The Instigator
TheTruthAnalyst
Pro (for)
Tied
8 Points
The Contender
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Con (against)
Tied
8 Points

Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,374 times Debate No: 19376
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

TheTruthAnalyst

Pro

My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.

For this debate, the following is assumed:
  • Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns.
  • Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application.
  • All handguns will be registered upon purchase.
  • All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters.
  • Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.
EthanHuOnDebateOrg

Con

Thank you for posting this interesting debate resolution, and it is an honor for me to respond to it.

As the contender of this debate, I have a few specific inquiries concerning the context of today's debate:
1> The specific requirements and regulations concerning acquisition of a permit for handguns as stated in the debate.
2> How you feel should be the criterion for which crime rates should be judged by, in the stated hypothetical situation of the resolution.

Now as to move onto the specific resolution:
1> Acquisition as well as possession of handguns by citizens on a day to day basis increases crime rates because of the basis of the facilitated usage of such destructive weapons that it rests on. Having it legal for a citizen to be in possession of a handgun increases number of individuals that have access to items that are capable for crime; the crime rate is judged on the fundamental basis of probability of the number of an individual or a group in being able to utilize weapons to commit illegal actions. Thus, looking towards this basic vital point, having such a easy way to acquire a weapon such as a handgun not only increases the number of individuals capable of committing crimes, which increases probability of crime, but also provides a method for individuals looking to purposefully devote to crime to do so without legal regulations of possession of a weapon on the body.

2> Not only does having a background check provide insufficient grounds for which permits can guarantee safety in terms of possession, but also excludes the huge possibility as well as reality of individuals who are not intrinsically or inherently criminals in their past, but are looking to do as such after such possession. Criminals, as a term used to refer to the wide range of individuals who have violated specifically in a wide range of ways law regulations, is too broad to be inclusive of a benchmark or specific criterion for which we can judge whether or not to give a permit to. Crimes differ in severity, and there is no specific or valid ground for which permits can be given. Allowing it to be denied from all individuals who have violated legal restrictions, either accidentally or purposefully would entail denying possession from such individuals who have committed certain violations such as jaywalking or traffic violations; it would destroy the concept of a permit altogether, and thus it would not be valid to provide a certain and specific benchmark to judge whether it is valid and safe to bestow a permit based on criminal record.
b. Limiting safety to means of a permit also neglects and fails to address the fundamental issue of individuals who are looking to commit crime or violate law regulations yet have not done so in a past criminal record of any kind. Providing handguns for all individual citizens who do not have a criminal record allows for easier possession as well as for individuals who are looking to do so in the future to do so without any law restriction or violation.

3> My opponent's assumptions yet all also cater only to the basic assumption of safety and work towards the factor of safety; yet the fundamental point that remains throughout is that safety is based on possession, and no form of registration or security on an individual basis will allow for safety in of itself to be provided because of the facilitated way for individuals with a criminal mentality to access handguns and such weapons.

Thank you, and I eagerly await my opponent's further developments in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheTruthAnalyst

Pro

Clarifications:
1 - I don't consider the specifics of regulations important to the debate, if we work off of the assumption that an agreed foundation for regulations can be established. That being said, criterion would include proving citizenship, a background check looking for criminal activity(robbery, burglary, assault, murder, and other violent crimes), and a training class on the safe handling of the handgun.
2 - Crime rates that are or can be affected by weapons should be considered, as reported by law enforcement agencies and published by the FBI and other agencies. Crimes should be considered on a percentage basis to avoid variance in population.


Rebuttals:

1 - Con states that an increase in available handguns would cause an increase in crime rate due to a higher percentage of people having access to said handguns. This argument focuses not on the cause of a crime, which is the criminal, but on one of the instruments of a crime. It is not the weapon that causes the crime, it is a person deciding to commit the crime that causes it.

2 - Con states that an increased number of people capable of committing crime increases the probability of crime. The fact is, anyone who could commit a crime with a gun could also commit a crime with another weapon, or with their hands. Having a weapon available doesn't influence someone to be a criminal. Everyone(in general terms) is capable of making a fist and punching someone else, but the fist isn't the cause of the crime.

3 - A background check removes the possibility of a gun being sold, or a permit being issued, to someone with a violent history. Con states that some individuals don't have a criminal history but can still commit crime. This is true, everybody has the capability to commit crime, but that doesn't inherently make them likely to do so.

4 - A background check doesn't preclude one from getting a permit for something like jaywalking. Again, the focus of this debate is on citizens carrying handguns, with an assumption that we have preventative measures in place. Those I have clarified already.


Further Arguments

5 - Banning guns doesn't deter criminals from obtaining and using guns. In 1995, Washington D.C. had a murder rate of 65 murders per 100,000 citizens[1], during a time when handguns were banned(unless they were locked or disassembled). Of those murders, 81% were committed with firearms[2], even though they were banned. This shows that criminals don't care if guns are illegal or not, they show their disrespect for the law in committing a crime, and in using illegal weapons.

6 - Stripping citizens of handguns only makes it easier for someone to commit a crime. For example, consider you decide to rob a bank. There are two banks in town. You know that the teller and manager at Bank 1 both carry guns. You also know that nobody at Bank 2 carries a gun. For the criminal, the defenseless Bank 2 is the obvious choice. It is similar for criminals in general. If they know that no citizen can legally carry a gun, they are less likely to encounter such deadly force in perpetrating a crime. If they know that any citizen could legally be carrying a gun, they are more likely to try and find someone they are sure isn't armed.

7 - Despite the number of states issuing carry permits increasing drastically since 1987, the average murder rate in the United States has fallen 42% as of 2010.[3]

8 - A study by criminologists Kleck and Gertz found that U.S. citizens use guns approximately 2.5 million times per year to stop a crime. Only 24% of reported incidents involved firing a gun, showing that 76% of the time a criminal will stop and leave with just the sight of a gun.[4]

I appreciate my opponent's arguments, and look forward to the continuing debate.

[1]http://www.disastercenter.com...
[2]http://www.fbi.gov... pg. 193
[3]http://www.disastercenter.com...
[4]http://www.saf.org...
EthanHuOnDebateOrg

Con

I once again thank my opponent for his invested time and effort in this topic as well as this debate.

The premise and criterion for which a crime rate probability can be judged relies on subjective moral interpretation; the ability for an individual to make his/her own decision based on subjective ethics limits our jurisdiction to a few points of consideration that my opponent must acknowledge as his instigating viewpoint of pro on this resolution:

1> That when a crime rate is being judged for its probability, we refer to probable as being more likely than not; the subjective moral fluctuations that differ from individual to individual disallows and excludes the possibility of a normative moral nature. Thus we consider all individuals capable of committing crime with their inherent and intrinsic intentions; our preventative steps and measures that we take by limiting accessibility of handguns and firearms only goes to prevent outcomes that are inevitable as explained by the framework of meta-ethics.
2> The specifications of a regulation, is, as I agree with my opponent, unnecessary and extraneous to the point such that we still must take into thought the same thread that my opponent so stolidly ascertains: That we look to the base and cause of a matter when making the jurisdiction on a subject. Indeed, this not only does not go to supplement his case or contentions in any form, but instead serves as a turning point for which criterion on a moral relativist premise can be judged, thus actually affirming my case and points. Because individuals are intrinsically capable of subjective judgment, as represented by the specific theory of epistemic normativity, we see that a regulation works toward a moral normative in order to limit certain individuals underage or of other concerns to acquire firearms.
_________

Moving on to his rebuttal and the overall framework:

1> All of his rebuttals to my overall structure and points concerns itself with a fact with which it is not only interprative on an individual context, but is not an objective fact in any way. For example, his first and second rebuttal (1)/(2) goes on to implement his view that the individual is the one who decides to commit the crime. We can obviously find the fundamental flaw that becomes apparent after merely observing such a statement without careful inspection: That this completely supports the fundamental metaphysical statements that I have been implementing throughout my case and framework. Indeed, specifically because the individual deciding to commit the crime causes it, we see that because of differentiating and subjective moral values of different people, what is right or wrong does not hold a benchmark for which clear distinguishing can be done. Thus any measure that we take to prevent such easy and facilitated accessibility of firearms only caters to the presupposed fact that any individual can and is capable of crime; preventing accessibility only decreases probability by its inherent definition.

