The Instigator
tajshar2k
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Gun bans would not be very effective in the U.S.A

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 12 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,523 times Debate No: 79662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (196)
Votes (12)

 

tajshar2k

Pro

=Resolution=

Read before accepting


So I will argue that on balance, Gun Bans will not be very effective in the U.S

My opponent will argue on balance Gun Bans would be effective

BOP is shared

No K's'

Definititions

Effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result

Gun Ban- So completely banning guns. Not just restrictions


Hayd

Con

I accept the debate resolution and rules.

As Con, I will be arguing that a firearm ban in the United States would be effective. We will not be arguing that the government would not be effective in implementing a gun ban (e.g. the people won't concede to it, etc.), we will be arguing that once the gun ban is effectively implemented, it will not be effective in achieving the desired result. The desired result I will expand upon in my opening arguments in R2.

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this topic and I look forward to debating it with him.
Debate Round No. 1
tajshar2k

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting

=Disclaimer=


I think for me to talk about what is effective, I first should tell everybody what the intended result of banning guns are. The main purpose of banning guns is to reduce the violent crime rate that has been plaguing the United States for nearly half a century. So this is what I will base my debate off. Whether gun bans would be effective in reducing the violent crime rate. Y'all can refer to this document(1) Note it says "fight against violence and crime" Not just gun violence


C1: Gun culture

The reason why I believe gun bans would not be that effective is because there is already a prevelant gun culture currently existing in America. We Americans love guns. Guns are part of our culture. Banning guns nationwide would severely effect those who depend on guns for their daily activities. For example, the state of New York. There are appoximately 15.1 hunters per square mile. So, banning guns would have a major impact on their way of life. (2)


C2: Little effect in certain states

Let me take the state of Vermont for example. It's a state that has much less restrictions on guns [3], and its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 [1]. So, here is evidence that banning guns would not make a huge difference. Vermont is basically a state with 0 gun control, and it's homicide rate its one of the safest in the country. What exactly would be the point of gun bans? People in Vermont depend on guns for hunting etc.., and it is very clear that most of their gun owners are responsible law abidding citizens.


C3: Guns are used for self-defense

Guns are used by Americans for self-defense annually. Studies found that approximately two million defensive gun uses occur each year[4]. In other studies it showed that between 800,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses are used per year[5], which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. Let me compare this to the annual homicide rate.(4) You can see in 2013, the # of murders that occured were about 14,827. So the amount of times guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occured. Keep in mind, that not all of those murder's were commited by guns. Only 60%, or 8.855 murders. Well, you might think, "well gun bans would atleast prevent 8,885 murders." I'll show in my next contention why that is not the case.


C4: Illegal guns/ Pro's of CCW

So the United States has a big issue dealing with Illegal guns. There are approximately, 250 to 280 million guns in circulation in the U.S. In other words, 93% of gun crime is actually commited by illegal guns. (5) This number is so insanely high, it almost wouldn't make any significant difference, if all law abiding citizens were forced to give their guns away.

Now I will explain how CCW actually has benefited more. Ever since CCW states have enacted CCW's to their citizens, states have witnessed an 8.5% drop in murders, 5% in rapes, 7% in aggrevated assaults and 3% in robberies. So, in some states, CCW does serve as a detterent to crime.


C5:Britain has a higher violent crime than the U.S

This is also a good example of why banning guns wouldn't mean anything. U.S actually has a violent crime rate of 466 of 100,00. Meanwhile the U.K, a country who has the strictest gun control in the EU, has a 2,304 of 100,000. Really what this means, is that you won't likely get shot in the U.K, but you will probably get shanked with a butter knife. (6)

Joke asides, I found an article that attempted to debunk this claim. It basically talks about how the U.K's definition for violent crime is different from the U.S. Even then, the author still conceded that the U.K had more violent crime than the U.S at 776 per 100,00 (7)



1:http://www.gunpolicy.org......

2:https://www.qdma.com......
4:http://www.statista.com......
5:http://crimeresearch.org......
6:http://www.telegraph.co.uk......
7:http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com......
Hayd

Con

C1) Suicides

If guns were to be banned, this would greatly decrease the lives taken by suicide.

“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.” [1]

When a person possesses a gun, they are more likely to commit suicide, (3 times more likely) [2] .This is because when someone is feeling depressed, they think of the gun sitting in the closet, and a way out of their pain. This causes them to think about committing suicide, and some of the time they do. When you eliminate the gun from the situation, they don’t think about that way out, and are less likely to take that way out.

