The Instigator
fire_wings
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Fire v.s. bsh: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/7/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,438 times Debate No: 91980
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (179)
Votes (3)

 

fire_wings

Con

I plan on debating this better than last time's debate.

Resolution: In the United States, private ownership of handguns/ normal guns ought to be banned.


Definitons

handguns: small type of gun used for one hand (you can argue about normal guns)

private owneship: anything that is owned from a person

banned: a stopped to, decline

Rules

1. Forfeiting is a loss of conduct

2. Sources have to be in the debate. If you can't, then you have to post your sources in the next round. Example: The debate is 8000 characters, and you wrote 7900 in your arguments. You need to put sources. Then, you have to post that you will put your sources in the next round, and in the next round, you will have to post your sources.

3. The BoP will be shared

4. No trolling

5. No kritiks

6. No semantics

7. No source wars

8. No source spams (over 20 sources a round.)

9. Failing to follow my rules, you lose all points to the opposing side. (1 is an exception.)


This debate is for bsh1. If anyone else accepts, they forfeit all points to me.

It is 10K, 5 rounds, 1 month voting period, 2500 ELO min. to vote, and max. for almost everything. First round is for acceptance, and no new arguments in the last round. (rebuttals count as arguments, but defense does not)

Let's begin!!!
bsh1

Pro

I accept. Thanks to fire for choosing me as his adversary.
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Con

I thank my opponent bsh1 for accepting this debate, and I hope we both enjoy it. Let's begin!


Framework




My framework will be mostly centered around self-defence.




Self-Defence: the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as bycountering blows or overcoming an assailant [1].




Self Defence basically means that if you are getting harmed, then for self-defence, you can protect yourself. A gun is a very good example for this. I won’t be talking much about this right now, because I will have a whole new argument for this. My argument will be about that guns are the perfect example for self-defence.




More info of self-defence. : [2], [3], [4]






Argument 1: Self-Defence




My first argument will be about self-defence, which is linked into the framework. I explained what self-defence is, and provided a definition of self-defence. I will expand more upon of this, and my argument will be about why private ownership of guns are the best example of self-defence, and why we should allow this.




My argument will be about why guns have good self-defence.




Using guns for self-defence is much. Nearly two million defensive gun uses per year [8].




Lets give a realistic example. You live in a home in the United States. A robber tries to come in your house, and is threatening you to give all the precious things you have, or the robber will kill you. You are getting threatened. You can shoot him with a gun. Many states and countries allow self-defence, so if you get harmed, then for self-defence, you can protect yourself with a gun. Without self-defence, and the use of a gun, the robber will take all of your things or kill you. You can use a knife, but it is much harder, and the robber will block it. So, for self-defence, which is allowed and encouraged, and gun is very good, so it should be legal for the private ownership of handguns, because handguns are more tiny, and quicker than big guns.




This makes an impact to the resolution because I showed that handguns are actually useful, and they shouldn't be banned, and gave self-defence, which is a law, and approved. You can use guns for self-defence. Because I told that private ownership of handguns is used for self-defence, which is allowed and is the best way to defend yourself, therefore, handguns should be allowed. Vote for Pro.




Argument 2: Waste of time




My second argument will be about banning this will be a waste of time.




Let’s first see how many guns Americans have.




“According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all [5]. This computes to 93 guns per 100 people. In the same article: "But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes." The graph shows a decline from 50% in 1975 to 31% in recent years.[6]”



Guns are used by too many people of the U.S. Even though we ban them, some people will still have them illegally. Even though we ban them, they will still use them. Banning will do not point. It will cost more money if you ban it, but not much need because no one will follow it, and they can’t check over 300 million guns.

This does an impact to the resolution, because if we do actually ban, it will be pointless because of the numbers, people wil still use guns.




Argument 3. Ecomony Impact




My last argument will be about the economy. Handguns are currently legal in the United States. The U.S. gets many money from gun companies. There are lots of gun companies in the U.S. and they all help the economy.




“All told, the firearms industry contributes more than $33 billion to the U.S. economy and supports about 220,000 jobs [7].”




That is tons. The U.S. government gets much money from the gun companies, and it is for tons of jobs




What if we ban this? Then this much people, all the people in the companies will have no job. They will be dependent for the government. This makes the economy lower. The few millions of homeless people need a job, and they need to depend on the government, also all the money, 33 billion dollars from the companies will not be earned, and will not go to the U.S. economy. This does a major economic impact for the U.S. Therefore, we should not ban firearms, or all guns in the U.S.




Also, if we ban guns, a black market will form. Guns will illegally be sold for 3 or 4 times it’s cost. It’s bad because, it is illegal, it is for expensive, and the ban is useless. So, this is only good for people who sell it illegally, and bad to everyone else.



This does an impact to the resolution, because if we ban guns, then the economy will be hurt, and we shouldn't make an economy impact, when banning guns has a impact to economy, therefore, we should not ban handguns/ guns.





Conclusion




I have shown successfully why guns are useful, they are useful for self-defence, and why a gun ban is useless, because there are so many guns in the U.S, 300 million, and some will still have them which makes banning useless. I showed if you ban guns, it will do a major harm to the economy. I showed one good thing about guns, and 2 bad things about gun banning. Therefore, it is 3 good things about guns, therefore, vote for CON! If you write "Vote Pro", think again, and "Vote Pro, VOTE CON!!!

Sources

[1] http://www.dictionary.com...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.alljujitsu.com...

[5] http://www.npr.org...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://www.theblaze.com...

[8] http://www.guncite.com...;
bsh1

Pro

Thanks, Fire, for this debate.

