The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Any gun other than pistols should not be sold to citizens.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 56043
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




First off, I must say that I am not American so I am not familiar with any statistics or laws you may have. I will be defending a point based on logic, rather than sources. It would probably be hard to source in such debate anyways.

I have seen quite a lot of people defend the availability of larger weapons - I will argue that they serve no use if you are but a citizen.

As for the second amendment in America particularly, I must say that it is ridiculous anyone would be willing to use that as an excuse. Even if it came so far, you would never have to defend yourself against your own government.

My opponent can set out his/her own strategy in this first round, possibly even coming up with their own ideas to defend their case.

Should my opponent lay factual claims though, I warn you, I will ask you for sources. This is the only real rule: if my opponent states something like "defending your house", he/she must prove that anually there are .... % house raids that become lethal and require an assault rifle (!) to defend oneself.

I truly hope one of those gun-addicts finally has the guts to step up and attempt to prove his case in a debate.

My personal belief is that the only reason you have those big guns, is because you are 1) finding them very cool and show them off
2) enjoy hunting from time to time

Good luck to my opponent!
He may start in the first round, receiving both opening and closing statement.
I'm feeling confident today.


Thanks, Pro. Since my opponent is the one advocating a change in the status quo, I'll keep my case short for now as he has the burden of proof. I'll also assume given his statements in R1 that this debate is US specific. I'll also assume a ban on these weapons is at the federal level so that it applies to the entire country.

I. If any gun ought to be banned, it is handguns.

The resolution is absurd--if my opponent wants to mitigate violence, he's choosing the wrong guns to ban. Even if I were to concede that gun control works to mitigate violence and should be done (I don't), the resolution is still negated because we should ban handguns. Indeed, according to the FBI[1], handguns have consistently accounted for about six to seven times more homicides than shotguns, rifles, and "other guns" combined. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals because they are easy to conceal. Thus, if you buy all of the arguments my opponent makes about gun control being good, negate the resolution and ban handguns. Affirming the resolution would ban an antique musket while allowing the weapon type that is used for approximately half of all homicides in the United States.

II. Second amendment

My opponent argues that "you would never have to defend yourself against your own government.". First, the 20th century disagrees. Indeed, Rummel estimates that in the 20th century alone 262,000,000 people were victims of democide[2]. The idea that we have nothing to fear from the government is manifestly absurd and empirically denied, historically. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller[3] that the second amendment allows citizens personal ownership of weapons. Thus to affirm the resolution is to throw away the legitimacy of the government--the state cannot make broad, sweeping bans on arbitrary classes of weapons. Keep in mind as well that it's incredibly unlikely that states would accept a federal mandate to ban the sale of all weapons other than handguns. At a time where polarization in the United States is at an all time high since reconstruction, we can't afford to pass a law the majority of states simply would not accept. Even in liberal California, democratic Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have banned all semi automatic rifles in the state for being too restrictive[4]--banning *all* long guns would be considered way too invasive by almost everyone. The federal government would become a laughingstock as the law was ignored, or the law would cause a new nullification crisis and possibly a second civil war.

Widespread possession of firearms by civilians also deters foreign invasion. When it became clear the United States was going to intervene in the First World War, Germany attempted to convince Mexico to invade the United States to tie up the US military from helping our allies in France. Mexico established a military commission to determine if the invasion was feasible, and one of the reasons they decided against it was because[5]: "
Even if by some chance Mexico had the military means to win the conflict with the U.S. and retake the area in question, Mexico would have had severe difficulty accommodating the large, primarily English-speaking population who were well supplied with guns and ammunition."

III. More guns, less crime

There are good reasons to believe that gun ownership deters crime. Indeed, Examiner reports[6] that 57% of felons surveyed agreed that criminals feared a run in with armed civilians more than they did running into the police. Moreover over a third (34%) of these felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”. Statistics bear this out. According to John Lotte, when states issued concealed carry permits[7]: "Our findings are dramatic. Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handgun in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens would have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply: Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats." Recent statistics bear this out as well. During the Obama presidency, gun sales have absolutely soared and violent crime has decreased. According to the Wall Street Journal[8]: "

In the first six months of 2013, murders fell by nearly 7 percent, compared with the same period in 2012. Aggravated assaults fell by 6.6 percent, and robberies are down 1.8 percent. 'All of the offenses in the violent crime category—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery—showed decreases when data from the first six months of 2013 were compared with data from the first six months of 2012,' according to the FBI. Overall, violent crime in the U.S. fell by 5.4 percent. Burglaries, larceny and auto thefts also decreased.

The left likes to link violent crime to the proliferation of guns in the country, so it's worth noting that the crime reductions described in the FBI report correlate with a steady increase in firearm sales. 'Gun records checks, fueled by a post-Newtown boom of gun sales, hit a new high in 2013, and industry analysts expect ammunition to be the big seller this year as consumers catch up to all of those firearms purchases,' reported the Washington Times last month. 'More than 21 million applications were run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year, marking nearly an 8 percent increase and the 11th straight year that the number has risen.'"

That's all for now. The resolution is negated.



Debate Round No. 1


A big thanks to my opponent for making a stronger case than I expected!
As I said, I am not aware of America's sources on this so I cannot possibly refute your arguments with my own sources.
Con should receive sourcing points in voting.

I will therefore not be able to fulfill my BoP based on sources, but only on immediate facts everyone would agree with.

1. Why need a bigger gun, if the smaller is by far better to defend yourself?

The small pistol can legally be carried around providing defense at all times. Assault rifles on the other hand, stay at home only providing defense against house raids. But the fact that people inside the house have a gun, no matter what size, is the true psychological barrier. For them, it does not matter what weapon the civilian has: they will have to be more carefully and on their guard.

So, my first 2 points are:
A: pistols already have the means to defend yourself at all times
B: pistols already provide the psychological effect on house raiders.