Suicide by firearm is also more likely to successful; more than half of all suicides are done by firearm [3] and 85% of these are fatal [4]. If a gun is taken out of the situation, the troubled person may not commit suicide at all, or be forced to use a less lethal method. By using a less lethal method, his/her chances of surviving the incident rise dramatically. Now that the person is more likely to survive the suicide attempt, they can get help and receive treatment for their depression, which cures them of it 80-90% of the time [5].

By banning guns, you give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back. You reduce the likelihood that they will attempt suicide and save thousands of lives in the process.

C2) Homicide

Enacting a ban on firearms would dramatically decrease the amount of homicides.

Firearms are a criminal’s favorite tool; easily concealed, fast, fatal and easy. No wonder of the 12,765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with firearms, 69.4% of all homicides. [6]

Taking away the murderer’s most effective weapon forces murderer’s to use a different weapon, a less effective one, making murders less effective and saving thousands of innocent lives in the process.

C3) Accidents

A firearm is an extremely dangerous object. An accidental bump, or brush of the trigger unleashes a high-powered bullet that destroys everything in its path. Firearms claim thousands of accidental deaths every year.

"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…” [7]

Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave anyone involved with the act a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life. If guns were to be banned, this would never happen again.

Conclusion

Conclude that a ban on guns would be effective in achieving its objective; saving lives, by reducing the amount of homicides, the amount of suicides, and the amount of deaths caused by firearm accidents.


[1] "Suicide." Harvard Injury Control Research Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 4.

[2] Zadrozny, Brandy. "Study Finds People with Guns More At-Risk for Suicide and Homicide." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.
http://www.thedailybeast.com...

[3] "US Methods of Suicide." Suicide Method Statistics in the USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.
http://lostallhope.com...

[4] "Lethality of Suicide Method." Means Matter. N.p., 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

[5] "Save. Suicide Awareness Voices of Education." SAVE. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.
http://www.save.org...

[6] "Murder Victims, by Weapons Used." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.
http://www.infoplease.com...

[7] Frum, David. "Are Gun Accidents 'Very Rare'?" The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.
http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tajshar2k

Pro

Rebutalls


R1: Suicides

Con makes a good case on the suicide rates of gun ownership. It is true that gun ownership may correlate to a higher chance of gun suicide, but Con is forgetting what the intent of a gun ban actually is. I mentioned earlier, the purpose of banning guns, is on balance will reduce the overall crime in the United States. So, for Con's argument to be effective, he needs to prove that suicide rates are higher than the amount of times guns have been used for self defense by Americans, which is 800,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. If the total murder rate by guns was only 8,855 deaths, then the number of gun sucides is far less than the defensive gun uses.

Let me take Japan for example, Japan has a 18.5/100,000 sucide rate, while the U.S has a 12.1/100,000 suicide rate. The only difference, is that Japan has one of the strictest gun control in the world. So, there isn't a clear correlation between banning guns and reducing the suicide rate, because banning guns would only reduce gun suicide, not suicide overall. Like I mentioned before, For Suicides to be a strong case on Con's behalf, he needs to prove that they out weigh the defensive gun uses by Americans.(1)


R2: Homicide

So, this is very similar to R1. I'd like to mention again, that in my resolution, I mentioned "on balance'. What that really means is that overall, the gun ban would reduce crime. Not just one instance of it. So, technically speaking, banning guns would definitely reduce crime, but I showed that guns are used for defensive purposes nearly a 1 million times a year, and states that enacted CCW had witnessed drops in homicide. So guns serves as a strong detterent, and it outweighs the homicides prevented if you banned guns. Keep in mind though, 93% of homicides were committed by illegal firerms.


R3: Accidents

While I'd personally believe that gun accidents are horrific, this can't really be used as an argument, because it is highly subjective. Some guy might say it's horrible, while the other guy will say it's not a big deal. You can't measure how horrific some murder is. I don't believe this is a good enough reason to ban guns.


To conclude, I believe that banning wouldn't on balance reduce the overall crime rate in the United States. I'd like to stress that there is evidence that 93% of gun homicides were committed by illegal guns, and banning guns wouldn't only technically impact that 7% committed by legal firearms.

Thank you Hayd for this debate, and may the best debator win.


Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Hayd

Con

Pro seems to think that the intention of the gun ban would be to reduce crime, this is false, my initial arguments were based on the intention of saving lives. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but that is what my position in this debate is based off.

