The Instigator
Labrat228
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
TombLikeBomb
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Gun Bans

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 5 votes the winner is...
Labrat228
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,100 times Debate No: 6444
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

Labrat228

Con

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson

I (Con) will argue against gun bans, my opponent (Pro) will argue in favor of gun bans. I wish my opponent luck, and I thank the readers for reading as opposed to bombing me.

Contention A)
A criminal is someone who doesn't obey the law.
Criminals kill people.
If a ban is put into place, what would be the point?
Do to the fact that criminals don't obey the law, they don't obey bans.
Therefor criminals have guns.

Contention B)
If criminals don't obey laws, somebody has to.
Innocent civilians obey laws.
If innocent civilians obey laws, they will obey the gun ban.
If the civilian is indeed innocent, he wouldn't commit a gun crime regardless of ban.

If Contention A and B are true, gun bans are a failed idea.
Gun bans seek to end gun crimes, in order to do so they must disarm criminals.

Let us look at a before and after if gun bans are installed.
Before:
Criminals - w/ guns
Civilians - w/ guns

After:
Criminals - W/ Guns
Civilians - Without Guns

Final Contention:
I will argue this contention with two examples, situation A and B.

Situation A (W/ Guns)
It is 3:04AM in the PoeJoe home. PoeJoe is home alone, his parents are on vacation. PoeJoe wakes up to a loud bang, he immediately knew it was the back door. The criminal takes off his mask, he apparently knows PoeJoe's family is gone but obviously didn't know that PoeJoe stayed home. PoeJoe races into his parents room and finds his dads 9mm. The criminal creeps into their room. PoeJoe jumps up, pointing his gun at the criminal with fury. The criminal races out the front door. PoeJoe hears a car outside speed quickly away. PoeJoe was able to identify the criminal as brian_eggleston to the police, who later caught brian. Luckily PoeJoe had a gun, what would Debate.org be without him?

Situation B (W/O Guns)
It is 3:04AM in the PoeJoe home. PoeJoe is home alone, his parents are on vacation. PoeJoe wakes up to a loud bang, he immediately knew it was the back door. The criminal takes off his mask, he apparently knows PoeJoe's family is gone but obviously didn't know that PoeJoe stayed home. PoeJoe runs to the kitchen in fear, and grabs a knife from the sink. The criminal creeps around the corner to see PoeJoe cowering in the corner. The criminal quickly realizes he has his mask off and shoots PoeJoe to make sure his identity isn't made known. Brian_eggleston continues to 3 different homes until he is confronted with a gun, which is when his his crime spree comes to a halt.
TombLikeBomb

Pro

Contention A presumes that acquiring a gun is, in all cases, as simple as willing oneself one. In fact, the would-be gun-owner is constrained by the economy. To the extent that guns are banned, "civilian" gun manufacturers, gun retailers, and gun owners will disappear. That will reduce the availability of guns and increase their price. Our "criminal" will also need ammunition, which presumably would also be illegal, with similar economic effects (I'm thinking of Chris Rock's "If a bullet cost $5000 there would be no more innocent bystanders"). And he'll also need to avoid getting caught with his gun, which (in the absence of bans) future criminals (and current ones who are unidentified, falsely identified, or with no outstanding warrants) don't have to worry about. If (in the presence of bans) he does get caught with a gun, he'll not only be "without guns" but without freedom as well.

Contention B presumes civility and criminality cannot alternate. There is no crime of passion or temporary insanity in this conception of "civilian". The only crimes Con seems to know about are of the habitual variety, which is assumed to be epidemic.

"Before" presumes civilians generally find gun-ownership in their best interest. In fact, many households correctly find the cost of guns and ammo, the cost and time expenditure of training, and the inherent risk, not worth the unlikely opportunity to fight off a criminal. These civilians would not have a gun either way, and so would be safer if their gun-owning brethren were not in an arms race with criminals. If PoeJoe is the unlucky child of an unarmed household that's being robbed (or if Brian_eggleston simply finds PoeJoe before PoeJoe finds him), Brian_eggleston, if still masked, should reflect on the legal status of guns: if guns are banned, PoeJoe is no threat and not worth a murder rap; if guns are not banned, perhaps I'll nip PoeJoe in the bud before he can run to one (and be within his rights to kill me). "Criminals kill people" particularly when it would be suicide not to.

"Gun bans seek to end gun crimes" or reduce them, but they also seek to end gun accidents. I don't have my statistics in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet PoeJoe is more likely to shoot himself or his friend than play hero.

Situation A forgets that, if the burglar takes off his mask (which there is no compelling reason for), it's only because Situation A is so unlikely. It's only because PoeJoe is so unlikely to be home.

But in the end you don't go far enough. I will argue against burglary bans.

