The Instigator
tajshar2k
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Gun control does not reduce crime (USA only)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+57
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 10 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 39,155 times Debate No: 75994
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (233)
Votes (10)

 

tajshar2k

Pro

I will be arguing that gun bans do not reduce crime in the United States of America.

My opponent will argue that it does.

Good Luck
TheHitchslap

Con

I agree to terms.

Gun Control: "Gun control generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms."

Firearms: "a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun"

For me, what is particularly interesting about this debate, is the fact that I too am American, but have been living in Canada for years. Its strikingly odd to me the American obsession with guns. None-the-less, I acknowledge that this debate shall be in the US only, and hereby look forward to the views of my opponent. Its a strikingly odd claim to claim that it works everywhere else, but not in the US.

Either way, this is going to be fun. I further want the audience to note sources here. Lots of bad evidence, I have no doubt, tend to be used in debates like this, so audience please be objective as much as possible.


Good luck, and let's do this!
Debate Round No. 1
tajshar2k

Pro

I thank my fellow Canadian to this debate,


Argument 1: States with strict gun control generally have high homicide rates.



Many people are under the impression that gun bans will reduce crime. However, it is exactly the opposite. A good example would be the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia also has the highest homicide rate in the nation (compared to other states) at a 13.9 per 100,000 homicide rate [1]. Also, keep in mind, that D.C also has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.[2]. So, I believe it is safe to say that Gun control hasn't helped the U.S deter it's homicide rate. Let me take use the state of Vermont, a state that has much less restrictions on guns [3]. Its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 [1].



The gun laws of D.C






The gun laws of Vermont




As you can see, Vermont has nearly 0 restrictions on guns. Even allowing open carry. Yet, the homicide rate of Vermont is extremely low compared to D.C, which has restrictions on nearly everything.


Argument 2 : Gun control only takes away guns from "legal owners"

If strict gun control was enforced, it would likely produce millions more crime victims. That is because, legal owners would have no access to guns to protect themselves. With fewer people able to defend themselves, criminals would have an easier time getting away with crime, because most criminals will resort to the black market .

Guns can be used for illegitimate purposes, but they can also be used for proper self defense. 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.

I'll provide my other arguments in the coming

Here is a fun picture that demonstrates the results of gun control.



[4]http://www.guncite.com...
[5]http://www.guncite.com...


TheHitchslap

Con

Thank you to my opponent for some of his thoughtful points! I hope I can counter him!

My fellow DDOians, let me be the first to say that I want to stop crime as much as possible. My vision is that we all live in a world free from fear, harm, and that we all need to work together to ensure every american family can feel safe within their homes. Which is why I personally support gun control laws. I couldn't imagine the pain of losing a loved one to a shooting, and I think we all agree that we do not want to see criminals getting guns, but the question thus becomes, how do we best stop criminals from getting them? The answer is regulation, in my opinion, which we already have. So let's examine my opponents case and counter them.

C1: Correlation is not Causation

My opponent is trying to show a correlation between several factors: location and gun laws. However, correlation does not establish causation. As such, my opponents case is dead on arrival. Many factors goes into the crime rate, including but not limited to: poverty rates, child upbringing, avalible social services, ghettoization, policing, laws, enforcement, etc...

Thus, my opponent at best has established a questionable cause fallacy. Because gun laws are already in effect and my opponent is challenging the status quo, I don't believe he has established enough to hit his BOP.

C2: Cherry-Picked Evidence

My opponent selects Vermont, and compares it to D.C. This is an odd comparison. D.C is unique in that it is not technically a state in the first place. Vermont boarders along Canada (which has crazy strict gun laws in and of itself), is one of the least populated states, it has one of the lowest poverty rates, and one of the highest rates of personal income in the country. An odd comparison when D.C Has ghettoization, is under supreme control of Congress rather than a Mayor and City Council, and is subject to national political issues rather than local, a frequent issue with D.C politics. D.C also has a higher unemployment rate overall, and less income with its people. Really, one would be safer to compare a steak to a watermelon, just nothing in common and kinda unfair.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

C3: Legal Owners are Not Harmed by Gun Laws

My opponents claim that "criminals will continue to get weapons on the black market illegally, will mean gun laws harm legal gun owners" makes several fundamental errors. For one, criminals are criminals because they break the law, by very definition of being a criminal. For this logic, shall we legalize murder because people will still kill people, despite it being against the law?

The reason why we make laws like this, is because laws can be an extention of our values as a society, and does not always have to be about impacts. I for one, do not value people who are mentally unstable from operating a gun, for instance, regardless of the potential impacts it may have, even if we do assume my opponents assertion is even correct in the first place.

