The Instigator
texans14
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
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 2 votes the winner is...
texans14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,292 times Debate No: 58215
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

texans14

Con

The first round is for accepting the debate. I will be taking the position against gun control at any level except for maybe background checks. I wish you good luck.
WilliamsP

Pro

I gladly accept texans14's debate. I will be on the Pro side. I will argue that background checks, limited ammunition, and more security - in schools, malls, movie theatres, etc. - is effective gun control. I will argue that the second amendment has been abused and misinterpreted as well.

As my opponent has not listed the rules, I feel obligated to do so:

1. Forfeiture will result in the loss of conduct points, unless there is a legitimate reason to forfeit.
2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. Occasional errors are tolerable.
3. Sources will be cited. All formats - APA, MLA, Chicago, etc. - are acceptable.

I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
texans14

Con

It is my belief that we should not have gun control in the United States. There are many legitimate facts and reasons to back me up.

The biggest thing is that gun control is not effective and if enforced at a larger level, it will continue to be ineffective. It has been proven that criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns no matter what. Here is a scenario proving this: The five US cities with the strictest gun control laws are New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, and Washington D.C. These are also the five cities in the US with the most murders by shooting. All that gun control does here is take guns away from law abiding citizens. If people in these cities had guns to defend themselves, there would not be as many murders.

Also, gun control would not be good for businesses or the economy. Obviously, stores that sold guns would experience a level of drought for their business. The level of that drought would depend on the level of gun control. For example, if background checks were put in place, it would take longer for people to purchase firearms. This would slow down sales for the business owner and they might have trouble paying bills. In addition, if gun control was put in place, guns would be sold on the black market. Scenario: magazine size is limited, so assault rifles are now being sold on the black market. And who buys off the black market? Criminals do. I believe that the less items that are sold on the black market, the better.

And now for the second amendment. It reads, " A well regulated militia, the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I know what your argument will be. You'll probably say, " it's only for a well regulated militia, not the average citizen." Well, the whole idea of the second amendment is protection from the federal, state, and even local government. Let me ask you this, what if I wanted to start a local militia? I am 100% protected by the second amendment to do this. My rights to guns cannot be restricted in this case. If gun control actually passes, I will start a local militia to protect my rights to guns.

Obviously the reason some people want gun control is to slow down crime. Like I pointed out earlier, gun control wouldn't solve crime. We should focus less on who gets guns and more on the large number of criminals that we need to hunt down.

http://standupspeakoutnow.com...
http://www.politifact.com...
WilliamsP

Pro

It is my professional view that some gun control policies should exist in the United States and the world in general. There are plenty of facts and data that support my stance. Also, many of the reasons that it should exist are rather logical. My opponent has not provided a specific structure for this debate. I contacted him and asked if I may provide rebuttals in this round. He said yes. Therefore, I will provide my rebuttals and my arguments in this round.

Arguments
Of course, gun control is a quite controversial issue. However, I will stand with the Liberal views on guns. I do not quite understand why Conservatives always claim that Liberals want to take their guns away. That is not what they want. The Liberals simply want to put regulations in place to ensure that criminals do not obtain a gun or another dangerous weapon. This is common sense. This is logic.

The second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. It is indeed true that basic weapons for self-defense are acceptable, but I do not believe the amendment to be valid in other respects.

"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." [1]

We no longer have a need for a militia due to a risilient and couragous United States Military. Also, I will point out the amendment's original intention. At the time of the Constitution's framing, there were still many issues in the country. An issue was the lack of a strong military force. Due to this lack, the founders decided citizens need to be able of defending themselves. I agree with this view, but you cannot deny that an AK-47 in a typical American household is excessive. If you want a gun for self-defense, buy a pistol. Or, even better, obtain a dog. Dogs are better defense that guns.

There are many ways the amendment can be interpreted, but I will point out that it has been misinterpreted for quite some time. I will rewrite the amendment in the way many citizens interpret it:


"A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied."