R1) Gun culture


The impact of this argument is irrelevant to the resolution. We agreed that once all firearms were eliminated from the United States, the result would not achieve the objective. In this contention, Pro argues that Americans love their guns, it is a large part of our culture. He then concludes that banning guns would have a major impact on their life. The impact on America’s culture has nothing to do with saving lives through a gun ban, it is non-topical, it is a red herring.

R2) Little Effect in certain states

In this contention Pro attempts to establish a connection between Vermont’s almost nonexistent gun control and its low homicide rate. The problem with this is that there are thousands of factors that could have resulted in a low homicide rate. You need to take into resources available to law enforcement, how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, state culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability and hundreds more.

Pro is trying to make a link between two abstract variables to attain his desired impact. As I have shown, low crime rates could be the result of hundreds of different variables, these variables have little to no correlation.

R3) Guns are used for self-defense

Here Pro argues that firearms are used in self-defense, two million times per year. Pro’s evidence comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center created by John Lott, notorious for manipulating statistics to support their view. [2] The statistic is proved blatantly false by the U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics.



Firearms were actually the least used protective behavior at 0.8% [1].

Pro has used a biased and discredited source to give blatantly false evidence, the argument is nulled as guns are not used in self-defense enough to substantiate the claim.

R4) Illegal guns/Pro’s of CCW

In this argument Pro argues that since there are so many illegal guns in the US, banning guns would not take away the illegal ones. Yet we both agreed the resolution was that once all guns are effectively banned from the United States, the effect of the elimination of guns would not achieve the objective of the ban. This argument is non-topical.

The second argument is non-topical as well. Whether or not CCWs (Carrying a Concealed Weapon) are effective does not have to do with a gun ban. My opponent has to show that a complete gun ban would not be effective in achieving its goal, not whether or not CCWs are effective. This argument has no impact as well.

R5) Britain has a higher violent crime than the U.S

Here Pro claims that because Britain has high gun control it still has high crime, and in America with low gun control crime is lower than the U.K. Yet Pro forgets we are talking about a gun ban, not high gun control, these are two different laws. Gun control means you need more background checks and training, but people can still have lots of guns. There is no relation here, the U.K has a different culture, and these statistics could be the result of lots of different factors that I mentioned in R2. This argument fails to prove Pro’s side of the debate.

Conclusion

I would like to thank my opponent for the excellent debate and tell anyone reading this thank you!

[1] http://www.bjs.gov...
Pg. 12

[2] Johnson, Timothy. "Gun Researcher John Lott Offers False Firearm Statistics Days Before Congressional Appearance." Media Matters for America. N.p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.
http://mediamatters.org...
Debate Round No. 3
196 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 3 months ago
fire_wings
@taj, you worded the resolution wrong.
Posted by tajshar2k 4 months ago
tajshar2k
@firewings This debate pissed me off, because I lost through semantics.
Posted by fire_wings 4 months ago
fire_wings
This debate inspired me to join, just to say
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
It is a private issue between me, airmax and other users who I am not allowed to mention.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Can't tell you.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Why was Balacafa's vote removed?
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
Ok.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
Ok.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
lol101, this was the result of a separate issue from basic vote moderation, and as such airmax handled it himself.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheQuestionMark 1 year ago
TheQuestionMark
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is strictly decided on by whether you believe pro's reasonings for why a gun ban would happen or con's. Given the vast array of reasons that exist for a possible gun ban, I believe his for the purposes of this debate, and effectiveness should be judged based on how well banning guns reduces the gun death rate. Pro lost when he set up the debate and failed to specifically state what he wanted to debate against. If it was lower crime rate, he should've stated that. Once this mistake had happened there were a number of ways for pro to bounce back from the truism that banning guns lowers gun deaths. He could've argued that more deaths were good for example. However pro just kind of accepted con's arguments and merely tried to mitigated those facts. The debate is about reduced gun deaths, not reduced suicides or homocides, but reduced gun deaths. Even if the death rate remains the same without guns, con wins
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments. Good debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This was an objective win for CON, and I am really surprised that there are any votes which say otherwise. Before I read this debate I thought it would be closer, but it is not. Both debaters should attempt to keep their arguments strictly on point, as both included irrelevant arguments. See RFD: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/74095/
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I_zHuhpTOsMj2faXkAAJgFr9xdpaJsj8vN2TcCj_hYc/edit
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/74093/
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/74075/
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
tajshar2kHayd
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDXIJAxWbQpNnYlgyQSm7wkTbzEQ39ey5o2HfKXelmM/edit?usp=sharing