2> Furthermore, his statement that "true, everybody has the capability to commit crime, but that doesn't inherently make them likely to do so" is a logical fallacy and contradiction in of itself. The capability of an individual to commit crime justifies the inherent probability that exists that he/she will allow themselves to commit such a crime under their moral justification framework. We look to a basic value as an example--- Deontological Justification:

S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p while it is not the case that S is obliged to refrain from believing that p.[11]
Indeed, we see in this a prime example that the justification for an action exists in the intrinsic capability for an individual to do so; the probability in of itself fluctuates with such an aspect. Thus we can clearly see that none of pro's refutations to my arguments are adequate enough to hold any ground in the context of this debate, whether justified on a meta-ethical premise, or even a logical premise. For this, all of my arguments may be extended across the flow.

_________

Issues with pro's point construction:
Again, my opponent fails to come to terms with the basic and fundamental truth that he disposes of when he makes his point (1) as well as in his overall framework as well. Catering directly to his first point, the disposition of an individual who is able to commit crime to do so is not affected by the existence of any form of legal restriction on firearm usage. Instead, as his own case implements, and here would be a direct quote, "It is not the weapon that causes the crime, it is a person deciding to commit the crime that causes it." Even in his own values and principles that he uses in his inherent point construction, we view a contradictory logical flow that goes against his inherent credibility for contentions. Indeed, having easier accessibility of firearms/handguns will not only decrease crime rates, but for the values concerning ethical subjectivity that I have shown, will only aggravate and increase probability of crime rate.

2> The Pro envisions a hypothetical situation in order to supplement his case for further argument; he also uses studies and permit reliability statistics in an effort to provide a better advocating point for his case. However, we come into a few primary obstacles when first observing such points. The perpetration of a crime, as in the hypothetical situation my opponent so ardently believes in, depends on the existence of the firearm/handgun itself. Looking once again to the main cause of such crimes, the ethical subjectivism is apparent in criminals in general. Accessibility of firearms on the other hand, when decreased, will also serve to eliminate or substantially lessen probability of would-be criminals coming into possession at the source of the issue. Allowing for firearms to be advocated to support the whimsical argument for self-defense in situations of crises can be completely eliminated when accessibility, the underlying issue is observed.

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

Evidence in of itself only serves as a pivotal point on which we can observe fatalities concerning firearms and how perpetration is wholly dependent upon the acquisition of the firearm at the source of the issue. Disallowing accessibility eliminates such a concern to eliminate my opponent's framework itself. His point (7) bases itself upon the presupposed assumption that there is a direct correlation between the two clauses of the evidence; yet we can clearly see that an average murder rate is based off of a multi-faceted reason bank for which individuals decrease or increase with certain fluctuations. Thus there will be no looking to for such an evidence for certain advocation of his contention.

Further points of consideration:
The epistemic normative as demanded with penalty of irrationality by all individuals in our societal and moral framework mandates that ideas and moral values as well as principles must be subjective. Without having such subjective aspects, rationality would be compromised in of it's own concept. By saying that individuals who have the capability to commit crime and perpetrate such an act are not extremely likely to do so goes against our rational framework on a whole as well as even the resolution itself. We look to the probability of crime rate decreasing; having easier accessibility ot individuals with a subjective moral conceptual paradigm only allows for aggravated increasing of crime, as I have fully pointed out through my refutations and points. We thus look to such a logical contradiction that my opponent is forced to support in his points.
Debate Round No. 2
TheTruthAnalyst

Pro

I appreciate Con's arguments, and will begin with direct rebuttals.

1 - Con asserts that by limiting accessibility of handguns we will prevent outcomes that are inevitable as explained by the framework of meta-ethics. Con is suggesting that the presence of a handgun can act as a cause for an inevitable outcome. I propose Con hasn't provided any logical reasoning for this viewpoint.

2 - I fail to see any connection between regulations and increased crime rates. Con is stating that regulations assert his position, yet these regulations serve to prevent those who have shown themselves criminally-inclined from obtaining handguns.

