The Instigator
StarHunter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Gun Control Prevents Violence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
AbandonedSpring
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,282 times Debate No: 63535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

StarHunter

Pro

Simple Rules: R1 is opening statements, R2 is for proof and rebuttals, and R3 is for closing arguments. Pro gets the first word, Con gets the last word. BEGIN!

Violence is a lack of self-control that results in a desire to hurt or destroy. It is usually direct outward of the person experiencing the stress and frustration that is at the root of the violent behavior. But it can be self-directed also. It commonly results from a person's loss of rational thought when placed under stress. The overwhelming emotion coupled with loss of rational thought results in a characteristic "outburst" of violence.

When violence happens, there is no measured expression of it. It is an emotional expression that is "all or nothing". Violence by its nature is an escalating behavior that is only limited by the person's capability. For example, a child who becomes violent is usually limited to screaming, hitting, kicking, etc. These are usually harmless attacks because a child is weak. While an adult who becomes violent is capable of much more. A man behind the wheel of a car who has a violent episode could crash the car into people, other cars, and structures. Both child and man experience the same outburst on a subjective level. But it is the man in the car who has extreme ability to act violently.

Limiting a person's ability to act violently is necessary to reduce violence. There is no practical way currently known to science to eliminate violence from the human condition altogether. It is possible, but the side-effects are too great a price. So, we are left with solutions to violence that handle violence when it's occurring. The simple and direct solution is to render a person experiencing a violent episode to a state of unconsciousness. In other words, just knock them out. This is at one extreme of limitation that could be placed on a violent person. At the other extreme, facilitating their violent behavior in a manner to redirect its destruction is another option. This is commonly called "damage control". Gun control falls close to the "damage control" side of the spectrum.

Gun control is a limitation on a means of violence. It will stop a small act of violence from escalating into a larger act of violence. More importantly, it limits the possible consequences from a violent outburst. Guns are very dangerous when used on people and commonly cause great pain, severe injury, and of course death. Gun control applies a necessary limit to how much violence a person can commit when that person has become incapable of imposing a self-governing limit.

Therefore, gun control prevents violence.
AbandonedSpring

Con

hello and thanks so much for starting this debate!

Now I would like to organize my speech into three overarching points, labeled alphabetically, and then wrap it all up with a short conclusion.

Let's begin:

Contingency A: I'd like to start off with an example of why this argument is false. The infamous Washington Navy Yard shooting. Gun control would not have prevented a situation like this, therefor gun control in ineffective, period based of the sole fact that it cannot stop all violence.

Contingency B: Gun control will never fully work because there will always be a black market with a huge supply and demand. Gun control can never truly work because of how impossible it is to stop illegal purchase and sales of these weapons.
"Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number"just 1.2%"of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they"re selling guns "off the books" to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 "missing" firearms."

http://gunvictimsaction.org...

Contingency C: Now let's talk about how immensely impossible it would be.
"Handcuffing the ATF: The ATF, the sole government agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws, has operated without a permanent director since the Bush Administration, and operates with just 1,800 agents to monitor approximately 77,000 gun dealers. Given these constraints, it would take ATF 22 years to inspect all federally licensed gun dealers. Even if the ATF had the manpower to inspect most gun dealers, federal law limits the agency to a single unannounced inspection of a dealer in any 12-month period. Congress has made it increasingly difficult for the ATF to revoke licenses of crooked gun dealers."

Thank you, I now stand open to rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
StarHunter

Pro

I'll start round 2 with a brief summary of my round 1 statement. Next I'll present some brief rebuttals to Con's argument. I'll finish my round 2 with proof of my statements and any further argument I may have concerning the efficacy of gun control.

In a nutshell, I can outline my round 1 statement like this:
Violence is part of being human. It cannot be completely eliminated from human behavior in a practical way. Violence is also an emotion that is characteristic of having an "outburst". What this means is that when a person has a violent episode, they cannot limit themselves. The violent episode is only limited by the means to carry it out.

There is a spectrum of solutions to violence. A total elimination of means to perform a violent act would result in a complete cessation of violence. And something short of total elimination is what we usually call "damage control". Gun control is a form of the latter. On the spectrum, it would be close to limiting violent means in favor of redirecting violence to a less harmful conclusion. So, gun control prevents violence.

Rebuttals to Con's Arguments:

Con doesn't offer much of an argument. Instead, Con presents a few examples and implies that these examples are proof that gun control is ineffective.

Con's 1st Example
The Navy Yard Shooting may have been prevented if gun control was more comprehensive. I argue that a more comprehensive restriction on guns would have limited the violence that occurred. The example puts me in a awkward position. I must attempt to rebut what happened with what might of happened. This is similar to having to prove a negative. One should consider this, if gun control was so complete that it made it impossible for the Navy shooter to obtain a gun, then there would have been no shooting at all.

Con's 2nd Example
This is the easiest of examples to rebut. Con has made the mistake of the Nirvana fallacy in logic. Con offers that there is a perfect solution to gun control (The "Nirvana" in the the Nirvana fallacy), and since gun control will never achieve this perfection, it will not prevent violence. Please consider that there is no such thing as a perfect restriction on illegal activities. And yet we still restrict many wrongful acts and contraband despite black markets. For example, there is a black market for harvesting organs. Some people are murdered and their organs are removed and sold. This is of course illegal and there are harsh penalties for it. And yet the black market continues to trade in harvested organs. This doesn't lead to the conclusion that we should eliminate the laws that prohibit organ theft. In fact, it only reinforces the need for controls that would prevent organ theft. Similarly, just because there is a firearm black market doesn't mean that gun control is ineffective. (Also, although it's somewhat irrelevant, Con's source used to support that example is taken from an organization that is for gun control. Read their mission statement and follow some of the links on its website to find out. http://gunvictimsaction.org...)

Con's 3rd Example:
Con's third example is a double edged sword. The example implies that there are not enough people to enforce gun controls, and therefore gun control cannot prevent violence. This example actually supports my argument. It also implies that gun control would work if there were enough people to enforce the controls. The solution is simple. Hire more people.

Proof of my statements.

The crux of my argument is that people are unable to control themselves when they become violent. As proof, I offer a video because a picture is worth a thousand words: http://youtu.be...

I must also prove that guns enable people to act violence. This is easily understood. A person with a rifle can do much more damage than a person with bare hands. I will expand on this in the next round.
AbandonedSpring

Con

Alright, since you know where I'm coming from, I'll just jump straight into rebuttals.

To start off, I would like to challenge the fact that you said, "Con doesn't offer much of an argument. Instead, Con presents a few examples and implies that these examples are proof that gun control is ineffective."

I most certainly did, I will go ahead and copy examples of where I did.

"Contingency A: I'd like to start off with an example of why this argument is false. The infamous Washington Navy Yard shooting. Gun control would not have prevented a situation like this, therefor gun control in ineffective, period based of the sole fact that it cannot stop all violence."

"Gun control will never fully work because there will always be a black market with a huge supply and demand. Gun control can never truly work because of how impossible it is to stop illegal purchase and sales of these weapons."

You know exactly where I am coming from consequently because of the arguments I DID give, which I have been accused of not providing, so now, I'll dive into to your argument, and examine your points.

"The Navy Yard Shooting may have been prevented if gun control was more comprehensive. I argue that a more comprehensive restriction on guns would have limited the violence that occurred. The example puts me in a awkward position. I must attempt to rebut what happened with what might of happened. This is similar to having to prove a negative. One should consider this, if gun control was so complete that it made it impossible for the Navy shooter to obtain a gun, then there would have been no shooting at all."

That first sentence is completely inaccurate. As I stated in the statement following the quote, "Now let's talk about how immensely impossible it would be."

You know as well as I do, that this situation could not have been prevented. Shootings will happen regardless of what ever kind of control you want to put on it. Also, you said "if gun control was so complete that it made it impossible for the Navy shooter to obtain a gun, then there would have been no shooting at all." He was an officer. your argument makes no sense, because this was a man who was permitted to have access to both the weapon, and the area.

Rebuttal 2:
"For example, there is a black market for harvesting organs. Some people are murdered and their organs are removed and sold. This is of course illegal and there are harsh penalties for it. And yet the black market continues to trade in harvested organs. This doesn't lead to the conclusion that we should eliminate the laws that prohibit organ theft. In fact, it only reinforces the need for controls that would prevent organ theft. "

ironically enough, this is your easiest argument to rebut as well. The government does not track where your body parts are 24/7. The government really only cares about this issue if they bust you on it, hence why the government does not have an entire organization dedicated to organs, however, they do for weapons.

"on's source used to support that example is taken from an organization that is for gun control. Read their mission statement and follow some of the links on its website to find out."

Also, you would be correct in saying that that's irrelevant, and it does not pertain to the argument. Statistics are statistics. All this website does is take numbers that were published by the government, and display them.

Also, YouTube videos are not a valid source of evidence. Come to me with the same information on a .org website, and I will look.

finally, "I must also prove that guns enable people to act violence. This is easily understood. A person with a rifle can do much more damage than a person with bare hands. I will expand on this in the next round."

You have proved my point with this. By saying "much more damage" you must agree that a person can be dangerous with out a firearm. You also basically ignored the statistic showing the amount of illegal firearms, so you must have been so blown away you were at a loss for words. Most crimes are committed with illegal weapons. And last time I checked, criminals don't follow rules, which would be why they are called criminals.

"Con's third example is a double edged sword. The example implies that there are not enough people to enforce gun controls, and therefore gun control cannot prevent violence. This example actually supports my argument. It also implies that gun control would work if there were enough people to enforce the controls. The solution is simple. Hire more people."

Also, my third example would be the shooting at D.C., that in no way would have been prevented had there been more people.

Also, I never said there would need to be more people. I said that gun control would never be effective because there would never be enough people to enforce it.

Because you brought up 'anger' as a reason pecan pie someone would commit murder, I will provide you will a website, which should help.

http://www.helpguide.org...

I suppose that bombs are also illegal, yet they are still used. Like the Boston Bombings. There is no way those were legal, yet they were used anyways.

Man is inherently violent, however taking away guns from people who legally have them is unjust, and would leave weapons in the hands of criminals.

Thank you, I am finished.
Debate Round No. 2
StarHunter

Pro

Please consider my closing argument.

Violence is often explosive and uncontrollable. Violent people cannot self-impose a limit to their violent acts. It's up to preventative policy to limit such violence. Good policy would limit the means available to violent people. Guns are a means to inflict violence. Guns enable violent people.

Con's argument suffers from a couple of flaws. Con has provided a few examples, and then offers the conclusion that gun control cannot prevent violence at all. This is an over-generalization. We cannot draw such a complete conclusion from only a few examples. Con also wants to shift the goal posts in this argument. Can gun control prevent violence? This is the issue. But Con has rephrased the issue to ask if gun control is always effective at preventing violence. Con is moving the goal posts to invalidate my argument. I concede that gun control cannot possibly prevent any and all violence. But I have shown that gun control would certainly prevent violence when it prevents violent people an access to a firearm.

Restriction of guns would prevent violent people from the greatest acts of violence. By controlling access to guns, violence would be limited. Therefore, gun control prevents violence.

Thank you and I turn over the issue to my opponent for the final word.
AbandonedSpring

Con

Alright, I will now use this time to give my closing argument.

If people as a whole are "violent" in the sense that you are saying, then everybody would be a mass murderer. I understand that humans are inherently not good, but to deny us of a constitutional right because of it is injustice. I for one do not, nor have I ever had the intent to cause injury to those around me.

"Guns are a means to inflict violence. Guns enable violent people."

This is the most incorrect statement in you r entire argument. Guns were most certainly not created for that intent. Guns were created to protect. Regardless of how you feel about guns now, this is true. The Chinese, who needed a source of protection from outside invaders, as well as internal conflicts. Also, guns don't "enable" people, the simply act as a form of release. Similar to how a knife is a form of release to other murderers, and how a chainsaw was a release in the movie, "Texas chainsaw Massacre".

"Con's argument suffers from a couple of flaws. Con has provided a few examples, and then offers the conclusion that gun control cannot prevent violence at all. This is an over-generalization. We cannot draw such a complete conclusion from only a few examples. "

This is comical, because you gave virtually no arguments. All of the arguments I have provided support my perspective.

" Con is moving the goal posts to invalidate my argument. I concede that gun control cannot possibly prevent any and all violence. But I have shown that gun control would certainly prevent violence when it prevents violent people an access to a firearm"

Your argument is invalid, all on it's own. It does not need my help. Gun control would not prevent violence. It would only make murders slower, and more painful. I suppose in a sense, that's more violent than a gunshot to the back of the head. Also, you never showed that. You said it, but as I have learned from past experiences, just saying something does not make it true.

"Restriction of guns would prevent violent people from the greatest acts of violence. By controlling access to guns, violence would be limited. Therefore, gun control prevents violence."

You never really showed how this would happen, so I can only assume you couldn't find any definitive evidence to support your claims. By controlling access to guns, you ensure that the innocent Americans who would never use their weapons to bad, would lose them. Not to mention the issue of constitutionality.

Thanks, I have finished speaking. Good rounds!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
If that had an ounce of truth, then all violence would take place outside gun free zones.The thuth is, almost all gun violence occurs in gun free zones.

Mexico is heavily gun control, but it is like a war zone down there. The police are not afraid of the people. They know they do not own guns.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jynxx 2 years ago
jynxx
StarHunterAbandonedSpringTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Still strongly believe with AbandonedSpring