The Instigator
WhiteHawk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PointyDelta
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Gun Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
PointyDelta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 324 times Debate No: 105460
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

WhiteHawk

Con

I, WhiteHawk, will be arguing why there should be no more gun laws than there already are and every citizen ought to own a firearm. My opponent, I assume, should be arguing about why guns should be restricted from citizens. The first round will be of acceptance of the challenge, and I hope for a civilized, proper debate.
PointyDelta

Pro

I accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
WhiteHawk

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge. I will now present my case.

I will be mentioning two reasons to own firearms, and the impact of too much gun laws in today"s american society

Everyone should be able to and ought to own a firearm for two reasons: Self Protection, and providing. In today"s society, there is crime everywhere including the streets, in the government offices, online, in planes, it can happen in your own home. If you don"t have a firearm and a criminal comes into your home and takes your private possessions and threatens the lives of you and your loved ones, the police can stop him in under 15 minutes, but a bullet can stop him in a split second. It is very rare that you will coax a determined criminal into giving up just by using your words. On the street, law-abiding citizens ought to conceal carry a firearm everywhere. If there is an armed shooter on site, any citizen will be able to stop the assailant in his tracks to prevent even more deaths.

Guns are a tool that can help you provide for your family. Many american citizens own private land and they can hunt for animals without disrupting the business of their neighbors. The average rifle round costs less than an american dollar, and the cost of five pounds of meat at your local Walmart is a little over eleven dollars. Shooting a buck and getting thirty pounds of meat for less than a dollar beats buying five pounds of meat at your local Walmart for over ten dollars.

The impact of too much gun laws would be pretty gruesome. The amount of mass shootings and murders would increase dramatically as the criminals will know the people that they will be shooting will have almost no possible way of defending themselves. And since when do criminals follow laws? The criminals can buy guns under the counter, through the black market, and by just stealing them. Not only will the amount of mass shootings rise, the amount of wounded and dead will rise even more. If every citizen had a gun, the criminals would know this and it would place fear on them. The amount of mass shootings would plummet as well as amount of wounded and dead. People have been claiming that guns are the reason for murder. I will have to disagree because guns can not shoot people without someone pulling the trigger. Therefore, it is the person and not the gun. The gun is merely a tool, just like your common screwdriver. If all guns were to just vanish out of existence, people will find another tool to get the job done.

All of my sources are to the extent of my knowledge.
PointyDelta

Pro

My points in this debate will be structured as follows:

R2: Opening contentions, discussion of monopoly on force, breaching of such, basics
R3: Rebuttal, further substantative
R4: Rebuttal and summary

On to the debate.

Governmental monopoly on force

Let's consider what this means, and why it's important, then we'll move onto discussion of the paradigms of the USA and Britain, and why there are fewer knife deaths per million in Britain versus America, and why there are more gun deaths per million by 138 times in America[1], while the total crime rate is actually 25% more in Britain than America[2], but the murder rate in Britain is still 4 times less than America[3].

Most non-anarchist political theorists begin by stating that the state (usually in the form of a government) has a monopoly on force. This means pretty much that no non-governmental person (henceforth "actor") is permitted to initiate violence, except in self-defense. This is, for instance, why pretty much everyone can agree that the police should exist, in order for the state to use violence in the form of arresting people in order to stop them from initiating violence and therefore committing a crime. This is reasonable.

Why guns matter to this paradigm

There will always be those who for whatever reason wish to breach the monopoly on force and commit a crime. It's not terribly effective to simply use your fists as a weapon to attempt to either assault or kill someone, and furthermore, as my opponent acknowledges, potential criminals who wish to obtain a gun in the US are usually able to do so.

Therefore, where the state monopoly on force is breached in America, where there is a larger proportion of crimes committed using a gun [4], it's breached with a gun as the deadly weapon. Con is absolutely right in stating that a gun is a tool - just like a knife. A gun has legitimate uses, like self-defense or hunting. A knife also has legitimate uses, like cooking or hunting. Make no mistake, a gun is a tool specifically engineered to kill people. It's very good at that.