Contention A)
Due to the fact that criminals don't obey the law, they would disobey burglary bans.
Therefore, criminals burglarize.

Contention B)
If innocent civilians obey laws, they will obey the burglary ban.
If the civilian is indeed innocent, he won't commit a crime, regardless of the ban.

If both Contention A and Contention B are true, murder bans are a bad idea.

Let us look at a before and after if murder bans are installed.
Before:
Criminals—burglarizing people
Civilians—burglarizing people

After:
Criminals—burglarizing people
Civilians—not burglarizing people

Situation A
Civilians and criminals, burglarizing at approximately the same rate, retain their natural income distribution.

Situation B
Criminals, unconstrained by civilian scruples, gain an economic advantage and come to dominate.
Debate Round No. 1
Labrat228

Con

In R1 I said "my opponent (Pro) will argue in favor of gun bans."
My opponent did not object to these terms. Due to the fact that my opponent did not object to the terms provided by me in the opening of R1, the terms are final. In my opponent's first argument he pointed at raising the price of ammunition. If indeed my terms were finalized, his argument is declared irrelevant. Nevertheless I will still argue against it.
Due to lack of time I will summarize:
Overall Argument)
1.4 million Handguns - 1997 USA Production (CFAF)
2.2 million Shotguns - 1997 USA Production (CFAF)
According to MSNBC, gun sales are up since October.
How can you suggest killing an industry that provides our economy with billions of dollars?
How can you find 126 million (96') guns? Will they vanish into thin air?
How can you keep people from refilling cartridges?
If you kill our gun industry, you will hurt our military. Our gun industry sells guns to our military, if we don't have an industry, our military will be forced to rely on foreign weapons.
TombLikeBomb

Pro

"In my opponent's first argument he pointed at raising the price of ammunition. If indeed my terms were finalized, his argument is declared irrelevant." A gun ban suggests an ammunition ban, the same way that a ban on nuclear weapons suggests a ban on weapons-grade plutonium. Your entire first argument was speculation as to the PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of a gun ban. I, in turn, speculated that a probable consequence would be an ammunition ban. If I violated the agreement by appealing to probable consequences, then so did you. Regardless, the ammunition ban had nothing to do with any other part of my argument, so it should in no case make the entire argument irrelevant. On that note, feel free to respond to the remainder of that argument, which you've yet to do.

"How can you suggest killing an industry that provides our economy with billions of dollars?" The same way I can suggest killing the high-emission auto industry: the concentrated profits don't justify the widespread human cost. Incidentally, I find territorial nationalism idiotic and don't care one way or the other where that capital goes. Presumably, though, it would stay in the U.S., unless of course the economic factors of foreign gun markets incited our producers to expatriate. But your precious terms are about "gun bans" per se, not gun bans surrounded by gun legality. Your first argument, though flawed, was to the point; you're now on a tangent.

"How can you find 126 million (96') guns? Will they vanish into thin air?" Unlikely. If your "civilian" profile is accurate, civilians will immediately turn in their guns. Beyond that, guns will be confiscated at the normal rate, destroyed at the normal rate, and lost forever at the normal rate.

"How can you keep people from refilling cartridges?" How can you keep people from possessing stolen property? You go after them with the full force of the law, which in this case prohibits not only gun possession but also ammunition purchase—that is, if you're keeping to your word: "Nevertheless I will still argue against [TombLikeBomb's argument, which assumes ammunition bans]"

"If you kill our gun industry, you will hurt our military. Our gun industry sells guns to our military, if we don't have an industry, our military will be forced to rely on foreign weapons." God has blessed the world that includes a weakened U.S. military. And are you suggesting that the only thing keeping military-grade weapons producers in the U.S. is civilian gun purchases? I hope you don't think bans apply to military markets. If the specific "assault weapons ban" doesn't apply to military markets, why should the general "gun ban"?
Debate Round No. 2
Labrat228

Con

"A gun ban suggest a ammunition ban"
It is impossible to ban something you cannot find. If you were to say that we have 2 bullets for every gun, their is 540,000,000 (07' see bottom for link) bullets you would have to track down. Now its obvious that we have more bullets for each gun. Their can be over 48 bullets in each pack for one of the most common guns in America, the shotgun. My opponent's argument against the above will most likely contain the simple idea that the innocent civilians will give up their guns and ammo. I can ensure you their isn't a hunter or true southerner that will give in either.
"Unlikely. If your "civilian" profile is accurate, civilians will immediately turn in their guns."
My "Innocent" civilian profile says that the innocent civilian will not murder. My innocent civilian profile does not suggest that they would give up their culture, hobby, and safety to prevent a murder that wouldn't be committed by them. I feel as though I must refer back to R1 because my opponent obviously didn't understand one of the points I made. My opponent solves no problems by suggesting the ban of ammunition. The civilians would still be without guns, and the criminals would still be with guns. My opponents ban only disarms the innocent.

