Debate Rounds (4)
-Round 1 should just be for acceptance of the debate
-Round 2 should be setting out our arguments and our main reasons for opposing or supporting gun rights
-Round 3 should be for rebuttals
-Round 4 should be for conclusions and final statements
A preemptive thank you to any challenger who accepts this debate.
My first point arguing against gun rights will be to address the Second Amendment in the US Constitution. This amendment was adopted in December 1751, before the official Declaration of Independence was accepted in 1776. During this time guns were a necessary tool to have, as it meant survival during Westward expansion, to fight any other colonists or foreign powers and as a means of self-defence in a time when people were extremely isolated. Where does any of this now apply to modern day scenarios? Modern day pro-gun activists point out that it is a way of protecting oneself from their own government, a way of limiting its power. However, given the extent of power that the US military holds, this argument is incredibly flawed. Firstly, what can, as an example, one small community do if such a situation were to arise where they fought the military? They would lose every single time, regardless of whether they had guns or not. Secondly, the likelihood of the government actively working against the people they represent in such a way simply would not occur in the US. It has too much reliance on the free market, production etc. for it to invoke a hostile response from such a large population. It is for these primary reasons, the outdated and obsolete nature of the Amendment, that I believe it is a flawed argument to use.
My second point will be to address the common misconception that guns are necessary for self defence. One such argument runs thus:
-I am at home with my family
-An intruder enters my home and, quite rightly, it is unlikely that the police will arrive in time should I call them
-The intruder likely has a gun
-I need to defend myself and the best way of doing that is with a gun
This logic badly represents the common criminal. Arguments that "The criminal will just be able to buy a gun on the black market" is absolutely preposterous! One Forbes article ('Inside the black market') states that, on average, even handguns are several HUNDRED dollars above retail price as a minimum, with the prices likely to rise when buying rifles or assault weapons. Most criminals do not have the resources, money or contacts to make buying such a weapon a viable option. After all, most robberies/muggings are committed in order to sell the objects to make money. The argument that the black market is just another, bottomless resource for guns that criminals can readily access is very misunderstood.
As a result, guns are simply not necessary! Most households have knives or bats or some other weapon that will very easily deter a criminal who, realistically, is not picking a fight! Most will flee the scene of a crime when spotted and modern surveillance and police techniques make it relatively simply to track them down. (nb. Just to clarify, I am in no way endorsing the use of violence by anyone, simply that it can be used as an effective last resort).
In many countries without guns, murder rates drop by a huge degree and overall gun-related crime becomes almost non-existent. I am under no false pretences here, I know that this will not have a vast impact on the rate of robberies and muggings. However, the success rate falls sharply indeed when guns are removed, and the possibility of accidental death or manslaughter in a "self-defence" situation also falls.
Choosing to reject guns is not taking away rights for the sake of liberalism! It is not harming your chances of self-defence nor is it allowing criminals to run rampage, unchecked by the gunless public! It is reducing murder rates, reducing the success of robberies, increasing the chances of catching and dealing JUSTICE to criminals and, finally, promoting more peaceful communities.
If my opponent could now present his arguments in support of gun rights, I will produce a rebuttal in the next round.
People kill people, not guns. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem
Everyone should have the right to defend himself from criminals. Even if a criminal has a no gun, it is still better to be at the advantage. You cannot predict what weapon the criminal will have so it is better to be the better armed. Also, police are not always reliable to come to the rescuse.
Gun control laws does not stop crime; gun ownership stops crime. A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, Gun control does not affect murder rates at state level and states that have gun control have a higher murder rate.  While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. 
The state, or whatever country, should focus more on crime control than gun control. Knives kill more than assault guns do , but we don't see anyone trying to push for Knives control. Accorind to Kit Daniels from infowars, "Guns are used exponentially more often to stop crime than to kill; each year firearms prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes in the US, usually without a shot being fired, meaning that guns are used over 300 times more often to save innocent lives, given the 8,124 murders committed with firearms in 2014." In that case, guns do more good than harm. 
If ever there is an invasion, it would be harder for the invaders to push because of armed citizens. Yes, the US has strongest military as of today, but armed civilians would still help and lowers the casulaties greatly.
You make a point that, while gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, murder rates decreased. However, you fail to address the point that the population during that time. Demographia.com shows that the US population almost quadrupled in size between 1900 and 1999 (from roughly 76mil to 272mil). When bearing this in mind, the number of guns per capita has actually decreased during the course of the twentieth century, which in turn can be easily correlated to the decrease in murder rates. When viewed properly, the number of guns and the number of murders are directly linked.
Gun control laws do stop crime. Fact. The UK, Sweden, Germany...These countries all have very strict gun control laws and their murder rates have stayed level at or under 1 death per 100000. The US has never dropped below 3/100000. All of these countries are first world states with top 20 world economies, yet the USA has by far the largest homicide rate out of this sample. This points very sharply towards guns as the culprit.
Your argument that more knife murders occurred was again false. In the very same source you got that information from, Infowars.com, it states that over 2200 murders occurred with firearms, with roughly 1570 murders committed with knives. This means that 1/5 murders in the USA in 2014 would not have occurred if guns were not a part of the picture. Yes, assault weapons are dangerous and yes they are uncommon enough to not be as large of a danger as many people would propose them to be. However, a pistol is just as deadly at close range, especially on an unprepared target. A prime example of gun control working is in Australia; in 1996 all freely-owned guns were confiscated and destroyed or securely disposed of. Guns since then have only been allowed under strict permits with rigorous screening and training tests to be passed. Since then, the homicide rate has decreased from 1.9 in 1992 to 1.3 in 2007 and there have been no mass shootings, something that occurs worryingly often in the USA. Your source claims that gun control is responsible for most of the genocides of the last century. Once again, this is false. More often than not those who fall victim to genocides are helpless anyway. To take the Armenian genocide as an example, before committing the majority of the crimes the Young Turks ensured that all intellectuals, leaders or soldiers were already killed or incarcerated. Those left behind simply could not understand or react to what happened and would've died regardless.
Guns are necessary for self-defense. Knives and bats are not enough. This isn"t the 14th century where melee weapons are a thing. Even if an intruder is unarmed, it is better to be safe than sorry and be at the advantage. Like I said in my previous argument, police are not always reliable, especially if your 911 call timing is pretty late. Even if a common intruder does not carry a gun, there is still a possibility that a random intruder is carrying a gun. Again, it is better to be at the advantage and playing it safe. Intruders are not always thieves, they could be serial killers or even kidnappers. These people are dangerous, violent and real. The best way to protect yourself from them is with a gun. Using these modern surveillances and police techniques on them is useful after you"re dead or kidnapped.
Not everyone with a gun are criminals. As I mentioned last round, guns stop a number of crimes. Also, my opponent lacks any sources to back up his claims while my arguments are well supported by credible sources.
Mass shootings will still happen even with gun control because mass shooters want the mass shooting to happen. They don't buy a gun and suddenly get the idea of shooting everyone up. Guns used for self defense do a lot of good.In many cases, mass shooters are stopped by armed civilians. 
Mega3bb forfeited this round.
Guns saves more lives then it kills. Most of the time, guns are used for self-defense and the police are not always reliable. Guns also stop crime, even mass shooters where the body count could have risen if it weren't for the armed civilians. Invasions can be a pain because of militias. My opponent misunderstood that guns are not the cause of these homicides, people are. Like I said, People kill, not guns. The government should improve things like mental health for the population than focus on gun control.
My opponent lacked sources for his claims and rebuts, thus are unreliable. He failed to rebut the argument of being at the advantage over criminals, even if they are lightly armed. He also failed to rebut that armed civilians can help delay an invasion. His genocide rebut also doesn't make sense.
Thank you for your time.
Vote for Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, will remove vote if somebody shows up to votebon arguments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.