The Instigator
ufcryan
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Citizens Should Be Permitted To Own Guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 34116
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

ufcryan

Pro

For this debate, both parties must assume the following:

1. There is NO second amendment.
2. There is NO threat of a tyrannical government.
3. There are NO rights for a citizen to hunt.
4. Guns are not needed for defense against animals.
5. A blanket gun ban would work (criminals would not smuggle guns across the border).

Obviously not all of these assumptions are true, but we can assume they are for the sake of an argument. Now the only reasons to have guns would be for self-defense and for recreational shooting. I will still argue for private gun ownership.

This is NOT a gun control debate. This is debating a blanket gun ban. The point is to show that either there are more harms or more benefits from citizens having guns. If my opponent wishes to debate specific gun control policies later I will be welcome to the task.

This debate refers to gun ownership in America. Citizens possessing guns is defined as the current laws of private gun ownership in America (such as no fully-automatic weapons and no explosive RPG's).

RULES:

May be done made political, medical, economic, and philosophical arguments.

NO PLAGIARISM, plagiarism will be considered forfeiture. This was a particular problem in my last gun debate.

Must cite sources for any statistics used.

Please stay civil


My Arguments:

There are more benefits then there are harms from citizens possessing guns. Guns are used far more often for self-defense than to inflict harm, and guns may reduce crime (this theory has not been 100% proven, but there is strong and circumstantial evidence for this).

http://www.saf.org...
John Lott- More Guns, Less Crime
LaL36

Con

Thank you to my opponent for starting the debate and good luck! Of course Pro has the BOP here.

"There are more benefits then there are harms from citizens possessing"

Unestablished and unproven point. And even if this was true, the fact that some people are dying because of it takes precedence over those benefits. If that man who killed those kids at Sandy Hook did not have a gun, they probably would not have been dead and this cannot be denied. Like my opponent said we are not talking about gun control but about blanket gun ban. And any deaths that have resulted with guns would not have happened. And there are plenty: The shooting at the batman movie, the Sandy hook shooting, and many more. From 2000-2009 there have been 298,000 deaths from guns and around 30,000 per year. The only way my opponent can support his claim is if he gives higher numbers than this, otherwise my opponent loses. This goes for my opponent's entire argument. http://www.forbes.com...

Also, I don't know what you are sourcing. What are you trying to prove?

My opponent is arguing that there are more benefits then harm. What benefits? You have not provided a single benefit but you have to provide more than 30,000 a year, otherwise you lose.
Debate Round No. 1
ufcryan

Pro

Thank you LaL36 and I hope for a constructive debate.

What I mean when I say that there are more benefits than harms from citizen gun ownership means that I would argue that less crimes are committed and less people die each years as a result of private firearm ownership. This sounds ridiculous to some people but let's walk through why this is.

First, you claim that about 30,000 people die each year from guns. Let's break this number down into it's three categories, gun accidents, gun suicides, and gun murders.

Gun Accidents: 613 in 2007
Gun Suicides: 16,883 in 2006
Gun Murders: 10,886 in 2008 (or 8,583 in 2011)

http://www.justfacts.com... (see accidents and crime and self-defense)
http://lostallhope.com...
http://www.fbi.gov...

"...any deaths that have resulted with guns would not have happened."

The implication I got from this statement is that if we banned guns all deaths that were accomplished with guns wouldn't have occurred, or 30,000 less people would die each year. This is simply false, even if it did decrease the number of people who died there would still be some people who substituted guns for other methods. If someone premeditates a murder, instead of using a gun they would use some other object such as a knife or a bat. Let's look at each category.

Gun Accidents:

Very few people die from accidental gun discharges, and surprisingly Australia saw an increase in accidental gun deaths after their 1996 gun ban. Would less people die accidentally if we banned all guns? Probably a little bit. We have to consider that sometimes people who suffer from gun accidents may already be accident prone, but I'm inclined to agree that we will see a small decrease in accidental deaths if we banned guns. Let's give it the benefit of the doubt and say all 613 people wouldn't die if we banned guns.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org...

Please note that gunsandcrime.org is a pro gun website, but their suicide rate checks out on the Australian Bureau of Statistics and I haven't found another website that displays the murder and robbery rates of Australia after the gun ban.