2. Soldiers and policemen will defend you against any threat bigger than the individual cases.

Policemen or soldiers would not arrive fast enough should there be a hold-up. But, should there be an invasion, a civil war, etc., you can count on the law to protect you. Keep in mind that what we want is people to stay alive, and fleeing improves your chances of survival by far. Having an assault rifle and defending your house, would most likely result in your death.

Having such a well-armed force that will risk their lives instead of the civilians doing so, is a splendid system. Especially because most soldiers would not follow orders if ordered to act against their own people.

3. Making them available to the public, just makes them more available to the criminals as well.

Imagine if Elliot Rodger had chosen not to buy a small pistol, but an assault rifle, and if he had chosen to go to a large square and spray his rifle empty there. Mad men should be taken into account. Same goes for Sandy Hook, and all those other sensitive points in the past. Everyone could lose it, for example a family man seeing his wife cheat. The fact that they would then only have limited means to out their rage, is beneficial.

Saying that the criminals would still get them, even if the guns were banned, is ofcourse irrelevant to the point. If you have a pistol, you'll have the means to defend yourself against someone with a bigger gun. No reason to bring guns of equal size to the table: a bullet is a bullet, and engaging in a gunfight will result in casualties. Besides, in your own house, you should be able to have strategic advantages even if you just have a pistol.

4. It makes homicide cases harder to solve

People are not dumb. They know that if they buy a sniper rifle, it will be harder for them to get caught when killing someone. Pistols force you into close combat, which makes it more likely for someone to be seen/filmed/leaving evidence on the crime scene. It also leaves the unaware civilian with no chances to defend himself, basically just leaving a hard-to-solve case behind.

Note to opponent: make a choice on what points you want to defend, because you have to argue either in favor of civilians defending theirselves OR be in favor of all types of guns to be allowed. You are well-aware that assault rifles are not mobile so will not give you a chance to protect yourself at all times.

You can use the next round to refute my arguments, I will attempt the same to yours.


I'll refute my opponents case this round.

1. Smaller is better

My opponent crafts a false dichotomy by characterizing all guns other than pistols as "assault weapons". This is just unbelievably false--assault weapons are generally defined as military grade weapons with a few changes to make them legal for civilian ownership. All long guns are not "assault weapons" indeed very few are. It's just absurd that Pro wants to ban weapons that collectively account for about 1/7th of the homicides pistols did. Moreover, Pistols are not always the best self defense weapon. They're practical for carrying, but they also have smaller calibers and magazine sizes. Since they fire slugs and not pellets, a missed shot can potentially go through walls and harm neighbors during a home invasion. For this reason shotguns, which my opponent would absurdly characterize as "assault weapons" are often superior home defense weapons than handguns. I don't really know what else to say here--this point is just ridiculously false and has literally zero impact. My case is vastly superior. My opponents case would also completely eliminate hunting in the United States as the shotguns and rifles used in the sport would be banned under my opponents case.

2. Soldiers and police

My opponent concedes that the police often cannot arrive in time to save civilians from danger. You can vote Con here--if my opponent is arguing that the police are useless at protection, there's no reason to affirm the resolution because civilians need firepower. Pro argues that in a civil war you "can count on the law to protect you" except the literal definition of a civil war is two or more groups violently competing for the power to make the law (government), no you can't count on the law. You should look to my case for a historical treatment of the effects an armed population has on the relationship between man and state. This argument fails to affirm the resolution as well.

3. Easier for criminals

Pros argument here fails for two reasons: First, he has no warrant on criminals failing to get weapons should they be banned--keep in mind that Columbine occurred when the United States had an assault weapons ban. Secondly, my opponent oncde again crafts a false dichotomy. There are more kinds of guns than just Pistols and "Assault weapons". My opponent argues that we should take crimesof passion committed in a rage into account and then argues that we should afford civilians the types of weapons that are easiest to conceal and surprise someone with, the kinds of weapons that account for roughly half of all homicides in the United States.

My opponent demonstrates his ignorance about firearms when he states that a civilian with just a handgun would not be at a distinct disadvantage against someone with a larger firearm.

My opponent has not made his case at all---indeed he hasn't even talked about the vast majority of the guns this resolution addresses. Why do we want to ban, say, old fashioned muskets and double barroled shotguns?

4. Easier to solve

This is an absurd point. My opponent has literally zero evidence or warrants for it being easier to capture a criminal using a pistol than any other weapon. The reason criminals generally don't use sniper rifles is because few are interested in simply murdering someone and because these weapons are extremely expensive and take training to use. For the most part, criminals use weapons for intimidation not for actual usage anyway. Until my opponent provides some evidence here you can just ignore it.

Finally Pro argues that I have to argue in favor of "civilians defending theirselves OR be in favor of all types of guns to be allowed. " but I'm not sure what he means here, so you can ignore that too.

Just looking over each case it's clear who has the greater impacts. Vote neg.
Debate Round No. 2


This round, I'll refute my opponent's case as well.
He finished last round by pretending he had already won, not giving me a chance to reply to his points. That is unfair.
I will also reply to his counterarguments, all at once, so that we have one list of points to discuss.

1. Bigger guns or smaller guns, which are the more necessary?

My opponent fails to bring any proof that smaller guns are more dangerous to society. He says that handguns are used more often for crime, but that is easy to prove: they are smaller. You can however be certain that if you ban the smaller guns, the bigger guns will be used more often. And those are more lethal. Conclusion? Keep it to smaller guns.

Secondly, my opponents only rebuttal to my first point is the fact that I more specificallly spoke of "assault rifles" rather than simply "bigger guns". That is the one mistake I made. His rebuttal to how good small guns do as self defense weapons is complete bias as I have clearly said that you cannot carry bigger guns in public, ever. Robbery at your local store? You with your big gun at home would be defenseless, I wouldn't be. The fact that you WOULD have more rounds and bigger slugs means nothing if it only protects you at home.