FRAMEWORK

Fire does not offer a cohesive framework with which to assess the round. I will therefore offer one to fill the void, namely, rule consequentialism. To clarify this, "rule-consequentialism selects rules solely in terms of the goodness of their consequences and then claims that these rules determine which kinds of acts are morally wrong." [1] We should prefer consequentalism for several reasons:

A. In matters of policy, appeals to a priori values fail

"Appeals to a priori moral principles...often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense...the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that...their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." [2]

B. Non-consequentialist standards devolve into consequentialism

Other "moral systems...provide no clear way to resolve conflicts between moral duties. A deontological moral system should include both a moral duty not to lie and one to keep others from harm, for example, but...how is a person to choose between those two moral duties? A popular response to this is to simply choose the 'lesser of two evils,' but that means relying on which of the two has the least evil consequences and, therefore, the moral choice is being made on a consequentialist rather than a deontological basis." [3]

ARGUMENTS

I. Gun overabundance poses severe risks to the health and safety of Americans

A. Suicides

Harvard professors who have immersed themselves in studying the impacts of guns on society found that guns were closely linked to increased suicide rates. They write: "we analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts." [4]

Suicides are more often than not (80%) impulsive acts. [5] Other means of suicide, like overdosing on pills, take longer to work or may end up injuring rather than killing. Guns have greater lethality and can work nearly instantaneously. For people who use guns, they have little opportunity to change their mind in the course of a suicide attempt and summon help, or to receive help after a failed attempt. Moreover, someone wanting to kill themselves may be put off by the potential pain of non-gun alternatives; guns, on the other hand, are viewed as a painless alternative, reducing the mental barriers that a suicidal person has against making a suicide attempt. Limiting gun suicides, then, logically will reduce the number and fatality of suicides.

B. Accidental Deaths

After studying all the gunshot deaths in King County, WA, over a 5 year period, researchers found "for every time a gun in the home was involved in a self-protection homicide, they noted 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.5 criminal homicides, and 37 firearm suicides." [6] During the period of the study, this county was home to approximately 1.3 million people, a sizable population of people. [7] "This implies that for every case where someone in a gun-owning house hold uses a gun to successfully stop a life-threatening attack, nearly forty-three people in similar households will die from a gunshot." [8] "Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries...According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns...was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns." [9]

C. Anti-Deterrence

Recent research suggests that the presence of a gun in a household may function as an inducement to commit crimes. Guns are "valuable loot" for criminals who may not be able to acquire these guns through legal means. [10] Ownership of a gun correlates with higher rates of firearm assault and theft. [11]

Researchers have suggested that possessing a gun gives one a false or overstated sense of security. That sense of security may lead one to go into neighborhoods one might have previously skirted around, or to push the gun-holder to overreact in otherwise resolvable conflicts. [12] This inflated sense of invincibility or safety can thus encourage the possessor the gun to place themselves in dangerous situations that put them at significant risk. [12] The presence of a gun on a person may also make it easier for a person to, in a moment of rage, pull the trigger without thinking, turning what may have been a fist fight or merely a heated exchange into something approximating a shoot-out at the O.K. Corral.

D. Violence

"The strong correlation between the presence of guns and a higher murder rate is compelling. Since the correlation is statistically significant...it is difficult to believe that limiting private gun ownership will not have a noticeable effect on the numbers of murders...Consequently...fewer guns would directly cause some decline in violent crimes." [8] "Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates." [13] In other words, the higher the rates of gun ownership, the higher the rates of deadly violence. "The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates in 2011 [had]…states with the lowest overall gun death rates have lower rates of gun ownership and some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation." [14] And, in situations of domestic violence, as well, the presence of a gun does not deter the abuser, but rather intensifies the abusive behavior and increases the chances that the violence will turn lethal. [15]

II. A ban on private ownership of handguns would help in saving lives

A. Handguns are particularly problematic

"[M]ost gun crime is committed with handguns...Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large caliber guns...Studies of the guns used in homicides show that large caliber [handguns] are the most frequent type of gun used in homicides." [16] Guns are clearly the weapon of choice for criminals being "used in about seven out of 10 murders in the U.S." [17] Handguns are used 18x times more than the next most popular kind of gun in the commission of murders, as well. [18]

B. Australia demonstrates how bans can be very effective

Australia implemented a partial gun ban through a mandatory buy-back scheme. The results of this effort were astonishing: "[T]he firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides...The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate." [19]

Data shows that between 1988 and 1996, the year in which the gun ban was implemented, the mean number of gun deaths per year was 551. Between 1993 and 1996, the gun death volume held fairly stable at around 515 deaths per year, with one notable outlier in 1995. However, after the gun ban, between 1997 and 2005, the mean number of gun deaths per year was around 313--238 fewer deaths than the previous nine year period. Since guns were banned, the number of gun deaths in any one year has not exceeded 428, and has, instead, stabilized around 230. Firearm suicides fell from 2.2 per 100,000 people in 1995 to just 0.8 per 100,000 people in 2006, and firearm homicides in 2006 are less than half of what they were in 1995. Most importantly, however, is the fact that "the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen by 27% and the non-firearm homicide rate by 59%." [20]

III. Conclusion

Guns--especially handguns--are dangerous. They threaten the security, health, and wellbeing of thousands of innocent Americans. They kill our children, increase the number of suicide attempts, promote crime, increase the lethality of domestic violence incidents, and lead to accidental deaths. This is not promoting good consequences. A ban has the potential to solve--at least in part--all of these problems. The fact that another country that is culturally similar to the United States was able to implement a ban shows that a ban is not impossible, and that the potential for benefits is real. A ban therefore is more consequentialist than not.

SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - Gary Woller, "An Overview by Gary Woller," A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...
9 - http://tinyurl.com...
10 - Philip Cook and Jen Ludwig, "The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs. Inducement," working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003
11 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
12 - http://tinyurl.com...
13 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
14 - http://tinyurl.com...
15 - http://tinyurl.com...
16 - http://tinyurl.com...
17 - http://tinyurl.com...
18 - http://tinyurl.com...
19 - http://tinyurl.com...
20 - http://tinyurl.com...

Thus, I affirm. Thank you, and please Vote Pro! I now hand the floor over to Fire...
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

A battle between two ferrets which both look tired... I thank my opponent for making his arguments. I wil refute them right now. Remeber, ferrets and axolotl are the best animal debaters (airmax, bsh, whiteflame, etc.)

Framework

My opponent's framework is that we select rules by in terms of goodness. This is false, as Socrates says. He says, "Even a bad law is a law [1].", when he was sentenced to death. Therefore, it is not always from goodness.

My opponent does not refute my framework about self-defence. Therefore, my framework stands, when my opponent's does not. My opponent's framework in hard to understand, and does nothing to do with the topic.

Counterplan

I thought I won't need one, but I guess I do.

I also have a counterplan for this. Iceland has guns, and you need a special license [3]. I ask that we need a license to get guns too. You need a car license to practise with your car to not make accidents. Why not guns? With a license, it will be certainly more safer, because only the ones who are good at this can have it, for safety. You can use it to defend yourself.

This simple counterplan get rebut the robbers favortie weapon, as they need special licnese's too, and need to follow the conduct to still have them, it is kinda like voting priv. in DDO.

Rebuttal PART 1

Rebuttal A: Suicides

My opponent says that guns are the best way to do suicide, and if we do ban guns, then suicide rates will fall down.

First of all, what even is the definiton of suicide?

Suicide: the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living [2].

So, you are killing yourself, not others. Why aren't others letting them do so? If they don't want to live, they can do their own choice. People have self-ownership [4]; they own themselves, so they can do anything they want. If they want to suicide, let them do so. It is their choice, and none of our buisness. Why should you save someone when they want to be dead?

Rebuttal B: Accidental Deaths

Pro says that there are many accidents with guns. So what? Just because there are many accidents, does it mean that we should ban it? Gun gives lot's of self-defence too, as I explained it the first argument.

I also have a counterplan for this. Iceland has guns, and you need a special license [3]. I ask that we need a license to get guns too. You need a car license to practise with your car to not make accidents. Why not guns? With a license, it will be certainly more safer, because only the ones who are good at this can have it, for safety. You can use it to defend yourself.

We don't care about the numbers of accidental deaths, only if we have accidental death in something, or if there are not accidental deaths. Looking at debate.org does not give you an accidental death. However, a car can hit you, and it is an accidental death. You can slip of a chair and die a accidental death. Almost anything can have accidental deaths, because that is the important part. Because almost everything has accidental deaths, and this is only one of them, we shouldn't ban guns.

Rebuttal C: Anti-deterrence

Pro says that guns are a valuable loot for them. Pro says that guns give one a false sense of security. However, Pro's source is from 5-10 years ago, and many things changed in this time. Also, I have showed many sources about guns having self-defence, when Pro only shows one. And also, anyone can write and post anything if they login, therefore the source might be biased of a Pro gun ban person.

Pro says that in a moment of rage, you can shoot a gun, and kill a person, which could have only been a fist-fight or a heated exchange (that is why DDO is good, because you can't shoot a gun to others.) Pro gives a bare assertion, and so does the internet.

Rebuttal D: Violence

This gets rebutted to my counterplan. My opponent's argument was about violence. However, if we have special license, and you need to get them by practising like a car license, it will cause less violence. And as I said, almost anything can cause violence. After you lose, when playing a game, arguing, pressured, etc. This clearly does nothing to do, and has no compelling reason why there should be a gun ban.

Rebuttal PART 2

Rebuttal E: Handguns are particulary problematic

Pro says that handguns are used frequently, and a robber's favorite weapon. I agree that they are used like this, but that doesn't make handguns problematic. The literal meaning of handgun is "small gun". This argument does not do a impact to the resolution, as the full resolution in round 1, it is about handguns, and normal guns. Just because handguns get used a lot doesn't mean that they should be banned.

Rebuttal F: Australia demonstrates how guns bans can be effective

Pro says that the gun ban in Australia worked well, but this debate is about the U.S., and the amount of guns are different. The U.S. has 112 guns in 100 residents, when Australia only has 21 guns per 100 [5]. They are different countries, and different amount, therefore this cannot happen, because they are different.

Conclusion


I showed that my opponent's case is wrong, and all ineffective, and my counterplan is good enough to refute his arguments. I have won the ferret debate, and vote CON.

Sources

[1] History Ancient Civilizations, by steven pow and han chae
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...

On to Pro!
bsh1

Pro

Thanks, Fire. At this time, I will be rebutting Con's case.

FRAMEWORK

Con's entire second argument has no link whatsoever to self-defense. So if self-defense is the standard, you should not evaluate--at all--Fire's "economy" and "Waste of time" arguments because they don't weigh under a self-defense mechanism.

A framework is a mechanism by which we can weigh the arguments in a round. But Con does not use self-defense as a weighing mechanism, rather he uses it as one of the arguments that should be weighed. This is shown by the fact that he includes a bunch of arguments that simply don't weigh under a self-defense standard, implying that he feels there are concerns beyond self-defense that ought to be weighed in this round. Consequentialism is thus a better fit, because it can evaluate a broader litany of points.

Finally, Fire just gives us no reason to buy into his standard. He just kind of assumes we should all use it.

ARGUMENTS

I. Self-Defense

A. Guns are not helpful in defending oneself

"77 percent of shots fired in self-defense situations will miss their targets, even when fired by trained gun-handlers. Roughly 67 percent of the time, the bad guy is the first one to use lethal force. They ambush us...The average violent attack is over in 3 seconds. They are 'blitz' attacks, designed to blindside and overwhelm us...93 percent of single-gunshot wounds are survivable, which goes against the common expectation that one bullet is enough to stop a threat. This assumption was reflected in the study, which found 'participants with no skills were not only slow to fire, but did not fire enough shots to effectively neutralize the threat they faced.'" [1] This evidence has several impacts: (1) crimes occur too quickly for us to draw, possibly load, and fire a gun, making guns utterly useless; (2) even when fired, guns are far more likely to miss than hit their targets; and (3) even when the hit their targets, people may not incapacitate their assailant.

We should also be skeptical that in tense situations, we would be able to use a gun rationally and effectively. If I were out at the mall and a shooting occurred, I can guarantee you that I would be panicking. I would be acting on raw fear, not on any rational assessment of the situation. Were I to use a gun in that state, I would probably just lob of shots in the vicinity of the gun fire; in theory, I am just as likely to hit a bystander as the attacker. That is not wise gun use, and it could only inflate the number of deaths resulting from the fracas.

In fact, if the goal of effective self-defense is to make victims safer, then you should vote Pro, because, as I've shown, guns make people less safe.

B. The two-million figure is dubious

Fire claims some 2 million defensive gun uses per year. There are, however, some excellent reasons to doubt this number: "Kleck also ignores the fact that his results repeatedly fail tests of external validity. In our original article, we mention that Kleck’s data would require, impossibly, that gun owners use their gun in self-defense in more than 100 percent of burglaries...According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck's supposed DGUs hiding?" [2]

Moreover, Kleck's data is derived from a survey, where people self-report their gun use information to the researchers. Many people may present their gun use as legitimate self-defense, but that does not mean that the use actually was legitimate self-defense. "Kleck himself admitted...that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal--meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense." [3]

As an alternative, "an analysis of five years' worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number [of defensive gun uses] much, much lower--about 67,740 times a year." [4]

C. Alternatives to guns allow for effective self-defense

Salt guns, which discharge a dust containing chemical irritants, do not need to be aimed as accurately as firearms because the dust will disperse and cover a wider field than a single bullet could. These weapons can incapacitate an attacker for 15-30 minutes, giving the victim time to escape or the police time to arrive. [5] TASERs are also effective, and debilitate their targets around 85% of the time. [6] Both of these alternatives are non-lethal, so that missed shots do not result in innocent casualties.