Conclusions we draw, therefore, from this and that statistics quoted above can only be one inexorable one. When a crime is committed with a gun - in the specific example, where more crimes are committed with a gun there are more deaths even though the violent crime rate is actually lower than the UK, a country with very strict gun regulation. The criminals have found another tool, but that tool is significantly less harmful and where the monopoly on force is breached, it kills fewer people per million.

The United Kingdom and its relationship with guns

Perhaps this is an issue relating to "culture"? The Firearm Policy in the United Kingdom is that "All handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited. A few pistols are licensed on a Firearm Certificate for exactly the same reasons as the rest of Great Britain." In other words, pistols and rimfire rifles are tentatively permitted but very hard to get hold of. Knife possession, by the way, is also a crime that carries a reasonably high sentence. Therefore, we can know that where gun laws are stricter, no, it doesn't stop breaches of the monopoly on force but it makes them less severe. The violent crime rate is higher, the death rate is lower, because fewer crimes are commited with firearms.

I'll concede absolutely that providing for your family with a gun is perfectly an option, and further I think the government issuing hunting certificates and legalizing certain weapons for hunting is absolutely fine.

This leaves us with one point left - self defense. Let's quickly review the chain of logical reasoning thus far

C1: Gun crime rates per million are higher in the US than the UK
C2: Knife crime rates per million are higher in the UK than the US
C3: The overall violent crime rate is higher in the UK than the US
C4: The amount of people who die from gun deaths in the UK is lower than the US
P1: Therefore, guns mean that violent crimes are more deadly
C5: Gun restrictions are in place in the UK
P2: Gun restrictions make it harder, not impossible, to get a firearm
P3: Gun restrictions can reduce the deadliness of crimes, not firearms.

As such, it can be seen that the case for gun restriction is strong, backed up by evidence. The example used by Pro holds absolutely no water, given that the deadliness of crimes go down when fewer people have guns - home invasion rates are miniscule [5] - 3.7mln home invasions versus a population of roughly 323.1mn [6] people. Furthermore, even if you happened to somehow be alert enough to point and fire a weapon at the invader (presumably you've just woken up) for each and every time a weapon was used in self-defense in the US or in a justified killing, four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. In other words, for each and every justified shot that was taken, 22 criminal, suicidal or accidental deaths occurred.

Moving on to mass shootings, the example is simple - the recent Las Vegas shooting contained no less than 500 individuals who were armed and none of them could do anything. This is because when someone has a gun pointed at you, even if you have a gun you cannot shoot them with it because you will die instantly. This is because guns are very good at killing people. Knives aren't quite so good.

Normative case
Your case here is that every person ought to carry a weapon. Even if we were to assume all of this is true, the breaching of the monopoly on force occurs in a more deadly way where the gun restrictions of the country are lesser. The normative case for carrying a gun is refuted.


It's clear that your whole case is either refuted or irrelevant therefore conceded.

1.)http://www.nationmaster.com...
2.) Ibid.
3.) Ibid.
4.) Ibid.
5.)https://www.bjs.gov...
6.) google
7.) http://archive.jsonline.com...
Debate Round No. 2
WhiteHawk

Con

In Pro"s first paragraph, he says that there are 138 times more deaths per million in the USA than there are in United Kingdom. Yes, the guns have been taken away from the citizens, but there are also way less people to manage as there are five times more people in the United States than Britain(1). He has also said that the murder rate in Britain is four times less than America, yet if you consider these numbers, with America having almost five times more people, and since he didn"t if it was per million or not, Britain"s murder rate should be almost twice as much as America based on population.

In Pro"s second paragraph, he has said that no "non-governmental" person, which a assume is the citizen, in not permitted to use violence unless it"s self defense. This is true, but the citizen is also allowed to defend their property with violence(2) if you have good reason. He also says the police uses violence in the form of arresting criminals. This is true, but considering that most of the time the criminals have already finished what they did and left by the time the police get there.

