The Instigator
ufcryan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
juri.kallas
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 996 times Debate No: 33272
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

ufcryan

Con

For the rest of this debate, assume:

1. There is no second amendment
2. There is no reason to have guns to defend against tyranny
3. No one has any hunting rights
4. No one needs guns to defend themselves against animals.

I can STILL argue against (most) forms of gun control.

Most anti-gun or gun control proponents are too quick too assume that if we get rid of guns, we are automatically reducing all violence. Actually, the core causes of gun violence, and thus violence in general in America, are not due to the presence of guns, but other factors such as poverty, under-education, drastic wealth inequality, and a Black Market Drug Trade.

Ultimately most forms of gun control affect only people who obey laws, such as "gun free zones," or would have virtually little or even negative effects on total violence in America, such as banning Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines. Even in the event that there are any positive effects from banning certain guns or larger capacity magazines, it would probably take around 50 years before we started seeing even minute benefits, if any.

So then what would be a true solution to gun violence? Most gun violence and violence in general is fueled by the drug trade. So if your serious about fighting gun violence, let's legalize or at the very least decriminalize some drugs.

DEBATE GO!!!
juri.kallas

Pro

In this case i will be debating in support of stricter gun control.

While my opponent is right when he mentions that a gun is by no means the soul cause of the problems and brings out all the correct reasons for it ,he approaches the problem the wrong way.You see the gun is not the reason for high rates of crime ,it is the tool through which these crimes are committed and no matter how much people love their guns ,no matter how paranoid they are about their government trying to enforce a tyranny on them so they have to protect themselves , the fact remains that the gun is first and foremost a lethal object , most of the time if not all the time ,meant only to strike another person down . We can debate all we want over why we have crime but what we know for certain is HOW we have crime and we have it through firearms ,firearms that are very easy to obtain in the US.

Now then.

We cannot solve the mentioned causes that lead to high rates of crime without removing ,or at least enforcing more strictly the ways through which people get their hands on a firearm in the US.Yes the criminals will always find a way to obtain a gun but with the proper laws and regulations in place , we can at least make it substantially more difficult for them to do so which will greatly reduce gun crime.

The second benefit from gun control would be the decrease in freak accidents within the US homes themselves where there have been more than a fair share of cases where a minor gets their hands of a fully loaded firearm WITH the parent's permission i might add and the results are catastrophic.Just a couple of days ago a news piece was reported where a young man accidentally killed his younger sister with a loaded weapon supposedly built just for a child (a concept which is just mind blowingly stupid itself). With stricter laws on guns ,not this many weapons would find their way into the very wrong homes .

Overall , i firmly believe that this obsession with having guns as easily obtainable as possible has little to do with a man being able to protect himself with his rifle or fight agains the "government tyranny" but more with the simple fact that the gun , the firearm is simply what defines the US culture ,it IS the US culture , the US simply love guns.It is a culture that has no place in a modern world which is striving towards reason and the gun laws would greatly help to bring change into this culture.
Debate Round No. 1
ufcryan

Con

First I must address the argument that a gun is "meant only to strike another person down."

I have often encountered what I call the purpose of a gun argument, or that we should ban guns (or certain types of weapons, such as Assault Weapons) because they were designed to kill as many people as possible. This argument is, respectfully, a bad argument because:

1. The purpose of an object is, firstly, a matter of opinion. We can argue all day that the AR-15 is an military weapon meant for killing, and other people can return the same way and argue it is the civilian issue version of a military rifle without military features (such as being fully automatic).

2. It does not matter what an object was designed for, only how it is used. If a gun is used, for example, by a women to deter a rapist, then it has not been used immorally (even if the defensive use was illegal). Therefore we must consider the net effect of how often guns are used to inflict harm vs. how often guns are used justly (i.e. self-defense).

Guns are used far more often for self-defense than to inflict harm. Roughly 500,000 crimes are committed with guns every year (see http://www.justfacts.com...), and if you examine the FBI Uniform Crime Reports roughly 10,000 people are murdered every year by guns.

One survey performed by Gary Kleck performed in 1993 found that guns are used defensively about 2.2-2.5 million times every year, and 162,000 people would have died had they not had a gun. This number is most likely too high based on the methods used buy the survey, but even if only 10% of the cases were true, 16,000 would be saved by guns every year vs. the 10,000 people murdered by guns.

Additional studies performed by the CDC found that people use guns to frighten away or defend themselves against Burlglars approximately 500,000 times per year (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). A similiar to Kleck's survey found there are roughly 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (see https://www.ncjrs.gov...).

Additionally, there is around 600 fatal gun accidents every year, which is still heavily outweighed by the estimated number of people saved by having guns (see http://www.justfacts.com...)

Given How I have previously hindered myself, I cannot argue against required gun safety training before buying a gun, background checks for all gun sales, and a federal firearm registry on all guns (which can be argued against only by referencing using guns to defend against tryanny).

Lastly nearly all forms of gun control have been counterproductive and have either led to more people being killed, such as the British 1997 firearms act (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...)

Or gun control measure have had no effect whatsoever on crimes and suicides, such as in the case of Australia (http://www.gunsandcrime.org...).

Guns therefore prevent more suffering and deaths then the harms they inflict.
juri.kallas

Pro

juri.kallas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ufcryan

Con

ufcryan forfeited this round.
juri.kallas

Pro

juri.kallas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ufcryan

Con

If I'm not mistaken I believe my opponent has forfeited...
juri.kallas

Pro

juri.kallas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ufcryan 3 years ago
ufcryan
Yes I don't believe I'm going to get any more out of the original debate. Nonetheless thank you as well for staying civil, I've debated with some other people off facebook and I'm usually immediately deemed a cherry picker (obviously). I hope this was informative to anyone reading the comments, and again if anyone wants a copy of my sources and a powerpoint presentation I've given just message me.
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
First of all, thank you ufcryan for a very nice conversation. I know comment is a wrong section for debate, and I thank you for trying to keep up with me and keeping it perfectly civil.
This is nice since it is the first conversation on gun that I ever have that actually provided me with sound arguments on the other side of the debate.
I rest my case here, since I was wrong to pick a debate that is not mine in the first place.
I am looking forward to a future debate with you ufcryan.
Posted by ufcryan 3 years ago
ufcryan
If you or anyone reading this wants a copy of a powerpoint presentation I've given on gun control, covering all the facts I've been able to find (some of which you will not find anywhere else, like people killed by ccw permit holders year by year) as well as the compilation of all my sources message me an email address and I'll send it to you.
Posted by ufcryan 3 years ago
ufcryan
Given how I have previously hindered myself, I actually cannot argue against firearm registration (including magazine registration), since the only way to do so would be to mention the need for guns to defend against tryanny, and that is a different conversation than the one we're having.

The reasons a firearm registration would be useful are mainly because it would require people to lock up their firearms to prevent theft and facing potential criminal charges from the gun theft. Many people are appalled at the idea of permitting the police to violate your privacy rights by performing random searchers in your house to check if your firearms are properly stored, but I think that's a small consideration as long as the police do not harass you every day or abuse the privelage.
Posted by ufcryan 3 years ago
ufcryan
Simple correction real fast, AW was an acronym for assault weapons, not automatic weapons (which are almost completely illegal to own and are very heavily regulated). The sudden increase the frequency of the number of assault weapons used and high capacity magazines used is due to the sharp increase in the number of people owning them after the beginning of the ban (people stocked up on AW's and LCM's before the ban began). However there is also a problem in scale, if you go to the brady campaign website they have a list of reports as well as a comprehensive list of all the reported of crimes involving assault weapons since the ban ended in 2004. If you read through all of them (like I did, it took FOREVER) the average number of people murdered by assault weapons every year (after factoring out accidents and suicides, since I don't see how having an assault weapon vs. any other gun contributes to either) roughly 60 people are killed every year by assault weapons, most of which could have been accomplished with other firearms (someone executing someone else on their knees could be accomplished just as easily with practically any firearm). The assault weapons ban was also fairly ineffective because it did not ban firearms based on their capability, but rather cosmetic features such as collapse-stocks and flash hiders.
Posted by ufcryan 3 years ago
ufcryan
As I mentioned the high capacity magazine ban video was overly biased, but it did have some decent data regarding how quickly amatuers can change magazines. However recall I didn't say that a mass shooter needing to reload wouldn't save lives, I'm sure it has. However we are trying to minimize deaths and assess the net effect of the ban, and this means weighing situations wherein a citizen needed more than ten shots to successfully defend themselves vs. how many could be saved in mass shootings. This means that, for all we know, it could lead to more deaths just as easily as it could save them and the length of time to detect change does I believe is demotivating, especially when the change may be so small that it's actually undetectable. This is all of course without giving consideration to the property rights of gun owners, which may be low on the priority list but libertarians (the philosophical kind) will typically argue that unless proven that owning something is creating harm, you can own anything. High capacity magazines don't seem to be contributing very much to the net harms, and whether or not this justify's violating gun owners property rights is open for discussion.
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
A total ban might not be necessary - a better regulated special license program may be a better solution.

For example, there may be no need for a total ban of high capacity magazine - if one can show that he or she may reasonably requires high capacity magazine for self defense one may apply to get a special permit for such magazine. The same can be applied for automatic weapon. For such permit, special requirements may apply - internet sale of such magazine or weapon may be banned, and one must take annual or biannual exam for mental stability to posses such license. Similar scheme - except internet sale - apply to automobile license.

Such device will be registered to you, and you must submit such device regularly every reasonably set period of time to a federal inspector, and failure to do so will get your license suspended. Car inspection is also compulsory, albeit for a different reason (but quite close - its for the safety of others).

Any gun lost or stolen must be reported - failure to do so will get your license suspended, and any crime perpetrated with such weapon will get you legally liable. Gun case or safe may be a required purchase and regularly inspected. This measure is justified because stolen guns are far more likely to be used in crimes or end up in black market, and this is to prevent misplacement or mishandling of guns. Gross negligent is not a defense, it is a crime.

These are just some suggestion I picked up in about an hour - so there might be a need for some refinement here and there. The idea is that a restrictive licensing program might work better than an outright ban.

The point of gun control is to make it as hard as possible for the wrong people to get the wrong kind of gun. Thus a restrictive licensing program may be far more effective. After all, prohibition of alcohol has been proven a failure - a restrictive licensing of consumption and distribution appeared far more acceptable and capable. So, why not do that with gu
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
One of the more effective argument *against* gun ban is the fact that most gun ban laws have a fatal flaw: it does not affect manufactured devices, and nothing can effectively enforce hand to hand transaction without massive resources. The US has been flooded with such a large amount of pre-existing weapon, nothing will stop them from going to the black market. A ban will likely drives the price of banned parts even higher, creates a lucrative black market, and organized crime will likely follow.
We have seen that before, and we will likely see that again.
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
First of all, I don't think that "it takes too long" is a valid counter-argument. If anything, it is an argument for early adoption, since if something takes a long time, it is better to start earlier than latter, is it not?

Second, the report titled: Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, cited by you, reported an *increase* in the number of crimes with AW (automatic weapon) and LCM (large capacity magazine) after the ban. Furthermore, the percentage of gun crime resulting in death is stable despite an increase in emergency room technology, indicating a larger number of lethal weapon used (either from more powerful round or from multiple gunshot wound). Another indication is a higher number of multiple victim gun homicide after the ban. This, if anything, showed an ineffective or insufficient implementation of gun control law, or the ineffective of the enforcement of such law, be it a lack of required resource or the incompetence of law enforcements. One *can not* logically conclude from such results the un-necessity (if that is a word) of the law itself.

To begin with, one must agree that gun crime is a serious social problem that need to be faced. If, for example, a treatment for a disease one suffered fail, the logical course of action is one must improve the treatment, or look for a better and stronger treatment, not giving up after exclaim "Its a tragedy. Oh well".

Gun control law is similar to disease outbreak prevention. It must be designed to be a comprehensive and complete solution from the ground up. An effective gun control measure must be complemented by an effective enforcement. Failure to do so at any point will likely render the whole system ineffective or useless.
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
As I have mentioned, these guys on your youtube video are pros, judged by their reload speed. On the other hand, not so many shooters are professional gun owner, more like those who guy who buy some guns and take their revenge upon the world. Further, shooters are not frequently very calm, are under pressure, and if polices are involved, are being shot at. Reloading time in such cases are often longer than in shooting range. And in a mass shooting, even a few seconds is worth it.

After checking the video, I actually laughed out loud after recognized that the guys intentionally shot slowly when shooting with hi-cap magazine and shot faster when shooting with lower capacity magazine. Check it out!
No votes have been placed for this debate.