As for defending your house, my opponent would have to show that house raids occur so often that it requires you to have advanced protection (bigger guns) rather than standard protection (pistols). He has not rebutted my point about the psychological effect that simply owning a pistol has on house raiders.

Lastly, the point of hunting, is something completely else. Hunting should be like it is in Europe: it requires a special license of a huntsman, and then you can legally buy the bigger guns.

the Army & police can be seen as part of this as well. My opponent completely ignores my true argument: any bigger conflict, including a civil war, does not require law abiding citizens to carry around bigger guns. Letting them do so only lets problems escalate, therefore stimulating the conflict to grow even bigger: that is most certainly not what we wish for.
The police & army should be the only ones to carry the bigger guns solely for the reason that they would have the upper hand should there be protestors etc. Civilians should not be given such weapons as they can most likely flee: this option is much better than giving civilians the means to stand their ground and most likely die.

2. Do they become more available to criminals if they are more available to the public?

My opponent argues something entirely else here. I said that if civilians can get them in local stores, so can criminals. My opponent turned this around, as if I would have said that NOT selling them in local gun stores would make them unavailable to criminals. I am not that dumb to make such a statement, yet my opponent clearly misinterpreted my obvious point: availability rises for both civilians and criminals.

Yes, criminals would still be able to get them. But again my opponent misses my point - insane people like Elliot Rodger would not be able to get illegal guns. They would buy the first weapon they see, and should that be a big gun or a small gun, that makes a lot of difference. An insane man would not be able to buy illegal guns, he would always simply go to the gun store. Organized crime would stay the same.

I also don't know what my opponent figures under a "gunfight". Is it a long-lasting battle like in movies and games? It would appear he thinks like this considering he talks about advantages and disadvantages in combat. That is not how reality works. In reality, we can already conclude that bigger guns ONLY serve use when defending your home. The fact remains that the owner of the house actually knows the house, and any planning man would be able to call the police and then hide his family until the police arrives. It is truly stupid to buy big guns so you can risk your own life if it ever comes to it: your odds truly won't change. If you have a gun, no matter what size, shooting down a hallway will keep your robbers at a distance. Most likely, they will even flee as they know you've called the cops. This is, as I said before, the major psychological effect.
The fact that you would have a bigger gun brings so little to the the table, it serves no use.

3. The usage of old muskets and other less useful guns

These guns would ofcourse solely be used for the purpose of fun: you could still do that in shooting ranges, given that you do not take them home. They form but a small part of the category we are talking about, but they are included because that makes for a very strict and clear law. So far, my opponent has argued that bigger guns should be allowed as they are more useful, yet he agrees that these aren't and are only used for fun.

4. Does it make homicide cases easier to solve if it is comitted with a pistol?

I agree that my point is a little absurd, but again my opponent misinterprets even the title: I spoke of homicides, and my opponent starts talking about robberies. That's completely ridiculous.
My example of the sniper rifle was just one - that of the professional hitman. Any smart man will attempt to increase all distance between him and his target. With pistols, it is hard to do that. With rifles, it is not. JFK's murderer would count as a fair example.

5. Second amendment?

I don't really see my opponent's point here. Defending yourself against your government can be done with pistols as well. I don't see how this contributes to the debate as all he proves is that the public does not want a ban (which is quite obvious, they seem to love big guns) and that there are plenty of cases of democide. What is the difference between democide and homicide? Only the one who commits the crime. Nothing changes to the victim's situation: he has to defend himself, and I have succesfully shown that a handgun is better to defend yourself at all times.

6. More guns, less crime?

My opponent succesfully manipulates his point by suddenly speaking of "guns" rather than "big guns". He shows statistics of how armed civilians are effective, yet no proof that there is any difference between bigger or smaller guns. I agree entirely that owning small guns is very beneficial to lessen crime rates, but what do big guns have to do with bigger guns? My opponent even proves that conceiled handguns are incredibly beneficial to this society! Which side is he really arguing for? Not a word about big guns were said in this part of his argumentation.

My opponent also tells voters what to ignore and what not to. And then concludes he has already won. Not only that, he openly agreed that he doesn't even understand what I meant when I said:

"make a choice on what points you want to defend, because you have to argue either in favor of civilians defending theirselves OR be in favor of all types of guns to be allowed. You are well-aware that assault rifles are not mobile so will not give you a chance to protect yourself at all times."

He has misunderstood that in his own conduct, he contradicts himself by first saying that smaller guns should be banned, and then saying that smaller guns are beneficial for self-defence. He would have to show that bigger guns provide a better defence (at all times!) or that all guns should be allowed.
Make a choice because you left that contradiction in your first round.

Please put a little more effort in this debate as you are already looking to wrap this up by concluding "vote neg" and "it's clear who has the greater impact". You are looking to refute my argumentation so desperately you are contradicting yourself. I was very polite to you, yet you're trying to make this a fight rather than a debate.


=Neg case=

I. Ban pistols

My opponent makes literally no response to the argument about handguns being the most detrimental to society. His only response is that if we ban handguns bigger guns will be used except this ignores the inherent viability of handguns in homicide. They are easy to conceal meaning that a potential victim cannot see them until it's too late and, since they are carried for defense and intimidation many times more than any long guns, handguns are the go to weapon in a heat of the moment crime of passion. Pro argues that long guns are "more lethal" and yet they collectively account for a fraction of the deaths handguns do. I'll note once more that my position is not that gun control works to make civilians any safer--indeed, I believe the opposite. But if it does work, gun control advocates should use their political capital to ban handguns, not pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles.

Pro argues that handguns are necessary for self defense because no one ever has long guns outside of the house. This is empirically denied. Many stores have shotguns propped up in the back and most states allow open carry of long guns even if it's a right rarely applied. I honestly don't understand what Pro is arguing here. If gun control works to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, negating the resolution by banning pistols still vastly outweighs his tiny self defense advantage. As it is, gun control does not work and you can negate the resolution on that.