Deny what I just wrote. Please, I welcome the debate. I don't, however, want to hear anything based on misinterpretations. I want facts, which many people opposing gun control surely lack.

"It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens." [2]

Not all Americans are law-abiding. Due to the lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate in the United States has increased by a considerable amount. May I ask, why do Conservatives always bring up that gun control is taking away guns from law-abiding citizens but not criminals? This is completely unfounded and illogical. When a background check occurs on a law-abiding citizen, there will be no issues and he or she will obtain the weapon. A law-breaker will have a record and these will be shown in the background checks, thus ensuring he does not obtain a weapon.

"The rate of U.S. violent crime went up last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to a jump in assaults..." [3]

The second amendment must be enforced, but it must not be misinterpreted.

There are multiple methods of regulating guns. I would like to focus on background checks, limited ammunition, and the regulation of gun production. Background checks should be expanded so that we can ensure that people with a history of crime and/or mental illness do not receive a gun. Alongside background checks, there should be limited ammunition.

What if the background checks were conducted incorrectly? What if this person did in fact have a history of crime and planned to use his new rifle to kill innocent children at a school? Each magazine should include a limited amount of ammunition, depending on the exact type of weapon and the damage level of the ammunition. Also, the level of gun production should be reduced.

Let me ask: While this crime is occuring, are you simply going to do nothing? If you are not going to enact gun control, what are you going to do? Are you going to arm children? Are you going to place security everwhere? This shall not work.

I would like for you to view the bellow link:

http://www.nationmaster.com...

Germany is a nation with grandiose gun control measures. The United States is not. The crime rate, of course, is much, much lower in Germany, the nation I happen to come from. Do not ignore that. This is critical.

Rebuttals
"The biggest thing is that gun control is not effective and if enforced at a larger level, it will continue to be ineffective. It has been proven that criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns no matter what. Here is a scenario proving this: The five US cities with the strictest gun control laws are New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, and Washington D.C. These are also the five cities in the US with the most murders by shooting. All that gun control does here is take guns away from law abiding citizens. If people in these cities had guns to defend themselves, there would not be as many murders."

I essentially refuted this already. Gun control does not prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining a gun. Tell me, what does "background checks" mean? It means that individuals will look through your record. If you have a history of crime and/or mental illness, you chance of getting a gun is slim. If you are law-abiding, there will be no issues.

"Also, gun control would not be good for businesses or the economy." Where is the proof of this?

"For example, if background checks were put in place, it would take longer for people to purchase firearms. This would slow down sales for the business owner and they might have trouble paying bills. In addition, if gun control was put in place, guns would be sold on the black market." My opponent has not proven that gun control has a direct impact on the economy. He will need to do so for this point to be valid. Are you simply going to allow criminals to get a gun that easily, completely without background checks? I find this to be representative of stupidity.


"Scenario: magazine size is limited, so assault rifles are now being sold on the black market. And who buys off the black market? Criminals do. I believe that the less items that are sold on the black market, the better." Again, this point may likely be true, but my opponent must prove so.

The gun control system, of course, is flawed. However, it can change. There needs to be comprehensive gun control put into place. There must be a progressive reform of the gun industry. For me to be convinced otherwise, my opponent would need to prove that gun control has a direct negative influence on the economy, that gun control causes higher crime rates, and that gun control is simply ineffective. I am not convinced yet.

1. http://www.archives.gov...;
2. http://www.lectlaw.com...;
3. http://edition.cnn.com...;

Debate Round No. 2
texans14

Con

Mob- a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence. This is not what I believe in regarding the second amendment. I want to keep my guns exactly the way they are now, not inflict violence on other innocent people. You said that the misinterpretation of the second amendment is, "A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied." Some of what you wrote is the same as what the actual amendment said. What's the difference between keeping and bearing arms, and keeping and bearing arms at all?

http://dictionary.reference.com...