II. Time

A. Reduce vs. Eliminate

Fire writes: "Even though we ban them, they will still use them." Consider that we have banned murder, yet murders still happen. Should we therefore lift the ban on murders because we cannot stop them all? Obviously not, otherwise the number of murders occurring would balloon, and result in millions of deaths, something Con and I could both agree would be tragic.

The purpose of a handgun ban is not to prevent all ownership handguns--even in a country the size of Andorra that would be impossible. Someone could always be hiding one somewhere. The purpose of the ban is to reduce the number of these weapons out there and to reduce the ill-effects that their ownership can cause as a consequence. Mandatory buy-back schemes, like the one in Australia, offered money for guns, adding a carrot to the stick of government penalty, and increasing the incentive for people to comply. It is perfectly possible for the U.S. to significantly reduce, either through voluntary compliance or confiscation, the number of handguns in the country. We don't need to track the 300 million, just the handgun portion of that. And, if the number of gun-owning households is decreasing, as Con says it is, that makes the task much easier for the government.

B. Turn

You can also turn this argument against Con. If he thinks we should not do something because it will meet resistance, than no gun control legislation beyond the obviously inadequate status quo will be passed. Interest groups like the NRA, which wield an incredible amount of clout, have opposed virtually all attempts to further regulate guns in America. [7] No doubt Con's propose gun license (see counterplan) would be stonewalled indefinitely. Given this, Con can either choose to defend his license argument, or his possibility argument, but not both.

C. Other

Con says the program will cost money, but offers no analysis as to how much, or what the impact of that will be. Spending money is not inherently a bad thing, and it can be quite good if it saves lives.

Also, Australia illustrates how a large country with a lot of guns can successfully implement a gun ban that reduces the volume of guns and guns' ill-effects.

III. Economy

A. Jobs

Banning ownership of handguns does not mean that U.S. manufacturers cannot make handguns for sale abroad or to the military. According to Con's source, handguns only make up about half of guns manufactured in the U.S., and since foreign consumption won't be disallowed, only a fraction of that fraction of manufacturing will actually stop. Subsidization of gun alternatives, and increase demand in them following a handgun ban, may actually create additional jobs. So, in reality, the impacts Fire is garnering here are small to nonexistent.

B. Blackmarket

The legal gun market supplies the illegal gun market. Therefore, by curtailing the legal market we can starve the illegal market of its gun supply. For instance, "one off the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf...The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers...According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from [Federal Firearms Licensees]. The report states that 'of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid 'time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity." [8] Banning the guns would end straw purchases and access by FFLs to the banned merchandise. Another important source of illegal guns is theft, and by taking the guns out of private ownership, you reduce the possibility of theft as well. [8] Thus, a ban is likely to reduce the existing black market, rather than to cause an inflation of the black market.

III. Conclusion

In the end, guns are not useful self-defense tools. Banning guns is more likely to make people safe than maintaining the status quo. Banning guns will depress the supply of guns in the black market, and a ban is something that is empirically shown (through Australia) to be capable of reducing guns.

SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - Michael White and Justin Ready, “The TASER as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on Use and Effectiveness in a Large Metropolitan Police Agency,” Police Quarterly, 2007
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...
9 - http://tinyurl.com...

Thus, I affirm. Thank you, and please Vote Pro! Over to Fire...
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Con

Bonjour!

Merci, Bsh. Now I will be defending my case, and rebutting what Pro says in round 3.

Cadre/ Framework

My opponent says that my second and third argument does no have any link to my framework of self-defense. Not all of your arguments need to be linked to your framework, like if people who don't have any framework, then that means that no one will evaluate your arguments. This is false, we just need to make the argument have a claim, a warrant, and an impact to the resolution.

I already explained that all we need is an impact to the resolution, so this is false. A framework is an "introduction", and introducing your arguments, and saying about what most of your arguments will be centered around, and mine was self-defense, that was my only offensive argument. My other ones were defensive arguments, so they don't need to be linked to the framework. My defensive arguments were like, "If we ban guns, then this will happen, that will happen... We shouldn't ban guns." There is no reason my defensive arguments need to be linked to the framework, it only needs to make an impact to the resolution.

My reason was that it was a law, and said that Socrates said, "Even a bad law is a law" when he was sentenced to death, and he was the smartest Greek in the world, so we need to follow the law, in this case is self-defence.

Defence 1: Self-defence

A: My opponent says that 77% of the time we miss our targets. But then what about the 23%? Then they have to die, or give their money. 23% is a lot, more than 40,000 times out of 2 million. Then do these 400,000 times we need to be hit by robbers, or die? Also, even if we miss the target, it at least will threaten the robber, and they will escape. My opponent says, "even when fired by trained gun-handlers." The title of the source is, "Research: Untrained gun users prove ineffective at self defense", so this is a ineffective rebuttal because of my counterplan.

My opponent says that the bad guy will kill us first for 67% of the time. but as I said, what about the 33%? For not making it 100%, we need guns to have self-defence.

Pro says that if he was in a tense situation, he would panick, and may shoot innocent people. Then how could 400,000 cases do this? If we ban guns, then 400,000 people will not be saved. And, in my counterplan, we train them with more gun training, and teach them how to use a gun quickly, and teach them to shoot, and trying to not panick. The police would contribute too.

My opponent says, " In fact, if the goal of effective self-defense is to make victims safer, then you should vote Pro, because, as I've shown, guns make people less safe."

My opponent is not making 400,000 people not safe, maybe even more, so my opponent's rebuttal is not met.

B: My opponent says that it is highly good to doubt 2 million cases of self-defence uses per year. However, my source claims that it is true, and in my source, there are many other further reading sources, and most of them say the same thing, therefore my opponent's rebuttal is not met. My opponent says, "It was a survey..." Then how can we even know this without a survey? We can't go into every single case, and a survey is the best way to do it.

C: My opponent is basically making a counterplan that we can use other guns. This basically comes to my side. The full resolution was normal guns too, and guns, basically, and these are guns.