My opponent ironically asks for statistics and argues that "bigger guns" are "advanced" protection except they really aren't. A semi automatic pistol is far more advanced than a pump action shotgun who's mechanism was developed in the 19th century.

Pro loses the debate on the hunting argument. He argues that: "Hunting should be like it is in Europe: it requires a special license of a huntsman, and then you can legally buy the bigger guns." he agrees that long guns SHOULD be sold to civilians in some circumstance. Thus he's conceded. Vote neg.

Pro falsely claims that I "ignore" his argument about not needing to defend yourself in a civil war or armed conflict. The reality is that he's completely dropped my rebuttals to it--namely that you do and I gave a historical example of an armed population helping to deter an invasion. I encourage the judges to re read them.

II. Second amendment

Pro completely drops my legitimacy impact--affirming the resolution and passing an unconstitutional ban will literally cripple the federal government by showing that it's mandates will be ignored, or by causing a second civil war. You can vote Neg on this point.

Pro's only real response is that there's no difference between homicide and democide. It's true that both involve a well armed aggressor harming an under armed victim. I think this is the best argument to negate the resolution, thanks Pro. To be clear, the difference between homicide and democide is scale; Matthew White estimates the total number of murders in the 20th century to be 8.5 million[1], this is compared with over 200 million deaths by government. To account for unreported murders, lets say there were 10 million in the 20th century. This means the average person is about twenty times more likely to be murdered by their own government than a fellow citizen. Even if my opponent wins that guns increase the number of homicides, this is an acceptable harm to offset the risk of death by government.

My opponent also dropped my argument about deterring foreign invasion.

III. More guns, less crime

My opponent totally drops every one of my statistics. Extend them and negate the resolution. To try and salvage his case, Pro accuses me of manipulation here but I'm not. I've been clear from the outset that gun control does not work (so any of his impacts don't exist) and if it does he's going after the wrong type of guns (he is). I'm not advocating a ban on pistols per se, what I'm arguing is that if you accept my opponents logic (criminals follow laws) voting aff would still be bad. You can ignore his arguments about how this is a contradiction because I've been extremely clear from the outset what I'm arguing--as the negative, my goal is to negate the resolution in any way and I'm allowed to take a variety of approaches to do this. If Pro left a pistol sized loophole in the resolution, this is not my fault.

The only real argument he makes here is that my statistics lump long guns in with pistols, and this is true. But if you accept the logic that criminals are afraid of armed civilians and the statistics show that, the advantage would still exist for long guns so he gains no ground here.

=Aff case=

False dichotomy

My opponent concedes that some of the guns he's trying to ban are "less useful" than others. So why, exactly, are we attempting to ban them? My opponents only argument is that because he wants a "strict and clear law" but this is nothing other than blind legalism. If a weapon has zero negative impact on society, like an old musket, banning them from civilian hands for literally no reason is just asinine. My opponent completely fails to understand that long guns have even more variety than handguns. Pro is lumping together flint lock, single shot muskets with AK-47's for no reason other than the length of their barrel. You can vote neg here because it shows how absurd the resolution is.

Easier for criminals

Pro concedes that criminals would still be able to get any weapons they wanted illegally, even acknowledging that to argue otherwise would be "dumb". You can negate right here because the only impact is to strip honest civilians of their rights and defense abilities. His only attempt to argue the point is that insane people go to buy the first guns they can get ahold of. Not only does he have zero evidence of this, but this only applies for insane criminals. According to Christopher Williams in the Encyclopedia of Murder and Violent Crime, only about 1 in 10,000 criminals is ruled so insane by the court that they are declared not guilty for this reason[2]. Thus the *vast* majority of criminals, even if they are deranged, have the cognitive ability to make decisions.

Pro argues that long guns are only useful in defense at home but like I've shown this is false--stores have them too. More importantly, his argument that the ideal solution is to hide like a coward and hope the police come in time. In my world, the ideal solution is a criminal full of lead and a lot of green saved by the taxpayer. My opponent then makes a strange argument, saying that having a long gun makes no difference in terms of your chances to overcome an enemy in the home. First of all, I've already argued about why shotguns can be preferable in some instances. Secondly, if he doesn't think long guns are more lethal than there is no reason to ban them. His only real argument is that any gun has a "psychological impact". You can turn this point. Edward Hill of the College of Public Affairs[3] collected data on estimates of the kinds of guns Americans own--the latest estimate puts the amount of long guns in the United States far ahead of handguns by a margin of 82 million (114 million handguns to 196 million long guns). so if we strip away public ownership of long guns we negate his psychological impact in most cases.

Easier to solve

My opponent fails to produce any statistics on how much more often we solve homicides that use long guns compared to handguns. How can anyone vote on this point if we don't know how big the impact is?

I don't really know what to say here--my opponent simply has no impact coming off this point without statistics. Prefer my impacts because they are empirical and confirmed to exist.

The resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 3


I. Ban pistols

My opponent both agrees that they are used oftenly for homicides, but also the best self-defence weapon as they can be used at all times. He however fails to see that should the same case occur - an armed robbery, where ideally both the robber and the citizens have a pistol, now would become a robber with a bigger weapon, and a civilian with none at all. Is this in any way beneficial? No. Unless my opponent would argue civilians carrying big guns on them at all time.

Con has agreed that long guns are not brought into the open by civilians, as it is very unethical. Many civilians would carry a regular pistol around, though. This proves my entire point, given that pistold provide a fair and ethical chance for every civilian to have a self-defense at all times.