Gun Suicides

Now we enter a very controversial question as to whether or not someone has the right to commit suicide. I don't believe this, so let's assume no. Would we see a decrease in suicides if we banned guns? The evidence for this isn't as clear as we would like. It appears that MAYBE the suicide rates in Australia and Britain decreased a little after their gun bans, but not by much. We also can't forget to factor in other reasons why suicide rates may change, such as economic recoveries/recessions as well as a decreasing youth concentration.

Personally, I believe we would see a small decrease in the total suicides committed if we banned guns, but there would be a high rate of substitution for other means (such as hangings and cliff-jumping).


NOTE: A decreasing youth population refers to a society progressively getting older. Most crimes, murders, and suicides are committed by youths, so when you have less youths you have less crimes, murders and suicides.



http://www.gunsandcrime.org...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...\



Gun Murders

If we banned all guns then it makes sense that we wouldn't see any gun murders. This does NOT mean less people are being killed however, because people will substitute for other methods. Human beings have been killing each other for a very long time, we will still find ways to murder one another.

What I cannot argue is that guns most certainly make it MUCH easier to kill other people. However, they also make it MUCH easier for private citizens to defend themselves, and the extra lives saved from defensive gun uses must be weighed against the extra number of murders caused by private gun ownership.

First, let's consider Australia and Britain after their gun bans.

After Britains 1997 handgun ban, they actually saw an increase in their total murder rate. Given the rarity of British firearm ownership, I doubt the gun ban had much of an effect on the murder rate, but what is apparent is that the total people killed did not decrease after their gun ban.

http://www.justfacts.com... (see the section on Britain)

After the Australian 1996 gun ban, their murder rate increased until about 2001, and then began a slight decrease. Given the fluctuation of other factors that influence the murder rate (drug use and the concentration of youths), its unclear whether or not the murder rate increased because of the gun ban or if it decreased 5 years later because of the gun ban. What is clear is that it didn't have a very strong effect, positive or negative, on the total murder rate. We must also consider that Australians did not use guns for self-defense quite as often as Americans currently do.

NOTE: Australia did not completely ban private firearm ownership, but far fewer people owned guns and heavy restrictions were placed on owning guns.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org...

In both Australia and Britain, it isn't completely clear if gun bans had any positive effects. What is clear is that the substitution rate for other means of violence is pretty high.

American Gun Crime and Firearm Self-Defense

One of the biggest obstacles for establishing the net effect of gun ownership in America is that most cases of defensive gun use go unreported. Typically all that is needed is to show the perpetrator the gun and they run away, and then if the would-be victim reports the crime they may face expensive court costs as well as potential criminal charges in order to prove they were justified in threatening with deadly force. Additionally, many defensive gun uses are probably illegal, but not necessarily immoral. An example could include a women illegally carrying a concealed handgun to defend herself against a rapist. What she did was most certainly illegal, but if it prevented her from being raped then it was not immoral.

As a result, we have to refer to surveys to determine the number of defensive gun uses (DGU's) that occur in the US. Here is a list of estimated defensive gun uses per year by the survey source, as well as the estimated crimes committed with firearms.

Firearm Murders: 10,886
Estimated Firearm Crimes: 436,000

http://www.justfacts.com...

DGU's

Kleck & Gertz (1995): 2,100,000-2,500,000. Estimated 162,000 "would have died had no gun been present"

Center for Disease Control (1994): 498,000 Burglary Defenses

Cook & Ludwig (1997): 1,500,000

http://www.saf.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (see page 9)

Most people argue that, given the smaller sample sizes of the studies, these are overestimates. From what I've read the typical estimated number of DGU's per year is about 1 million, compared to approximately 500,000 firearm crimes committed per year. If we look at Kleck's study where he it says that 162,000 people would have died had a gone not been present, even if this figure is only 10% true it still outweighs the approximate 10,000 firearm murders per year. If we factor in the small number of suicides and accidental deaths that may be prevented from banning guns, this is still outweighed by the sheer number of lives saved from defensive gun use.

Unless I'm mistaken LaL36, 162,000 is a larger number than 30,000, so I haven't lost quite yet. I'll get into some of the studies and statistics as to why guns arguably deter the total crimes committed in the next round.

In conclusion, guns are used defensively far more often than they are used to commit crimes with, and the lives saved from defensive gun use is greater than the extra lives lost from the private ownership of guns.

LaL36

Con

"The implication I got from this statement is that if we banned guns all deaths that were accomplished with guns wouldn't have occurred, or 30,000 less people would die each year. This is simply false, even if it did decrease the number of people who died there would still be some people who substituted guns for other methods. If someone premeditates a murder, instead of using a gun they would use some other object such as a knife or a bat. Let's look at each category."

Basically my opponent is arguing that banning guns would not significantly prevent the deaths because there are other means. Here's the thing though, no one could go really far with a knife. It is really hard for me to kill a large aggregate of people with a knife, without someone taking away the knife. So after someone kills the first person some people will either run and he would have to catch each individual, or try to take the knife away. Point is, no massacre could occur. I don't anything like the Sandy hook elementary could occur.

"Very few people die from accidental gun discharges, and surprisingly Australia saw an increase in accidental gun deaths after their 1996 gun ban."

Uh, according to what you said in round 1, this should be disregarded because you said we are assuming the blanket gun ban would work and people would not obtain guns.

Gun Suicide

I basically concede to this point. I don't think banning guns would significantly decrease because like you said, it is easy to kill yourself meaning there are many means of doing so. The only thing I would argue is that shooting yourself is a pretty quick death and I guess not as scary as jumping off a building.

Gun Murders

Ah now we are getting down to business.

"If we banned all guns then it makes sense that we wouldn't see any gun murders. This does NOT mean less people are being killed however, because people will substitute for other methods. Human beings have been killing each other for a very long time, we will still find ways to murder one another."

Unestablished and unproven point. True that other methods will be used, but it is undeniably harder to kill a larger aggregate of people without a gun. And also, just like the argument is used that to protect yourself from people with guns you need guns, so the same could be used. To protect yourself from people with knives, you use knives.

"What I cannot argue is that guns most certainly make it MUCH easier to kill other people. However, they also make it MUCH easier for private citizens to defend themselves, and the extra lives saved from defensive gun uses must be weighed against the extra number of murders caused by private gun ownership."

This maybe true when criminals have guns but not in the circumstances you mentioned where a complete gun ban would work. When a man just has a knife and you have a knife, you could run and have he comes close you swing your knife so I don't is any harder here. Instead of gun vs gun, it is knife vs knife. And even now, most Americans don't own guns but almost all own knives.

Australia and Britain

First of all thank you so much for saying where in the source you found your information it's very helpful.

But the reason could be simply they weren't banning it well and in round one you said that the gun ban would work.

American Gun Crime and Firearm Self-Defense

"Typically all that is needed is to show the perpetrator the gun and they run away,"

Okay but if the perpetrator doesn't have a gun, the home owner won't die without the gun. He might get robbed but probably not killed.

"Additionally, many defensive gun uses are probably illegal, but not necessarily immoral. An example could include a women illegally carrying a concealed handgun to defend herself against a rapist. What she did was most certainly illegal, but if it prevented her from being raped then it was not immoral."

I find this irrelevant. Maybe you want to explain the relevance and prove me wrong?

"Unless I'm mistaken LaL36, 162,000 is a larger number than 30,000, so I haven't lost quite yet."

I concede that you haven't lost YET :) But that 30,000 is what some sort of control and regulation of gun. I assume since I have to advocate a complete gun ban you have to advocate a case where it is easy to get guns not neccessarily where there are no rules whatsoever, but where it is easy to obtain a gun at least easier than it is now. So maybe that 30,000 would be even higher.

"If we look at Kleck's study where he it says that 162,000 people would have died had a gone not been present,"

I don't get what it's based on you haven't said. I'm sorry but you can't just throw a source and make me read that really long study, that is your job not mine.

Thank you for your response and Good luck to you in the next round :).
Debate Round No. 2
ufcryan

Pro

ufcryan forfeited this round.
LaL36

Con

LaL36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ufcryan

Pro

"Basically my opponent is arguing that banning guns would not significantly prevent the deaths because there are other means. Here's the thing though, no one could go really far with a knife. It is really hard for me to kill a large aggregate of people with a knife, without someone taking away the knife. So after someone kills the first person some people will either run and he would have to catch each individual, or try to take the knife away. Point is, no massacre could occur. I don't anything like the Sandy hook elementary could occur."

If you focus solely on mass killings, no doubt guns make it much harder to kill many more people. Australia saw hasn't seen much in the way of mass killings since they banned guns. However you must weigh the total extra people killed as a result of owning guns versus the total people who have been or could be saved by guns. Remember, our goal (should be) to reduce as many people killed as possible. Roughly 50 people are killed each year in mass shootings. Given the results of the Australian and British gun bans, the chances of there being a high rate of substitution for single killings is likely to be high.

How many extra people die as a result of citizens owning guns? I don't think anyone has an exact answer to this, but there will be a high substitution rate so perhaps not too many. Nonetheless the Kleck Study estimated 162,000 people would have died had they not had a gun to defend themselves. No doubt this number is an overestimate, but even if only 10% of the cases were true, 16,000 people were saved by guns whereas at MOST around 11,000 people would be saved if we did not have guns (assuming the substitutions rate is 0). That means, if we're extremely generous, 5,000 less murders as a result of private firearm ownership.

Also, the mass knifing sprees tend to discredit the deadliness of knives. The main reason those people don't tend to die is because they usually get immediate medical attention afterwards and the would-be killer isn't focusing on killing as much as stabbing as many people as possible. As far as using a knife to kill someone, they are still quite deadly. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1,694 people were killed by knives in 2011.

Gun Accidents

I'll concede that without guns we would not have any gun accidents, the increase in accidents in Australia was just a strange thing to occur and I figured earned merit.

Gun Suicide

Just to clarify, I actually do believe that a few less people would die from suicide without guns because, you're right, jumping off a building or hanging yourself is arguably scarier than shooting yourself. However the net effect would be small, and is outweighed by the extra people saved who defend themselves with guns.

"...the argument is used that to protect yourself from people with guns you need guns, so the same could be used. To protect yourself from people with knives, you use knives."

I would argue there is a flaw here in your logic. First I'll address this from the standpoint of someone who has taken a few years of martial arts training, and I'll qoute some statistics provided by John Lott in his book More Guns, Less Crime

The goal of self-defense is to stop whatever the attacker may be doing to you while reducing the amount of personal injury you may perceive. Toward this goal, you want the utmost superiority of force. If someone is attacking you with a gun, obviously you would want a gun. If someone is attacking you with a knife or bat, you want to have a gun. If there are multiple attackers or if your opponent completely outclasses you in size and fighting skill, you want a gun. Why is this?

If you try to defend yourself against someone who has a knife while using a knife, in my experience of fake knife fighting you have to be extremely skilled in order to be successful in this and, more than likely, both people will be cut and possibly die. At the very least both people will probably need medical attention, wheras if you had a gun and if your opponent did not you would not have been injured.

From John Lott's book, he mentions that a Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey found that if someone is being robbed, women were were 4 times less likely to be seriously injured if they defended themselves with a gun instead of defending themselves by any other means, and they were 2.5 times less likely to be harmed if they defended themselves with a gun versus if they did nothing.

Men also saw some benefits but not as high. Men were 1.5 times less likely to be injured if they defended themselves with a gun vs. if they defended themselves by any other means, and they were 1.4 times less likely to receive personal injury if they defended themselves with a gun instead of acting passively.

In conclusion, its best to have a gun to defend yourself with. If you don't have a gun, act passively (just advice for anyone reading this).

Australia/Britain Revisited

Britain was, for all intensive purposes, a complete and successful gun ban. Australia was not but it was close. The point of referencing these countries is to show that they drastically reduced the number of guns in their country, but the substitution rate for murdering someone with other means was extremely high. Given that Australians and Britains didn't use guns for self-defense nearly as often as American do, it is likely that we could see many more people killed if we completely banned guns.

American Gun Crime and Self-Defense Reply

Unfortunately criminals don't act rationally as far as their victims are concerned. The rational thing to do, obviously, would be get their valuables and leave them alone. If they intended to kill you, rationally they would have done it right away and stolen your valuables off your corpse. But criminals aren't always rational, if they take your stuff without harming you they may still decide to kill you are injure you afterwards.

Ultimately the means by which you are least likely to experience harm, as long as they already don't have a knife to your throat or a gun to your head, is to present a gun. When this happens, the most likely outcome is for the criminal to run away without the would-be victim needing to fire a shot. Therefore neither the would-be victim nor the criminal is harmed, and the innocent party gets to keep their valuables. Could there be any better outcome?


My explanations of illegal but morally justifiable defensive gun uses was just explaining some of the justifications for Kleck's study. Also, you don't have to read the entire source, but if you don't you simply have to take my word that I'm being honest. Nonetheless I provided them so that you may read them if you wished to.

"I assume since I have to advocate a complete gun ban you have to advocate a case where it is easy to get guns not neccessarily where there are no rules whatsoever, but where it is easy to obtain a gun at least easier than it is now. So maybe that 30,000 would be even higher."

To be truly honest, there couldn't be many laws that could make it easier for people to get guns. Given the number of guns currently in circulation, anyone who really wants to get a gun can get one. So that 30,000 probably wouldn't increase, or at least very much.

http://www.pbs.org...
LaL36

Con

"If you focus solely on mass killings, no doubt guns make it much harder to kill many more people. Australia saw hasn't seen much in the way of mass killings since they banned guns. However you must weigh the total extra people killed as a result of owning guns versus the total people who have been or could be saved by guns. Remember, our goal (should be) to reduce as many people killed as possible. Roughly 50 people are killed each year in mass shootings. Given the results of the Australian and British gun bans, the chances of there being a high rate of substitution for single killings is likely to be high. "

Bottom line is most murders are used with guns. You said substitution for other methods would occur but none can be comparable to the use of a gun.

"How many extra people die as a result of citizens owning guns? I don't think anyone has an exact answer to this, but there will be a high substitution rate so perhaps not too many. Nonetheless the Kleck Study estimated 162,000 people would have died had they not had a gun to defend themselves. No doubt this number is an overestimate, but even if only 10% of the cases were true, 16,000 people were saved by guns whereas at MOST around 11,000 people would be saved if we did not have guns (assuming the substitutions rate is 0). That means, if we're extremely generous, 5,000 less murders as a result of private firearm ownership."

First of all an important thing to mention is kleck's study was in 1995, before all of these mass shootings occurred. Bottom line is that I have already mentioned many shootings that occurred recently including the very recent shooting that occurred at Santa Monica College on friday. At this point, my opponent has not provided anything as recent as 1997. So even though your numbers from 16 years ago maybe higher, more and more shootings are occurring and they are with guns. And also like I mentioned before my numbers are still with some sort of regulation. If I have to advocate a complete gun ban I think you should advocate a case where it is easy to get guns.

"Also, the mass knifing sprees tend to discredit the deadliness of knives. The main reason those people don't tend to die is because they usually get immediate medical attention afterwards and the would-be killer isn't focusing on killing as much as stabbing as many people as possible. As far as using a knife to kill someone, they are still quite deadly. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1,694 people were killed by knives in 2011."

How is this relevant? So what if they get medical attention? Point is they are not dying. The fact remains that a gun is 30 times more deadly because the number of deaths are around 30 times higher.

Your argument against my argument of knife against knife.

You spent about two paragraphs explaining how a gun is better than knife for self defense. This is without a doubt true. But with guns the attacker could take the gun from the defender and kill him. You also mention that knife fighting is difficult. I agree with this but you could run away and just use swing the knife if he catches up but by then you might be able to get help. I am not saying no deaths would occur but the way it is laid out it is safe to assume less deaths would occur this way.

"Given that Australians and Britains didn't use guns for self-defense nearly as often as American do, it is likely that we could see many more people killed if we completely banned guns."

Alright truthfully I am ignorant about this so please provide a source for this so I can analyze it. If Britain's gun ban was successful there were no deaths with guns?

"Unfortunately criminals don't act rationally as far as their victims are concerned. The rational thing to do, obviously, would be get their valuables and leave them alone. If they intended to kill you, rationally they would have done it right away and stolen your valuables off your corpse. But criminals aren't always rational, if they take your stuff without harming you they may still decide to kill you are injure you afterwards."

Why is it relevant if criminals act rational?

"Ultimately the means by which you are least likely to experience harm, as long as they already don't have a knife to your throat or a gun to your head, is to present a gun."

Agreed. I am not arguing that but I would rather have a world where citizens don't own guns because as of now I don't have a gun and many shootings have occurred. I don't think as many people would try to kill someone or rob someone with a knife because I don't think that many people have the confidence to go far with a knife. And also another good reason for a gun ban is think about how much easier it is for police. Any criminal with a knife, they just draw their gun as oppose for them to have shootings. Imagine if the people responsible for the Boston Bombing didn't have a gun; no policeman would have been killed or injured. Personally, I would rather go knife versus knife against a criminal because 1. By the time he breaks down my door the police will be on their way. 2. I could run and I am pretty fast but not everyone is so that is irrelevant. 3. You could threaten to call the police as he is breaking the door down.
To summarize, you have so many more options in a knife versus knife situation than a gun versus gun situation. And in a gun versus gun situation if you end up shooting, you might have to go to court to defend yourself and deal with murder on your hands but in a knife versus knife situation there is a less of a chance that anyone gets killed. So I feel this is a better outcome.
Debate Round No. 4
ufcryan

Pro

"Bottom line is most murders are used with guns. You said substitution for other methods would occur but none can be comparable to the use of a gun."

I think your overestimating the killing potential of guns and underestimating the killing potential of other weapons that would be substituted for guns, such as blunt objects and knives. Most murders are committed with guns because its more convenient to pull a trigger than get in close and swing a bat. However knives and blunt weapons can be just as deadly as guns, and blunt objects may even be more deadly.

Consider this, according to the BradyCampaign, 289 people are shot every day. 86 die, 30 are murdered, 53 suicides, 2 accidentals, and one police intervention. If we factor our suicides, accidents, and police intervention then if we assume all these shootings are attempted homicides (for simplicity) then 233 people are shot and 30 of that number die. This means that roughly 13% of attempted gun murders are fatal. Guns, especially handguns, are not nearly as lethal as you might think.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Knives may not be as deadly as guns, but probably because most knives used in attempted murders aren't very long. If you stab someone with a long enough blade, you can damage vital internal organs or possibly cut arteries. My knife fighting instructor showed me several places where if you cut someone in that spot, they'll bleed out in 3 minutes, sometimes 60 seconds. Obviously this is more difficult to do than with a gun, but they're still deadly.

In my martial experience, I would actually argue that blunt objects such as baseball bats or metal pipes can be even MORE deadly than guns. If someone is trying to kill someone else with a blunt object, more than likely they'll hit them in the head. Multiple blows to the head from a blunt object can cause serious skull fractures and concussions that can result in concussions, comatose, and often death. This on top of bone fractures and internal bleeding from blunt force trauma can make blunt objects just as deadly as guns, although more effort is certainly required.

Conclusion? There are other methods of murder that will be used and will suffice to kill someone without needing a gun.

"First of all an important thing to mention is kleck's study was in 1995, before all of these mass shootings occurred. Bottom line is that I have already mentioned many shootings that occurred recently including the very recent shooting that occurred at Santa Monica College on friday. At this point, my opponent has not provided anything as recent as 1997. So even though your numbers from 16 years ago maybe higher, more and more shootings are occurring and they are with guns."

The Kleck study estimated defensive gun use per year, and if you need a study from 1997 here is a link to an anti-gun economist study concerning defensive gun use estimating 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

https://www.ncjrs.gov...

Next, there have actually been LESS shootings in the United states and violent crime (including murders) in the US has been decreasing for since 1991. There are also roughly just as many mass shootings in the United now as there has been over the past two decades (1-6 per year).

http://megafrontier.com...
http://www.motherjones.com...

Next, the studies performed by Kleck are rough estimates. Gun ownership has definitely increased since 1995, whether or not the population percent gun ownership has gone up is unknown. However I do know from experiecne that Obama getting elected drastically increased gun sales and therefore gun ownership is probably much higher, therefore there is a possibility that guns are being used more often for self-defense now than they were in 1995.

"If I have to advocate a complete gun ban I think you should advocate a case where it is easy to get guns."

Done. Simply look up the current US gun laws and you'll find its quite easy, right at this second, to get a gun. There's currently no gun registration, no background checks for private sales, and millions of illegal guns flooding the streets. Whether we should change any of this is another debate, but nonetheless my case for easy firearms acquisition is the current US gun system.

"How is this relevant? So what if they get medical attention? Point is they are not dying. The fact remains that a gun is 30 times more deadly because the number of deaths are around 30 times higher."

I showed earlier in this round that knives can be extremely deadly, although not as deadly as guns. I'm not really sure where you got the 30 times more deadly from though...

"You spent about two paragraphs explaining how a gun is better than knife for self defense. This is without a doubt true. But with guns the attacker could take the gun from the defender and kill him. You also mention that knife fighting is difficult. I agree with this but you could run away and just use swing the knife if he catches up but by then you might be able to get help. I am not saying no deaths would occur but the way it is laid out it is safe to assume less deaths would occur this way."

Ok... the "taking the gun away" is a common argument against gun ownership that doesn't have much merit. In order for the attacker to take your gun from you, there have to be a few conditions met which make this unlikely. Firstly, the attacker must know you have a gun. If your in your home in the dark or if your carrying a concealed weapon, the odds of the attacker knowing you have a gun or where you keep your gun are small. Next, they have to choose to stay and fight after seeing the gun, which almost never happens. Lastly, they have to be close enough to grapple the gun from you and somehow manage to do it without getting themselves shot in the process. The combination of these conditions makes the attacker stealing the gun from you and using it against you extremely small.

Next, you can and SHOULD by all means try to run away and call the police if your being attacked. The gun is there so that if the police can't get there fast enough, if you can't run away, you can still defend yourself, especially if your opponent is bigger and stronger or if there are multiple opponents.

Also as someone who has taken self-defense I implore you to use a taser, mace or even a bat instead of a knife. Knives are some of the worst defensive weapons, tasers are the next best after guns (the only problem with tasers is they can only handle one opponent at a short distance and don't frighten away intruders).

As I've argued before, your assuming less people would die if we did not have guns, I say this is FALSE. Lots of people defend themselves with guns in situations where nothing else would do. If your a smaller framed women in your home defending yourself against several potential rapists or robbers armed with bats and knives, your ONLY chance at defending yourself right then without personal injury is a firearm.

Recall Kleck's study, where he says approximately 162,000 people would have died had they not had a firearm. Including mass shootings, there are around 10,000 gun murders each year. Guns most certainly make it easier to kill people, but they also make it much more likely for you to successfully defend yourself. If there is any merit to Kleck's study, guns are used far more often to SAVE lives when being used in self-defense than they are to kill someone else.

I don't have much space left to return some more comments you made, but I'll end with this. If someone premeditates a murder, they will most likely be just as successful using a gun or if they use a bat or a knife. Guns make it much more likely for the average person to successfully defend themselves, and most criminals will not give up committing crimes because they don't have a gun.
LaL36

Con

"Consider this, according to the BradyCampaign, 289 people are shot every day. 86 die, 30 are murdered, 53 suicides, 2 accidentals, and one police intervention. If we factor our suicides, accidents, and police intervention then if we assume all these shootings are attempted homicides (for simplicity) then 233 people are shot and 30 of that number die. This means that roughly 13% of attempted gun murders are fatal. Guns, especially handguns, are not nearly as lethal as you might think."

Does not matter there are still 30 times more murders with guns. My opponent later once again goes off topic and mentions that knives can hurt and kill people. I concede to this but guns have contributed more to hurting and killing people. Unfortunately this is not a part of our debate so I am disregarding it.

"Conclusion? There are other methods of murder that will be used and will suffice to kill someone without needing a gun."

Again, everyone knows that there are other ways to kill people but guns have contributed to killing people more than any other weapon.

"The Kleck study estimated defensive gun use per year, and if you need a study from 1997 here is a link to an anti-gun economist study concerning defensive gun use estimating 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year."

First of all, it is your job to provide the content of the source not mine. You use sources to support your argument not to replace them. This is similar to plagiarism which you said in round one is not allowed.
Secondly, I didn't want you to provide a source specifically from 1997, I was just saying that you have not provided an occurrence as recent as 1997 meaning everything you mentioned, happened 16 years ago and above where as I provided occurrences that happened just last week.

"Next, there have actually been LESS shootings in the United states and violent crime (including murders) in the US has been decreasing for since 1991. There are also roughly just as many mass shootings in the United now as there has been over the past two decades (1-6 per year)."

My opponent just threw out two links so this is an unproven point and should be disregarded. Throwing out links without providing the content is not proof.

"Next, the studies performed by Kleck are rough estimates. Gun ownership has definitely increased since 1995, whether or not the population percent gun ownership has gone up is unknown. However I do know from experiecne that Obama getting elected drastically increased gun sales and therefore gun ownership is probably much higher, therefore there is a possibility that guns are being used more often for self-defense now than they were in 1995."

Wow this a list of unproven assertions. 1. How did gun ownership increase since 1995? You haven't proved that. 2.What does Obama getting elected have to do with gun ownership? Is it because he is democrat? If I am not mistaken aren't democrats for gun control? Even if I am wrong in 1995 Bill Clinton was president and he also was a democrat. 3. Even if the previous unestablished and unproven assertions you have made are true, who is to say that more of these guns are being used for self-defense? You have not proven that.

"Ok... the "taking the gun away" is a common argument against gun ownership that doesn't have much merit. In order for the attacker to take your gun from you, there have to be a few conditions met which make this unlikely. Firstly, the attacker must know you have a gun. If your in your home in the dark or if your carrying a concealed weapon, the odds of the attacker knowing you have a gun or where you keep your gun are small. Next, they have to choose to stay and fight after seeing the gun, which almost never happens. Lastly, they have to be close enough to grapple the gun from you and somehow manage to do it without getting themselves shot in the process. The combination of these conditions makes the attacker stealing the gun from you and using it against you extremely small."

Wow look how much character space you waste on one of my side arguments. You are right. You convinced me that it is unlikely but you disregarded my stronger argument about why a knife vs knife situation is better so the argument still stands.

"As I've argued before, your assuming less people would die if we did not have guns, I say this is FALSE. Lots of people defend themselves with guns in situations where nothing else would do. If your a smaller framed women in your home defending yourself against several potential rapists or robbers armed with bats and knives, your ONLY chance at defending yourself right then without personal injury is a firearm."

Well you could lock the door, call for help, or offer them money. But in the instance you mentioned she would not die she would just be injured. And also I am not saying no deaths would occur I am just saying less so I cannot defend every instance.

"I don't have much space left to return some more comments you made"

I hope voters know why by now. And in my opinion, the ones you did not address were my strongest arguments.

"If someone premeditates a murder, they will most likely be just as successful using a gun or if they use a bat or a knife."

Unestablished and unproven point. And I think using a bat is much harder than a gun if someone wants to premeditate a murder.

"most criminals will not give up committing crimes because they don't have a gun."

Not once have I claimed that they will stop commiting crimes. Actually I have mentioned numerous times that murders will continue just not as much.

Like my opponent said he has not addressed all my arguments and in my opinion those were my strongest so I kindly request a vote for con.

Thanks to my opponent for debating and the voters for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
@Ragnar Thanks for countering I don't know I forgot the link.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Also next time you make a counter request, please provide a link to the debate.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
I said similar to plagiarism. And where did I not state my sources? But my point was that you can't just throw out links like that.
Posted by ufcryan 3 years ago
ufcryan
Just to note, Plagiarism is defined as:

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Anyone reading this is welcome to google search any of my paragraphs. No where did I plagiarize directly, I posted the links for the sources where I got my statistics, and where no link was posted I was referencing my own experience as a martial artist (the self-defense sections). I find it slightly offensive to be accused of any sort of plagiarism.

Next, I answered each comment he posted in order, and ran out of room at the end. If my opponent wishes to challenge me to this same debate again to address the additional arguments he made, he is welcome to send me the challenge.

Lastly, my opponent did not provide sources for many of his statistics, where I provided sources for all of mine. This violated the rules. In the name of good spirit, I encourage voters to overlook this rule violation and vote solely on the content of this debate.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
No problem I made it equal
Posted by ufcryan 3 years ago
ufcryan
Sorry I've been having internet issues and was unable to access debate.org to engage in the last round. I have not forfeited and will continue the debate in the future rounds.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
ufcryanLaL36Tied
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: Countering Utahjoker by forum request from LaL36. It however was not a "votebomb," merely a very weak vote due to lacking RFD pertaining to any points of the argument (if in doubt, just quote the last short but memorable thing said).
Vote Placed by utahjoker 3 years ago
utahjoker
ufcryanLaL36Tied
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: No one gets conduct because they both forfeited a round but pro have better argument