"It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens." [2] I do not fully think that, but there is truism to it. Law abiding means that a citizen obeys the law and if they do not, they are no longer law abiding. Much more often then not, law abiding citizens pose no lethal threat to eachother. "Not all Americans are law-abiding." Okay, so you want to enforce gun control on every citizen just to prevent the vast minority from committing crimes?
"May I ask, why do Conservatives always bring up that gun control is taking away guns from law-abiding citizens but not criminals?" I'm glad you asked. It's because gun control takes away guns from law abiding citizens and criminals. However, criminals will find a way to get guns anyway. Such as buying off of the black market. Russia has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The black market sales in Russia constantly consist of AK-47s.

http://en.ria.ru...

Background checks would defineitly increase sales of guns on the black market. If a person with a criminal record is rejected from buying a gun legally, he will go and buy guns off the black market. Limited Ammunition would not solve anything either. Criminals can still kill people with shotguns, pistols and basic rifles. As for regulation of gun production, there are already so many guns available that criminals can easily obtain. These three methods of gun control that you mentioned only interfere with a law-abiding citizen's gun rights. I don't need a source to back up this information. This is logic.

Germany is actually a country with significant gun ownership. Hunting is very popular in Germany, so citizens manage to obtain guns. Germany is a great example of a European country that uses guns legally and responsibly. Some others are France, Finland, and Norway. Luxembourg has totally banned guns for their citizens and their murder rate is nine times higher than that of Germany. Like I mentioned earlier, Russia is a country with some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Their murder rate is four times higher than that of the United States.

http://bearingarms.com...

As for how gun control would have a direct impact on the economy, I believe I have explained this in my previous argument. Obviously, you're not satisfied yet. During the recent recession, the gun industry created 37,000 new jobs with an average salary of $47,000 a year. If you are sti not convinced, please feel free to click the link below.

http://dailycaller.com...

Being that in most states there is almost no form of gun control, you must convince me to want gun control. I personally own and use firearms, and for the most part, I am backed up by the second amendment to keep my guns. It is going to take a lot to convince me to have to go through background checks and limit my magazine size. Quite frankly, I'm not even close to being convinced.
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals
"Some of what you wrote is the same as what the actual amendment said. What's the difference between keeping and bearing arms, and keeping and bearing arms at all?" Perhaps I worded it wrong. I meant that many people today interpret the amendment to allow ALL arms, even RPGs and extremely dangerous rifles. This is certainly not very rational.

"I want to keep my guns exactly the way they are now, not inflict violence on other innocent people." The same cannot be said about other individuals. That is why background checks are needed. Tell me, how are you going to prevent crime? Even if background checks are not the perfect solution, you can at least try. Background checks will delay that a criminal obtains a gun, but he or she shall get it eventually. Okay, I grant you that point. However, I would rather have there be a delay instead of simply giving them an AK-47 or an RPG without any background checks. It is completely absurd, irrational, and illogical that one could get their hands on such dangerous weapons without any regulations and checks. I want my opponent to explain this.

"Law abiding means that a citizen obeys the law and if they do not, they are no longer law abiding. Much more often then not, law abiding citizens pose no lethal threat to each other... Okay, so you want to enforce gun control on every citizen just to prevent the vast minority from committing crimes?" Actually, yes I do. Tell me, is gun control necessarily a bad thing? Certain gun control will delay criminals, but not completely stop them. I admit that. However, would you rather have there be a delay than simply give a criminal a dangerous weapon on the spot, giving them the chance to kill innocent children at a school, massacre individuals that are simply enjoying a movie, or simply destroy and ruin a large party? I would, at least. I must concede, gun control is not 100% effective. However, my opponent is on the Con side of this debate, thus he must prove that gun control is necessarily a BAD thing, which he has not yet done.

