The Instigator
foxmulder
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
bigbass3000
Pro (for)
Losing
21 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,837 times Debate No: 2313
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (19)

 

foxmulder

Con

I've tried to have this debate before, but the opposition bailed. Anyway I will keep my first round short so my opponent can make their arguements first.

Government programs are notorious for achieving results that are the exact opposite of what they intend. If advocates of gun control get their way, there will be no better example of this principle. Gun control would result in a less peaceful, more dangerous society.
bigbass3000

Pro

Gun violence effects some 63 million American adults
Goss, Assistant Professor of Public Policy Studies at Duke University, 2006 [Kristin A., Disarmed, p. 2]
Columbine was a shock but not a surprise. The United States witnesses sensational shootings with numbing regularity. The nation also experiences an epidemic of gun violence about once a decade. In recent surveys, one in three American adults reported that someone "close" to them such as a friend or relative," had been shot.' This means some 63 million American adults have been secondary victims of gun violence. More to the point, polls back to 1973 consistently have found that about 20% of Americans have been threatened by a gun or shot at. Thus, in any given year, between 25 million and 46 million people report having had a close call with a gun at some point in their life.

"That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States."

Donna L. Hoyert, PhD, et al., "Deaths: Final Data for 1999," National Vital Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68 and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Report, 1999. Analysis performed by the Violence Policy Center.
A gun is far more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. Using federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1999 in a justifiable homicide, 185 lives were ended in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

Cook, Professor of Public Policy Studies at Duke University, and Ludwig, , Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University, 2003 [Philip J. and Jens, "Guns and Burglary," in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 76]
The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net
effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to buglars but may also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one in which guns are more sparse. The net result for burglary rates and "hot" burglary rates depends in part on the extent to which burglars can discriminate between occupied and unoccupied homes, and on how they assess the relevant risk-reward trade-off.
The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deter-rent effect from widespread gun ownership. Indeed, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence, while the "hot" proportion of these burglaries is unaffected. The challenge to establishing a causal interpretation to these results comes from the possibility that gun ownership may be both cause and effect of local burglary patterns or that both variables may be driven by some unmeasured third factor. Although there is no entirely persuasive way to rule out such competing explanations, our findings are robust to a variety of empirical approaches.

Professor of Public Policy Studies at Duke University, and Ludwig, 2003 [Philip J. and Jens, "Guns and Burglary," in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 104]
This chapter is motivated by the plausible although untested claim that wide-spread gun ownership deters burglars and diverts them from occupied homes. Previous evidence on this point is indirect, anecdotal, or based on flawed data, and in any case provides no clear conclusion. The new results reported here suggest that if there is such a deterrent effect, it may well be swamped by other factors associated with gun prevalence-most likely, it seems to us, that guns are particularly attractive loot. Cross-section analysis of the NCVS and panel-data analysis of the UCR yield similar findings: a 10 percent increase in our measure of gun ownership increases burglary rates by 3 to 7 percent. These results do not seem likely to occur because of reverse causation: among other evidence on this matter is the findings from our instrumental-variable estimates, which are con-sistent with the OLS results. Most important, we find that gun prevalence has little effect on the fraction of residential burglaries in which someone is at home, and that the hot-burglary victimization rate tends to increase with gun prevalence. These results are robust to alternative specifications and data sets. We con-clude that keeping a gun at home is unlikely to provide a positive externality in the form of burglary deterrence. If anything, residences in a neighborhood with high gun prevalence are at greater risk of being burglarized, hot and otherwise. There is an irony here: guns are often kept to protect the home, but the aggregate effect of individual decisions to keep guns at home may be an increase in the victimization rate.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 2001.
In 1980, pistols—semiautomatic handguns—accounted for only 32 percent of the 2.3 million handguns produced in the United States. The majority were revolvers. By 1999 this ratio had reversed itself—pistols accounted for 75 percent of the 1.3 million handguns produced that year.

Guns are less tightly regulated and more easily purchased in the United States than in other Western nations. To be more specific, American fire-arms regulations are comparatively less restrictive in at least five senses. First, the laws have concentrated more on penalizing misuse than on con-trolling access; the laws are post hoc (punitive) more than ex ante (preven-tive). Second, broad availability has been taken for granted. Thus, regula-tions have focused on keeping guns from certain groups (minors, felons, addicts, the mentally ill) rather than restricting availability to a small class of potentially vulnerable individuals who can show a particular need to own a firearm (security guards, small-business owners in high-crime areas, women threatened by stalkers). Third, the laws have been relatively decentralized; as a result, gun control regulation has varied widely across jurisdictions, with strict controls concentrated in a handful of cities and states and most places having relatively few restrictions. Fourth, regulation has centered on sales conducted through primary markets, such as federally licensed gun stores; relatively few policies have sought to regulate or circumscribe informal sales. Fifth, laws have been subject to political compromise, leaving multiple "loopholes" whose shortcomings can be exploited by both gun control and gun rights advocates. The modern gun control forces' most far-reaching achievement in twenty-five yearsthe Brady Law, enacted in 1993-did little more than plug part of an existing loophole by requiring criminal background checks on a limited category of gun buyers.
Copyright

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999 [Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence, February, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org...]
Gun violence represents a major threat to the health and safety of all Americans. Every day in the United States, 93 people die from gunshot wounds,1 and an additional 240 sustain gunshot injuries.2 The fatality rate is roughly equivalent to that associated with HIV infection—a disease that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized as an epidemic. In addition to the human suffering caused by these injuries and fatalities, gunshot wounds account for approximately $40 billion in medical, public service, and work-loss costs each year.3 In short, gun violence is a significant criminal justice problem and a public health problem.

There are estimated to be some 240 million guns in America, considerably more than there are adults, and around a third of them are handguns, easy to conceal and use. Had powerful guns not been available to him, the deranged Cho would have killed fewer people, and perhaps none at all.
But the tragedies of Virgi
Debate Round No. 1
foxmulder

Con

Your arguments are based on the assumption that criminals will obey the law. This logic seems a little flawed if you ask me. If gun control laws are implemented (i.e. citizens are ordered to turn in their firearms) do you expect criminals to turns in their guns? I didn't think so. What would happen would be that law abiding citizens would not have guns to protect themselves from the criminals that do. As they say, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Just look at Australia. A little over a year ago, all citizens were forced to turn in their firearms. The results: homicides are up 32%, assaults are up 8.6%, and in the state of Victoria homicides with firearms are up 300%. What a success!

In the UK, 92% of all home invasions are "hot burglaries" (people are inside the house when they are robbed), according to 19% in the US, according to Fox News. This is because the burglars do not need to scout out the homes and figure out when the people are not home. They just go right on in because they know they will not encounter resistance.

Also, many of these recent and well-publicized public shootings have happened in "Gun-Free Zones". I guess the shooters missed the signs. You mentioned Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter. The campus was a gun free zone. I someone was carrying a concealed weapon maybe they could have stopped him before more lives were lost. Gun-Free Zones are a joke. Do really think that someone that wants to shoot up a public place will see a Gun-Free Zone sign and say, "Oh, gun free zone. Guess I can't shoot up this place." Also, Cho Seung-Hui's gun was illegally purchased.

The two reasons we have gun rights in the first place are: 1. So citizens can protect themselves from violent people and 2. So citizens can protect themselves from tyrannical acts of government. I have already talked about the first and I will now move on to the second reason.

Many people say that we can trust our government, but look at all of the great things that have happened when other countries put in gun control laws.

- The Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents were exterminated
- In 1935 Germany established gun control and 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves were killed
- China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents were exterminated

I could keep going but I think I've made my point. None of his debate files distinguish from legal and illegal guns. The bottom line is gun control leads to a more dangerous society.
bigbass3000

Pro

Washington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis]
The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987.
The study concluded there was a "prompt decline" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C.

Handgun bans are enforceable
Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...]
Kates is also wrong when he claims that laws restricting access to firearms in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are "unenforceable." On the contrary, it is because these laws have been so effectively enforced that gun-related death rates in those nations pale compared to those in the U.S.
According to "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s" (2006), the
2001/2002 rates of firearm death per 100,000 for the countries in question are as follows: U.S.: 10.27; Canada: 2.6; Australia: 1.68; and England/Wales: .38.

What this means is that I have evidence on gun control and you don't, shows it is enforceable and I already talked of the impact in my last post.

All of your arguements fall, because I have proven gun control can work and be enforcable.
I'm am not basing it on assumption either gun control leads to less guns in the hands of people, leads to less harm to people.

States with the greatest number of guns in the home also have the highest rates of homicide, a new study finds.
The study, in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine, looked at gun ownership in all 50 states and then compared the results with the number of people killed over a three-year period.
The research, the authors said, 'suggests that household firearms are a direct and an indirect source of firearms used to kill Americans both in their homes and on the streets.'
The researchers, led by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, drew on data gathered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the agency surveyed more than 200,000 people and asked them, among other questions, whether they had a gun in or near the home.
In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high.

Although homicide rates may not rise – private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings which are not represented in homicide statistics
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis]
Miami Police Chief John Timoney, whose reign as top cop in Philadelphia brought a reduction in homicides to below 400 for the first time in a decade, said that if the decision overturning the handgun ban is affirmed, there is likely to be a rise in the number of suicides and accidental shootings.
"And it won't necessarily be reflected in the homicide rate, because suicides and not-fatal shootings won't show up in those statistics," Timoney said. "You'll have an increase in those shootings . . . and opponents [of the ban] will say that the homicide rate didn't rise."

Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68. Myron Boor, "Methods of Suicide and Implications for Suicide Prevention," Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, (January 1981): 70-75.
For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act.

Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners
Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, 2003 [Mark, "Guns and Suicide," in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 65]
Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than are other individuals. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The finding that the male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership suggests that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship, though one cannot rule out the hypothesis that gender-specific suicidal tendencies vary with the availability of guns. Finally, it appears that reductions in gun ownership have not been the driving force behind the fall in the suicide rate.

Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately bad effects upon children
Arthur Kellermann, MD, MPH, et al., "Firearms and Family Violence," Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 17 (August 1999): 699-716, citing Ernest N. Jouriles et al., "Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations with Child Behavior Problems," Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 2 (1998): 178-194.
The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not.

Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women
James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., "Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home," Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782.
A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative.

Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that fewer guns mean fewer deaths
Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...]
Kates rejects the "quasi-religious belief that more guns (particularly handguns) mean more violence and death, and, concomitantly, fewer guns mean fewer deaths." Yet this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows, as discussed by David Hemenway, director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center, in his book "Private Guns, Public Health" (2004). Numerous studies have found that having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm injury, suicide and homicide.

Thus gun control leads to less guns, equals less death, meaning even suicide rates equal out gun violence, We need to cut that death down. Also I also have proven that gun ownership leads to a negative effect on women and children. Gun control works, and please, understand me, don't just base, a vote for the neg is a vote for more gun deaths and that is not safe to me.
Debate Round No. 2
foxmulder

Con

Debating you seems pointless since all you do is post debate files. However I will continue since some of the viewers agree with me.

While on the surface gun control seems to be a good thing, it ends up on hurting people. Criminals still have guns. Almost always violence will go up. In these countries where gun control has been implemented, there have been 57+ MILLION deaths. To use a debate term, "Impact Outweighs"

You also talk about suicides. What about Japan, which has gun control and one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

You can post all this evidence about how guns make children traumatized and such, but the bottom line is gun control has never worked and will never work.
bigbass3000

Pro

That is what debate is about, rebut my evidence, you didn't, /i swear you are so immature. You need to make sense, what you guys out there can't read.
Gun control works, it reduces suicide and it is right thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ericjpomeroy 6 years ago
ericjpomeroy
I also want to point out that a good percentage of deaths involving guns in America are gang members. I am pretty sure they aren't standing in line in Sportsman's Warehouse, waiting to buy a gun. Gun Control only keeps law biding citizens unarmed, it doesn't make sense. Drugs are everywhere, people are overdosing everyday, we should make drugs illegal. Oh, yeah....
Posted by bobsatthepub 6 years ago
bobsatthepub
America has probably just dug to deep into the hole that is their gun laws. Trying to fill it in now would be just burying themselves alive.
Maybe if they had seen logic in tougher laws a long time ago things would have worked out, but now... the situation just plane sucks.
Posted by Ristaag 6 years ago
Ristaag
Umm, look at western Europe. You can't get guns there outside of hunting rifles, and not only are there virtually no deaths by firearms, but the general atmosphere is easily less terror-stricken and suspicious. The gun-culture we have now, where any whacko or criminal can buy a gun whenever he wants, is really a disgrace.
Posted by harold 6 years ago
harold
make an original point bigbass
Posted by getngo 6 years ago
getngo
All you are doing is posting debate files
Posted by bigbass3000 6 years ago
bigbass3000
Keep it real, you need to know if you read everything, that part was about the harms and guns and the second is how gun control works.
Posted by keep_it_real 6 years ago
keep_it_real
bigbass3000, I don't mean to be rude, but maybe you should find out what gun control actually is and also stop posting debate files.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nicolebell81 4 years ago
nicolebell81
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
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 aodanu16 6 years ago
aodanu16
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 twinkiesunite 6 years ago
twinkiesunite
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 rnsweetswimn1 6 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by DaPofoKing 6 years ago
DaPofoKing
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 6 years ago
blond_guy
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by rnsweetheart 6 years ago
rnsweetheart
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by K_Smoof 6 years ago
K_Smoof
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 76s_4_LYF 6 years ago
76s_4_LYF
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 getngo 6 years ago
getngo
foxmulderbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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