I think a Gun Ban would be good for America.
-FF is an automatic loss
-Round 1 is acceptance only
-No semantics about rules or definitons
BoP is on both pro and con.
Gun Ban- A national ban on guns; owning a gun would be an illegal act.
Ban- to officialy prohibit; to stop the use of
We will not be arguing for the constiutionality of the Gun Ban rather would it be good for the public.
Happy to debate taj
Thank you Reformist for this debate.
I await your arguments.
I would like to thank my opponent for the debate
1. Suicides will drastically decrease
Guns increase the likelyhood for suicide by a large percentage. Harvard studies show that states with higher gun ownership had more sucides (1). Not only that but suicides are usually used by guns. Guns are very easy to use, just put the gun to your head and fire. My opponent will probably bring up the fact that people will find other methods of suicide. While they might find other methods of suicide their chances of killing themselves falls drastically. A gun has a 99 percent chance to kill but using a knife (to slit your throat) only has a 70 percent chance to kill yourself.(2). 70 percent is almost 30 percent higher chance for survival.
Guns are a quick painless way out. Take this away and many will be discouraged to find other, probably painful, ways to die.
2. It wouldnt affect personal defense situations
Now my opponent will probably use the 800,000-2 million self defense cases each year. Let me just stop you by saying that the person that created that study was biased. John Lott, the director of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is notorious for turning data in the direction of his right wing idealogy (3). Now for real facts, the department of justice released statstics for personal defense situations. Cases in which the defender had a gun was .8 percent. This counters the personal defense arguement. The amount lives saved from suicides and accidents outweighs the .8 percent of situations where guns are used (4).
A gun is a tool used for killing. An accidental brush of the trigger can kill or seriously maim someone.
In 2007 there were about 122 fatal gun accidents involving JUST children and there were over 3000 non fatal accidents. 122 children dead because of a gun. Levels have stayed about the same over the years. (5). On a national level guns have claimed the lives of 3800 people throughout the years of 2005-2010. Over 1300 of the victims were under the age of 25 (6).
Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in 2010, comprising of almost 35 percent of all gun deaths and 68 percent of all homicides. (6)
Guns are a criminals favorite tool. Take this away and you take away a criminals potential.
In a seven year period of the Iraq War over 4400 american soldiers died for there country. That many americans die every seven weeks. Let that sink in. The amount of casualites in the Iraq war happens to our country. Every seven weeks. (6)
5. The Concealed Carry arguement
My opponent will probably bring up the fact that CC has lowered homicides rates. However since May of 2007 there have been 29 mass shootings by CC permit holders (6).
Almost 3 years ago 20/20, a tv show, tried to see if people having guns could help in a situation of an assailant. Even with warning none of the participants stopped the assailant and most of the participants would have injured themselves and others if they had live ammo. (7). Not only that but concealed carry permit holders have claimed the lives of over 400 civilans and 14 law enforcement officers. (8)
Before I begin, I would like to mention that my only job is to show that banning guns would be a bad thing for the public. I don’t have to show that bearing arms is positive, although I may provide some arguments to strengthen my case. However, my entire argument will work together to convince others that a ban .
An argument that anti gun rights opponents use is that only .8 of incidents are used in self-defense situations. They use this percentage to avoid using the actual number, but the truth is that guns have been used in self-defense 235,700 times in a violent crime incident, and 103,000 times in a property crime incident. (1) Before we compare this to the violent crime rate, we need to realize that that self defense statistics are only accounted to law abiding citizens, and not criminals. Why? because there is not way of verifying whether what a criminal did was in self-defense.
Also keep in mind that the data is still very incomplete. 51.7% of violent and property crime is not even reported, and 16.7% of case involve the police not even helping! (1) What does this show? Law enforcement cannot protect everybody all the time. I would post the actual figure, but source only provides a % not a number. Those 235,700 defensive gun uses, could have went the criminal’s way, thus increasing crime. To finish off, the data is still very incomplete to come to a decision on both sides, but on the pro gun side, there is still a significant number of cases where the gun prevented crime.
Banning guns doesn't directly correlate to lower crime
It is a huge conception that less guns directly correlates to less crime. In the former Soviet Union, guns were banned, and were strictly enforced in it’s police state. However, the crime rate is was still higher than what it was in the United States at the time. So, the gun-less Soviet Union was still more violent than the gun-ridden U.S. (2) Simply there is no proof that shows that banning guns would reduce crimes.
You can see before the gun ban in 1997, the U.K was already a very safe country. It never had a high gun homicide rate, and with it's guns per capita only around 6.6, there weren't alot of guns in the first place. A couple years after the handgun ban, the homicide rate spiked. This not to say that this was because of the ban, since gun ownership was still very low, but rather the ban itself did not reduce the crime rate, and the very opposite had happened. When the homicide rate began to lower, it was around the same time the U.K increased the number of law enforcement. Pretty much proving an outside factor has solved the problem. (3)
The biggest issue with having a gun ban, is that it would not deal with the issue of illegal guns. In the U.S only 7% of guns used in crime are legal. The rest are illegal guns, and they account for 93% of crimes committed. Even if a banned was passed, it would only effect 7% of the crime committed. And ignore the 93%. With a ban, the black market will fluorish, and criminals will be the only ones armed, and law abiding citizens, who live in dangerous cities and neighborhoods will be defenseless (4).