"I'm glad you asked. It's because gun control takes away guns from law abiding citizens and criminals." I am confused here. You are not making sense to me. How does gun control, in any way, take guns away from law-abiding citizens? It does not. Gun control is aimed at criminals. That is simple logic.
The Conservative logic on this issue is rather horrible. Let me try and explain it: So, there are background checks. A law-abiding citizen goes to a gun store and tries to purchase a rifle. The store manager says, "Sorry, you cannot buy that." The person says, "Why? I am a law-abiding citizen." The store manager responds with, "Sorry. That's the law." Does this scenario work? No, it does not. Background checks are aimed at criminals and individuals with a negative record. This is logic. This is common sense.


"Background checks would defineitly increase sales of guns on the black market." It seems very likely and quite possible, but my opponent has not provided proof of such a claim.

"If a person with a criminal record is rejected from buying a gun legally, he will go and buy guns off the black market. Limited Ammunition would not solve anything either. Criminals can still kill people with shotguns, pistols and basic rifles. As for regulation of gun production, there are already so many guns available that criminals can easily obtain. These three methods of gun control that you mentioned only interfere with a law-abiding citizen's gun rights. I don't need a source to back up this information. This is logic." No, this is not logic. In fact, this is completely illogical. My opponent has not provided direct evidence that gun control will lead to more guns being sold at the black market. And, I must ask again, how does gun control interfere with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens? It does not. I am sorry, but I will need to emphasize it: IT DOES NOT. Gun control is meant to slow criminals, not completely stop them. I believe that was implied. Gun control was never meant to eradicate all crime. It is meant to reduce crime, which it does. That, my friend, is logic.

"Germany is actually a country with significant gun ownership. Hunting is very popular in Germany, so citizens manage to obtain guns. Germany is a great example of a European country that uses guns legally and responsibly. Some others are France, Finland, and Norway. Luxembourg has totally banned guns for their citizens and their murder rate is nine times higher than that of Germany. Like I mentioned earlier, Russia is a country with some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Their murder rate is four times higher than that of the United States." Germany has great gun control. We should adopt a system similar to theirs. Isn't that logic? Also, I never said that gun control needs to be as strict as Russia's. It just needs to be strict enough.

"As for how gun control would have a direct impact on the economy, I believe I have explained this in my previous argument. Obviously, you're not satisfied yet. During the recent recession, the gun industry created 37,000 new jobs with an average salary of $47,000 a year. If you are sti not convinced, please feel free to click the link below." How does this harm the economy? Those people can simply seek jobs in other industries. In fact, there are industries that are more secure and prosperous than the gun industry.


"Being that in most states there is almost no form of gun control, you must convince me to want gun control. I personally own and use firearms, and for the most part, I am backed up by the second amendment to keep my guns. It is going to take a lot to convince me to have to go through background checks and limit my magazine size. Quite frankly, I'm not even close to being convinced." I respect your view. I am not in agreeance with you, but I will protect your right of free speech. You can make whatever arguments you wish. However, I urge you to listen to reason. I urge you to simply read my arguments again and think. That is what I did with your arguments, but I was not even close to convinced. I will now summarize my issues with my opponent's arguments:
- My opponent has not provided direct evidence that gun control harms the economy.
- My opponent has not make a link between the black market and gun control except for his "logic."
- My opponent has not made an argument to show that gun control is necessarily a bad thing.
- My opponent has not acknowledged that gun control does not interfere with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens and that gun control is aimed at criminals.


I now close this entry and allow my opponent to make one final motion. I wish him good luck. The better debater shall win.



Debate Round No. 3
texans14

Con

"Perhaps I worded it wrong. I meant that many people today interpret the amendment to allow ALL arms, even RPGs and extremely dangerous rifles. This is certainly not very rational." Of course it's not rational, but I'll bet hell will freeze over before I talk to someone I just met, and they want to buy assult rifles and RPGs. How would a citizen get an RPG in the US? They just wouldn't. There are many rational guns to have, but this isn't one of them. I don't interpret the amendment the way you said it. I'm sure I speak for the vast majority of the nation's gun owners.

http://www.ar15.com...