Con's Rebuttals

1 - Con asserts that differentiating moral values serves to show that any regulations we put in place only assert that each person is capable of crime. Yes, every person is capable of crime, but whether or not a person becomes a criminal isn't a matter of odds. It is a matter of choice. The regulations only serve to keep handguns out of the hands of people who have already shown themselves inclined to act violently. In this regard, it can be said that those who are approved for permits are more likely to not commit crimes, because the average probability of that particular pool of people has been reduced by removing criminals with a higher probability. Con also fails to provide any reasoning why lack of a handgun would reduce probability. I propose that even without a handgun, a person will still be just as capable of committing crime.

2 - Again, capacity to commit crime is not the same as probability. If this were the case, we would see constant instances of people, who have led a peaceful life, suddenly deciding to become criminals. This is clearly not the case. People with a history of criminal activity are more likely to commit crimes than people without a criminal history. This is because people are not walking chance. A person who is trying to be a good citizen doesn't have a random number built into their minds that can roll 'criminal' at any given time. And, Con still hasn't shown why handguns would increase crime rates. The assumption is that Con is stating that handguns increase the likelihood that someone will commit a crime, but I can easily show this to be false. In Florida, the number of citizens with carry permits has increased from nearly 0 to over 800,000 from 1987 to the present time.[1] Despite the dramatic increase, there hasn't been an increase in murders. In fact, the murder rate has fallen 54%.[2] According to Con's argument, the increase in the number of handguns available should have increased the probability of murders. Con's attempted meta-ethical arguments aren't in line with historical statistics, and I assert that the reality of what the murder rate is from year to year is more correct than any meta-ethical argument about the probability of what the murder rate should be.

Con stated:

" Indeed, having easier accessibility of firearms/handguns will not only decrease crime rates, but for the values concerning ethical subjectivity that I have shown, will only aggravate and increase probability of crime rate."

Con states that increased accessibility of handguns will decrease crime rates, but will only aggravate and increase probability of crime rate. This clear contradiction holds no value to Con's assertion.

2 - Pro states that the perpetration of a crime depends on the existence of the handgun. We can clearly show that crimes are committed without handguns. Indeed, the hijacking of airplanes on September 11 was done without the use of handguns, or firearms in general. Obviously, crimes can still be committed without weapons. Pro also fails to realize that even if all guns were completely banned, criminals would be able to get access to illegal weapons. After all, drugs are illegal, yet millions of pounds of drugs are smuggled into the US every year. In any case, the issue at hand is not a total firearm ban, but allowing citizens to carry handguns on their persons. Con fails to address my presented situation with two banks, one armed and one not. I assert that a criminal is more likely to attack an unarmed bank than one which has guns inside.

Con presents statistics that actually argue the Pro position. From 2000 to 2007, with the number of handguns increasing in the US, the total number of firearm deaths decreased.

Again, Con starts to argue that the solution to firearm deaths is the complete removal of firearms. This is not the debate. Con's position is that allowing citizens to obtain permits to carry guns increases crime rates. I have shown the crime rate to decrease as the number of guns carried increases. This refutes Con's position that increased guns would increase crime rates.

My previous point 7 showed unequivocally that when the number of handguns carried increased, the murder rate decreased. Con's position is that if the number of handguns carried increases, crime rates would increase.

Con doesn't address the study by Kleck and Gertz, showing that citizens use handguns 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes. In addition to this study, I present as evidence a study by the Department of Justice that determined guns are used between 1.5 and 4.7 million times per year.[3]

"By saying that individuals who have the capability to commit crime and perpetrate such an act are not extremely likely to do so goes against our rational framework on a whole as well as even the resolution itself."

I propose that it is irrational to say that someone is 'extremely likely' to commit a crime simply because they are capable of it. If that were the case, the vast majority of Americans would be criminals. I assert that handguns can be, and are used by responsible citizens to prevent crimes, as supported by the cited studies.

[1]http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us...
[2]http://www.disastercenter.com...
[3]http://www.tscm.com...
EthanHuOnDebateOrg

Con

I once again appreciate all arguments made by PRO so far, and will continue to do so.

Preface/Premises for jurisdiction
The main justification for which crime rates are judged in the present context of this round rests on logical reasoning that both sides of this debate must provide clear jurisdiction. Yet when we look back across the flow, the overarching issue remains that my opponent has not provided a clear connection between any of his arguments relating how handguns in of itself as an accessible firearm will limit crime rate probabilities, only by saying in numerous situations how the presence of such an accessible firearm will provide a limiting factor for which criminals will have a second thought when premeditating a crime. The hypothetical situations that PRO has provided do not provide adequate justification for which votes can be placed on, and thus we look towards the side for which sufficient justification has been made.

