The Instigator
seraine
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Shawn613
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Citizens should be able to own guns.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Shawn613
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,267 times Debate No: 17064
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

seraine

Pro

I will be arguing that the average citizen should be allowed to obtain guns for self defense (and other purposes), but NOT that there should be no gun laws at all (i.e. age limits and background checks).

I please ask that whoever accepts will not forfeit immediately.

My opponent will be arguing that the average citizen should not be allowed to obtain guns.

The first round will be for acceptance.
Shawn613

Con

Word. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
seraine

Pro

What I'm essentially arguing is that you average 18+ citizen without a criminal record (in other words, able to pass a background test) should be able to obtain guns such as handguns in order to protect themselves.

'll keep my argument brief for round 1 so I can see how my opponent will respond.

1. Why gun control doesn't work.

The reason gun control doesn't work is because guns are used for protection more than they are used for crime. That is the most basic, but true, reason why it doesn't work. Gun control may save some lives, but in the end it ends more lives than it saves.

1A. Evidence that guns are used for protection.

Guns are used about 8,000 times for self-defense every day, or approximately 3,000,000 times a year[1]. This is a astonishingly high amount, and will form much of my main argument. Though some may criticize my blurbing of statistics, it goes to show why gun control doesn't work. I will address "more than they are used for crime" in later arguments.

1B. Guns are a very effective method of self defense.

Imagine the destructive force of a gun. It is able to easily kill anyone it fires at. This weapon is the true great equalizer. A small child could take on the most hardened of criminals if he or she has a gun. It is probably the most powerful self defense method available, and is therefore one of the best methods of self defense for the weak. After all, "God didn't make everyone equal, Mr. Colt did".

And there is evidence that guns are a very effective method of self defense. About 90% of the time guns are used for self defense, they stop the criminal simply by brandishing the gun[2]. Just think about it. 90% of the time, simply brandishing a gun is enough to scare the criminal away. Especially if we are talking about the less physically fortunate, guns become very effective.

With what else could a grandma protect herself, and scare away 90% of criminals simply by brandishing? There is literally no real way to attain the 90% rate, short of hiring a bodyguard or with guns.

1C. Police are not a very effective source of self defense, and guns are the best method of self defense.

The average police response time to 911s is 8 minutes, 30 seconds[3]. When seconds matter in crime, 8 minutes and 30 seconds is not acceptable, especially when a handgun provides people with round the clock protection. If you are carrying a handgun, you do not have to wait 8 minutes and 30 seconds to use it. You simply pull it out and scare the criminal away.

How would the cops protect you if a mugger suddenly pulled a knife on you? Unlike cops, handguns provide you with round the clock protection and thus will be almost always a better option for self defense than relying on the cops.

2. The ultimate argument for gun rights.

Guns are used approximately 3,000,000 times a year for self defense. Not only that, about 80% of the time, the criminal lacks a gun. When you look at the fact that guns are used 1,000,000 times a year for crime, gun rights become the obvious decision.

What this effectively means is that there is 3 times for crimes prevented with guns than helped by guns. There is no effective argument against this statistic. It is fairly simple. The criminal attempted to attack the victim, the victim pulled out a gun and scared, wounded, or captured the criminal.

Conclusion

Guns are one of the best, if not the best, method(s) for self defense. They are used 3,000,000 times a year for self defense in the US alone, and scare away the criminal simply by being shown about 90% of the time. They are a lot better than other self defense options, especially the cops. Not only that, they are used to prevent crime about 3 times more than they are used to instigate crimes.

Considering all of this information, why should we deny citizens an effective self defense option that has been proven to prevent more crime than it causes?

Sources

[1] http://gunsafe.org...
[2] http://www.foxnews.com...
[3] http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Shawn613

Con

I'm honestly surprised Pro has taken such an effort to enforce the notion that guns are effective at self-defence. Did he think I thought guns were anything but incredibly dangerous? I guess I have to admit defeat in that I agree, guns are very good at self defence. I wonder why...?

Anyway, let me get into my own points and then refute my opponent's.

1. I assume this debate will be one of opposing philosophies. Pro no doubt believes that the greatest way to assure peace and non-violence is to equip hundreds of millions of people with the most deadly weapon in the history of mankind: The firearm. I, however, believe that if fewer people have guns, there will be less gun crimes.