"Background checks will delay that a criminal obtains a gun, but he or she shall get it eventually. Okay, I grant you that point. However, I would rather have there be a delay instead of simply giving them an AK-47 or an RPG without any background checks." The current way of buying guns does not hand out assault rifles and RPGs to criminals. Walk into a Cabella's. You will not find an assault rifle or an RPG section. Criminals can only get those off the black market. These weapons are being sold illegally, which the government can't stop.

"Actually, yes I do. Tell me, is gun control necessarily a bad thing? Certain gun control will delay criminals, but not completely stop them. I admit that. However, would you rather have there be a delay than simply give a criminal a dangerous weapon on the spot, giving them the chance to kill innocent children at a school, massacre individuals that are simply enjoying a movie, or simply destroy and ruin a large party?" Gun control is not a good or bad thing. It is an ineffective thing. I have proved this many times in the debate when pointing out that criminals will get guns no matter what. Also, backgrounds would not even cause a delay for most criminals. If they we're put in place, criminals would go straight to the black market, not waste their time with background checks. And again, neither of us have to prove that gun control is good or bad. I just have to prove that it's ineffective, which I have done throughout the debate.

I apologize for my claim that gun control takes guns away from good people. Let me rephrase it. Gun control is a major inconvenience to law abiding citizens, and does not prevent, or even delay crime like it is intended to. I believe the liberals' perspective and logic on this issue are horrible. Here are how background checks work: a person goes into a store such as Bass Pro Shops to purchase a gun. The person gives the clerk his identification to enter into the computer. The FBI and the NICS usually read his information. The check usually takes five minutes, but it could go longer. If there are no red flags, he can buy the gun. This is a pretty short process, but why should the FBI have to read a law abiding citizen's information? Even though the person has nothing to hide, it's an invasion of privacy. Also, what exactly is a red flag? Could a person not be able to buy a gun because of a DUI? Which summons a question: Why would a murderer take the risk of being arrested when they can just buy the gun off the black market?

http://www.cnn.com...

"It seems very likely and quite possible, but my opponent has not provided proof of such a claim." You're right, all I did was provide logic. I will gladly give you proof. Many surveys say that criminals get their guns from the black market. 37% of criminals (after they were arrested of course) say that they could buy a black market gun in a week or less. Another 20% say they could buy a gun illegally in less than a day. This happens in many countries that have gun control. As you know, Russia is a country with strict gun control. With even slight gun control, black market sales increase. Criminals buy guns such as the ones on the second link below to use to kill people. Unfortunately, gun control can't stop this. The only thing that can stop this is catching the criminals.

http://www.examiner.com...
http://englishrussia.com...

"And, I must ask again, how does gun control interfere with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens?" It doesn't interfere with law abiding citizen's right of getting a gun. However, it is an inconvenience to the buyer. If it is an inconvenience to the average buyer, and it does not prevent or delay crime, why do it?

"Germany has great gun control. We should adopt a system similar to theirs. Isn't that logic? Also, I never said that gun control needs to be as strict as Russia's. It just needs to be strict enough." I would like you to explain Germany's gun control system. I am curious because I know how popular small and big game hunting are in Germany. When you said Germany has great gun control, I'm guessing you meant in urban areas where guns aren't needed as much. If I'm wrong please tell me.

"How does this harm the economy? Those people can simply seek jobs in other industries. In fact, there are industries that are more secure and prosperous than the gun industry." Gun control harms the economy because it runs thousands of people out of their jobs. If background checks were put in place, or if ammunition was limited, gun businesses' sales would drop. Some people who don't support background checks may stop buying guns. And obviously companies would experience a drop in ammunition sales. These two things could run people out of business. I think it's pretty harsh to say, "People can simply seek jobs in other industries." Why should people lose their jobs for something that probably won't even work?

Before I write my conclusion, I would like to make one more claim: Americans as a whole are dissatisfied with gun control. I strongly urge you and all of the voters to click the link below. It has many graphs to support my claim.

http://www.gallup.com...