My opponent's first paragraph of "Why guns matter to this paradigm" holds information that is all true, fists do not have the mass to effectively assault someone. In Pro"s second paragraph of this topic explains that most crimes are committed using a gun. You also have to consider over ninety percent of these were committed in gun free areas ever since the 1950"s(3). Criminals go to gun free zones just because they know they won"t be shot until the police show up. Pro also mentions that guns are specifically engineered to "kill people." This is also true, since they are engineered to hurt people in self defense, and the criminals get a hold on these tools as well through the black market and under the counter.

In Pro"s first paragraph of "The United Kingdom and its relationship with guns" he claims that the death rate is lower in the United Kingdom because guns are not being used. This is true, as I said earlier, population is almost five times less than America, as a result, much easier to control. Yes, one of the goals is to decrease the deaths, but also the amount of crime.

Third paragraph from the end, Pro also mentions that assuming you just woke up during an invasion, you won"t be alert enough to point a gun at your assailant. Assuming you had common sense, you shouldn"t immediately confront the burglar, as you"d be shot just like Pro said. Instead surprise him/her by knocking them unconscious. Also, more shootings per year are in self defense than to take lives(4) and armed citizens do take out more criminals than the police do a year(4).

(1)- Google
(2)- http://www2.law.ucla.edu...
(3)- http://www.theblaze.com... 2nd paragraph.
(4)- https://www.gunowners.org...
PointyDelta

Pro




Rebuttal only this round as agreed upon.



manage as there are five times more people in the United States”


This is a broadly irrelevant point to my central contention, which is that where guns are common, violations of the monopoly on force result in more deaths. Furthermore, guns haven’t been taken away from the population of the UK at all – those who wish to obtain a gun will obtain a gun. You cannot both contend that gun control is effective and not effective. Which one is it?



was per million or not”


Rate implies per million. I mentioned this.



Britain"s murder rate should be almost twice as much as America based on population.”


What? Rate is based upon the number of murders per million, and if there are more deadly crimes being committed in America on a scale commensurate with the population of America then we’d expect Britain’s murder rate to be much lower, which it is.



This is true, but the citizen is also allowed to defend their property with violence”


This is included under self-defense – consider that your own person is your property. Irrelevant.



This is true, but considering that most of the time the criminals have already finished what they did”


The state also uses violence to prevent criminal activity – consider the judicial system and police forces stopping and searching people. Violence isn’t just actually assaulting someone, violence also includes things like arresting someone, putting them in jail (violation of their right to freedom of movement within the country) et cetera.



that most crimes are committed using a gun.”


I never said this. I stated that most deadly crimes are committed using a firearm.



Criminals go to gun free zones just because they know they won"t be shot until the police show up.


Fine, but irrelevant to my contention. Consider, first, that gun control, even if ineffective at getting rid of all guns makes it a lot harder to obtain a gun in the first place. This reduces the amount of guns, reducing the number of criminals with guns who can go to gun free zones, et cetera. Creating a culture of what is, essentially, escalation is unhelpful to both parties and results in more deaths, as I have demonstrated. Pro fails to attack my conclusions, just peripheral parts of my arguments.


the criminals get a hold on these tools as well through the black market and under the counter.”


Black market and under the counter guns imply harder to get hold of. Sure, it won’t stop a particularly determined criminal from getting a firearm but it makes it harder for your average Joe criminal to obtain one, especially in anger.



This is true,”


This concedes my point.



Yes, one of the goals is to decrease the deaths, but also the amount of crime.”


If Pro is correct, criminals will obtain weapons to commit crimes no matter what regulation is upon them, therefore gun regulation is pretty ineffective at stopping crime. Now Pro’s stating that gun regulation is meant to decrease crime? Make up your mind.



Instead surprise him/her by knocking them unconscious.”


And you need a firearm for this purpose why? Guns are a weapon to kill, not to knock someone out.



Also, more shootings per year are in self defense than to take lives”


True but misleading – for every shooting in America, in self defense or otherwise there are 22 accidental deaths.



and armed citizens do take out more criminals than the police do a year”


Possibly true, the source’s veracity is in question given that it’s “gunowners.org” but there’s two points we need to raise here.



First, it’s absolutely not the duty of a citizen to “take out” a criminal. The state has a monopoly on initiating force and breaking that when not in self-defense is a criminal act.


Second, for every self-defense or “taking out” a criminal shooting there are still 22 accidental deaths.



Pro leaves my main points of contention untouched and fails to even address peripheral ones. Over to Pro, again.


Debate Round No. 3
WhiteHawk

Con

Rebuttal
Final Remarks

In Pros first argument, gun control in both effective and ineffective. It is ineffective because no matter how many gun laws you have, criminals will still be able to get them but the law-abiding citizens will not have access, thus no self defense. I do agree that required background checks do keep some of the un-intelligent criminals from getting guns, but the intelligent criminals know how to get firearms under the counter and black market.

If your rate is per million, this is also arguable. Since Australia has some of the most strictest gun laws in the world, based on your beliefs, the crime rate, and crimes committed with firearms should have dropped since they placed the strict laws back in 1996. This is not the case, the detailed chart(1) shows that gun homicide rate has not dropped one bit, the armed robbery rate only dropped by 2.9 per 100,000. And the kidnap/abduction with a gun more than doubled since 1996.

In Pros argument saying "Guns are a weapon to kill, not to knock someone out." This is wrong because, you do not always kill people when you shoot them depending on where you shoot them. You can shoot them in the shin or the femur. Shatter the bone and they are immobilized, the police can come and arrest them. And you do not even have to use a gun, you can use a blunt object such as a golf club or a baseball bat.

In my opponent's argument "First, it"s absolutely not the duty of a citizen to "take out" a criminal." When the criminal is threatening your person or family with a firearm, it is your duty to defend them by "taking them out" with everything you"ve got. Including your firearms. You are not going to wait at least ten minutes for the police to arrive at your door.

For my final remarks, the more people that conceal carry in public, criminals will be taken out faster if there were no guns present. There are many videos on youtube(2) showing people protecting their person or business with a gun. Most of the time with robberies and threats, the gun being used is not even fired.

(1)- http://www.aic.gov.au...
(2)- https://youtube.com...
PointyDelta

Pro

Rebuttal, then summary.

" It is ineffective because no matter how many gun laws you have, criminals will still be able to get them"
Correct but misleading. We've already discussed and proven that gun laws make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

"but the law-abiding citizens will not have access, thus no self defense."
Self-defense can

1.) be carried out by means other than firearms
2.) is not the responsibility of the citizen. Therefore, where normative statements on this level are made, they are incorrect, because the state's role is to maintain the monopoly on force, not the citizens.


" the crime rate,"
No, they shouldn't. Your belief is that the crime rate isn't hugely materially affected by gun control. I'm agreeing with you on this, you're not proving anything here.

This contention on Australia is irrelevant given that proportion of the crimes committed with a gun doesn't matter, only the number of crimes committed with a gun. Arguing that the proportion of crime which has been committed with a firearm has remained constant. Were my hypothesis to be correct, we would expect to see lower numbers of crimes committed with a firearm.[1]And we do.

" And you do not even have to use a gun, you can use a blunt object such as a golf club or a baseball bat."
Pro concedes here after making an irrelevant point about the fact that you theoretically could use a firearm to act non-lethally but you don't, because guns are a weapon to kill, not maim or disable.

" it is your duty to defend them by "taking them out" with everything you"ve got."
Misses the normative issue here, which is that everything else being equal, the state should prevent gun violence, not the citizen. Pro fails to attack the conclusion.

In summary, we've learnt that

1.) Gun control makes violations of the monopoly on force more deadly
2.) It is not the role of a citizen to use firearms to defend themselves.


1.)http://www.aic.gov.au...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Repukesaretheworst - Oh I wouldn't want to put a firearm in ANY American. None. No exceptions. If there is to be worldwide peace guns and weapons of higher stature MUST be gotten rid of. Sure other things as well such as all religion, all wealth/ money, all media, and all borders. Everything else falls into those categories.
One thing I remember the 60 minutes segment stated about mental health and guns is how do you find those that are mentally ill if they do not know they are mentally ill? And those who are doctors or police cannot go around and knock on every city or suburb door and thus claim that person is suddenly mentally ill ESPECIALLY if they are not.
Posted by PointyDelta 1 month ago
PointyDelta
You don't understand, mate, I'm arguing for that viewpoint.

However, murder being illegal demonstrably stops violation of the monopoly on force, and guns being harder to get w/ gun restrictions make breaches of the monopoly on force less bad.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 month ago
John_C_1812
isn't it cheaper and faster to simply make killing illegal?
Or didn't that work?
If that didn't work why is presumed punishing those who abide by constitutional judicial separations will work?
That doesn't appear to be the problem here.
Posted by Repukesaretheworst 1 month ago
Repukesaretheworst
@Backwardseden I read the link you provided and you may be right that the coorelation between mental health and gun violence (other than suicides) is nonexistent. However, I still would not want to put a firearm in the hands of every American. Isn't there at least one person in your life you've known and thought, "wow, I hope that person never owns a firearm"? There are most certainly people who should not own any gun to being with, whether they have a mental illness or not.

Since it hasn't been stated, I hope people don't consider suicides with firearms to be a problem. That's not "gun violence", that's just suicide. Suicide is no reason to strengthen gun restrictions, so I have no idea why it's ever taken into consideration with nationwide gun deaths.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Repukesaretheworst - "like the fact there are millions who are not of the right mental state to own firearms and that it would only increase gun violence by giving them to the wrong people." That's 100% false... https://www.yahoo.com... - Three Charts Show The Giant Disconnect Between Gun Deaths and Mental Health
60 Minutes also did an article on it about 2 years ago, but its become a lost item, so my apologies I cannot find it.
Posted by Repukesaretheworst 1 month ago
Repukesaretheworst
PointyDelta, you shreaded WhiteHawk's statement to pieces with one attempt, that was really impressive. You stated a lot of facts I would not have thought of myself. If you have to rebuttal again, one point you should make is why giving firearms to every American is a bad idea, like the fact there are millions who are not of the right mental state to own firearms and that it would only increase gun violence by giving them to the wrong people.
Posted by PointyDelta 1 month ago
PointyDelta
Did you read my answer? Drop the indignation, it doesn't suit you. The penal system in America is deeply flawed.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@PointyDelta - Really? Think so huh? Have you experienced a coworker going on in and gunning down his ex girlfriend at work and then him getting only 4 years and then he taps you at the downtown bust station and tells you that he's manager at a local restaurant? Great! Just what we should all do! Go out and murder our spouses with a gun, knives will get you life, guns 4 years, so that when you get out you will have a high paying career waiting for you. Great going this country's penal system! Oh and I know that you know that if there's a woman in the home with a gun she's 3x more likely to be murdered - correct? I also know that you know that there's pretty much no such a thing as self defense with a gun - correct? I also know that you know that within 5 years or less the 2nd amendment and all gun rights, well they may as well be trash - right? And I also bet that you know the reasons why - correct? Yeah you know your guns huh? So which side of guns are you on?
Posted by PointyDelta 1 month ago
PointyDelta
Sod off, backwards. I'm perfectly able to talk about weapons.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
Oh goodie 2 juveniles who don't know a fricken thing about guns, I mean nothing at all about guns, are going at it. Joy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 month ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
WhiteHawkPointyDeltaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro by default!