"The same way I can suggest killing the high-emission auto industry". My opponent compares guns to cars. My opponent says we can kill the gun industry just as we can kill a high emission auto industry. My opponent lacks the proof that suggest the ban would work, yet he suggest harming the economy to find out for sure. This idea is reckless, but perhaps the gun ban would be more reckless. My opponent has failed to realize the obvious. Taking guns away from all who will give them up, is disarming the innocent and not the assailant.

"How can you keep people from possessing stolen property?" My opponent is failing to realize the size of this event. With stolen property, you are looking at a select group of criminals. With guns, you are looking at criminals and civilians alike. Such policy can only lead to resistance against the government and law enforcement. One can only imagine that a resistance would cause much violence and only increase crime rates. It is also highly possible that law enforcement would not willingly remove guns from innocent and free civilians. 92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes.

Lets look at some final facts before we end R3, my final round.

FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.

FACT: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
* Murder rates drop 8%
* Rape rates fall 5%
* Aggravated assaults drop 7%

FACT: After Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibited handgun possession for self defense, the "breaking and entering" crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate.

FACT: In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms.

My opponent has failed to prove that a gun ban would indeed work.
He has even suggested a fairytale idea.. He suggests we find billions, possibly trillions of bullets to make the ban possible. His whole debate was based on the idea that we could find trillions of bullets and millions of guns. He even shows a belief that the American public, the same public Obama says "clings to guns and religion", will willingly give up their 2nd Amendment rights. My opponents debate was fairytale at best.

Oops I almost forgot!
Contention 3)
Without guns we would not have the blessed mix of guns and girls. Curious? Go to gunsandgirls.com to see this heavenly mix. Or go to youtube and type "guns and girls".

Resources:
http://www.gunblast.com...
http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com...
http://www.Youtube.com...
http://www.Girlsandguns.com...
TombLikeBomb

Pro

The video adds nothing to the debate except to express succinctly the paranoid racism of the Negative side.

In R1 we learn:
a)"Innocent civilians obey laws", and
b)"If innocent civilians obey laws, they will obey the gun ban."
The only way to derive (b) from (a) is to assume (a) is absolute—that is, encompassing all laws, real and hypothetical. But in R3, as if Con were on my side, we are reeducated: "their [sic] isn't a hunter or true southerner that will give in either [‘guns or ammo']." Con goes on to explain that "innocent civilian" means only one who "will not murder". Had he the time, Con might have also affected his "Before"-and-"After":

Before: criminals w/ guns, civilians w/ guns
After: criminals w/ guns, civilians w/ guns

However, Con was constrained by the urgent need to "refer back to R1", reiterated: the gun ban "only disarms the innocent" and "civilians would…be without guns". This was necessary because I "obviously didn't understand one of the points I made." Evidently, neither of us does. Later we experience yet another turnabout. This time, civilians will not merely disobey but will actually be compelled toward "resistance against the government and law enforcement" and will "cause violence" and "only increase crime rates". These "innocent civilians" being "w/o guns" looks a better proposition by the minute. But fear not, for it "is also highly possible that law enforcement would not willingly remove guns from innocent and free civilians". And so we're back to my revised "Before"-and-"After".

"My opponent lacks the proof that suggest [sic] the ban would work, [sic] yet he suggest [sic] harming the economy to find out for sure." And my opponent lacks proof that the ban would harm the economy. On the contrary, I would expect the reorientation of capital and labor to more useful enterprise (perhaps green infrastructure?) would only be beneficial to the economy.

Con presents 4 "facts", all gotten from the same pro-gun source (strangely, though, a random anti-gun blog is listed as a "source"):

Fact #1 would be irrelevant if it were true. In fact, the figure you give is based on a study that includes ALL incidents of guns used in the prevention of a crime, not just acts of "self-defense", and certainly not just acts "to protect the lives of honest citizens", as the website hopes we'll conclude. Thus, juxtaposing your figure with gun crimes that "take lives" is inappropriate. It would be more appropriate to juxtapose total gun crime with total gun prevention thereof, or total gun victimization with total gun prevention thereof, or total gun murder with total gun prevention thereof. It would be even more appropriate to discount those 20% of incidents of guns-used-in-the-prevention-of-a-crime that are performed by police officers, who would be unaffected by the ban. And it would be superlatively appropriate to update the figure, instead of relying on a study conducted at nearly the peak of the rate, which has been declining steadily and dramatically ever since. In the absence of a gun ban, one would expect a high rate of crimes-thwarted-by-guns, along with the even higher rate of successful gun crimes and gun accidents. Also ignored in Fact #1 is scale. If an "innocent civilian" thwarts a burglar and then turns around and kills his wife in a drunken fit of jealous rage, we haven't broken even. What we have done is allowed a murder, so that we could prevent a burglary. It is the lethality of guns that is responsible for such asymmetry.