Conclusion

Gun control is not necessary in the United States for many reasons that I have explained throughout the debate. My opponent has listed things I missed. The first two things and the last thing I have covered. I don't believe that either of us has to prove that gun control is good or bad. I have argued that it is unnecessary and ineffective. I encourage you to do the opposite. Here are some errors that you have made.

"Lack of sources and information to back up claims
"Excessive use of the word "logic"

I believe that this has been a very good and competitive debate. I wish you good luck in the voting process and in your future debates!
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals
I would like to begin by asking this question: If gun control is not going to be enacted, what else can you do to prevent crime? Are you simply going to stand there and do nothing, while allowing innocent individuals to die because of gun violence? I will not. I will not stop advocating gun control until every school, mall, movie theatre, and public space in the United States is safe.

My opponent said that I have a "lack of sources and information to back up claims" and "excessive use of the word 'logic." Okay, I must concede to that. If the voters wish to, they may give my opponent the sources points. However, I believe I made the better arguments. There should rather be a delay for criminals to obtain a gun than immediately obtaining that gun. The black market exists and is dangerous, I know that. However, background checks are the only gun control method we have discussed to far.

I have plenty more rebuttals. There is one I just noticed and neglected earlier. In the third round, my opponent said this: "As for how gun control would have a direct impact on the economy, I believe I have explained this in my previous argument. Obviously, you're not satisfied yet. During the recent recession, the gun industry created 37,000 new jobs with an average salary of $47,000 a year." What does this have to do with gun control? The industry itself will be doing just fine. The jobs are not going to magically disappear. My opponent needs to prove that this point is relevant.

I will provide some more links now:

http://listverse.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;

First, it seems that the support for gun control has risen, actually. Also, most massacres occur using legal weapons, not weapons from the black market. The more guns are available, the more suicides occur.

My opponent is a Conservative. Actually, an individual that all Conservatives hail - Ronald Reagan - actually favored gun control. Here is his quote:



Yes, he did indeed say that. Ronald Reagan, one of the most Conservative presidents we have had, favored gun control, particularly background checks.

Now, tell me, is the below image rational?:



An entire family is holding guns. Even the young boy in the image is holding a pistol. That is simply irrational, unecessary, and simply appalling. A young boy is not going to always make the right decisions. It just takes one wrong move and then he will cause chaos.

"Gun control harms the economy because it runs thousands of people out of their jobs." My opponent has not made a logical link between jobs and gun control.

"When you said Germany has great gun control, I'm guessing you meant in urban areas where guns aren't needed as much." I somewhat meant that, yes. However, Germany has a much lower crime rate than the United States - as I have shown earlier - and that means something.

"It doesn't interfere with law abiding citizen's right of getting a gun. However, it is an inconvenience to the buyer. If it is an inconvenience to the average buyer, and it does not prevent or delay crime, why do it?" Gun control does delay crime. I believe I have shown this.

I sincerely apologize if my arguments are somewhat bad. I have endured a lot of stress lately. I have a lot of obligations to take care of. I essentially rushed this argument. I apologize for that. I admit, my arguments could be better, but I tried. I really tried. I wish my opponent good luck on this debate, as well as his future encounters. The better debater shall win!

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I must admit, this was one of my weaker debates. I expected victory, but I concede to the RFD of the voters.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
The whole Reagan thing is pretty irrelevant.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Couple of things to note, guys. First, you both make a lot of unwarranted assertions throughout your arguments, often stating that you've evidenced your statements with links that don't actually lead to the impacts you're stating. You've got to be careful on that front.

Second, both of you need to recognize that you're not trying to convince each other in this debate. You're trying to convince voters, not each other. That's certainly one way to win, but it's unreasonable to make that the burden of either debater.

Generally, this debate is a little sloppy. The burdens analysis is a little wonky, and it seems like both sides are giving themselves higher burdens than necessary. Con seeks to show that gun control is inoperative, which means he must prove every single point Pro makes wrong in order to win. Pro grants several bold claims made by Con that remove nearly all of his solvency.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
And generally, each side is selecting some of the weakest points from this debate in order to win it.

