The Instigator
Deav0n
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
warren42
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Flaw in the main argument of gun ownership in America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 195 times Debate No: 82732
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Deav0n

Con

If allowing gun ownership to protect oneself from an attack is one of the major arguements for allowing gun ownership then why when there is an attack in america do so many civilian casaulties occur?
warren42

Pro

Under the basic premise of my opponent's constructive, I will assume that for all intents and purposes of this debate we will focus on the reason for gun ownership is solely for self defense, and that no other reasons for gun ownership will be up for debate.

I'll have two major responses to my opponent's claim.

1. Lack of civilian gun ownership is part of the reason there are the "high rates of casualties" in "most shooting" neither of which my opponent has even proven. So assuming my opponent is correct in this claim, the fact remains that only one in three Americans own guns [1], so that means the vast majority of the population doesn't have access to the a firearm that would be able to dispatch a shooter.

2. Those that do own firearms don't have the guns on them. As I proved, roughly one-third of Americans own guns. Only about 11 million gun owners have concealed carry permits [2]. Therefore, only about 3% of the population has a gun on them at any given time, and that is only if every single person with a concealed carry permit were to have their weapon on them at all times. So, there is over a 97% chance that nobody in the direct vicinity of a shooter has a weapon on their person.

This is to point out only two of the parts of the massive fallacy that is my opponent's short case. There are hundreds of other variables that contribute to how a shooter would be able to inflict casualties before a citizen could take them out, including but not limited to the planning aspect, as the shooter would have a plan and the civilian wouldn't be able to locate and take down the shooter easily. There could also be discrepancies in aim, etc.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[2] http://washington.cbslocal.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Deav0n

Con

Deav0n forfeited this round.
warren42

Pro

warren42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Deav0n

Con

Deav0n forfeited this round.
warren42

Pro

warren42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Deav0n

Con

Deav0n forfeited this round.
warren42

Pro

warren42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.