Fact #2 is about no-carry laws, not gun bans. Also, its methodology is weak. It simply compares no-carry counties (only for those crimes it finds useful to mention, of course) to right-to-carry counties. But, as support for no-carry laws certainly inhabits the same counties as frequent crime, and is indeed probably a response to crime, such would be expected. If we were honest, then, we wouldn't conclude that right-to-carry doesn't "increase crime". And we certainly wouldn't conclude that the three crime rates mentioned "drop" or "fall" "when citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons". We would in fact conclude only what the website calls "more to the point": that "crime is significantly higher in states with right-to-carry laws", as would be expected from successful or unsuccessful right-to-carry laws.

Fact #3 is anecdotal and suffers from the same inability to perceive scale as Fact #1.

Fact #4 cites the murder rate of Japan (where non-sporting guns are banned), which is lower than the gun murder rate of the US; and the non-gun murder rate of the US, which accounts for the remainder of US murders (and whose rationale for inclusion in this debate is not clear). I will thus count Fact #4 in my column.

"He suggests we find billions, possibly trillions of bullets to make the ban possible." I suggest no such thing. The ban would be possible and effective whether trillions of bullets, billions of bullets, or indeed none at all were found.

"His whole debate was based on the idea that we could find trillions of bullets and millions of guns." Neither my whole debate nor any part of it was based on that. No less would a murder ban have to be based on the idea that we could prevent every murder.

"He even shows a belief that the American public, the same public Obama says "clings to guns and religion", will willingly give up their 2nd Amendment rights." That Obama even said it is evidence that he was speaking about only one segment of the American public, which is itself only a very small segment of the world. I fear that my arguments will be again "declared irrelevant" if I argue for American gun bans as opposed to your "terms", which stipulated "gun bans" generally. Gun bans generally do not result in general chaos, contrary to what you predict. And if this were indeed a debate about American gun bans, I would simply say that those who don't "willingly" (read: peacefully) obey the dictates of a democratic, constitutional (to the extent that a gun ban indeed violates the 2nd Ammendment, it will require � majority of state legislatures and a 2/3 majority of each national house) authority, they're criminals, and the gun ban will provide an excellent opportunity to reveal them and deal with them.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TombLikeBomb 7 years ago
TombLikeBomb
You'll be less surprised by the "Who did you agree with before the debate?" figures.
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
I'm very surprised you lost, Pro. You demolished the Con side.
Posted by fo-shizzle 7 years ago
fo-shizzle
gun rights. we need guns. they are the basis of our freedom.
Posted by TombLikeBomb 7 years ago
TombLikeBomb
I actually side with Con on this issue, too, but only because gun control, in this country, exaggerates the imbalance of power between police and civilians. But since Con's was an argument from racism as opposed to anarchism, I didn't feel that was worth mentioning.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie - This debate was civil.

Spelling and Grammar - Pro - Both sides exhibited good grammar, but Pro's was truly excellent.

Convincing Arguments - Pro - While I actually side with Con on this issue, I felt Pro gave the better argument. In R3, he revealed logical fallacies in Con's statistics. While Con did not prove that banning guns would reduce gun related crime, Pro did not prove that doing so would destroy the economy. In the end, Con's argument was more a repetition of R1, and I would have liked to see him respond more directly to Pro's specific arguments, backed by more reliable statistics.

Reliable Sources - Pro - Con offered sources that Pro adequately picked apart. Con should have listed this sources in R2 in order that he have a chance to defend them in R3.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
I resemble that remark R-R!

Ignoring these outrageous slurs, I have some "unwanted Christmas presents" I need to fence - jewellery, antiques, games consoles, laptops, i-Pods, etc. Anybody interested in taking them off my hands, "no questions asked"?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Poejoe's been in trouble with basement-dweller IP law.

This would be a nonsensical crime for the purpose of something that requires a gun, in which case, your personality type is far more meaningful Eggleston, given that you openly endorse the use of guns to take away all the rich people's money (or did you expect to defeat the bourgeois with nutcrackers by cracking down hard on them? :))
Posted by TombLikeBomb 7 years ago
TombLikeBomb
Twice I say "murder bans" but mean "burglary bans".
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
"Luckily PoeJoe had a gun, (sic) what would Debate.org be without him?"
(Must read with wavering pitch:) Awwww... labrat. Come'ere ol' budy.
Posted by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
The thought of PoeJoe firing a weapon is priceless.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Labrat228TombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Slavin3 7 years ago
Slavin3
Labrat228TombLikeBombTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Labrat228TombLikeBombTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by iXetsuei 7 years ago
iXetsuei
Labrat228TombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
Labrat228TombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70