Con argues that we shouldn't inconvenience law abiding citizens, and then shows that most of that inconvenience amounts to 5 minutes. That seems like an incredibly small harm to me. You talk about denying people access altogether for flippant reasons, but this is a bold claim with absolutely no warrant behind it, not to mention one made for the first time in the final round.

Con argues that there's economic value to the gun market, but never specifically states how much each type of gun control will lose for this market, so I'm left to divine what percentage of that market is affected by the policies Pro suggests. And I have a hard time believing that percentage is substantial. How do more background checks reduce the number of people that a gun store will hire? How is a ban on larger clips going to affect ammunition sales so dramatically? The sole impact here that makes sense is that criminals will no longer buy from these businesses, and I have a hard time believing that the economic impact of that loss is very high.

Con argues that the second amendment exists and supports him, but never gets around to stating why that matters and why, specifically, adherence to the second amendment is so important. I think there's merit to the argument, and that Con is winning it, but I have no clue how to weigh this within the bounds of the debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
The biggest point of the debate come in odd spurts and is mixed into the weaker ones. This is Cons argument that Pro's policy ideas will enhance current black markets. Frankly, I don't think there's nearly enough impact analysis here to show that it's as harmful as black markets so often are, but at the very least I can see a major hole here forming in Pro's solvency.

Pro grants the argument that criminals will always be able to get guns just as easily. This really destroys the majority of his benefits, since now his only advantage is delay of acquisition, something Con tells me isn't going to happen when criminals just turn to black markets first.

I'm never given solid support for any of Pro's positions individually. He says that background checks work, but never says why the presence of a black market is either a non or a lesser issue. He says limited ammunition (I'm guessing reduced magazine size?) will also help, but never says what effect they will actually have. He mentions increased security in R1, but drops it in subsequent rounds (which is fine, since that's not gun control anyway).

In fact, most of Pro's arguments are just question begging. He says that the second amendment is misinterpreted, but I don't know why that matters. He says that dogs are as effective as guns (seems like a bold claim), but never states why that's important. I never get a solid reason why criminals pursuing legal ends to get their weapons is harmful " I know the answer to that question, but I'm not going to use my own knowledge in the debate. He makes claims that crime will decrease, but furnishes no evidence or any logical reasoning why that would be the case. In fact, the only evidence provided, which is furnished by Con, seems to point in the opposite direction. He keeps arguing that it's only rational, but provides no empiric analysis for that rationality, and any intuitive reasoning is uncertain at best.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
In fact, the main point Pro makes is just bizarre " we must do something, so let's do this. Unfortunately for him, it's insufficient to just say "let's take action!" and present a policy that is net harmful or net 0. He can argue that the status quo is terrible and needs to be fixed, but that doesn't mean any policy is preferable. Pro makes appeals to authority in the final round, trying to show that reasonable sources show such a policy would be beneficial, but that's not enough. It's insufficient to argue that other people could state a good case and then not provide that case yourself.

Conclusion:

So, despite my grievances with his arguments, I find myself voting Con. His points at least have some (however minimal) impact to them that is demonstrable and logical. I lack that sort of analysis from Pro, whose conceded his single largest impact in favor of one that was uncertain and very weak. Even if a delay in acquisition does exist, I fail to see how that delay improves outcomes. Someone going on a mass shooting after a week-long wait versus someone who gets their guns immediately is still going to kill the same number of people. As far as I know, there are no diminishing returns to a wait period. If that wait time makes them rethink their views, gives police time to track them down, or accomplishes anything of weight, I could see something here, but it's not explained, and I can't provide that explanation without bringing my views into the debate.

I didn't find either debater's sources all that useful or beneficial, as this was mostly a show of logical outcomes rather than examples. Otherwise, this is debate is also a tie, but args go to Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
texans14WilliamsPTied
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: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
texans14WilliamsPTied
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: Points to pro for mentioning Germany's better handling of guns. Overall con did make better arguments, though. Never judge sources so each is a tie. All sources were quoted.