Defense 2: Time

A: My opponent says that we can't stop all murders, and it is the same thing. Then there is NO REASON for a gun ban, if we still use guns. The only bad thing is the economy, because factories cannot sell guns, though the black market can.

My opponent says that a purpose of a handgun ban is not to prevent all handgun bans, only to reduce them. There is no point to reduce them, because they can't reduce them, because Pro says that they will hide them, just not make more. There are still around 300 million of guns, and I see no reason to stop right now.

Also, my opponent read the resolution a little skewered. The Resolution is: "In the United States, private ownership of handguns/ normal guns ought to be banned", not reduce. The defintion of ban is:
officially or legally prohibit (something) [1]. It does not say reduce, so my oppnent finds the resolution wrong, and there is no point for my opponent to argue with the resolution.

B: It seems like my opponent does not understand my argument. My argument was that there is no reason for the government to waste time on gun banning, as it is useless. It does nothing to do with my license counterplan, that is for my rebuttals, and what we should do. The government would approve, because they won't ban all guns, because they can't. It violates the 2nd, and 5th amedment in the Constitution [2].

C: I said it will spend money, and it won't work. We don't know how much money we need to spend on banning it, because it wasn't banned yet, and much, around 5 more times for of how much Australia spent, probably as the U.S. has 5 times more, even with their gun ban, so it would be tons, and it won't work. The U.S. does not need to care about a non-working thing, they should ban smoking instead.

Defense 3: Economy

A: Banning ownership of hanguns basically means that we ban handguns. Then, all their jobs will fail. Pro says that there can be additional jobs to increase demand in a handgun ban, for common sense, it won't be 220,000 jobs, therefore my opponent's rebuttal is not met.

B: Pro gives reasons, and says that the black market will reduce by a ban, and criminals won't buy them. I do know that criminals will buy less, but they will still to earn more money buy threatening and stealing, but reducing is nonsense. The whole point of a black market is to sell the illegal things, it this case: guns. Therefore, my opponent's rebuttal does not impact, and voters ought to vote Con.

Conclusion

I showed my reason, and defended my arguments that there should not be a gun ban. Please Vote Con! Thank you! Onto Bsh!

Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] https://www.quora.com...

VOTE CON!!!
bsh1

Pro

Thanks, Fire. Onto my case.

FRAMEWORK

Con drops my two justifications for consequentialism (conseq.). Extend them. You should buy into conseq. because (a) it is more appropriate for government actors, and (b) other theories default to conseq. when they reach logjams.

Con's only reply to my framework is to quote Socrates. This is a blatant "appeal to authority" fallacy. Just because (b/c) Socrates says something is true doesn't make it true. People like St. Augustine say that a just law is no law at all, a concept others (e.g. MLK, Gandhi) bought into. [1] These authorities cancel out. My logical justifications should trump Con's bare assertion.

PLAN

A. Turn

Again, if we're talking about what can realistically happen in the U.S., then Con's plan should be dismissed. The NRA will oppose all further gun control legislation as it has in the past. Con is in a double-bind: either he scraps his license idea b/c it cannot happen, or he stops caring about what can feasibly occur. He cannot have it both ways.

B. There are issues with Con's plan itself

B1. Con should not be allowed to make any changes to his plan (deletions, additions, or modifications of any kind) b/c, given the structure of the debate, I would have no opportunity to reply to this switch and it would constitute a "shifting the goalposts" fallacy. Con's plan is proposing that Icelandic-style licenses for gun ownership be introduced in the U.S. In Iceland, to get a license, you must (1) undergo gun training/pass a test certifying that you learned how to handle a gun, (2) pass a background check, and (3) pass a mental health exam. [2, 3] Nothing in Con's plan-text or inherent to Iceland's license model includes safe storage laws.

B2. Firstly, Con's plan does not include safe storage laws, which require that guns be stored in such a way that they are inaccessible to children or guests. Thus, child-related accidental deaths will likely continue to be unnecessarily high. Secondly, background checks are less effective at preventing gun violence than gun bans. A meta-analysis of 47 other studies found that the r value (representing the correlation between the regulatory policy and gun violence) of background checks/waiting period was -.78 among all studies, and -.004 among high quality studies, compared to the r value of a weapons ban, which was -.194 among all studies, and -.207 among high quality studies. The means that a ban is roughly 52x better at preventing gun violence than a background check, according to the high quality studies surveyed, and 2.5x better according to all studies. [4] Thirdly, training doesn't necessarily mean you can use the gun well. Consider that, as I showed in a previous round, "77 percent of shots fired in self-defense situations will miss their targets, even when fired by trained gun-handlers." Finally, background and mental health checks will never perfectly screen everyone, and not all criminals or the mentally ill have previous records or readily identifiable symptoms. Many will only become criminals or become ill after they make their gun purchase. Many criminals in the US won't bother trying to get the license, and will simply get their guns off the blackmarket. I reduce the blackmarket supply; thus I reduce the likelihood that they can get or afford a gun illegally. More expensive illegal guns (Con says illegal guns will be costlier) will price many people out of the illegal market altogether, denying them access to illegal guns.

Ergo, a ban is the most surefire way to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

ARGUMENTS

I. Guns Overabundance is a Problem

A. Suicides

Con asks, if people want to die, who are we to stop them? Con misses, however, a key element of my original argument, i.e. that 80% of suicides are impulsive acts, meaning that they are not thought through. Furthermore (from R2, source 5), 90% of people who survive suicide attempts choose not to kill themselves later, reflecting "the 'temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises.'" Most people "overwhelmingly regret" their decisions to attempt to take their own lives, and many others engage in these attempts due to (often treatable) mental illness, rather than as a result of any sane deliberation. [5]

The impact of this is clear: people are ending their lives and denying themselves a future based on rash, ill-considered decisions heavily skewed by momentary stresses. They aren't thinking clearly. Others try to kill themselves due to mental illness, which could be managed properly if they got the right help. We should not allow people to commit suicide in this way, as it leads to (1) tragic deaths which could've been avoided, (2) wasted futures of people who could've lived happy lives, and (3) scarred loved ones. Just b/c someone wants to kill themselves in the short term doesn't mean, if you let them cool down, that they will want to kill themselves in the long term. Removing guns from the equation prevents fatal decisions being made rashly by distressed or desperate people.

