The Instigator
TheNobleCasserole
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
K-rad
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Gun Control will not make a meaningful difference in the US

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...
K-rad
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 77343
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

TheNobleCasserole

Pro

I'd like you to just open your mind to a few things that I will say, gun issues in America are talked about a lot, but that doesn't mean they are important. In America media is used to publicize terror and eye-catching news, not so much the important stuff,lets say you saw a headline that said "27 dead, 18 children" you undoubtedly thought that was horrible. On the other hand a crazy man with a gun could have ran into a cafeteria and before he could shoot he was shot by someone else. If no one else had a gun then there would be a cafeteria full of dead people. This is a fictitious situation, but it illustrates a simple point; Guns stop violence, just as they cause it. The reason you don't see this is simple "Entire cafeteria is killed" is a better headline and certainly more eye-catching than "Man with gun shoots man with gun", the news isn't around to inform you they are here to make money and the shocking titles win out every time. It is like clickbait, make it sound interesting or important and people will be deceived into thinking it is. You won't see articles, news reports or newspapers telling people of how many people were saved because of guns, only the opposite.

If your primary reason for banning guns is because they cause death then you are lying to yourself, or you haven't done the research. In America, the gun is one of the smallest offenders when it comes to death toll. Do you care about guns? or do you care about lives? If you care for the lives then you wouldn't care about gun laws, because the death toll is insignificant(calculations below). Anyone who tries to ban guns and then says their primary motivation for supporting anti gun laws is saving lives is a liar, if saving lives is your primary motivation then you would realize that guns cause a small amount of deaths and that you should look at larger killers. Need an example? Preventable medical malpractice kills over 500 per day, if every shooting in the US had a death toll of 50 then you'd need 10 mass shootings a day to even get close.

Calculations and sources:

First of all the US has about 318,892,103 (July 2014 est.) living in it according to CIA.gov, the death rate per 1000 people is 8.15(also CIA.gov). Now for the math,

318,892,103 divided by 1000 equals 318892,

318892 X 8.15 equals = 2614914.4

That's 2614914.4 deaths annually

Divide it by 365 and you get 7164

This means that every day 7164 people die in the US. This is an estimation, but it is completely based on statistics. Now the shooting you saw on TV had 27 deaths, this is hardly even a footnote for the day, not even noticeable. So why is it that we talk about it so much? The sandy hook shooting actually had the president making speeches about gun laws, when the death count was minuscule.

Now if I go onto FBI.gov and look at the crime statistics there is a section called "Murder and non-negligent manslaughter" this includes all gun deaths and more. The total for the year of 2011 was 14,612, 14,612 divided by 365 is 40.

So all Murder and non-negligent manslaughter crimes cause 40 deaths per day, now 7000 divided by 40 = 175.

Do you understand what that means? Murder and non-negligent manslaughter crimes make up 1/175th of total deaths per day. That is 1 over 175, if you do the calculation of 1 over 175 you get 0.5714%.

That is correct, all Murder and non-negligent manslaughter crimes make up 0.5714% of the daily death toll.

Sources:

https://www.cia.gov...

https://www.fbi.gov...

http://www.propublica.org...
K-rad

Con

Greetings TheNobleCasserole, I look forward to our debate.

Firstly, let me establish your premise.
You claim that gun violence does not matter because, Americans shouldn"t be devoting their money, and politicians to reforming gun control. The result would have a negligible effect on the total deaths of Americans.
You state that news outlets keep the real issues out of the press and print shootings to sell more copies.
Furthermore, you state the following: gun-law advocates who claim their goal is to save lives are liars. They are liars because they aren"t focusing on bigger problems.
You put forward that Americans should instead be pouring resources into more prominent issues, such as, medical malpractice.

Can you confirm my inferences, and correct me if I missed anything?

I also ask that you answer two of my following questions:

Theoretically, how high would the numbers have to be for you to recognize gun control as a system worth reforming?

Finally, are we debating the problems with the current gun laws in American, or rather focusing on whether it"s even worth debating?
I ask, considering your opening statement makes you an apparent proponent of doing something more productive than talking about gun laws, "gun issues in America are talked about a lot, but that doesn't mean they are important."
Debate Round No. 1
TheNobleCasserole

Pro

"Can you confirm my inferences, and correct me if I missed anything?"

There is one correction I would like to make, while you make sure to understand my point so that we are on the same page(which I greatly admire) there is one thing you have misinterpreted. You state that I claim:

"You claim that gun violence does not matter because..." This was not my message, the title of this debate should have been better written and I regret not thinking about the title longer. It should not state "Gun Control will not make a meaningful difference in the US" it should state "Stricter Gun Control will not make a meaningful difference in the US". A better way to phrase it would be "Gun violence does not matter currently, the death toll because of it is low and there are larger issues presents which require our immediate attention, when gun violence rises it will need attention" (meanwhile gun deaths are going down which can be seen at the FBI.gov link)

Everything else correlates with what I believe and I am glad that my point got across with a small amount of misunderstanding. Please keep in mind that my views are subject to change if and when tangible evidence can be provided to refute my point.

This is taken from what you understood of my point, but I'd like to expand on it a bit because it is both blunt and harsh "gun-law advocates who claim their goal is to save lives are liars. They are liars because they are"t focusing on bigger problems."

The reason this controversial statement has validity in my mind is simple. If one is concerned with human lives they should look objectively at how to save the most amount of lives, people who support gun control and invest resources into it couldn't have done the research because if they did they would realize something like heart disease or medical malpractice is a far more urgent problem in America.

"Theoretically, how high would the numbers have to be for you to recognize gun control as a system worth reforming?"

Truth is this is a very difficult question. I am not sure about exact numbers but I would start worrying about it once it became significant i.e started rivaling other major death causes. As I look back at my last statement I find it would help put things into perspective with a little math. As stated, 7000ish deaths divided by 40 is 0.57% of all deaths. I did however state that medical malpractice takes 500 a day, 7000ish divided by 500= 14%. It is astonishing that of all the deaths in America one thing is responsible for 14% of them and it is completely preventable, I think gun violence should become significant before we try and correct it, for now all we are doing is fighting back and forth on something that is so clearly insignificant.

"Finally, are we debating the problems with the current gun laws in American, or rather focusing on whether it"s even worth debating?"

I would say these are the two sides of the debate, should we debate current gun laws in America? Or is it too insignificant.

The debates title is a statement we must agree or disagree with, I agree that stricter gun control will not make a meaningful difference in the US. The other point being that Stricter gun control would have a meaningful difference.

"I ask, considering your opening statement makes you an apparent proponent of doing something more productive than talking about gun laws, "gun issues in America are talked about a lot, but that doesn't mean they are important.""

This statement was created to fit my argument against the media. Truth is it is important to make sure people know it is unimportant, seeing as the media will never do it for us.
K-rad

Con

“I think gun violence should become significant before we try and correct it, for now all we are doing is fighting back and forth on something that is so clearly insignificant.”

Your entire argument is set on the premise that you believe the numbers are too low to pay attention to. Since it’s impossible for me to win a debate where the premise is your opinion, the best way for me to win is to prove that your numbers are flawed. With confidence, I make the following rebuttal: you greatly underestimate the impact of guns in America due to your iggnorant math. In your calculations you fail to account in 2010, 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others.


Guns were the cause of death for more than twice the amount of people you counted. Guns they should not have had access to.

“Cut it however you want: In places where exposure to guns is higher, more people die of suicide. Deborah Azrael, associate director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center”

A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women.

Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S. and you can’t ignore that—in half of these cases—they used firearms to end their lives. You also can’t say they would be killing themselves without access to guns because it’s simply not true as made evident by the following statistic:

Sources:

http://www.bostonglobe.com...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
TheNobleCasserole

Pro

TheNobleCasserole forfeited this round.
K-rad

Con

My opponent has forfeit his round by running out of time to counterclaim. To promote fair game I will omit my last round, and rely on my previous argument to hold water. Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheNobleCasserole 1 year ago
TheNobleCasserole
Sorry for not posting another point, I had done so but it didn't submit. I would write it here but I haven't got the tine right now.

Tl;dr: Considering the sites we referenced have conflicting information, we should check the sources and their credibility before going ahead.
Posted by slobeachboy 1 year ago
slobeachboy
Although I don"t really have any strong feelings either way on the gun debate I would like to point out that you should probably re-word your debate title. It should say; "Stricter gun control will not make a meaningful difference in the US". After all we already have gun control laws in this country and have had since before I was born. Its not like the old days when you could simply order a machine gun mail order out of a catalogue. And I guess this makes sense. After all we cannot operate a car or an airplane without a license either because they can both be potentially very dangerous when not used properly. And as a gun owner and a driver I can tell you that it"s MUCH easier to get a handgun - even here in California - than it is to get a driver"s license. And with a gun I don"t have to renew my registration every year and get a smog check every two years like I do for my car. So, seeing as how I am not one of those highly irrational paranoid yahoos who thinks the government is plotting to take my guns away, I"d say that gun laws are actually fairly lenient in this country. In Japan it so hard to get a handgun that if someone were to pull a gun on you there you would not even believe it was real and you would just walk away.
Anyway, I guess the only question is, should the gun laws be stricter or more lax than they are now? And that I"m afraid is purely a matter of personal opinion. You might as well debate over which flavor of ice cream is better. Every society has to choose where to draw that line between safety and personal freedom and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer as to where to draw it. I personally think that here in the USA we have moved the line a little too far towards safety and away from personal freedom in the years since I was a kid, but that"s just my opinion.
As for gun laws all I can say I"m not going to complain about having to wait 3 days to get a gun or having to take a simple test that a child could complete and pass in under 3 mi
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
TheNobleCasseroleK-radTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff