The Instigator
Ariesx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Gun Control

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 2 votes the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 67804
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Ariesx

Con

Round 1 is for acceptance, Round 2 is for cases, Round 2 is for cases, Round 3 is for rebuttals, Round 4 is for Defense
I will be attacking gun control, and explaining why it is unconstitutional and is not going to solve anything.
Philocat

Pro

I accept your debate; I will be arguing that gun control should be instigated on a national level.

By gun control, I am referring to the criminalisation of gun owners who do not have a valid license to own guns.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Con

I will be attempting to prove that gun control is unconstitutional and it will not fix any of the problems at hand.

Argument 1: Our founding fathers made this country on a set of rights that would protect an American's freedom. Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Declaring gun control would question an American citizen's rights. Our country was built to protect these rights, and we should stay with the same modes of freedom. The idea that our country is able to question our rights can produce a pathway for other bills to question our rights. For example, Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, if a racist guy gets a show and starts convincing people to start using hate speech against blacks, that would be wrong. Now, his station is not going to fire him, and he still keeps on attracting young people to racism. Now, since you have let gun laws such as the Ar-15 to be banned, and licenses, you have given congress the ability to bypass our rights as Americans. So, the government can ban this guys freedom of speech, and now has the ability to ban other rights of Americans. It is unconstitutional, and it would be a disaster to live in America.

Argument 2: Problem will not solve: The reason why a lot of far-left politicians want gun regulation is because they want to protect the people. As we all know, the government cannot control personal behavior of its people as noble as the deed is. School Shootings is an epidemic that people blame on guns. Crime everyday would be blamed on weapons. But, what American society needs to learn is not to blame their problems on materialism, but blame it on themselves. Why are we having these problems. School Shootings usually happen when a kid is bullied or mentally ill. Here are two answers to these solutions. Here are statistics of bullied kids.
1 out of 4 kids is Bullied. The American Justice Department says that this month 1 out of every 4 kids will be abused by another youth.
"Surveys Show That 77% of students are bullied mentally, verbally, & physically.
"In a recent study, 77% of the students said they had been bullied. And 14% of those who were bullied said they experienced severe (bad) reactions to the abuse.
"1 out of 5 kids admits to being a bully, or doing some "Bullying."
"8% of students miss 1 day of class per month for fear of Bullies.
"43% fear harassment in the bathroom at school.
"100,000 students carry a gun to school.
"28% of youths who carry weapons have witnessed violence at home.
"A poll of teens ages 12-17 proved that they think violence increased at their schools.
"282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.
"More youth violence occurs on school grounds as opposed to on the way to school.
"Playground statistics - Every 7 minutes a child is bullied. Adult intervention - 4%. Peer intervention - 11%. No intervention - 85%.
Here is an answer to these statistics.
1. If the kid is bullied, than he needs counselling and a good family. Institutions were trying to come up with ways to decrease bullying. If you have adults in hallways or in the playground, their is a 26% decrease in physical bullying. Private schools stress adults being around. 28% of kids that carry guns admit that they have suffered domestic abuse. The problem is in the homes. The collapse of family values empowers school shootings. Dr. Ben Carson notes in his book that he too was once bullied. Kids called him stupid and lazy. The reason why the Doctor is alive today is because his mother cared for him in his time of trouble.
2. Mentally Ill kids also need to have physiatrists. Evidence shows that kids have been taking medication that makes them suicidal. This makes the kid even more likely to do a school shooting. Scientists are working on new pills, but if the old pill does not go away, than school shootings will keep happening.
http://www.wnd.com...
http://www.martialartsforpeace.com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Argument 3: Crime will still happen- The only thing America can teach us is that if their is a product in demand, than that product will still be bought through the black market. Prohibition taught us that if someone wants alcohol, than it is going to keep on getting sold. The mafia made millions on prohibition, and now the same thing is happening with marijuana. The drug cartels make tons of money on drugs. If the product is in demand, than the black market will take over. Guns will always be bought by the people that really want it. If we really want to address the core problem, than schools need to do more work.
Philocat

Pro

My case for gun control argues along the line of two general points:

1. Even if gun control is unconstitutional (which I will refute in round 3), this is not a satisfactory argument against gun control.
2. Gun control will save lives




Argument against the constitution

The only way in which the US constitution can be employed to refute the instigation of gun control is if it is shown to be an infallible document.

Infallible is defined as:

'incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.'
(1)

I argue that the US constitution is not infallible, and so it cannot be used as an ad hoc rebuttal of the argument in favour of gun control.
This argument is formed of the following premises and conclusion:

P1: The fallibility of a proposition is dependent on the fallibility of its creators
P2: The founding fathers created the US constitution (2)
P3: The founding fathers were fallible
C: Therefore, the US constitution is fallible

Note that I am not saying that the US constitution should be discarded, I am saying that it ought not to be used to justify the prevention of potentially-life-saving legislation.

To summarise, I have proved the the US constitution is not infallible, which is to say that it is capable of being incorrect. This means that the second amendment to the constitution could be, in part, incorrect. In the absence of certainty we must use reason to determine what regulation we should place on firearm ownership; appealing to the second amendment is a gross overestimation of its veracity.




The life-saving argument

This argument takes the form:

P1: If further regulation of X will save lives, then further regulation of X ought to be implemented
P2: Increased gun control will save lives
C: Increased gun control ought to be implemented.

I will justify this argument by individually justifying its premises.

Premise 1

This is a moral statement, which is to say that we should analyse its ethical veracity in order to ascertain whether it is a justified premise.
We can do this from a couple of different perspectives:

Utilitarian view: Implementation of life-saving regulation will save lives. The losing of one's life, or the risk of losing it, is painful and therefore creates unhappiness. Therefore we ought to implement life-saving regulation.

Deontological view: Killing is an intrinsically immoral act, so if increased regulation will reduce the amount of killing that occurs, then this regulation ought to be implemented.

I could apply the premise to more ethical theories, but the answer will generally be the same.

Therefore, premise 1 is justified.

Premise 2

This is the most disputed premise, but nevertheless it is still correct.
I will prove it so by appealing to statistical evidence:

CountryMurder rate (per 100,000 people) (3)Extent of gun control (4)
UK1.57Medium
USA5.22Weak
Russia14.18Weak
China1.21Strong
Canada1.67Medium


Here we can see a distinct negative correlation between murder rate and the extent of gun control. This strongly implies that gun control saves lives.

As both of my premises have now been verified, the conclusion logically follows that we ought to implement gun control.




I will now pass over to my opponent!




(1) Google: 'Define infallible'
(2) http://www.constitutionfacts.com...
(3) http://chartsbin.com...
(4) http://blog.mapsofworld.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Con

I will start off by thanking my opponent for responding and now to the arguments.

My opponent mentions an argument that I have never seen before, but very interesting. He explains how the founding fathers were infallible, and that they could make mistakes. But, any human can make a mistake. By using my opponent's logic, you can say that since the person who came up with the idea of educating children was infallible, we should dismiss that idea, and go to another idea. Even that, you as an American citizen agree to the constitution. Your social contract specifically states that you have to live by the limitations our constitution put in place. Since you have agreed to this "infallible" document, that would mean that you agree and you would have to live by it. It is in your rights to complain, but gun control is unconstitutional to your document. My opponent's argument would be ruled as invalid, because he is going against his citizenship papers, and his logic would apply to every body's ideas.

My opponent also argues that if regulation saves lives, regulation should be implemented. Well, in my case I have stated that the problem is not guns, but it is the family structure, and the schools. "1 out of 5 kids admits to being a bully, or doing some "Bullying."
"8% of students miss 1 day of class per month for fear of Bullies.
"43% fear harassment in the bathroom at school.
"100,000 students carry a gun to school.
"28% of youths who carry weapons have witnessed violence at home.
"A poll of teens ages 12-17 proved that they think violence increased at their schools.
"282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.
"More youth violence occurs on school grounds as opposed to on the way to school.
"Playground statistics - Every 7 minutes a child is bullied. Adult intervention - 4%. Peer intervention - 11%. No intervention - 85%.
These are statistics that lead to school shootings, so if we really want to solve the problem we need to improve the way we handle our schools and address the core problems.