B. Accidental Deaths

Con says that not all things that lead to accidental deaths should be banned, giving the example of cars. Sure, cars shouldn't be banned as their benefits outweigh their costs. Without cars, our economy would cease to function (harder goods shipment, preventing people getting to work, etc.), leading to far greater woes for everyone. However, if the costs of the accidental deaths are not outweighed by the benefits of something, there is no reason to allow people to die from it. It is when the costs are more than the benefits that something should be banned.

Con claims that his benefits (e.g. self-defense) outweigh the costs. But this is, frankly, wrong. I've taken apart his self-defense argument already. But, even if you don't buy my arguments against self-defense, the lives lost due accidental deaths, homicides, and suicides actually outweigh the lives saved by self-defense. As my source showed earlier (Con never rebutted/conceded this): "This implies that for every case where someone in a gun-owning house hold uses a gun to successfully stop a life-threatening attack, nearly forty-three people in similar households will die from a gunshot."

Therefore, this argument impacts as a cost against allowing the sale of handguns on a conseq. scale. Con never disagrees (concedes) that accidental deaths happen at inordinately high rates due to gun prevalence.

C. Anti-Deterrence

Con says my source is too old. I used 2 sources to substantiate the claim that guns were magnets for criminals. One of those sources was from 2003; one was from 2015. Even if you don't buy my first source because it's older, you should buy my second source because it's only a year old. Thus, this argument can be extended because it still has an unrebutted source supporting it.

I used another source to back the claim that possessing guns gives people a false sense of empowerment. This research is psychological; it is highly unlikely that human psychology would have changed drastically in the past 6-7 years. Even logic tells us that this evidence makes sense now: if guns make you feel safe, you'd probably be more willing to take risks with the guns due to that false sense of security. Pew data from 2013 shows that large numbers of gun owners or people who know someone who own a gun (79 and 64%, respectively) say that guns make them feel safer. [6] This recent data corroborates the point of the 2009 article and the logic I provided re: the false sense of security. Also, as a further impact, the 2009 article states: "those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry."

Con's claim that anyone can edit the content in my sources is literally false. Which article is Con talking about? None of them can be edited by just anyone. Literally none of these institutions (NIH, The Guardian, or NBER) allow you to log in to edit or add content. As far as I can tell, only the NIH allows you to create an account, but it is basically a research help tool, not a document editor. [7] If Con is talking about adding comments to the bottom of the article for the newspaper, that is totally different from being able to mess with the article itself.

Finally, my argument that guns make moments of rage more likely to turn lethal is not a bare assertion. Logic is a sufficient warrant to a claim. Not every argument needs to be sourced; certainly, Con does not source all his arguments, but instead employs logic, showing that he implicitly agrees with this reality.

D. Violence

Con's only reply here is his plan; yet, Con's plan has myriad problems that make it ineffective at preventing violence or accidents.

II. Bans Work

A. Handguns

Con agrees with my data. The point is that handguns most need to be restricted, b/c they are the guns most used to commit crimes. Handguns have advantages--like concealability and ease of storage--that larger guns lack, meaning things like rifles won't be effectively substituted in.

B. Australia

Australia and the U.S may have different rates but both are in the top 26 in terms of guns per capita; we're still talking about huge numbers of guns that needed to be collected. In Australia, with it's rural outback, it may have been even harder to collect those guns than it would be here, but it still managed to do so. Plus, Australia and the U.S share a frontier culture that has long emphasized the importance of gun ownership. Both have larger rural populations and share similar media diets. They also share large numbers of gun enthusiasts. [8] These cultural similarities make them good comparisons.

SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...

Thus, I affirm. Thanks; please Vote Pro! Over to Fire...
Debate Round No. 4
fire_wings

Con

I'll be posting the defense of my rebuttals, as defense is allowed, because it is not counted as new arguments, as it says in my first round, or OR (Opening Round.) Next round, my opponent can only rebut my 4th round, because that is what I am doing, and my opponent cannot rebut my 5th round, because it is unfair if you do so. This round will be very very very short.

Framework

Offensive! Many people say that Socrates is the wisest person alive, and always right, and many people agree. Also, Socrates is reasonable, because a law is a law, when St.Augustine's is not reasonable because a law is a law, when he does not agree. My opponent fails to rebut my framework on self-defence, so I extend that. My opponent's framework does no good, because none of his arguments link to the framework, and his arguments all fail.

Plan

Why can't my plan work? It is perfectly reasonable, it happened in Iceland, and it would work in Australia. Pro says that I cannot make any changes, and I didn't. Pro says that children-related accidental deaths will still be high. This can be prevented by adults putting guns safely, that is logic! Putting it where children can reach is quite a stupid idea, this should not make a gun ban, only for the parents to put their guns in safe places.

A. Suicides

My opponent says that I miss the point, and says that around 80% do not want to suicide if they think about it. But we should respect their choices, so if they want to suicide, we should let them, even if they don't think about it. Also, what about the 20%? They really want to suicide, and we should let them, and guns are the best way to suicide, because you will die instantly, when others you might not die.

My opponent also says that if you fail to die, 90% you will not want to attempt suicide. It is the same thing as last time. We should respect everyone's decision, always, like when they wanted to do suicide. Also, what about the 10%? They still want to suicide. We should let them because people have self-ownership, and own themselves, and they ought to have the right to make their own decisions. My opponent fails to defend this.

B. Accidental Deaths

Pro concedes that we should not ban cars, as it's benefit's outweight their costs. Pro says that cars help the economy, and banning them will cause the economy cease to function. THIS IS THE SAME THING WITH GUNS, MAYBE MORE!!! Guns oughtweigh their costs, because of it's self-defence, we can defend ourselves, and it helps the economy too, as I explained in my third argument. This is literally a concession of my third argument, and for this, voters ought to vote Con.

Pro says that suicides, accidental deaths, and homicides will outweight self-defence. As I told that accidental deaths can be blocked by my counterplan, and suicides should be allowed, etc. Self-defence does not get outweighed, and like Pro said cars have a benefit, so they should be allowed, the same thing is with guns, so it should be allowed, or otherwise, IT IS CRUEL AND UNFAIR.

Pro says that I concede that accidental deaths happen. Sure, that's a fact, and we can't stop it. But, as I said, it is the same thing with cars, there are accidental deaths, so why not cars. Guns outweight accidental deaths by the economy, and self-defence. I've also made a counterplan to prevent them, by making special license for only good aimers to have guns. This way, it is the same as cars, and they should be allowed. My opponent fails to defend this.