Now looking towards the inherent resolution itself, we see that my opponent must not only refute my points concerning how and in specific ways why crime rates will not be diminished due to accessibility of handguns, but also further his arguments to provide for further justification to uphold his side, as is his burden of proof. Yet it is important also to note that there is no component of my framework that bases itself off of regulations, thus we see that PRO's issues concerning the latter are invalid.

As I have provided grounds for which my opponent's thrust for his argument is improbable in validity and logical coherence, we turn to specific refutations and arguments.

'Arbitrary Decision/ Cause of Crime'?
Now, recall that throughout the course of this debate, not only have I addressed the moral as well as rational normatives that are pervasive throughout the whole of our societal contract, but also metaphysical issues that are key to my framework. Yet looking to my opponent's response to my rebuttal, we find it immediately to be a non-sequitur. Indeed, in much the same way that he advocates for looking to the cause of a crime as the fundamental factor on which jurisdiction must be placed, his refutation faces a myriad of problems. He specifically concerns himself with and ascertains that "Whether or not a person becomes a criminal isn't a matter of odds. It is a matter of choice."

Yet the fundamental flaw that he, as PRO fails to intrinsically address is his confusion between the conceptual ideologies of 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge. The intuitive distinction rests upon the justification that the matter of choice of an individual to commit him/her self to crime is not known by the rest of our social community; we do not have the benefit of 'a posteriori' knowledge, which rests its basis upon empirical evidence or previous knowledge. Individuals who have already shown themselves to commit themselves violently will obviously be subjected to different categorical moral and social considerations outside of our epistemic normative. We are in the doubt, with a priori knowledge; we do not know whether an individual will choose to do so; yet a way to prevent just such a fact is limiting accessibility, as I have reinstated numerous instances throughout.

Now, note distinctly that PRO provides no justification whatsoever for which how having guns for easier accessibility will actually decrease crime rates with such a moral and social doubt that we are intrinsically beheld with; it is inherently impossible to predict actions of individuals, thus the probable fact of commitment to a crime rests on 'odds', as my opponent so flagrantly contradicts.

Rational discourse or disputations relating to probability is trivial in this round. Yet my opponent seems to assume a circular argument in which his unsound arguments base itselves off of the hypothetical argument that capacity to commit crime has no justification whatsoever. Yet looking to his arguments, at any rate he is only attacking a strawman. The jurisdiction once again falls to the plausibility of his arguments concerning probability; yet he provides NO logical or tangible connection himself whatsoever between probability and crime rate.

Now recall that the whole of my ethical framework concerns itself with a fact that no statistics on PRO's part can sufficiently justify in of its own cause; it seems that my opponent seems to be advocating for a truly moral ontologically basis for his arguments in this difference principle:

DP: If X can commit a crime and is subjective in interpretation as well as being wholly capable of committing him/herself to crime, it would not aggravate the probability of crime if we provide extremely easier accessibility for firearms/handguns.

Now looking at this from any perspective, whether it be logically or ethically, there is no justification for such a truly absurd argument or proposition, yet which is also a fundamental basis for his refutations. Au contraire, my parallel argument preferrably argues for the basis for which causes are looked to, as is vindicated and advocated by my opponent in his views as PRO. Not only does he thus subject himself to implementation of points in my case with his points, but provides a truly circular and logically fallacious rebuttal.

Perpetration of crime criteria:
It is truly interesting as well as fallacious how my opponent once again makes such a bold claim in his refutation for the cause of perpetration of crime. He, as PRO, seems to be laboring under the vivid misconception that if there is a possibility that crime can be committed without guns, then having guns would not have an effect in any tangible way on crime. By advocating for just such a position, he undermines the concept of rationality as well as logic inherently. Indeed, let us envision just so an argument following after his example:

A: Consuming a salad would serve the purpose of alleviating hunger.
B: Yet consumation of a candy bar would serve the same purpose; thus consuming a salad does not serve as an adequate method for which jurisdiction may rest.

Not only is this logically contradictory, but PRO imposes this as an argument for which his framework's validity itself may be questioned.
He continues to write on, supplementing his advocation for the fact such that a criminal would be more likely to attack an unarmed bank than one which has firearms inside. Once over, he fails to address the core issue which provides the very grounds for which perpetration of crime exists: accessibility of handguns. Assertations on his part completely neglect the epistemic normative issue which I have reinstated multiple times throughout this debate; handguns in of themselves are items that pose threats to a social community and which also exceed any other method of perpetration of crime in extremity and efficiency.

The mere fact that we can limit accessibility of a handgun to citizens also explicitly shows that a criminal will, as he hypothesizes, so consider once again probabilities of succeeding in attacking a bank without such a method.

Now moving on to the point that PRO makes concerning my misconstruing of the resolution to say that we must completely remove firearms. Not only is this divergent from my conceptual ideologies, but also what my framework bases itself upon. PRO's point (7) shows merely that we may see not a direct correlation between handguns and murder rates in some areas; yet the underlying issue is that the resolution conerns itself not with murder, but with crime in of itself.
_____
The thrust of my case and framework rests upon the fact of plausibility in commitment of an individual to crime, regardless of the epistemic or rational normative. My opponent's statistics, as I have sufficiently shown, not only do not provide the characteristic point of justification, but actually go to supplement my advocations.

As PRO fails through any justification to provide for an adequate rebuttal, my case thus stands.
Debate Round No. 3
TheTruthAnalyst

Pro

Con makes a distinction between foresight and hindsight. While we do not have the advantage of analyzing the future from the perspective of hindsight, we can apply lessons learned from the past to future expectations. With an increase of people carrying guns, we haven't seen a dramatic increase in crime rates, as Con would have us expect. Instead, we have seen drastic reductions in murder rates. This serves to show that it is not strictly a probability that a person will commit a crime. People are individuals, not probabilities, and a peaceful person won't become violent simply because they have a handgun.

Con's position is that we should limit the accessibility of handguns, but we have already established a baseline of regulations to keep handguns out of the hands of citizens who have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Not allowing citizens to carry handguns in this instance will only reduce the number of responsible citizens with handguns. Criminals will still be able to get handguns from illegal sources.

It is clear that having a handgun doesn't change a person's propensity toward violence or crime. If that were the case, we would expect to see a higher percentage of police killing and robbing than ordinary citizens. Indeed, with the drastic increases in carry permits available to the public, we haven't seen crime rates soar. Instead, we have seen murder rates fall 42% since 1987. This fits in place well with the study by Kleck and Gertz showing that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime.

In conclusion, we can see that citizens carrying handguns can reduce crimes in many ways. Firstly, it allows citizens to defend themselves when attacked. Secondly, it allows citizens to help defend others who are in peril. Thirdly, the more guns responsible citizens carry, the more hesitant a criminal will be in trying to rob somebody. I have not only provided hypothetical explanations, but statistical analysis of murder rates, and reports of defensive gun uses. Con's position is based mainly off of probabilities, but a framework of probabilities that is at odds with actual occurrences must inherently be erroneous.
EthanHuOnDebateOrg

Con

I once again appreciate my opponent's devotion to this debate, and all arguments he has proposed.

Preface:
The framework and thrust of my contentions and points focuses mainly upon the basic and fundamental objective fact that, as my opponent as PRO has also conceded, the intrinsic cause provides the basis for which we provide jurisdiction. Yet the fact also stands that my opponent fails to provide ANY form of adequate justification for how such a correlation between handguns/firearms and crime rates may be invalid.

Indeed, we find that the basis for his case and refutations rests upon the fundamental value and premise that my framework is based off in part, off of the probability that contributes directly to the cause of such an issue.
In retrospective, not only have I provided sufficient grounds for which the plausibility of such an argument and principle is sound, but also proven that the probability of crime is wholly and mainly dependent upon the factor of weapon accessibility; it is characterized by our inability to obtain 'a posteriori' knowledge about the motives of an individual.

Thus our main method of providing for tangible premises on which crime rate may be decreased looks to the intrinsic and fundamental value of 'PROBABILITY', which PRO fails to comprehend the significance of in the context of this resolution. Such a value provides the basic grounds for which we see whether or not crime rate may be established to increase or decrease; actions on our part as a social or individual whole influence yet just this value.

His assertion that probability in of itself is erroneous as it does not provide an actual correlation with actual occurrences can be immediately thus seen to be logically fallacious and contradictory not only to the context of this debate and resolution, but to the principles of actions themselves. PRO's sole refutation that as my framework is based off of probabilities that correlate with crime rates is not sufficient enough to provide tangible relations with actual occurrences can thus be seen as inherently invalid as well as logically fallacious in its accusation.

As I have thus provided the grounds for which PRO's refutations falls sadly short of achieving what is necessary for him to achieve his burden of proof, as well as providing for the refutation of his only rebuttal, we can thus provide jurisdiction based off of this inherent fact.
____
'Knowledge'
Now recall that my argument concerning such a core value is the basis for the decisions that we make in order to decrease crime rates. My justification relies upon the intrinsic fact that 'a posteriori' knowledge, or such knowledge obtained by experience or by hindsight is not available to our social framework when judging motives of individuals; my opponent's sole refutation lies in such a sentence:

"While we do not have the advantage of analyzing the future from the perspective of hindsight, we can apply lessons learned from the past to future expectations." Yet when we do put this under observation, it becomes immediately clear that it is a CIRCULAR argument that not only does not achieve his premises for justification, but is in truth, erroneous itself. Indeed, such an argument is explicitly asserting that we can depend upon our foresight to make judgmental principles about the motives of individuals.

Yet clearly this is absurd, by any standard of logical or even tangible justification; foresight is not an aspect that is available to our society when we make such jurisdictions of motives, which makes this argument truly fallacious in construction. As PRO asserts that there is not strictly a probability that a person will commit a crime, this once again provides us with the grounds for which we can fully ascertain that the validity of his arguments themselves may be questioned; this undermines the very definition of 'probability'.

Not only has PRO failed to provide adequate justification for which we can provide plausible belief, but also has implemented his case with fallacious arguments that have no correlation with the context of this resolution.

Again, PRO reinstates his bold yet contradictory claim that we have already established an adequate set of regulations to keep handguns out of the "hands of citizens who have shown themselves to be irresponsible." Once again, and not surprisingly, we find the direct correlation between this and my points concerning our impossibility for foresight, which is the dependent factor for which crime rates depend upon.

Indeed, preventing previous criminals from accessibility will not only fail to address the spectrum of crime, but also neglect individuals who are to become criminals. The premises for such a point is in direct correlation with my framework concerning 'a posteriori' knowledge as well as probability; thus we find it once again invalid in plausibility.

PRO provides us with a statement for which we may see into the validity and the framework itself of his case:
"It is clear that having a handgun doesn't change a person's propensity toward violence or crime. If that were the case, we would expect to see a higher percentage of police killing and robbing than ordinary citizens."

Interestingly enough, we find that accessibility of a handgun/firearm provides the grounds for which probability of crime may be perpetrated increases drastically; looking at this from any perspective, whether it may be logically or subjectively, we can immediately see that this is not only a non-sequitur, but also provides absolutely no justification for the basic principle for which values are based: 'Probability'.

Even so, I would like to provide a point of consideration for his example: the public itself greatly exceeds the police in number; the crime rate, as it is dependent upon the factors such as number, accessibility, and numerous other aspects, takes in this fundamental point and acts upon it to be distorted by PRO in his favor. The police force itself dedicates it to legalized ventures for which they work to exterminate crime; the weapons that are utilized merely serve as methods for which they may eradicate problems that may arise in case of danger. Not only is such an example false on a social context, but also is contradictory in its composition.

Now referring to his piece of evidence; I have already pointed out in my LAST case that such a statistic only provides for the narrow range of murders, which not only do not provide for the full spectrum of the 'crime' as specified in the resolution, but also does not apply to crime in general on a social context. PRO's study by Kleck and Gertz showing that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop crime merely goes to once again address and supplement my fundamental values and points that intrinsically state that such crime that must be stopped must be looked to for their causes in eradicating it. Extremely easy accessibility of handguns/firearms only aggravates such crime rates, making it further necessary for guns to be used to stop crime.

Such a circuit not only does not provide adequate justification for his points, but his case in general. It provides NO correlation with the fundamental values of this debate, and thus it may be disregarded when providing jurisdiction.
____
Conclusion:
Through all of my refutations as well as points, I have not only provided sufficient and adequate justification for which crime rate may be aggravated in the presence of easier accessibility, but also provided complete grounds for which all of PRO's points may be disregarded due to their inherently fallacious and contradictory nature.

Looking back to the flow of this debate, we find that PRO has failed not only to refute adequately my points concerning knowledge that constitutes our decisions, but also that PRO has completely failed to provide sufficient arguments concerning my points for probability, which is a key issue.

Looking to thus, I strongly urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
...and the debate ends while I'm still trying to detangle Con's syntax.

Pro won this debate. Con gave a dumptruck load of jargon, but made almost no arguments of any value whatsoever, and completely failed to address Pro's arguments. 2/3ds of his posts were unnecessary verbiage.

Examples:
"The specifications of a regulation, is, as I agree with my opponent, unnecessary and extraneous to the point such that we still must take into thought the same thread that my opponent so stolidly ascertains: That we look to the base and cause of a matter when making the jurisdiction on a subject."

Translation: "I agree with my opponent; we need to know the cause before proposing a solution."

"His assertion that probability in of itself is erroneous as it does not provide an actual correlation with actual occurrences can be immediately thus seen to be logically fallacious and contradictory not only to the context of this debate and resolution, but to the principles of actions themselves."

Translation: "My opponent claims probability does not translate into actual crime. This is wrong both logically and in the context of our debate."
(Even translated into english, this one doesn't make any sense.)
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
I think willoweed should be countered..
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
willweed, obviously the handgun doesn't do it alone, but the possession does. That was implied, to do a better RFD job.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
If this debate is "hypothetical", I see no point in voting.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
thanks, Raisor; I'll take all of that into consideration when doing my next debate(:
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
Wow, Raisor, you give great RFDS...That was 100% concise and right to the point. Great analysis.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Rereading my RFD it seems like I really took Con to town. I want to be clear that I actually thought he did a good job and I am interested to see him debate on other topics.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Con – You need to be more concise and clear in your argumentation. Yes, you have a great vocabulary but honestly you tend to wax masturbatory. Some of your sentences were so convoluted that I had to reread them three times before catching what you were getting at. This isn't meant to be mean, just blunt criticism.

Con really only addresses one side of the crime probability issue- the increase in individuals' likelihood to commit a crime. But Pro also stakes his case on the ability of crime victims to stop and deter crimes. This is almost entirely ignored by Con. Con's reply is just that we need to focus on the true underlying cause of crime, which is the likelihood of individuals to engage in criminal behavior. But I agree with Pro that Con's arguments along these grounds really are more suited to a "ban guns" debate. This debate is focused on allowing citizens to carry guns, and it isn't at all clear how saying that removing accessibility to guns would negate the need for individuals to defend themselves with guns works toward negating the resolution.

Additionally, Con generally dismisses that statistics Pro puts forward, again focusing on the increased likelihood of individuals to commit crime if given gun access. I don't think Pro's statistics are particularly good but Con needs a more robust response to why the probabilistic model of human behavior Con advocates doesn't match Pro's data.

In the end Con feels sort of like a one trick pony, with the added shortcoming of the trick being ill-suited to this particular debate.

I vote Pro.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Wow some major fiat abuse going on by pro...
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
thanks, vmpire(: just finish reading the basic thing, and vote! I appreciate any decisions made(:
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lovelife 5 years ago
lovelife
TheTruthAnalystEthanHuOnDebateOrgTied
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: I don't think I'll be able to vote in the next few hours, but I will try to after dinner.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
TheTruthAnalystEthanHuOnDebateOrgTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate guys, but CON's arguments seemed more convincing to meh. lol
Vote Placed by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
TheTruthAnalystEthanHuOnDebateOrgTied
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: It was an interesting debate however, I felt that Pro did not adequately defend his assertion and that con simply failed to refute Pros statistics which could be used for both the pro and con no points
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
TheTruthAnalystEthanHuOnDebateOrgTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Hand guns in themselves dont reduce crime
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
TheTruthAnalystEthanHuOnDebateOrgTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
TheTruthAnalystEthanHuOnDebateOrgTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: both did well, but pro had more evidence, and sources to back him up. COn had none to that I can see.