2. Looking at this from an economic standpoint, the availability of guns has an effect on the manufacturing of guns. For example: Guns being legal means most people have guns. Why? Because everyone else has guns. I don't think you want to be the one guy on your block without a glock when you live in a notoriously dangerous and homicidal nation. So, everyone has guns, so gun manufacturers need to make millions of guns to keep up with demands. What happens is when you have hundreds of millions of guns floating around a country, criminals are gonna get their hands on them. Sorry, but this fantasy Pro has created that if only law-abiding citizens can BUY guns, only they will HAVE guns, is completely ridiculous.

Regarding my rebuttal...

1. "Gun control may save some lives, but in the end it ends more lives than it saves." Again, this falls on the absurd notion that more guns equates to less deaths. If you buy that nonsense then you can go ahead and vote Pro because you're beyond logical thought and you have no use for my arguments.

1A. First of all, I checked out the citation where Pro got his stats. I wasn't surprised to find that they were "Estimates" made by a an organization that exists for the sole purpose of getting as many weapons in as many households as possible. But hey, I'm a nice guy, I'll pretend those surveys and stats were taken in the interest of fact and critical analysis, and not in the interest of promoting an organization's agenda. Say guns are used for protection 8,000 times a day. What my opponent says is "protection", but he avoids that what he is also saying is that there are 8,000 violent crimes perpetrated daily in America. Such an environment is not one which you should wish to have a large quantity of deadly weapons.

1B. It amazes me that Pro talks so excitedly about how easily a gun can take a life and how even a child can kill someone when he or she has a gun in their hands. Actually, that doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me, however, is that he uses the lethality of a gun as a point in his favour of why there should be millions of them on the streets. I'm almost embarrassed to be writing arguments for the Con side when Pro is so graciously attempting to do that for me.

As my opponent has said, guns are great tools for not only killing effortlessly, but to inspire such great terror and intimidation that even hardened criminals break free from their convictions at the mighty, deadly firearm.

I was about to rebut 1C but it has really begun to sink in that the one and only argument Pro has in favour of guns is their capability of self defence. You know what else is a good means of self defence? A pride of vicious lions. I'd say those would be just as intimidating as a gun. Since I've already rebutted his one and only point, I'll skip to the conclusion.

The question posed is, "Considering all of this information, why should we deny citizens an effective self defense option that has been proven to prevent more crime than it causes?".

Well, a couple of reasons, actually. One, Pro hasn't proved that without guns there would be more crime. He has proven that guns have been used to intervene and stop criminal activities in progress. He has not proven and could not possibly prove that there would be more crimes of any type without guns. Such a notion is not only impossible to prove but rediculous in theory. But to answer his question, I say that trying to solve a problem by increasing the capacity to cause problems is short-sighted and misses the point.

In summation, Con because limiting the amount of tools used for violence limits violence, and not Pro because the ability of someone to kill with guns is a reason why millions of Americans shouldn't have guns, not the other way around.
Debate Round No. 2
seraine

Pro

That is a very significant concession there. If you agree that guns are very effective at self defense, even if you say no to gun rights because they are dangerous, then I have a very workable case. Basically, more people are law abiding citizens than criminals, and so guns will be used for self defense more than crime, thus saving lives and preventing crime.

Rebuttals

1A. Our "philosophies"

Yes, I do believe that if you equip millions of people with the most dangerous weapon around you will create non violence, and here's why. Not all people are criminals just waiting to commit a crime. Most people are law abiding citizens. Secondly, most criminals, without access to a gun, will go to the next weapon, i.e., a knife.

The US violent crime rate for 2008 was 20 per 100,000[1]. That means for the 999,980 people per 100,000 who weren't committing crimes were using guns to protect themselves. What this means is that people with guns are MUCH more likely to use guns to protect themselves than use guns to aggravate crime.

Your worries would be applicable if the violent crime rate exceeded 50,000 per 100,000 as then over 50% of guns would be used for crime rather than against. Obviously, this is not the case.

Secondly, I have the 3,000,000/1,000,000 argument, which pretty much proves that guns mainly are used for self defense.

1B. Less guns=less gun crime.

If there was less guns, there would obviously be less gun crime. However, there would be more crime overall. The 3 million who protect themselves would no longer be able to, and crime would rise.

2. Criminals own guns.

First off, the US is not a "notoriously dangerous and homicidal nation". It does have a higher than normal murder rate, but by 1995, English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape[3].