C. Anti-deterrence

Pro says that he used two sources, one was outdated, he concedes this, and the second one is in 2015, and the third one is in 2013. 2013 is 3 years ago, back when I can't go on DDO, and I have around 240 wins in I was in debate.org for 3 years. This is a long time. Also, I have more sources that say that guns are effective, so this is rebutted.

My opponent says that I said you can change the content. It was a mistake, as I checked in a wesite, and NIE, you could change content, and I thought it was, but it is a mistake. But anyways, my rebuttal is still in contact that I provided more evidence that guns are good. '

My opponent says he uses logic, not everything needs to have a source. But this, you need a example to believe this. Also, who the hell will bring a gun in a discussion? No one. Therefore, this is too make-believed. My opponent fails to defend this.

D: Violence

Pro only says that I rebutted it with my plan, and my opponent says that my plan is ineffective, but does not tell why it is ineffective, so my opponent fails to defend this. This argument is failed for Pro.

E: Handguns

Pro fails to rebut my rebuttal that it should not be banned just because many robbers use it, and my opponent's defense is failed, and off-topic, because he says that the point is that handguns need to be more restricted, when clearly, the resolution is about guns being banned, not restricted. This argument is failed for Pro.

F: Australia

Pro says that there are many ways that the U.S. and Australia are similar, but Pro fails to do the only rebuttal, possibly the most important one, that U.S. has way more guns, 5 times as I said, than Australia. This is very different, therefore it cannot be weighed. This argument is failed.

Conclusion

I provided many ways why my arguments and framework, and plan suceeds, my opponent fails to rebut my arguments, and my opponent's arguments fail. Even if his framework stands, no arguments support it. Therefore, Vote Con!!!
bsh1

Pro

Thanks for a ferret-tastic debate, Fire.

FRAMEWORK

Con says he can link arguments directly to the resolution, bypassing framework. This is view misunderstands why a framework a necessary. The "ought" in the topic is a term open to interpretation; the role of a framework is to interpret how arguments should matter in a ought question; e.g., if the framework were deontological, no cost-benefit claims would matter in the assessment of what ought to be done. B/c frameworks are essential to defining how "ought" should be understood, you cannot divorce the framework from the resolution; the framework is essential to understanding the resolution itself. For instance, if you buy my framework, the resolution is asking whether a gun ban has more benefits than costs. You cannot impact directly to the resolution; the framework is a necessary intermediary.

Con's 2nd and 3rd points have nothing to do with his framework, so they cannot link.

ARGUMENTS

I. Self-Defense

A. Guns aren't helpful for self-defense

I've already debunked Con's 2 million number. 23% of my 67,740 number is about 15,580. This simply pales in comparison to the tangible harm that guns cause. 31,076 Americans died from gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings in 2010. Also, 73,505 were hospitalized due to injury from a gun. [1] These numbers don't include robberies that guns ("valuable loot") induce, funding that blackmarket organizations get from selling guns, or unreported gun-related incidents. The benefits of self-defense simply do not outweigh the harms.

My CSMonitor article was about untrained gun users, but it cited that 77% stat about trained gun users to make the point that if trained gun users were that inaccurate, then untrained users were likely far worse. It is the case that 77% stat pertains to trained users.

The 67% data shows that in most cases victims won't have an chance to fire at an assailant. For those that do, most will miss. If 67/100 people are unable to fire, and if 77% of the remaining 33 people miss, only about 8 people of the original 100 will hit their target. An 8% hit-ratio (and this assumes all 33 people were trained, per Con's plan) is not sufficient to outweigh guns' myriad harms, esp. when even hitting the attacker does not guarantee they will go or stay down.

Con says that many use their guns well, but this doesn't disprove the reality that the more guns and people involved in a situation, the greater the probability that a bystander will be hit.

B. The two-million figure is dubious

Con basically makes a kind of "ad populum" fallacy to defend his source, saying that b/c his source has lots of "further readings" you should believe it. Firstly, his source could have cherry-picked those further readings. Secondly, just b/c lots of people say something is true, doesn't make it true. Truth should cohere with reality, and it's very clear that Con's study does not. Gun owners would have had to have used their guns in more than 100% of burglaries to make Con's data true (this is impossible). There would have to be thousands more records of defensive gun uses in police archives for Con's data study to be true, but there aren't. And the study's author (Kleck) admits that 32-64% of the defensive incidents he recorded were likely illegal. Con's data simply does not cohere with reality, and so it cannot be true, regardless of how many people say it is.

Also, if 32-64% of those 2 million used guns to "intimidate or harm," that's a cost to allowing gun ownership. A ban would help fix that.

C. Alternatives

A gun is a "a portable firearm." [2] A firearm is "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder" or some other explosive powder. [2] This is the standard, commonplace understanding of what a handgun is. Most people, when they talk about banning handguns, don't think about banning water guns or air pistols; they're thinking firearms. Neither salt guns nor tasers use explosive powder, so they are not guns. By saying that salt guns or tasers are guns, Con is widening the scope of the term beyond the common understanding--a form of semantics--without any warrant. Prefer the common understanding, which is also backed by the dictionary.

II. Time

A. Reduce

Reducing the number of guns would be the effect of a ban. I intend to reduce guns through a ban. If we "legally prohibit" handguns, the number of handguns will decline as a result. You cannot eliminate all handguns as a result of the ban, but you can cause drastic reductions in their number over time. Plus, Con's R1 definition of a ban was "decline," and my advocacy would cause gun numbers to decline.

A handgun ban is feasible. First, we don't have to track down all 300 million guns, only the portion of that number that represents handguns. Second, the number of gun-owning households, according to Con himself, is declining, which makes the task easier. Third, Australia did it.

Con has made much ado over the issue of Australia. While it is true that the US has more guns than Australia, both are in the top 13% of countries in terms of gun ownership. Australia's outback locations also pose unique challenges to gun confiscation efforts, b/c of how isolated sections of its populace are. If Australia could overcome those geographical challenges and collect guns from a population where a lot of guns exist, there is little reason to believe that the US could not overcome the challenges it faces to make a serious dent in the volume of guns here.

Moreover, many citizens may voluntarily surrender their handguns. If a gun-loving culture like Australia, with its buy-back scheme (where it pays people for their guns, thus incentivizing voluntary turn-overs), could do it, there is little reason to believe the US could not do it. Voluntary compliance would reduce the need to track the guns down, too.

