate. The only evidence he presented was about self-defense episodes.

Also, out of curiosity, source?

Yes, 500,000 was global, since this debate was about whether guns should be banned globally.

Do you mind explaining your conduct, sources votes, and what arguments of HIS you thought were most convincing?
Posted by OrionsGambit 3 years ago
OrionsGambit
And I assume that "500,000 deaths per year" is globally, because that is nearly 100 times the number of gun homicides in the US per year (as of 2009) according to the FBI.
Posted by OrionsGambit 3 years ago
OrionsGambit
You realise that the top 5 suppliers to the black market for small arms is the United States Army, Russian Federation Army, British Army, French Army, and People's Liberation Army. They account for over 90% of the market share in production and distribution. All of it legal and a money maker for their respective militaries. Banning gun ownership to citizens and closing small businesses who produce weapons for civilians would do nothing to the sale of black market small arms.
Posted by Atheism 3 years ago
Atheism
Counter-votebomb completed.
Posted by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
@C-Mach

Easy answer - because drugs are illegal in the U.S.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cunit0814 3 years ago
Cunit0814
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by OrionsGambit 3 years ago
OrionsGambit
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 gavin.ogden 3 years ago
gavin.ogden
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Atheism 3 years ago
Atheism
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 3 years ago
Loserboi
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 3 years ago
Aaronroy
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 4 years ago
LaissezFaire
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 C-Mach 4 years ago
C-Mach
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by marty321 4 years ago
marty321
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by KodyHarris 4 years ago
KodyHarris
DaddyTangbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70