About hunting: Con again pretends he has won as I stated that there would be a license for huntsmen. He is so stupid to derive from this that every civilian would be able to buy bigger guns: No. In Europe, those bigger guns are simplistic shotguns or bolt action rifles. I thought it would be clear that assault rifles or other guns would not fall into the category of guns allowed to be bought by huntsmen. The list of allowed guns is very limited.
Lastly, when having such a license, one is no longer regarded a "civilian" when going hunting: you require to wear a specific uniform so that civilians would not mistake you for people with illegal guns. Huntsmen, in a way, are looked upon like soldiers.
This is exactly the system I proposed so that the sports of hunting would not be eliminated by gun control.

As for the usage of bigger guns in conflict, you have ignored my actual argument: fleeing is better than standing your ground. I prefer no dead & wounded over a hero who died for his country. And, as I said, letting civilians matter in war only makes problems escalate: there won't be civilians anymore, just like in Japan at the end of WWII. Such a population would have no innocents according to their enemy, and be nuked mercylessly. My opponent has indeed given fine examples of civilians deterring an invasion, yet I have now countered it with the example more fitting in modern warfare - that which includes immediate destruction of all that stands in your way.

II. Second amendment

I focus upon my reply that there is no difference between homicide and democide, even though democide occurs more often. The fact that the agressor is well-armed does not mean the civilian should be equally as armed. It means civilians should be allowed to carry pistols at all times rather than - as Con chose to argue - facing a ban of their all-time defense weapons. Con must be reminded that he chose to argue the EXACT opposite of what I said: only long guns, no more handguns. And the voter can also read for theirselves Con has agreed that carrying long guns in the open almost never happens, even though it might be legal in some states.

Does this mean Con says: you shouldn't be able to protect yourself against your government/agressor at all times?
It would seem so. Please clarify your ideas here, con.

III. More guns, less crime. But, bigger guns, less crime?

My opponent persuades the voters to ignore my arguments again. This debate is really becoming sad.
Con, I cannot argue about statistics. It is easy
I know it is clear that gun control does not work, as civilians are too stubborn and that will never change. But this is not a debate like that, this is a debate about what an ideal world would look like if all juridical laws would be embraced by civilians.
The reason I said you are manipulating here is that your statistics do not count for this debate, as you have nowhere proven that bigger guns in some way would also reduce crime rates. May I remind you that I am not looking for a full gun ban, as I have said last round, You have yet to reply to my points, as this is a point of your case and you have to either drop it, or show that it proves that bigger guns are in some way beneficial.

"False dichotomy"

These less useful guns fall into that category because, like I have said, you would only want to shoot them for fun: they serve no use for defence as you already couldn't carry them in public. My solution for those who wish to maintain their musket fetish? Get a huntsman license, or fire them at shooting ranges.

"Easier for criminals"

My opponent talks about the insane criminals buying guns, but somehow finds it illogical that buying a gun in a store is much easier than buying one illegal. If you make it just the slightest bit harder for criminals to get hands on big guns, it would be well-worth it.
The fact that civilians would be deprived of these weapons is of no influence at all - except that they will be unhappy about that.

Shopkeepers should be deprived of these weapons as well, as a pistol serves enough of a defence. The chances of them taking down a robber -whom is prepared and holds the shopkeeper at gunpoint immediately- are practically zero.
As for home defence, my opponent would want to shoot any man intruding his house potentially dying himself before anything would happen. A man who is hidden and would only fire when necessary, is the one who is most likely to kill the intruder. You do not need a long gun to fill intruders with lead.
The psychological impact of a gun is the same - be it a big or small gun. Every intruder will be cautious knowing the house-owner has a gun, that is, IF they are brave enough to enter. They know that when a bullet hits them, it's over, no matter what caliber round it was.
Civilians tend to think the bigger guns are also the better ones to defend your house with, which is true. That is why long guns are bought more oftenly. Yet the actual difference between a pistol and a long gun when defending yourself is so small, while the amount of people you could kill with it is so much bigger. Assault rifles are a huge potential threat at, for example, markets. Pistols are not.
So, in a way, you are giving civilians weapons that are only slightly more lethal for defending, with the chance that one in twenty million would go to a market and gun down a few dozens, who will be left defenceless.
My resolution here is that bigger guns become more rare, civilians know how to defend theirselves with a pistol and no risks other than the usual ones (of organized crime) are being taken.

"Easier to solve"

No such statistics exist, I agree. But my point still holds water since I have given a fair example of JFK's murder being tough to crack.
My opponent's "empirically proven impacts" are however time after time not truly relevant to his case. I admire his search for statistics and desire to prove a case in such a way, but you MUST agree that the amount of people who actually own long guns at home does not matter for this debate. We are talking about whether or not the hypothetical world without long guns would be better, regardless and inconsiderate of how many people have actually bought a bigger gun instead of a smaller one.


=Neg case=

I. Ban pistols

Pro makes no powerful response to this argument. All he says is that if we ban pistols robbers would switch to long guns and civilians would have no weapons at all...even though there's literally nothing stopping civilians from purchasing long guns too. Pistols are clearly the go to weapon for murderers and crime, so if we are to actually believe gun control works we should go with banning them. But it doesn't, and we should negate the resolution on that. However the resolution is beyond absurd--before voting on this debate, I ask all voters to think about the fact that my opponent is *literally* advocating banning muskets and bolt action rifles while wanting to keep the weapon that is used for about half of all murders in the United States. We have to have a compelling reason to ban something, not just because Pro wants a "clear" law.

Remember that as the negative, I can disprove the resolution in any way. Pro on the other hand, is obligated to provide a clear advocacy. Before considering voting Pro, keep in mind that Pro is arguing that weapons are good for self defense and bans on weapons don't work, and then wants to ban other kinds of weapons. His position is not coherent and you can't base policy on these kinds of arguments.

Pro lumps together several arguments under this point, so I'll respond to them here. He argues that carrying long guns in public is unethical (?) but this isn't the reason people don't do it, it's because it's inconvienent. I agree that pistols are useful for self defense but it's questionable if that outweighs their usage in homicide.