The US doesn't need to confiscate all handguns. It just needs to make a dent in the volume of handguns in circulation. As handgun sale/importation cease, and the population grows, the number of guns per capita will fall. Plus, the longer the ban lasts, the more likely it is that local police forces, through arrests, stings, or happenstance, will find and confiscate illegal guns. A ban will reduce the number of handguns with the beneficial effects growing over time.

B. Turn

Con's argument was that "there is no reason for the government to waste time on gun banning, as it is useless." My argument was that there is no reason to waste time trying to enact a license system, b/c the effort would be useless. Con's logic does invalidate his own plan, placing him in a clear double-bind. A change in the Supreme Court make-up (possible with Hillary) or an amendment could easily see a handgun ban pass Constitutional muster. Con has failed to show that a gun ban is impossible, and saving lives makes it worth the effort in trying (particularly as Con doesn't explain how the attempt to ban handguns itself would have any bad impacts).

C. Other

Without a clear assessment of how much it would cost, Con can't show that economic harms outweigh. Even if it cost more than Australia, the US has more resources than Australia and a GDP that is more than 16x Australia's. [3]

III. Economy

A. Jobs

Banning ownership of handguns doesn't mean we ban handguns themselves. Obviously, our military can still use them, and I don't see why corporations here could not manufacture handguns for export only, as long as private persons in the US aren't allowed to own the guns, which is what we're talking about here, per R1 definitions. Therefore, as I noted last round: "According to Con's source, handguns only make up about half of guns manufactured in the U.S., and since foreign consumption [and military sale] won't be disallowed, only a fraction of that fraction of manufacturing will actually stop. Subsidization of gun alternatives, and increase demand in them following a handgun ban, may actually create additional jobs." If we're only talking about losing a fraction of a fraction, the impacts Con's getting are super small. The gain in jobs I noted may reduce the net loss more or may recoup it entirely. Also, guns aren't as important to the US economy as cars, which are bought, key to shipping, and key to getting to work.

B. Blackmarket

Con drops that the the illegal market gets its supply of guns from the legal one. Therefore, if you end the legal market, the blackmarket has no supply to sell, and so the blackmarket dries up. Plus, with a reduced supply, prices in the blackmarket will rise, pricing lots of criminals out, making it harder for them to purchase illegal guns. A ban will cripple the illegal market.

VOTING ISSUES

1. A Ban's Benefits

A ban would cripple the blackmarket and reduce the number of gun-related injuries, accidental deaths, suicides, homicides, gun-induced robberies, and blackmarket-funded violence.


2. Con's Plan Less Effective

The 77% info shows that training won't increase your chances of successful self-defense. Background checks work less well than bans, and--without safe storage laws--accidental deaths will stay high. And, Con can't starve the blackmarket as well as I can of its gun supply. He is also in a double-bind re: his plan.


3. Reduction Possible

It is possible to reduce the number of handguns in the US via a ban: Australia and logic prove this.


4. Bans Not Bad

Guns are poor self-defense tools; alternatives are better. Fewer people are saved by guns than are killed by guns. Con has failed to quantify his economic arguments, or to prove a ban would cost jobs.


5. Framework

Con dropped my justifications for conseq. 2/3rds of Con's args don't link to his own framework, while I link to mine and to his (via alts and making people safer).


SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...

Because the clear benefits of a ban outweigh Con's ill-defined costs, I affirm. Thank you, please VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 5
179 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
Ah, I didn't congratulate bsh for winning. Congrats.
Posted by fire_wings 7 months ago
fire_wings
6 more hours...
Posted by fire_wings 7 months ago
fire_wings
@tej, no one even posted that comment.
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
>I would do some research on common fallacies so that you know what they are and why they're bad.

For the record, I've never actually done this. I dislike debates where one debater becomes all "fallacy-police-esque," because there's a reason most fallacies are "informal" fallacies: it is a problem in the line of reasoning only if the conclusion is supposed to follow *deductively.*

These are the so-called "fallacies" that I know: straw-man, red herring, appeal to authority, ad populum, bare assertion, composition. And formal fallacies: non-sequitur, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent. Knowing none of that is necessary for the site, insofar as you understand the reasoning is fallacious (read: you don't need to know the *names* of fallacies).
Posted by fire_wings 8 months ago
fire_wings
@Wytled, it is. Your RFD is good, but not really explained.
Posted by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
Fire wings. English is not ypur native tongue, so maybe turning things into syllogisms might help.
Posted by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
RFD

Just zooming out a bit, firewings made a lot of arguments concerning screwing enlightened people to protect the unenlightened. Though I agree with him these types of arguments never had premises. Why are the 20% of enlightened suicidal people better than the 80% of unenlightened ones? Why is the rare responsible gun owner who uses a gun to defend himself have his rights trumped by the idiots who allow accidents to happen? Con never explains he just expects us to favor the enlightened.

Concerning the framework, sorry con you never offered one, you just think you did, the actual framework you were using is the one BSH1 suggested mixed with prioritizing the enlightened over unenlightened, unfortunately you never made the argument, so I can not award you any points based on that. I also found the Socrates argument against consequentialism weird. Socrates was not discussing a method for creating public policy, he was arguing social contract theory to put it simply.

When we line up the self defense arguments with the number of accidents mentioned we see that banning guns would save more lives.

Con argues that a gun ban will be ineffective, but pro argues that legalized guns creates a bigger black market due to strawman purchases, this negates con's argument there as it shows that guns in fact will be in fewer hands after a ban.

Con says banning guns will hurt the economy, but pro explains that domestic sales to civilians is only one part of the gun economy, they also sell to military. police and foreigners.

I didn't find con's cp to be very convincing it just mitigated pro's impacts, they still outweighed his. Pro argues the suicide rates would drop without guns. I like con's self ownership argument but pro responds well by showing most suicides are impulsive, and people really do not want to die when thinking rationally.

con argues that guns make gun owners targets for robbery. they are also ineffective at self defense because of the fast
Posted by fire_wings 8 months ago
fire_wings
Because it one month will 3 votes is a kind of lame.
Posted by Hayd 8 months ago
Hayd
This has already been voted on twice, by good voters. I don't see the need for me voting on it as well as there are plenty of debates with no votes
Posted by fire_wings 8 months ago
fire_wings
bsh, we won't get 3 votes.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
fire_wingsbsh1
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Okay, I was asked to vote on this. RFD is a stream of consciousness in the comments.
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
fire_wingsbsh1
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments Section
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
fire_wingsbsh1
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments