The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,051 times Debate No: 39418
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)




I am tired of seeing other people argue this topic and want to do it myself. I am against gun control in general and will argue as such. 1st round accept, 2nd for opening statements, 3-4 are rebuttals and 5 is to close. Be CONCISE. I want a real discussion, not some sincerly ignorant troll or name calling knucklehead.


Hi jnedwards11,

As you may have read elsewhere this is the second debate I am taking part in regarding this topic. Personally I find it an issue of the utmost importance and think it's imperative that we as a society begin to honestly and rationally discuss the matter. I therefore hope that you will find in my responses a reasonably informed and respectful opponent.

I am also open to being wrong on the issue as I do not hold to some guiding ideology that governs my reasoning on this issue, I simply support gun control for it's pragmatic purposes.

Hope it's a great debate!

Kindest Regards,
Debate Round No. 1


Great! I'm glad to hear you value practicality over defending dogmas and I appreciate you're taking the time to engage in this discussion with me. I hope this will be a thought provoking experience for both of us and may pragmatism win the day! It may not be necessary to call out, but I did mean to clarify that I am arguing against gun control in the US. Using other countries examples is fine, however, since my opposition to gun control isn't necessarily inclusive of the entire world, I would like to limit our debate accordingly. My apologies if this proves to be disagreeable, I assume full responsibility and would forfeit to you for a more appropriately titled challenge if needed.

I'll dive in by listing my main opposition to American gun control as pithily as possible.

1) Civilian gun ownership is too prevalent to attempt to effect any realistic control of firearms:

Given the American gun culture, The 2A with its recent affirmations by SCOTUS, the multi-billion dollar gun industry AND the fervent support from a host of formidable political rights groups, I believe a substantial percentage of civilian gun ownership in the US is, and ever will be, completely inevitable. Just estimates roughly 33% of adults owned firearms as of 2010, by the same sights estimations that's about 100 million people. Given the natural capacity for human error and want of self gain, particularly over such a large group, it is my contention that gun control could never effectively prevent access to guns by criminals in conjunction with incontrovertible American laws and values.

2) Gun Control Laws do little to deter criminals and much to encumber lawful citizenry

I am genuinely hard pressed to think of a single example of gun control that isn't laughably ineffective to one who is willing to run afoul of the law. No concealed weapons? Gun free zones? UBGC? (Which couldn't even pass a democratic held senate). I'm no criminal, but logically one could get his brother to buy him a gun, hand it over, shave the serial numbers, and conceal that gun illegally wherever they go without regard for the law. Inversely, a lawful citizen pays for a background check and proper training for concealed certifications and is disarmed in a number of environments where a criminal would otherwise be free to carry. I do not wish to suggest that a law should not be made because it will not be obeyed, but rather that it should have a reasonable expectation of compliance via a defined and effective system of enforcement. Legislation aimed at readily available tools, rather than those that would use them inappropriately, is doomed to be hopelessly ineffective and only serves to stiffen the resistance of gun rights supporters that bear the sour fruits of these failures.

Thanks again for your time, eagerly awaiting your reply!


Hello again jnedwards11,

Hope your Friday is going well, I have some free time at the end of my day here at work to post my opening argument. :)

My argument is simply going to follow from the following premise, which is that the Ownership of Guns do not make a Nation Safer, and I will use international data and peer reviewed articles to supplement my argument.

1. The greater the percentage of guns and gun owners is the best predictor of fire-arms related deaths being high in a country.

Here is some relevant data to illustrate my point:

Country Guns Per 100 people Total Fire-arms Related Deaths per 100,000
Australia 15.0 1.04
Austria 30.4 2.94
Belgium 17.2 2.43
Canada 30.8 2.44
Denmark 12.0 1.45
Finland 45.3 3.64
France 31.2 3.00
Germany 30.3 1.10
Greece 22.5 1.50
Iceland 30.3 1.25
Ireland 8.6 1.03
Israel 7.3 1.86
Italy 11.9 1.28
Japan 0.6 0.06
Luxembourg 15.3 1.81
Malta 11.9 2.16
Netherlands 3.9 0.46
New Zealand22.6 2.66
Norway 31.3 1.78
Portugal 8.5 1.77
South Africa 12.7 9.41
Spain 10.4 0.63
Sweden 31.6 1.47
Switzerland 45.7 3.84
Turkey 12.5 0.72
United States88.8 10.2
United Kingdom6.2 0.25


No other rates such as Mental Illness nor Crime Rates are as good of a predictor for fire-arms related deaths than the number of guns per 100 people. The only country not predictable by this standard is South Africa.

It is also not possible to tie the number of fire-arms owned in a country to predict a lower crime rate. Nor is Mental Illness as the article I linked suggests, this to me demonstrates that the existence of fire-arms used by the general public is not a very useful way to deter crime, but only an indicator of a much higher rate of fire-arms related deaths.

2. There is an Epidemic of gun related violence in the USA.

Since 1998 there has been about 183,233 fire-arms related homicides. That is 183,233 citizens of the USA murdered from someone pulling a trigger with the intention of ending their lives. This is more than the Vietnam War, Korean War, WWI, Revolutionary War, and War on Terror Combined (Combat Deaths) which is 147,793. This is an appalling number by any degree, and consistently is in the form of a massacre in public places often involving children.


I believe based upon these two points primarily that the existence of fire-arms lawfully owned in America is a much more harmful policy to the general public than it is helpful. And it is on such a scale that difficulties to remove fire-arms from our nation would be justifiable.

Thank you for your time and I am looking forward to reading your response.

Debate Round No. 2


Great stuff here TrueScotsman, I can't wait to get started with the rebuttals! So without further adieu...

In your first point you have fairly stated your belief that ownership of guns do not make a nation safer and have corroborated these views with an AJMD study. I will use information from the same report along with another study recently done by Harvard journal of law & public policy to refute your findings.

Taking your data at face value is compelling indeed, however, an examination the study's controls tell a completely different story. Since the study attempts to show a strong correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership it is important to understand how gun deaths are defined therein. As it turns out, it's done in a very misleading way! The report includes EVERY SINGLE type of death that can occur with firearms. This means police shootings & justifiable homicides are being painted in such a way as to lead one to believe they are an indication of less safety. The hypocrisy in this is so thick that I fear it tarnishes the reputation of the entire report, and yet this isn't even the only inconsistency! The report also includes suicides (which account for a 2/3's majority of yearly gun deaths in the US) but says nothing in regards to a suicidal person's tendency to kill themselves, regardless of accessibility to a gun. I have included a report that concludes there is no reason to believe a lack of guns correlates to a reduction in suicide. Incidentally, it also directly refutes the concept that more guns correlates to more murder.

Furthermore, your example is built upon an assumption (that you did not offer references for) that the gun deaths cited in this report are some how a better indicator of gun safety than general crime rates. In this assumption, it also fails to note total murder rates in each of these countries, which is of critical importance because who cares if a gun murder rate is low if you have a regular murder rate that's through the roof! Per your report, only 6 countries on your list have crime rates lower than the US and none of them have higher "mental illness burdens". So while the UK might have fewer gun deaths that's only achieved at the cost of a crime rate that's more than twice the US' and with 33% less crazies to deal with. If those factors are not of critical importance in a study regarding gun safety then I submit that you must offer specific evidence to bluster this view.

Moving on to your 2nd point; That the woeful amount of gun deaths in this country offer further evidence towards the need for more gun control.

To be fair, I think this is an extension along the same lines as the last point with a slightly more graphic, emotion invoking tone. So I will only expand on this slightly, perhaps, with some emotion of my own.....

The FBI crime report below indicates violent crimes across the US are on a nearly uninterrupted decline through the past decade, all while gun laws have arguably only become more relaxed and gun makers have reported record sales. In the face of such evidence, particularly in a society with so many miscreants, It hardly seems possible that guns are the main cause of those deaths. More importantly though....Individual gun ownership is a proud tradition and a defined individual freedom in America. As Americans we acknowledge that our freedoms will often be abused by the corrupt and immoral leeches of our society. However, in this, we also understand the importance of those freedoms and the reasons they were so closely guarded by our forbears. If you do not believe there are millions of patriots that feel freedom is worth dying for, then I suggest, as comparison to your figure, you talley the total number of Americans that have fought and died in order to defend it.

Thanks, and back to you sir



Sorry I had much to do this past weekend, more than anticipated and it caused me to be unable to respond to your remarks.

You make a great point in recognizing that the study includes all kinds of deaths, but this is something that is not misrepresented by myself or the article. I referenced in my first argument "fire-arms related deaths" not referencing homicides in particular until my second argument.

It is also important to note the actual numbers behind what we are seeing, which I contend do not tarnish the findings of the study.

Justifiable homicides: 617 (2010)
Unintentional deaths: 606 (2010)
Gun Suicides: 19,766 (2010)
Homicides: 11,078 (2010)


The inclusion of Justifiable homicides and unintentional deaths makes up only 3.8% of the total. Granted a significant portion of the amount are suicides it still does not negate the total number of homicides which is extremely high. It should also be noted the % of homicides in America that are committed by fire-arms.

Total Homicides (any method): 16,259 (2010)

This shows us that 68% of all homicides committed in the USA are done so by a fire-arm, making it the go-to method for how American's kill their fellow citizens.

Also, my argument was not attempting to show that gun control somehow cures mankind of their homicidal tendencies, rather I believe fire-arms to be of a more lethal and dangerous nature to a society as they have a larger range, accuracy, lethality, and rapidness by which their ammunition can be unloaded on their victims. We cannot completely rid of the world of murder, but I think something must be done to prevent the kinds of mass shootings only found in countries like ours that have lesser gun controls.

I also disagree with the application of the FBI crime report, here below is a list of fire-arms related homicides from 2001 to 2011.

2011: 11,1011
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348

As you can see, there are only slight fluctuations with a spike occurring from 2005 to 2008, perhaps resulting from the desperate climate of the recession? However, my point is that this number in relation to fire-arms used in homicides has only slightly decreased in the past few years but this is still much higher than it was in the 1990s and earlier.

This "proud tradition" has built up a body count of over 150,000 people over the past decade, and has cost the American people far more than it ever did our founding fathers who only lost 8,000 (not even equal to one year of the homicide rate in America) during the American revolution. Therefore I argue that we should not be enslaved to the traditions and values of men who lived in a very different time and atmosphere, who also I might add gave different reasons for the right to bear arms than we do today. Rather, we should place higher the values of life the American citizens whose lives are far more valuable than some said liberty to own a weapons which are designed to take such lives.

I believe the future of civilized societies will universally agree upon strict gun control or even out-right gun bans as is the trend after viewing the success of countries like Japan. It is not only the more beneficial option to the whole of the society, but it makes a statement by the people on their aversion to violence and preference towards peace.

Kindest Regards,
Debate Round No. 3


HelloTrueScotsman, Glad to read your reply and ready to get started!

Your first argument supporting gun control was that gun ownership does not make a nation safer because more guns equal more firearm related deaths. The obvious assumption when you present data to augment this position is that the gun related deaths are inherently bad, or otherwise avoidable. As such, I felt it was necessary to call out that the chart included situations where lives were actually saved by guns AND to point out that the vast majority of undesirable deaths were unavoidable, regardless of a guns availability. I'm glad to see, however, that we are now both in agreement that;

- Firearms related deaths are not an indication of less safety
- No correlation exists between gun ownership and general safety (good or bad)
- The study only shows that when guns are more available they are more likely to be used for killings

That all being said, I must admit, I struggle to find out how this example is meant to augment a position in favor of gun control. You indicated guns account for 68% of all homicides but do not refute that these deaths are likely to occur regardless of a guns availability. I ask that you put yourself in the shoes of someone who is passionate about civil freedoms. Why would that person consider a total surrender of their own rights, when the only promise you can make is that people will die just as frequently, but by something other than a bullet?

Moving on, if you prefer an obviously one-sided website over the FBI then so be it, but I will make this one point. Regardless of the fact that the AJMD has NEVER run a pro-gun article in its existence, I happily accepted your findings at face value. Findings which lack proof of causation and fail to provide speculation into correlative outliers (South Africa). Yet you refuse to accept my data when its from the largest national anti-crime department in the world. That hardly seems fair, but I suppose if that is your stance, I will go no further than to point out that per the FBI, the 1990s were considerably more violent than the last decade.

To your closing, I first have to ask, if you don't refute that deaths would otherwise occur without guns, how can you blame those 150k deaths on the proud tradition of gun ownership? Since you haven't demonstrated any relationship between guns and crime, what grounds are you basing your accusation on? Also, what other "traditions of men from a different time and atmosphere" are we "enslaved" to? Free Speech? Trial by Jury? Representative Government? You may feel enslaved by these notions and consider them archaic, I however, consider them very dear, guard them jealously, and am well aware of their humble beginnings! Lastly, what you believe about the future is not an argument in favor of gun control so that is why I am ignoring the rest.

Thanks again


Hello again,

This is perhaps the best of the debates I have been engaged in thus far on this site, you definitely have some strong arguments. However, I of course believe the facts are on my side. :)

You said:

"That all being said, I must admit, I struggle to find out how this example is meant to augment a position in favor of gun control. You indicated guns account for 68% of all homicides but do not refute that these deaths are likely to occur regardless of a guns availability."

Here I will demonstrate that the availability of guns likely does increase the number of total homicides in a country.

Total Homicides per Country (2011)
USA 14,612
Australia 229
Austria 56
Belgium 180
Canada 554
Denmark 47
Finland 118
France 682
Germany 690
Greece 176
Iceland 1
Ireland 54
Israel 159
Italy 529
Japan 506
Luxembourg 3
Malta 4
Netherlands 179
New Zealand 39
Norway 29
Portugal 124
Spain 390
Sweden 91
Switzerland 52
United Kingdom 722

These countries minus the USA total up to: 5,614 total homocides any method

The total population of those nations accumulatively is: 610,593,716

The total population of the USA: 316,955,000

So not only is their total population almost double that of the USA, their overall homicide rates are less than half that of the USA. Therefore, in modern societies such as the ones listed here, the statistics lend towards the conclusion that increased gun control not only effects the over count of fire-arm related deaths and homicides, but also homicides in general. The individual homicide rates also reflect this with Finland (having less gun control than the others) at 2.2 per 100,000 and Japan being the lowest at 0.4 per 100,000 and only 506 total in a country that has a population of 126 million.[1]

To be sure, there are cultural, economic and historical influences on these numbers, however it is my contention that the removal of fire-arms in a given society will drastically reduce the amount of homicides as alternative means for murder are not as popular in more civilized societies.

You said:

"Moving on, if you prefer an obviously one-sided website over the FBI then so be it, but I will make this one point."

It's not that I doubt the FBI's information or think the facts are incorrect, I just believe your application of the article to contradict my argument is misapplied as I am contending that the reduction of fire-arms would decrease the overall number of homicides drastically.

You said:

"Yet you refuse to accept my data when its from the largest national anti-crime department in the world. That hardly seems fair, but I suppose if that is your stance, I will go no further than to point out that per the FBI, the 1990s were considerably more violent than the last decade."

I do not reject the data, it's just that I do not think the improvements over the past decade are enough. Our homicide rate is still through the roof, and has been for sometime and as evidenced above removing fire-arms would lower this number much more drastically than ever before.

You said:

"To your closing, I first have to ask, if you don't refute that deaths would otherwise occur without guns, how can you blame those 150k deaths on the proud tradition of gun ownership?"

I do refute the notion that these deaths would still occur without guns, this number would be greately mitigated if the availability of fire-arms was either very limited or completely nill.

It appears you also misunderstand my application of my objection for the foundations of this "right." It is not so much that traditions and ancient ideas are bad, but it is that specifcally regarding this amendment it was put forward in regards to having an organized and regulated militia for the self-defense of the nation and to ward off tyranny of the government. The political and economic climate is very different from that of the late 18th Century, and fire-arms are hugely more advanced and lethal than they were at that time.

It therefore requires a new and fresh approach to the matter.

Kind Regards,

Debate Round No. 4


Thanks for the great debate TrueScotsman, I'm almost sad to see this one close!

To start, I would simply like to reiterate that the purpose of this debate was to prove a case for or against gun control in America.

In my opening statements I argued that gun control is a failed concept in America because:

A) Civilian gun ownership is too widely available; &
B) Existing laws are easily broken with little or no fear of reprisal, which in turn, only increase resistance from gun rights supporters.

I offered a number of points to substantiate these claims; however, as it turns out, those points were unnecessary. My opponent did not directly address these arguments at any point throughout our debate. I suspect this is because Con"s entire argument is predicated on the need for general bans on gun ownership, which I have demonstrated without contention, to be a legal, political and cultural impossibility in America. Even if you affirm Con's assessment of gun control in general, one still struggles to see how they are applicable in America without refuting my initial claims. Conversely, I was able to;

-Directly address each of Cons arguments
-Clarify misrepresentations of information
-Provide all relevant sources
-Prove using cons sources & my own from Harvard (which went unaddressed by Con) That gun ownership does not increase crime or murder.


Aside from waiting until your last rebuttal to address a point I made (and sourced) in my first rebuttal, there was also a very serious inconsistency in your attempt to prove gun ownership causes more homicides.

You have (quite deliberately) left out the "black sheep" countries from your source that do not fit with your assumed narrative. Brazil, Mexico & Russia (all modern societies with strict gun bans) to name a few, have homicides totaling more than FIVE times that of the US with an aggregate population that isn't even twice our own. This illustrates a picture in stark contrast to the one you attempted to paint in with your example. This is why, in real scientific studies, we are guided by a defined set of controls, rather than a desire to substantiate our own beliefs.

Again, this was a real pleasure TrueScotsman! Back to you you to take it home...


Hello again,

Have to say again that this debate has been a very challenging one, forcing me to really test my initial conclusions, but as your points drive me to do more research I still must disagree. :)

You are correct in stating that my argument is predicated on a general gun ban, though I believe this would have to be phased perhaps over the period of a decade. It would not be possible in America to see everyone convinced, but perhaps if the federal Constitution handed the authority over to the individual states to determine if they wanted a gun ban or not, it would be more of a possibility.

I also argued in earlier the following:

"I believe based upon these two points primarily that the existence of fire-arms lawfully owned in America is a much more harmful policy to the general public than it is helpful. And it is on such a scale that difficulties to remove fire-arms from our nation would be justifiable."

I do not think it is politically sound or morally sound to determine the correct course of action based upon it's difficulty, these are seperate issues.

As to the points my opponent is claiming to have made

1. Directly addressed each of my arguments.

These attempted rebuttals were mostly attempts to poke holes in the information I was providing, and as I will demonstrate with the correction of his last objection, these will all be addressed.

2. Clarify misrepresentation of information.

The alleged misrepresentation of information has been addressed, and your remarks about Russia, Mexico and Brazil will be refuted below.

3. Provide all relevant sources.

No doubt my opponent came prepared with his sources.

4. The Harvard source.

This is a 45 page attempt at the refutation of the idea that more guns equate to more murders in a given country, with the 3,000 words allotted to each of my arguments, this is hardly sufficient to counter a paper of that size. I have however, continued to provide evidence for my conclusions which do contradict the findings of this source.

Last Rebuttal and Conclusion:

Mexico & Brazil

Contrary to the report of my opponent Mexico does not have a gun ban (like that of Japan or the UK), the right to bear arms is actually protected under Article 10 of the 1857 Constitution.[1] Mexico and Brazil are also Latin American countries, this is important to note because of the existing trend within Latin American countries and their murder rates.

Total murders in Latin American Countries and Rates[2]
Honduras total: 7,104 rate: 91.6
El Salvador total: 4,308 rate: 69.2
Venezuela total: 13,080 rate: 45.1
Belize total: 129 rate: 41.4
Guatemala total: 5,681 rate: 38.5
Colombia total: 14,746 rate: 31.4
Mexico total: 27,199 rate: 23.7
Brazil total: 40,974 rate: 21.0
Guinea total: 2,152 rate: 22.5
Equador total: 2,638 rate: 18.2

My contention is that there are regional issues, primarily the drug cartels and the vast networks of organized crime in this region that accounts for the large number of murders in these countries, and therefore should not be compared neither as countries that have bans (Brazil voted not to have a ban in 2005 with a 63% majority[3]), and the regional issues cause them to be quite inflated compared to modern western socities.


Here again one might be misled to think I am just using statistics that help my argument while excluding those that don't. On the face of things, it appears to be true, but when you look deeper into the facts it is clear why I did not include them.

Russia is 9th in the world in the number of fire-arms owned,[4]and while it has been made much harder to obtain fire-arms, there still yet remains to be a general gun ban. It is also important to note that fall of the Soviet Union led to an outbreak of organized crime in the country that lasts until this day.[5] Only in recent years have the rates and numbers been dropping, from 42,160 in 2003 to 11,500 in 2011,[4] largely due to the increased gun controls.

My contention still stands, and I would again like to thank my opponent for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago

Glad you found my thoughts helpful!

While I do enjoy debating, I'm not sure I would take an opposite position from you, and I rarely do "devil's advocate"-type debates. I suppose it would depend on what your resolution was, of course, but
Posted by jnedwards11 2 years ago
Thanks Bladerunner060, your review and additional comments were really helpful!

I am going to work on a better resolution and attempt to re-debate this subject under clear rules and guidelines (I still haven"t sufficiently articulated my views). If either of you gentlemen would care to support the gun control side I would be happy to attempt this again with TrueScotsman, or have a fresh debate with you Bladerunner060.

TrueScotsman, I"m still hoping to hear back from you on those last few inquiries if possible, no rush though.

Again, Thanks to you both and if you"re interested in the offer just let me know.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago

As to you being confrontational--it's a style, and there isn't anything wrong with it necessarily. Comments like that a study is "misleading", or that a source is "one-sided", or that someone has "...(quite deliberately) left out [information]..." are strong. There's nothing wrong with such statements, provided you back them up (and you did explain them, so they weren't simply insults). Stressing that "AJMD has NEVER run a pro-gun article in its existence" (with an inescapable implication that it is biased) is likewise a bit confrontational. But, again, it certainly didn't seem conduct-worthy, so if it's your style, it's your style. I certainly could be accused of being confrontational, I'm sure. If you *really wanted* to avoid any perception of confrontationalism, comments like that could be avoided or reworded, but that's entirely up to you.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago

Always happy to help--not that I'm by any means some kind of authority.

As to your resolution, without knowing the specifics of what types of "gun control" you do agree with, it's hard to find one that would fit precisely.

Perhaps, based on what you said, something along the lines of:

"Resolved: Gun Control should be based on controlling purchasers, not controlling weapons."

Then you can clarify in R1 what you're talking about.

For example, many people are okay with the prohibition on assault rifles (as distinct from assault *weapons*, which is a meaningless term for "scary-looking", but I digress on a pet peeve), due to their automatic rate of fire. If that's the case with you, and I don't know that it is, you could specify in your R1 that you're talking about semi-automatic weapons (and, of course, presumably Single Action and Double Action).

I don't think you got carried off-topic. I think you responded to your opponents arguments, and that he chose, I think, to take it in a different and more extreme direction than you intended. That's the fun of debating!

Although I stand by my points awards, since you asked I do think your arguments might have benefited from more focus on the benefits of gun ownership, and an examination of its status as a right. Your opening case focused on practical issues, and then the debate went off in the direction your opponent went, leaving the philosophical questions largely unanswered. Which, again, is fine, but you asked!
Posted by jnedwards11 2 years ago
lol, sorry about the quotes instead of apostrophies there at the end of my last comment, not sure where that came from.
Posted by jnedwards11 2 years ago
Hello Bladerunner060,

Thanks for your feedback! Your critique was most agreeable. I admit upon reading your suggestions that I immediately regretted not better defining this debate. I see <now> how this could have quickly turned semantic. For instance, I support restrictions on gun ownership to criminals via due process of law; I just don"t consider that to be gun control.

My eyes are ever more open to my shortcomings in terms of defining debate structure and formalities. Moreover, I find it very difficult to express myself in a brief and convincing way. I feel like I could learn a lot from an experienced debater on this topic and your record is exemplary!

Would you mind helping me clarify a better resolution? I am against legislation aimed solely at the tool itself, but not restrictions via due process.

Also, do you feel like I got carried off topic? Could I have been more exacting anywhere throughout our discussion?

You mentioned my tone being somewhat "confrontational". I find this extremely amusing, because, as you might imagine; I get this feedback a lot, particularly in face to face discussions. It truly isn"t my intention and is very much something I would like to address. Do you have any suggestions in that regard? I realize I"m asking a lot, so I won"t feel bad if you"d rather decline. Regardless though, thank you very much
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Always happy to clarify!

The problem TrueScotsman is that you never really addressed Con's point about the availability of guns despite regulation (specifically through what are called straw purchases). By making it a Federal issue, you'd be banning everything everywhere, thus negating that argument by default. But by making it an optional state issue, you'd have to have addressed it. And it doesn't really get us to "practical"--not in the context of a total ban, anyway (obviously, states already use their own discretion in general gun control--but you weren't arguing that but rather total prohibition).

Also, allowing states to make their own choice doesn't really argue for your motion, since they might just as well make the choice NOT to ban guns completely.

I believe it was an attempt at your part to add practicality, but it didn't really add anything to practicality--perhaps had you more time/space to expand on it, you could have given a case, but just saying "Well, let the states do it instead of the feds" doesn't seem to get you there.
Posted by TrueScotsman 2 years ago
Hi bladerunner060,

Do you not think my point in my concluding remarks about making the issue of gun control a state issue, thus allowing certain states to either allow it, control it, or ban it outright? Certain states definitely have a higher death rate than others and therefore might be more practical to have the individual states take over the matter. Personally, I would prefer it banned in America, but in your RFD you failed to note that I gave this as a solution to the practical difficulties involved.

Appreciate your detailed feedback though!

Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
RFD 1/3:

Sourcing seemed equal. S&G, as well; though I happened to notice a few more typos in Con's argument than Pro's (bluster instead of bolster, adieu instead of ado), I didn't find it sufficient to award points. Conduct was acceptable on both sides, though Con was a bit more confrontational--again, though, nothing to award points over.

As to arguments, though:

Gun control, I think, was insufficiently defined in the R1 setup--because "gun control" is a blanket term that encompasses a spectrum, and anything limiting gun ownership in any way is "gun control" of some sort. Almost everyone is in favor of SOMETHING which could be considered "gun control", whether it be background checks or even simply the limitation on gun ownership for felons. Con's opening case seemed to be against all forms of gun control, arguing, that is, against any gun control rather than specifically against a gun ban (his points about having a brother buy you a gun, for example, don't make sense when it's illegal for ANYONE to buy a gun). But Pro made it difficult for himself, as it seemed that Pro was arguing for a complete gun ban in response.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
RFD 2/3:

Pro's biggest arguments in favor of gun control of the "complete ban" type seemed to be first, reduction in gun-related homicide which, as Pro pointed out, doesn't address the broader problem of homicide in general. In reponse to that, Pro argued that the overall homicide rate would decrease. Pro argued that countries with gun bans had less homicides than those without--but excluded countries that had higher rates of homicide despite stricter gun controls, arguing that those countries had different social structures that were the root cause of the violence. This defeated his own argument, as the immediate question springs to mind how the countries he DID list were similar enough to the US to warrant comparison, and he did not address that. This was in the last round, and Con did not have the opportunity to address it in terms of that response, but it was in repsonse to Con's own rebuttal that the "black sheep" countries were deliberately left out--and Pro's only method of rebutting that complaint was to present an argument that undermined the rest of his comparisons.

Pro also waited until the last round to address the practical difficulty of removing gun ownership, stating "I do not think it is politically sound or morally sound to determine the correct course of action based upon it's difficulty, these are seperate issues." While that is certainly a position he can take, it was Con's R2 argument, and was not addressed until the final round closing when Con couldn't respond. Con's main arguments WERE over practicality--as, in point of fact, Pro's, considering his argument was based on actual gun deaths. He can't simply negate practicality after ignoring it as a point of contention and using it himself in support of his motion.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro originally had a strong case, but then he went from general examples to using the USA as the only example of a country without gun control.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.