Secondly, yes, criminals will have guns. Criminals will probably have guns, just less of them, with gun control as well. However, as I have shown, there is more law abiding citizens than criminals, and more law abiding citizens will use them for protection than criminals will use for crime.

I do not have some fantasy that only law abiding citizens will have guns. I know that criminals break the law, and I know that background checks will not 100% prevent criminals. In fact, I never even stated anything along the lines of "only law abiding citizens will have guns".

1. More guns=less death.

More guns does equal less deaths. There's about 11,000 gun committed homicides per year, and 162,000 households believe someone would have died without a gun[4]. This means that even if 93% of the households were wrong, there would still be more lives saved by guns than ended by guns.

1A. 3x crime argument.

I would not be too sure that those are "estimates". The facts come from Targeting Guns, and the reason that it is 2,500,000-3,500,000, or an "estimate", is that crime and DGUs(Defensive Gun Uses) are not constant. Just as there is 1,00,000 violent crimes in which guns are used. That could be an "estimate", but I would hazard a guess that it has to do more with the fact that there is not exactly 1,000,000 violent gun committed crimes a year. There is most likely some variance, and the 2,500,000-3,500,000 fact most likely also comes from the fact that DGUs (and the reporting thereof) are not constant each year.

Firstly, in 82% of the DGUs, the criminal did not have a gun[5]. Not every criminal has a gun. You say that you do not want guns in a environment with 8,000 violent crimes a day. How so do you propose that citizens protect themselves? After all, guns scare away the criminal 90% of the time simply by being brandished. What else could attain such a high rate of protection?

1B.Guns are powerful.

The reason I want gun rights is because guns are used for self defense, and I predict much of our debate will be over whether or not guns are used for self defense and not as much crime. Anyways, I agree with you that guns are dangerous. And that is precisely why they are a great candidate for self defense. A little child can suddenly take on the most hardened of criminals, and criminals can no longer easily prey on the weak.

The lethality of guns is why we should have millions on the street. Most people are rational, law abiding citizens, and will not go running around like maniacs once they obtain guns. As I have shown, the number of law abiding citizens who will use guns for self defense greatly outnumber the criminals. Gun control may be effective if there was a more or less equal number of criminals and law abiding citizens, but there isn't.

"Pro hasn't proved that without guns there would be more crime."

Sorry, I worded that wrong. I meant, "Considering all of this information, why should we deny citizens an effective self defense option that has been proven to prevent more crime than it is used in?"

Prevent is used as preventing the crime while it is taking place. Forgive my wording error.

I am proving that guns protect people, not that they cause less crime. However, I will address this point. 40% of criminals had decided not to commit a crime because they thought or knew the victim had a gun[4]. Guns most likely do lead to less crime.

It probably is impossible to prove without a doubt that guns cause less crime. But why is self defense negligible? Shouldn't self defense be a good thing? It may not lead to less crime, but it does lead to less people being hurt because of crime. Would you prefer that the 3,000,000 people who defended themselves to be the victim of the crime, instead of scaring the criminal away?

"Con because limiting the amount of tools used for violence limits violence"

It does not limit violence. If a criminal isn't scared of the gun, he is now free to commit the crime. If the criminal is not scared away by the gun, he is now free to assault/rob/rape/etc. the victim. Secondly, if the criminal doesn't have a gun, he will use a knife, or something similar.

"Pro because the ability of someone to kill with guns is a reason why millions of Americans shouldn't have guns, not the other way around."

The problem with this is that it assumes that most citizens are criminals, not normal, law abiding citizens. I have shown this many times already.

My Case

Guns are used in 1,000,000 crimes a year, while guns are used to prevent crime 3,000,000 times a year. Why should we ban guns if they stop 3 times more crime than they are used in?
Guns are used more by law abiding citizens than criminals. In 82% of DGUs, the criminal did not use a gun[5]. I have proven that guns prevent (sorry, stop) more crime than they are used in, and how do guns lead to more crime?

Conclusion

I have shown that guns are used to stop crime 3 times more than they are used in crime. My opponent has basically said that "guns are dangerous, and if it's dangerous, it leads to more crime". However, this is not true. I have disproven this with facts. Con has made largely rhetorical arguments, using little, if no facts, to back up his statements.

Not only that, he has failed to successfully address the fact that guns are used to stop 3 times more crime then they are used in. He has said that you do not want lots of guns, because that leads to more violence. However, he offers no facts to back that up, while I have used facts to show that guns are used more often in self defense than in crime.

Thank you.

Sources

[1] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
[2] https://spreadsheets.google.com...
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[4] http://www.justfacts.com...
[5] http://gunsafe.org...
Shawn613

Con

Reconstruction:
1A
"The US violent crime rate for 2008 was 20 per 100,000[1]. That means for the 999,980 people per 100,000 who weren't committing crimes were using guns to protect themselves. What this means is that people with guns are MUCH more likely to use guns to protect themselves than use guns to aggravate crime."

This is a prime example of my opponent's repeated misunderstanding of statistics. From that statistic, he assumes that every single human being in America has a gun (20 who use guns for crime, 999,980 using guns to protect themselves).

He goes on to say that my points would only be valid if over 154,000,000 people [1] in America were violent, gun-wielding criminals. To that, I need only say that 150,000,000 violent gun-wielding criminals would be reason enough to prohibit guns.

1B

Wait a minute, let me keep track of the contradictions you just made. Firstly, there would be less gun crime, but overall crime would increase. Secondly, there would be less guns but people wouldn't be able to protect themselves. Now I guess my question is, if the crimes perpetrated didn't involve guns, why can't the victims defend themselves? Here are some ways to defend yourself without a gun: [2].

2.

First off, "English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape". That's how you advocate guns? Saying there's more murder and rape in a country that outlaws guns? Am I missing something here? Secondly, I checked the source, but couldn't find anything that said "English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape". Maybe you could point it out for me. What I did find, however, is this: Regarding the comparison of crime rates between America and England, "last year it was 3.5 times"[3] that of England. So you cite a source telling us that a country with prohibition against guns has 3.5 times less crime than a country where it's legal to own guns, and that's a reason that guns SHOULDN'T be outlawed?

The first thing Pro wrote: "I will be arguing that the average citizen should be allowed to obtain guns for self defense (and other purposes), but NOT that there should be no gun laws at all (i.e. age limits and background checks)."

What Pro wrote last round: "I do not have some fantasy that only law abiding citizens will have guns. I know that criminals break the law, and I know that background checks will not 100% prevent criminals. In fact, I never even stated anything along the lines of 'only law abiding citizens will have guns'". Pro is pettifogging the issue, saying that because he wasn't wasn't quoted that criminals wouldn't have guns that that notion wasn't what he was implying. Also, a little further down in his debate, he says, "law abiding citizens", so yeah...

Rebuttal:
1. This may be the most useless information that I've ever read on this website. I don't even know where to begin breaking this point down. First off, 162,000 households "believe" someone would have died without a gun? Are we really going to change government policy because of how 1 in every 695[4] feels? That's 0.14 percent represented. What's next, we're gonna elect a politician because he gets 0.14 percent of the votes?

1A. Are you kidding me? You say you're not sure they're estimates but then go on to explain why they're estimates? I'm not even gonna rebut that, it's so ridiculous.

"Firstly, in 82% of the DGUs, the criminal did not have a gun[5]. Not every criminal has a gun." Good. Let's keep it that way.

"You say that you do not want guns in a environment with 8,000 violent crimes a day. How so do you propose that citizens protect themselves? " In response to that: [2].

"After all, guns scare away the criminal 90% of the time simply by being brandished. What else could attain such a high rate of protection?" Didn't I already mention a pride of vicious lions? What the hell?

1B. How many times are you going to repeat your one and only point? Honestly... Fine, I'll bite.

Yes, guns are used for self defence. They're also used for murder, rape, assault, extortion, mugging, robbery, theft (I've got more but I only have 7 hours to finish this)... You know what else can be used for self defence? Trinitrotoluene. That's dangerous. That's scary. That'd stop any compos mentis criminal. The mere fact that it's dangerous and scary isn't enough of a reason to have it be legal, and nor are the statistics you brought with you today(the same stats you've used in the last 3 debates you've done, all about gun rights. What, are you gonna keep doing the same debate with the same arguments, hoping to improve your skills?).

Regarding most people being, "rational, law abiding citizens", are you saying that the majority of people in America have never loitered, littered, talked an a phone while driving or any number of the many small crimes that many of us break every day? Neither of us have that stats on that, nor could we, so I guess I'm appealing to reason and logic, suggesting most people in America have at some point in their life broken a law.