Pro makes no valid response to his concession of the debate under the hunting argument. Lisencing is not the same as an outright ban, allowing civilians to purchase any long gun in any circumstance negates the resolution. Pro talks about assault weapons, but nothing in the resolution says assault weapons.

Pro prefers that the population flees en masse in the event of an invasion, as if millions of displaced citizens doesn't present it's own dangers. It's the deterrence advantage that really matters--Pro agrees my examples are "fine". He argues that in the modern world a country can just murder all of the civilians by using nuclear weapons, but it's dubious that this would accomplish any military objective and would likely set off a nuclear war and lead to human extinction. Conventional invasions are deterred by civilian weapon ownership and this lets the United States pursue it's military objectives free of the danger of a homeland invasion.

II. Second amendment

Once again, Pro utterly ignores my point on legitimacy. Affirming the resolution would literally destroy the Federal Government as we know it.

Pro agrees that democide happens about twenty times more than homicides from ordinary civilians--thus even if he wins that homicides are increased by negating the resolution, the loss is acceptable to offset the risk of a democidal government. Pro claims that I argued to ban handguns, but like I said I can negate the resolution in several ways. Basically I'm asking the judges to ask themselves if this question at the end of the debate:

"Does gun control work?"

A. Yes --> Then vote neg because gun control groups should use their political capital to ban handguns.
B. No --> Then vote neg because there's no reason to ban weapons from civilians if it won't keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Pro argues that civilians should be allowed pistols because they can then defend themselves against government at all times, but democide doesn't work like that. It's almost always the gradual deprivation of rights to a group until their extermination, if these people were armed they could resist encroachment on their rights or at least have a chance.

III. Guns and crime

Pro claims that he "cannot" argue about statisitcs. Even if you don't buy any of my arguments then you can still negate because Pro absolutely *refuses* to use *any* statistics. How can we know if his policy is needed or would be effective *at all* if we have no evidence to look at?

My opponent also says that it's "clear that gun control does not work". Vote Neg. He qualifies this with the debate being about an "ideal world" but this is a cop out--this is a policy debate. If Pro refuses to argue the most fundamental question of policy--"does it work?"-- than you can't vote for him. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to ban snything because everyone would act peacefully to each other. To want to debate an "ideal world" is to not want a debate at all. We need to look to which plan best mitigates mankinds more violent instincts, allowing the innocent to arm themselves or the one that disarms them to the benefit of the criminal.

Pro once again accuses me of "manipulation" because my statistics lump together long guns and handguns, but this is ridiculous. If he concedes that civilians having handguns deters crime, it obviously follows that long guns will have a similar effect. A dead criminal is a dead criminal, regardless of whether the lead he was pumped with game from a shotgun, rifle, or pistol.

=Aff case=

False dichotomy

Pro concedes the debate again here by arguing that people who have "musket fetishes" can still buy them with a license. It doesn't matter if Pro wanted to argue stricter gun regulations in general, if he wanted that he should've crafted a better resolution. Vote based on who upholds their end of the resolution better, and given that Pro is rejecting his position of banning all long guns from being sold, he loses the debate.

Easier for criminals

Pro argues that criminals follow laws and keeping guns from being sold at stores would keep them from buying them....except only 8.3% of criminals bought their guns from stores[1]. Pro argues further that shopkeepers shouldn't be allowed to have long weapons because handguns are "enough of a defence". Human Events wrote a great article[2] about Korean storeowners defending themselves from the mob during the 1992 LA riots using Assault Weapons, Rifles, and Shotguns. Moreover the argument that storeowners hardly ever take out robbers is empirically denied--a simple google search will reveal dozens of such stories. Pro drops my response about most guns owned by civilians being long guns, thus his psychological impact goes to me because he would strip more homes of firearms and deter less crime than I do. Pro estimates that the probability of a long gun being used to gun down hundreds of people to be " one in twenty million". I think this is as good an independent argument to negate the resoution as any.

Easier to solve

Pro once again refuses to give statistics. Literally his only example is from 50 years ago, and it doesn't even support his position as the JFK assassin was *caught*. He argues that the amount of people who own long guns does not matter, because we're arguing about a hypothetical world with none of them, but this is absurd. The resolution isn't "Long guns are good for society" it's whether or not we should ban them. If the policy has a negative impact, we shouldn't implement it.

Vote neg.


Debate Round No. 4


I. Ban pistols

Last round, I stated that during robberies (which occur more than house raids) the robber would switch to long guns and civilians would have nothing. That is the case my opponent is pleading for, and he has not replied to this at all except for saying civilians can buy long guns as well - which they would then leave at home, resulting in them still having no weapons at all.

The fact that pistols are the go-weapon for murder and crime is simply because they are cheaper. Ban them and they will be replaced by bigger guns.

I also don't see what my opponent does not understand about my statement here. Is it not clear that only pistols should be sold to civilians, as they provide the most excellent defense (you conceded upon that)? And that I am only arguing to ban those bigger weapons, which make a bigger threat to society?

As for people running around publicly with a long gun, wouldn't you feel very threatened in a society like that? That is why it is unethical. The fact that it's inconvenient is another argument on my behalf, a reason why Con's idea of banning handguns should not be followed.

On the hunting topic, Con presents no reply. He did not understand my analogy that hunting is seen as a profession, like being a soldier. You are enlisted and no longer a civilian if you wear the uniform. Hopefully Con will not ignore it this time.

The case of an invasion is so extremely rare, but staying alive is more important than standing your ground. Immediate surrender is the best thing to do, maybe not for the country, but most certainly for the population.
If anything, people can hand in their already bought long guns and take them home should an invasion actually occur. Civilians can join the militia, or just pick up their guns in state of war, but there is no apperent reason for them to have such weapons when there is peace.

II. Second amendment

Please, voters, my opponent hasn't even made clear what he is debating for. He is simply negating me wherever he can rather than being consistent in his visions.

"Does gun control work?"