Because this is round 3 i will not post arguements but instead will post rebuttals.
The following two rebuttals will address all of my opponents claims in round 2
1.Correlation is not Causation
Clearly something is wrong here.Me and my opponent are citing sources but we have different conclusions. My opponent makes the claim that Gun Bans actually create scenarios where murder is higher. These arguements are the Murder Europe Rates and the Washington D.C murder rates. What my opponent isnt taking into consideration is the different factors involving murder rates other than guns.
For example my opponent compares Poland and Russia for the gun ban comparison. This is heavily biased towards the gun rights arguement because of course Russia will have the higher murder rate. With corruption heavily present in the government and other terrible crimes like drug and human trafficing not to mention a heavy gang presence in most urban areas of the country its no wonder Russia has a higher murder rate (1). Now look at Poland. Poland is one of the safest countries in the world. It is also socialist. Does that mean that because Poland is socialist it is peaceful? No. If the Polish government were to ban guns death rates would lower as well.
For the Washington D.C arguement my opponent makes the fatal error of showing a graph. Do you see anything wrong with the graph? Yes the murders are taking a very sharp decline well before the gun ban law was stricken down. Why is this? Gangs and the poverty started kicking in creating more crime. My opponenets graph wouldve made sense if the graph kept climbing and then started decreasing after the gun ban was imposed however this was not the case. This is another example of my opponent not taking other factors into conseideration other than guns (2).
My final rebuttal is of his European Murder Arguement is made by my opponent himself. My opponent posts a graph showing the increase of murders in UK after a Gun Ban. However the graph also takes a sharp decline. My opponent tries to cover for this by saying they instituted more police. EXACTLY! Just because you ban Guns doesnt mean you cant use other solutions to also help with this ban.
2. The Nirvana Fallacy
My opponent finally brings up the use of illegal gun use. That citizens will get guns anyway through the black market. This is called the nirvana fallacy. The act of rejecting a partial solution because its not perfect. The majority of americans are law abiding citizens and even if some become criminals trying to get guns the vast majority will still be law abiding citizens who wont break the law to get guns. As the amount of guns fall the amount of shootings and gun related deaths will also decrease (3).
For this argument, Pro argues that guns are used in 60% of crime, and by banning guns, you it could “potentially” reduce the suicide rates. First of all, I don’t really see a compelling reason to ban something when it doesn’t effect somebody else, and this is called the Harm principle. The Harm principle states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. Before my argument is mis-interpreted, I want to say, I definitely do not condone suicide, and I find the act to be selfish. The issue here however, is that it’s not the act of suicide that I’m defending, but rather the tool that was used in the suicide.
Just because people use guns to suicide, 60% of the time, that isn’t a reasonable reason to ban guns. This is because guns were not created to commit suicide, but were created to high velocity bullets are enemies or other assigned tasks. In the U.S, many people use guns for hunting, many people like collecting antique guns, and most importantly, many people use guns in self-defense situations, far more than they use it to commit suicide. Like Pro argued earlier, .8% or around 300,000 self defense situations involved a gun used in a self defense, far more than they were used in suicide, which is about 60% of all suicides, or 25,000 incidents.
To conclude, Pro simply cannot advocate for banning guns based on gun related suicide, since the act of using a gun in suicide does not harm anybody else, and there have been more incidents of guns used in self-defense than there were gun related sucicides
R2: Self Defense
This argument doesn’t make any sense, because Pro is contradicting himself in this argument. He says banning guns wouldn’t effect self-defense situations, but the nature of banning guns would affect that. Even if guns were used for self-defense once a year, a ban on guns would affect that, thus Pro’s argument is nullified.
Even with what Pro said, his statistics are still wrong. Guns were used 300,000 times over the span of 4 years, and in 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. If we assume that this continued for 4 years, 31076x4= 124,304 incidents. Keep in mind, the homicide rate has been on a steady decline, so the chances of that number being the same is unlikely.
My rebutall for accidents is the same as above, but there isn’t enough proof that shows that gun bans would solve this. I mentioned in my arguments that a gun ban wouldn’t be sufficient enough to deal with all the illegal guns. Pro hasn’t really addressed how a gun ban would deal would actually reduce accidents.
All my sources were in the first round
Reformist forfeited this round.
Pro violates the FF rule, thus handing me the win. I don't want to put any effort into this debate anymore, so if you are interested on what I have to say, P.M me. I do like talking about gun rights, so I would love to answer any questions.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|