"As I have shown, the number of law abiding citizens who will use guns for self defense greatly outnumber the criminals." Actually, you haven't shown that, looking at your sources,

1. You believe every human being in America owns a gun
2. You skipped 2 and went to 3, I believe.
3. The sources said that American crime rates were "3.5 times" higher than England's. You said "English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape", according to stats taken 16 years ago. Yes, 16 year old statistics.
4. 0.17 households believe something and you think that should effect government law
5. You acknowledge most criminals don't use guns, yet you wish to make it possible that any criminal CAN use a gun.

"Sorry, I worded that wrong. I meant, "Considering all of this information, why should we deny citizens an effective self defense option that has been proven to prevent more crime than it is used in?"

Prevent is used as preventing the crime while it is taking place. Forgive my wording error."

I accept your apology and will allow you to rephrase your broken argument. Unfortunately for you, your rephrasing is equally broken. Your new argument states that in crimes that where the criminal didn't have a gun, if the victim did have a gun, he or she was able to prevent the crime. First of all, they don't prevent crime, they change the name of the crime. Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime. Secondly, you're allowing that for every one of those situations, BOTH the criminal and the victim have the deadliest weapon known to man. That's not a way to prevent murder. That's not a way to run a society.

"40% of criminals had decided not to commit a crime because they thought or knew the victim had a gun[4]. Guns most likely do lead to less crime." You're saying most criminals committed a crime regardless of whether or not they believed the victim had a gun. Good to know.

As I have said, self defence is important and there are many other ways to defend one's self without a deadly weapon.

Wait, you're saying a criminal can attack without a gun, but a victim can't defend without a gun?

I love how you mentioned "law abiding citizens" 3 times after saying that's not who you were implying would have a gun.

As I've said, most citizens are to some extent criminals. Not wishing to pettifog.

What this debate comes down to is logic v.s surveys and cherry-picked statistics. My opponent's stats are flawed as I have demonstrated and hand-picked because he believes they are one-sided(they arn't), and I believe my logic is sound.

I would address his conclusion but I am running out of characters and he only has one point.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
seraine

Pro

1A. No, I don't believe that every one of those law abiding citizens had a gun. But apparently you believe that every one of those criminals has a gun. This is very perplexing when only 29% of criminals involved in violent crime had guns[1], while 30% of law abiding citizens had guns[2]. If law abiding citizens own more guns than criminals, then why would all criminals have guns but not all law abiding citizens?

You only need 150,000,000 gun wielding criminals? That's fine with me. If you need about 50% of citizens to be criminals (maybe a bit less) and you only got less than .1%, that's a clear win for me.

1B. The first one is not a contradiction. If there is less guns, less guns will be used in crime. However, less guns will be used for protection as well, and as I have shown, there is more law abiding citizens with guns than criminals with guns, so crime would increase overall. And they wouldn't be able to protect themselves- at least they won't be able to close to the previous success rates.

You advocate karate for protection rather than guns. Is karate as deadly as guns? No, it's not. It is worse then, because it does not attain as high protection rates. Do you think that saying "I know karate" can scare away 90% of criminals? It obviously can't. Imagine a grandma telling a criminal "I know karate" and scaring him away?

2.

No, I was not showing that gun rights is better because of comparing countries. Cliff.Stamp. taught me why that doesn't work out well. I was just showing you that the US is not a "notoriously dangerous and homicidal" country. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyways, I already said that the US has a higher murder and rape rate, and 3.5 was referring to murder, not crime in general. But this doesn't matter.

And I don't know how you got the idea that I insinuated anything along the lines of criminals won't have guns. In fact, if you look at point 2 of my opening argument, I actually said that in 20% of DGU's, the criminal has a gun.

Rebuttals

1. I was just showing that guns save more lives than they end, which you didn't even talk about. After all, 93% of those households believed someone would have died without a gun. It is likely that more than 6% are right, but it's almost impossible to prove.

1A.

I was showing that they where accurate estimates. I assumed from your wording that you meant estimates as in they just guessed at how many DGU's there where a year. However, the 2,500,000-3,500,000 comes from a couple government surveys that showed that there'd be about 2,500,000-3,500,000 DGU's a year[3].

"Good. Let's keep it that way."

Guns have always been available to criminals in the US, yet 3x more DGU's.

"In response to that: [2]."

Because karate is just as effective as a gun at self defense. The problem is, if it's good at self defense it's also dangerous. Guns are more dangerous, thus they are better at self defense.

1B. Guns are used in crimes.

Yes, guns are used in crime. Here is the significant part you have repeatedly failed to address. Guns are used 3 times more for DGU's. Guns are dangerous. Guns are scary. But they are also 3 times more likely to be used for self defense than crime. You have repeatedly failed to address this. Ignoring something is not a good way to refute it.

The reason I am doing this debate 4 times is that in 2 of the cases, my opponent forfeited. I made a argument and Cliff showed me why it was wrong, so I made a new and better argument. I've argued this twice now.

About trinitrotoluene (big word alert!). That is dangerous, but I would not qualify it as a self defense weapon. It is more likely to be used in crime than in self defense. The only people who use explosives for self defense is Al Qaeda. In contrast, guns are used 3 times more for self defense than crime, while explosives are pretty much used solely for either war or terrorism.

Law abiding citizens sometimes loiter/jaywalk?! Is this satire? Loitering and jay walking are a looooong ways from violent crime, and you know it.

1. You believe every human being in America owns a gun.

Already shown this to be false. You committed the real assumption here.

2. You skipped 2 and went to 3, I believe

Lol.

3. The sources said that American crime rates were "3.5 times" higher than England's. You said "English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape", according to stats taken 16 years ago. Yes, 16 year old statistics.

American murder rates where 3.5 times higher, England's was higher in everything else other than rape.

4. 0.17 households believe something and you think that should effect government law

Nope, just showing that guns most likely save lives.

5. You acknowledge most criminals don't use guns, yet you wish to make it possible that any criminal CAN use a gun.

Already can in the US, yet guns are still used 3 times more in self defense.

Yes, it does change the name of the crime. Would you prefer that all criminals got assault/rape/murder rather than attempted assault/attempted rape/attempted murder? I fail to see how protecting a victim doesn't matter.

And I have shown that the criminal only has a gun 20% of the time during DGU's, not 100% of the time. Sometimes the criminal has a gun, but usually not.

"The majority of the time, the criminal was not scared" is wrong for one simple fact. Not every criminal has known someone with a gun. In fact, 90% of the time the criminal finds out the victim has a gun, he runs away[4].

"As I have said, self defence is important and there are many other ways to defend one's self without a deadly weapon."

Yes, but it is a lot less effective.

"Wait, you're saying a criminal can attack without a gun, but a victim can't defend without a gun?"

I'm saying that guns defend people 3 times more than they are used in crime.

"I love how you mentioned "law abiding citizens" 3 times after saying that's not who you were implying would have a gun."

I was saying that I didn't say criminals wouldn't have guns.

"What this debate comes down to is logic v.s surveys [rhetoric vs facts] and cherry-picked statistics. My opponent's stats are flawed as I have demonstrated and hand-picked because he believes they are one-sided(they arn't), and I believe my logic is sound."

You're starting to sound like Cliff.Stamp, except Cliff was right about me. Those statistics aren't cherry picked. I picked a fact that proved my case, which you failed to address. There wasn't any facts I chose to ignore.

How are my facts flawed? There is 3 times more DGU's than gun crimes. That isn't flawed. Demonstrate how my facts are flawed.

The main point of my case is that guns are used 3 times more for DGU's than crime. Here are my opponent's responses:

"Say guns are used for protection 8,000 times a day. What my opponent says is "protection", but he avoids that what he is also saying is that there are 8,000 violent crimes perpetrated daily in America. Such an environment is not one which you should wish to have a large quantity of deadly weapons."

Notice how this allows him to ignore that guns are use 3 times more for protection. He uses rhetoric to ignore the facts.

"Yes, guns are used for self defence. They're also used for murder, rape, assault, extortion, mugging, robbery, theft "

Which allows him to ignore that they're used 3 times more for self defense.

"He has proven that guns have been used to intervene and stop criminal activities in progress. He has not proven and could not possibly prove that there would be more crimes of any type without guns."

Like you don't want to protect people from crime. Like it'd be better that the 3 million had to be raped/assaulted. Ignore the facts. Also, I have proven that guns do prevent crime (not stop).

Sources

[1] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
[2] http://www.justfacts.com...
[3] http://www.pulpless.com...
[4] http://gunsafe.org...
Shawn613

Con

Reconstruction:
1A. Pro said "999,980 per 100,000". That's bad math. I'll assume Pro meant 99,980 per 100,000. Let's follow the line of thinking, shall we? Pro believes:
a) "The US violent crime rate for 2008 was 20 per 100,000. That means for the 99,980 people per 100,000 who weren't committing crimes were using guns to protect themselves."
b) If that's true, then everyone mentioned in that statistic owns a gun, because if they didn't own a gun, that wouldn't apply to them and they wouldn't be in the statistic
c) So out of 100,000 people, 20 use guns for crime and 98,000 used guns to protect themselves
d) 100,000 out of 100,000 is 100%.
Conclusion: Pro believes 100% of Americans own guns.

I'm not going to do that for every one of Pro's statistics, I just want to show how utterly useless they are at being able to imply something else. For as Pro knows, stats and surveys are, for a lack of a better acronym, BS[2]. It's like saying having a toilet in your house means you'll be burglarized because every house in America in 1995 that was burglarized had a toilet.

Regarding, "You only need 150,000,000 gun wielding criminals?", that is in response to my response of him saying my points would only be valid if "the crime rate exceeded 50%", which would be approximately 154,000,000 people. If you agree that my points wouldn't be valid if 153,999,999 people in America were gun-wielding criminals, then, well, you can stop reading now because nothing I can say will make you change your mind. Also, you disgust me.

1B. First of all, if someone knew Muay Thai or Krav Maga, I wouldn't attempt to attack them because I would get my rear end handed to me on a silver platter. Muay Thai is some scary stuff.

Secondly, in regards to the idea that even a child or a brittle old granny can defend themselves with a gun, this idea is false. It takes training to be able to use a gun properly[2][3][4]. Do you think an average granny knows about the Weaver Stance? Also in martial arts such as Krav Maga, they teach how to disarm a gun from an attacker[12], so it's not as if guns are an "I win this altercation" tool.

2. Concession, I can't prove that any country is notoriously dangerous and homicidal, but then again, neither can Pro prove that any country isn't. We're both wrong and I acknowledge it was a weak statement. But I should mention that when I said "a notoriously dangerous and homicidal nation", I wasn't referring to America, because they already have guns, so that would be ridiculous. In his weak attempts to rebut an equally weak point, he mentions that a nation that heavily restricts guns, even from police, [5] has 3.5 times less rape and murder than a country who's ability to own guns is written into their constitution[6]. As I mentioned, this is a point in my favour.

"I don't know how you got the idea that I insinuated anything along the lines of criminals won't have guns." I don't believe I insinuated anything along those lines.

Deconstruction: 1. If I didn't talk about how guns save more lives then they end, which I believe I did, I'll do it now.

If you killed every human being on the planet, you would save every life that would have ever been taken by the human beings or their offspring you killed. I'm willing to bet that until the end of time, which scientists predict to be about 5,000,000,000 years from now[8], more than 7 billion people[10] will will be killed. Let's say in total, 100,000 people were killed this year on Earth. You know what? Let's just count America. From 1960 to 2006 there were approximately 17,000 murders a year[9]. 16,000 over the next 5 billion years is 8.5e+13. I don't know what number that is, but it's a heck of alot bigger of a number than 7 billion. Following Pro's logic, something is okay if it potentially saves more lives than it ends. Under his logic, the murder of humanity as a species is justified. What I am saying, is that I don't agree. "guns save more lives than they end"? We can't know for sure, but even if that's true, that alone is not enough to justify them being allowed.

"I made a argument and Cliff showed me why it was wrong, so I made a new and better argument". No, you didn't. You made the same argument to a different person hoping they wouldn't realise that your stats are very close to being completely meaningless. You even copy & pasted the hilariously ridiculous and ineffective point, "162,000 households believed that someone would have been killed if they didn't carry a firearm for protection". Check it yourself if you think I'm embellishing. Using the same arguments which have been proven false against someone else, hoping they'll buy into it, is a disgrace to debate as an art form and a medium of intellectual thought and you should be ashamed.

Since Pro has the Burden of Proof and it's his responsibility to convince us why citizens should be able to own guns, and since in America you are already allowed to own guns, he obviously means guns should be legalized in a country that does not already have it. I don't believe Pro has accomplished this task and I doubt you, the voter will either. This also means that just about every statistic Pro has cited regarding America's policy, except to say that it has more rape and murder than the only country he's compared it to (England, a country that has very strict gun laws), is inapplicable in itself regardless of my rebuttals.