No, and I have already said why you should ban long guns from civilians: it increases the potential threat a person can be exponentionally.

"Pro argues that civilians should be allowed pistols because they can then defend themselves against government at all times, but democide doesn't work like that. It's almost always the gradual deprivation of rights to a group until their extermination, if these people were armed they could resist encroachment on their rights or at least have a chance. "

That seems like a naive perception. Please give an example.

III. Guns and crime

I have immediately said in round one that I am not familiar with any statistics as I am not an American. How can I succesfully defend myself if you now alter the very rules you accepted? You knew I was not going to come up with statistics, and I allowed you to come up with yours. I must remind the voters that in round one, I have immediately said that stastics is NOT how I will defend my resolution.

I have said that it is clear gun control doesn't work, as civilians are too stubborn. The ideal I propose is one that civilians would accept, completely trusting their government. My world is a hypothetical world, not an "ideal world" as con said it. A realistic world, which is better than the one we live in now.

Neither do I want to disarm the citizen, or benefit the criminal. I do the exact opposite: I make a civilisation where the more lethal weapons are harder to get, and where civilians do not become a potential threat.

My opponent concedes that his statistics in this point is useless, agreeing that he lumped together big and small guns with similar effects on criminals, proving it not to be a point for his case as there is no difference or distinct advantage in having a bigger gun rather than a small gun.

'False dichotomy'

Again, Con, having guns solely at shooting ranges or being a huntsman (~soldier) is entirely different than being a civilian allowed to buy guns and consider them their own property, taking them wherever they want.

"Easier for criminals"

Con's source says that 40% gets their guns from friends and families. Where do the friends and family get their guns?
I am also waiting to see proof as to why shopkeepers would need bigger guns rather than smaller ones. The article provided by con is simply built upon the idea that smaller guns could not have accomplished what the bigger guns could.
Besides, we were lucky the Koreans did not fire at the crowd. Less rational people might have done so, resulting in the death of many. This case is rather unique as 1) no larger institution was present to intimidate the riot group and 2) the Koreans were civilians at its best, being rational enough to have mercy for your agressor.
Con is an example of someone who would've "filled them with lead", and I'm sure many others think likewise. This is however not the good solution, and in this sole case Koreans have used the assault weapons in the only correct way that exists (in the hands of a civilian, at least).

"Easier to solve"

Look above to see comments on statistics. And I must admit that this point was kind of a last resort, my main arguments are the ones that count.

That the people who own long guns does not matter was not related to this point, by the way.
This is what I have literally said: "We are talking about whether or not the hypothetical world without long guns (being available to civilians) would be better, regardless and inconsiderate of how many people have actually bought a bigger gun instead of a smaller one."

And my opponent negates the very title of this debate by saying that "it's [about] whether or not we should ban them."
This debate is about the ethical question if selling any other guns than big guns to civilians. The fact that civilians would never agree to such a law is a fact, but does not matter! We are trying to reason, unlike civilians, and not trying to create a ban on big guns. We're discussing about whether the hypothetical world where no big guns are sold, is better than the world where they are. That is, completely theoretically and believing that the people will take whatever laws their juridical system desire. I am debating that this would have a positive impact on society, but that we couldn't make this plan a reality due to the lack of civilian co"peration. Con must agree to this, or else this debate serves no use at all. He cannot possibly alter my stance in the debate.
Con however thinks straight-forward and pretends we're the government debating about a gun ban. This is realistic, but I like to think as John Locke would: the people need a government to rule them, as they are not capable of ruling theirselves. This debate is about what a good government should decide given that the population will have to follow their decisions, rather than oppose them.


Thanks for the debate, Pro.

=Neg case=

I. Ban Pistols

Pro makes no good responses here. His only arguments rely upon the idea that robbers would carry around easily visible long guns before committing crimes. This is untrue because, contrary to Pro's claims, criminals do not prefer handguns because they are cheaper. They aren't cheaper than many long guns (military surplus Mosin Nagants run at around $100 each, far less than the cost of an average pistol). Criminals prefer handguns because they are easy to carry and conceal. If gun control works, we would be heavily damaging the power criminals have by preventing them from obtaining their favored weapon. If it does not work, there's no reason to affirm the resolution anyway.

Pro's position is just self evidently absurd. He wants to ban the weapons that are hardly ever used in crimes, even bolt action rifles and muskets, while wanting to permit the ones that are commonly used by criminals. He has literally no warrant for why people couldn't have long guns in their places of business for defense (they do in the status quo) if we ban handguns so his self defense advantge falls apart. Again, if you buy that gun control works vote Con because gun control advocates should use their political capital to push for a handgun ban, not a ban on long guns. If you don't buy that gun control works, the resolution is negated for obvious reasons.

Pro attempts to salvage his concession on the hunting argument by arguing that people going out into the woods to shoot squirrels or deer somehow count as a professional group tantamount to the military and should not be viewed as civilians. I think this illustrates the mental gymnastics one would have to do to vote Pro at this point--Pro conceded that people should be sold long guns to hunt in some circumstances, so he loses the debate. It's as simple as that.

Pro's only response is that civilians should run should an invasion occur. What he's failed to negate is that, historically, an armed popualce *deters* invasion. Disarming the citizenry has no benefit to the federal government.

Pro's position is quite frankly ridiculous. He wants to ban guns that he admits have literally no negative utility, such as muskets, simply due to their barrel length. Hardly a basis for sound policy.

II. Second amendment

Pro totally dropped my legitimacy argument throughout the entire debate. This point vastly outweighs *everything* else in the debate by several orders of magnitude. Affirming the resolution would more or less destroy the federal government. Pro makes literally no response. You can stop reading and vote Con right here.

Pro accuses me of being inconsistent but, as the negative, I don't have to be consistent. I just have to show that the resolution is false. My case shows that if gun control works you negate, and if it doesn't work you negate. My case is consistent in that it highlights the inherent absurdity of the resolution.