Good Luck to my opponent in the next around.
Philocat

Pro

I begin round 3 by refuting my opponent"s arguments; I will then defend my opening statement.




Con's central argument is that gun control should not be instigated because the real cause of school shootings is bullying.
I do not deny that bullying probably plays a large part of one's motivation to instigate a school massacre, but if the tools to do so (firearms) are a lot harder to obtain, then all the built-up resentment will not be unleashed on pupils in such a lethal manner. I agree that severe bullying ought to be stopped, but bullying-prevention and gun control are not mutually exclusive when they both contribute to reducing school shootings.

There is also statistical evidence that bullying is not the principal cause of school shootings. The USA has had more school shootings than the rest of the world combined (1), but there is no evidence to suggest that American children are bullied more than children in other countries. If bullying was the principal cause of school shootings then the rate of school massacres should be roughly equal worldwide, considering that bullying is occurring globally. This is not the case, which suggests that there are other causes of school shootings. As a school shooting can only occur if the perpetrator can obtain a firearm, it follows that the rate of school shootings is dependent on the availability of firearms.
As the USA has one of the most lenient firearm regulations in the world and coincidentally has the largest amount of school shootings, it heavily implies that the availability of firearms is a primary reason why school shootings occur.

Moreover, even if firearms would not stop school shootings, my opponent overlooks that fact that there are many mass shootings that do not occur in schools. Surely bullying cannot be the principal cause of them? Even if gun control did not reduce the amount of school shootings, it does not mean that it would not reduce the amount of miscellaneous shootings.




My opponent also argues that "crime will still happen". I do not deny this; the reason I advocate gun control is that it will REDUCE the amount of crime.
Let me propose a few counter-examples:

1.Stealing still happens despite it being illegal; it does not mean that we should legalise stealing.
2.You can get plutonium on the black market, it does not mean that we should legalise ownership of it.

I agree that guns will still be bought to people who really want them, but if you are an average person intent on murder, you are a lot more likely to use a gun if you can simply pop down to Walmart and pick one up as opposed to going to the effort of navigating the shady world of the black market. A lot of murders are committed on a spur-of-the-moment on a tide of anger, only a few are accurately planned and prepared for. If guns are commonly-owned, then these flashes of anger are more likely to cause a murder.




'By using my opponent's logic, you can say that since the person who came up with the idea of educating children was infallible, we should dismiss that idea,'

Not at all, I am not saying the fallibility should entail dismissal, I am saying that fallibility should entail a healthy level of scepticism. The US constitution is well-meaning and largely a good thing, but because it is fallible, it should not be treated as an absolute authority. "The constitution says X=Y" is not a logically valid way that we can verify that X=Y.

If evidence against a particular tenet of the constitution (i.e the 'right' to own guns) comes to prominence, which it has - insofar as there is statistical evidence that gun control reduces homicide, then the constitution is not invulnerable to reasoned analysis.
The very fact that the US constitution has amendments (2) shows that it can be repealed without discarding it altogether. Therefore one can support both the constitution and gun control.

Just as an aside, my opponent claims that I would be 'going against [my] citizenship papers' and so my argument is invalid.
Firstly, I am not a US citizen so this is a moot point.
Secondly, you can support an amendment to the constitution without going against the constitution as a whole.




(1) http://www.neontommy.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Philocat

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his final round; all my arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Vajrasattve.LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattve.LeRoy
My account was apparently deleted.
I'm trying to set it up again.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
There is no such Debate as "Gun Control" .
That doesn't make sense.
Gun Control, basically speaking, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
in the Bill of Rights.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
AriesxPhilocatTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
AriesxPhilocatTied
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 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