He has also failed to mention his definition of a "gun". I kept waiting for him to do this but he didn't so he may very well mean it includes handguns, shotguns, rifles, arquebus, blunderbusses, submachine guns, gatling guns, nordenfelts and howitzers. Why? Because those are what guns are: "a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive".

My Global Genocide point saves 1,359,000,000,000,000 lives in America alone while ending only 7,000,000,000 worldwide. My situation saves 194,142 times as many lives in America than it ends worldwide, while Pro's 3x rule saves 3 times as lives as it ends. By his logic, my Global Genocide is more justified than his.

"Guns save more lives than they end" is basically my opponent's only point, which has spawned a myriad of useless stats and personal survey citations. It is not only a flawed notion because he can't know that, nor can anyone because it deals with hypothetical situations, but it is flawed because Q.E.D., something isn't justified simply because it may or may not save more lives than it ends. "Guns save more lives than they end" or "3x" argument is an argument that has been called by Pro, "the ultimate argument", has been used in his conclusion in every round that wasn't an introduction, and was referenced 9 times by Pro in Round 4 alone. I wasn't kidding when I said it was his only point.

Conclusion:

Nothing Pro said in Round 4 improved on his one point from Rounds 2 and 3 and I could have rebutted him by quoting myself from Round 3 & he has dishonored debate with his rehashed points and idiocy.

P.S.

"What this debate comes down to is logic v.s surveys [rhetoric vs facts] and cherry-picked statistics. My opponent's stats are flawed as I have demonstrated and hand-picked because he believes they are one-sided(they arn't), and I believe my logic is sound."

You quoted someone and changed what they said. Good job, bro.

[1]http://www.debate.org...
[2]http://www.nrahq.org...
[3]http://www.wonderhowto.com...
[4]http://www.firearmstraining.ca...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]http://www.solarviews.com...
[9]http://www.disastercenter.com...
[10]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[12]http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com...
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
"No, you didn't. You made the same argument to a different person hoping they wouldn't realise that your stats are very close to being completely meaningless. You even copy & pasted the hilariously ridiculous and ineffective point, "162,000 households believed that someone would have been killed if they didn't carry a firearm for protection". "

The difference here is that that argument was not my main point. I used that argument to show that it is likely that guns save lives.

"Check it yourself if you think I'm embellishing. Using the same arguments which have been proven false against someone else, hoping they'll buy into it, is a disgrace to debate as an art form and a medium of intellectual thought and you should be ashamed."

First off, they weren't proven false. They were shown to be unproved and I was not using them as my main point.

"he has dishonored debate with his rehashed points and idiocy."

This is very close to ad hom.

Anyways, I failed several times in this debate and could have done a lot better. I kinda feel like redoing it but... maybe another day.

Anyways, I enjoyed our debate.
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
very effective
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Really had to cram this one in...
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
My computer is back up, but I may not be able to post my argument on the fourth of July.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
No problem.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
I will do it in my opening.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ok, can you clarify a little on what exactly you are proposing or do you want that to come in your opening?
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Yet. I will tell you when our computer is repaired.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Nope. Also, I will only be able to rarely access computers due to computer problems, and would like it if you didn't accept this debate.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Seraine, are you arguing for unlimited access to guns that a citizen should have access to any type of gun that they want?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
seraineShawn613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made his Caseline about the philosophy that guns are not justified as methods of self defense, and his analogy about using a pride of lions to protect yourself really sold his case to me. Sources go to him because he spent a large amount of his speech pointing out how Pro misused them
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
seraineShawn613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes strong points against the logic if Pros case but does not refute the arguments Pro made. Saying a statistic is pointless does not refute the idea that the statistic points out. Pro may have had the burden of proof but Con still has some responsibility to make a case of some kind, rather then to just sit back and "throw tomatoes" at Pros argument. Con also attacks Pro inappropriately several times which is not only bad conduct but also distracting to his argument.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
seraineShawn613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could not over come the fact that guns are used for self defense, in fact he even conceded to it. He didn't provide evidence to suggest that criminalizing guns would keep them out of outlaws hands. However pro did not do a great job of defending his case. 4:3, Pro.