Pro concedes that gun control doesn't work. Once again, you can stop reading and sign the ballot. His only argument is that long guns increase the potential threat of a person "exponentially", and yet, statistically, the vast majority of gun deaths occur due to handguns. Pro just has no ground here.

Pro drops the point that democide is about 20x more common than homicide from fellow civilians. Even if you grant him limited homicide mitigation, the reduced risk of democide outweighs this. Pro characterizes the idea of an armed population deterring genocide as "naive". Kates and Polsby note[1]:

"..not one of the principal genocides of the 20th century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.

Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenceless."

It's simply logical that an armed population is going to be a tougher nut to crack for oppressive governments than an unarmed one. This is why the Nazi's did all in their power to disarm the populace. As Hitler noted[2]: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

III. Guns and crime

Pro tries to make excuses for his lack of empirical evidence by stating he is not American, but this is just a cop out. At the end of the day, his nationality has no effect on his affirmation of the resolution. Granting him any leniency here would be discrimination, you have to judge the debate based on who did better, not by giving one side a blank check to spout opinions without the backing of statistics or sources.

Pro realizes he's lost the debate on the practical front so he attempts to shift the goal posts by now arguing for an ideal. He made no response to my critique of idealism that if we're arguing for an ideal society, there would be no crime. Don't let him get away with having the debate judged on an idealistic plane--the resolution is a matter of policy. Even if you buy that he can make idealistic arguments, since all of his points rely on practicality as well you can ignore this paradigm. Since he's conceded that gun control wouldn't work because the populace is "stubborn" you can vote Con.

Pro says he wants a society where the more lethal weapons are harder to get. Since pistols are about seven times more lethal in terms of death toll than long guns you can negate the resolution under my first contention.

Pro argues that my statistics are useless because they don't address long guns specifically, but this is just absurd. He's given no reason, no reason at all, to think that more handguns would lead to less crime but more long guns would not. I don't know what else to say here--this point certainly stands. More guns means less crime, so banning the weapon kinds that constitute the majority of civilian owned arms is a terrible idea.

The resolution has been negated several times.

=Aff case=

False dichotomy

Pro tries to shift the goal posts again. As I noted in my last round, he heavily implied in round 4 that these types of guns could still be sold to civilians as long as they had some kind of liscensing. As it stands, the fact that Pro wants to ban guns that he admits have no negative utility just because he wants a "clear" law is beyond asinine. If there's no reason to ban something, we shouldn't ban it and we should negate the resolution for being too broad.

Easier for criminals

Pro's argument lays in shambles because criminals simply do not buy weapons from stores. At this point given that he's already conceded gun control doesn't work, he gains no advantage from this or any other contention. Pro makes some strange responses to my argument about the Koreans defending their stores with long guns, but at the end of the day all that matters is his response here: "and in this sole case Koreans have used the assault weapons in the only correct way that exists". Thus he concedes that assault weapons (let alone all long guns) have some practical application in civilian hands. Therefore I've won the debate.

Easier to solve

At long last, we come to the final point of contention. Pro once again tries to frame the resolution as an ethical question when it is quite clearly a matter of policy. Neither the resolution nor Pro's opening round make any mention of ethics or ideals, but rather a statement of policy that long guns should not be sold to citizens. This is pretty much all Pro says to this point but remember, even if you buy that this debate should be one of ideals since we've both argued pragmatism you have to vote on that. The judge is, after all, bound to the arguments the debaters make in round.

Vote Con.



Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Revic. Will we have to defend our self from a tyrannical government today? No. What about tomorrow?. No. In 20 years? Probably not. In 50 or 100 years? Maybe. We are allowed to own guns because it helps us protect our selves from tyrannical governments and dictatorships. In most dictatorships the dictator forces people to give up their guns. Germany, Russia, Ukraine (Soviet Union back than. My grandmother was in Crimea during WW2) and in the Philippines when Ferdinand Marcos took control and declared him self dictator. We have the second amendment so that can't happen to us. If someone tries to declare them self a dictator than we will have the ability to fight and stay free.
Long guns are easier to use. Before purchasing a gun you should have a background check to see if your crazy, a criminal or if you want to hurt others. You should also take a gun safety course and take additional courses if you want to have a conceal carry permit.
In American cities like Chicago and D.C where they have more gun control there is more crime. In places like Dallas where gun control is not so tight you have less crime. In England, Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico and Australia you have more violent crimes per 100,000 people. In England especially there is a much higher rape rate, burglary rate and homicide rate.
Between 1992 and 2011 when gun ownership expanded in the U.S crime leveled went down. My source is the official FBI website tables 8 and 16.
Where you have more people with CCP you have less crime.
Thanks for your concern. Have a nice summer!
Posted by revic 2 years ago
@Doomswatter, I am attempting to defend the title of this debate: that any guns other than pistols (mainly targeting assault rifles) should not be sold to regular civilians.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
revic, which statement in your opening is the resolution you are attempting to defend?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
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: CON, with a bit of agreement on the PRO side, demonstrated that firearms other than pistols are, in fact, useful in civilian hands. The fact that PRO essentially accepts this--and drops arguments which CON used on the subject--leads to a victory for CON. PRO argues that pistols are better for defense (if that was true, then why does the US military use 'assault rifles' if handguns are so much better?), but he never really refuted a simple fact from CON: the fact is, pistols are the weapons preferred in crime. All long gun crime added up does not come close to the homicides which pistols inflict. So, if anything, the debate should be over handguns, not long rifles. PRO dropped this, making it impossible for his victory. Also, in either scenario of the effectiveness of gun control, CON has the victory--handguns are bad ban them, guns are good don't ban anything. CON wins.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very strange resolution. PRO had a lot of difficulty making his case. CON gave a litany of reasons why the world in which the resolution is affirmed is really, really bad. PRO either ignored those arguments, or was unable to overcome them. CON wins.