Thing is, is that several organizations have pointed out that gun laws work. Which is why the U.S Government continues to impliment them. Gun laws can make potenital criminals reconsider their actions, not be able to obtain a gun in the first place, gives police enhanced powers to investigate potential gun issues, and a variety of other impacts. Even if in theory it didn't prevent criminals from getting a gun, gun issues are a huge burden on the healthcare industry in terms of costs annually. Harvard's School od Public Health has extensive studies on gun laws, due to the problems and impacts guns have on health.

Sources: http://smartgunlaws.org...;
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...;

C4: Case Studies Proving Gun Laws Would Have Worked (Naval Yard Shooting, and Fort Hood Shooting)

With the Naval Yard Shooter, the perputrator Aaron Elexis could have been stopped the entire time, should a simple background check used on him. Aaron thought he could actually talk to microwaves, cited for misconduct issues in the military, and even former shooting issues that turned out to be non-fatal. The fact that he was even in another former shooting incident should have resulted in a red flag being raised when he purchased a gun legally. Because the background check on him did not go far enough (not enough gun regulation), lives were lost as a result. Worse yet, even his own doctor was perscribing him medications out of fear that Aaron would harm someone.

Nidal Malik Hasan, the perp of the Fort Hood Shooting was also known to frequent terrorist sites that preached extreemism, and promoted suicide bombings. Mainly, he was in touch with several known, and highly dangerous, Al-Qaeda terrorists. One of the most noted was his Imam Answir Al-Awlaki who died in Yemen as a result of a drone strike (youtube video is on him and is impact before becoming deceased). https://www.youtube.com...;
It becomes pretty clear that he was an extremist who gradually worked up the courage to do the shooting in the first place. Despite these suspected affiliations (later confirmed as a result of the crime), a simple background check could have also prevented this shooting. Alas, the lack of information in the background because the gun control laws didn't go far enough, also resulted in the deaths of many in the Forts' shooting. Nidal has since been sentenced to death as a result.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

C5: Lawlessness in Society, and Bad Gun Ownership

Lets be honest here, every gun owner one meets is a self-reported "good gun owner". How many criminals are voluntarily going to give up their guns on the basis of being admittedly "bad gun owners"? I can't find any research on the matter, so I'm going to speculate none.

As for the claim that gun laws will mean less being able to protect oneself. That's a slippery slope argument indicitive of a lawless society. Otherwise, why would we even need a police force if everyone can simply govern themselves? As the Harvard School of Public Health points out, most acts of "self defence" are actually illegal as judges have pointed out, even if the story is true and the law was followed, the claim of self defence won't normally hold up. Self defence laws are far more complex than what most people tend to think. Whats the difference between self defence in a situation with a gun owner shooting a criminal, and manslaughter? You have to use other means, and self defence is a last resort. With guns, you make it a first instead.

But we don't go into a lawless society. We do expect citizens in distress to call police, and not utilize their guns. Worse yet, when guns were used, it was used as a baragining chip to the situation for more power, not to deescalate the incident. In other words, when more guns come out, the situiation got worse, not better most often times. And few criminals are actually ever shot. When they are, they normally are victims in the eyes of the law than actual perputrators.

Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...;

Thank you to my opponent for this debate

Your turn bud! Good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
tajshar2k

Pro


My opponent has allowed me to post my arguments in the comments, as I'm very busy with school. Please do not take this as a forfeit.

Thank you.
TheHitchslap

Con

R1: Correlation is not Causation
My opponent agrees that correlation is not causation in his R3. Yet it continues to be argued that a statistically significant relationship exists, but the factors between the two states that differentiate one another remain unaccounted for. Again, correlation is not causation. The information is anecdotal in nature. That's awesome that we can compare two states, but what makes them similar enough, minus the one variable that needs to be changed (in this case gun laws) to be able to compare them? It seems as though the two states compared are cherry-picked, rather than done to control the other variables (poverty for instance) to show a relationship.

R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire
My opponent compares these two states, and claims that homicide rates differ: the tighter gun regulated state has more homicides than the non-gun regulated one. Except, with all due respect to my opponent, again this is anecdotal. Homicides can be committed with a wide variety of tools. Knives, vehicles, fists, etc... can all be used in a homicide. Even if we take this relationship at face value, it does not show that gun-related crimes are somehow more desirable in a more gun friendly state than vice-verse. Again, correlation is not causation.

R3: Psychopaths by Nature Lack Empathy/Fear

My opponent cites response times in the Virginia Tech Shooting as justification for a more armed populace. Fair enough, however even if the school had armed guards, it would not have mattered. That's because psychopaths, literally by virtue of being a psycho, lack empathy and fear by their actions. That's part of the purpose of being diagnosed with being a psychopath in the first place. Furthermore, my opponents argument means taking the actions of a shooter, and making vigilante justice happen. While police are certainly not perfect, the police by nature are suppose to enforce the law. The very purpose of their being. The claim that police cannot always help ignores the fact that no one can ever be somewhere in an emergency fast enough, and that the argument itself is a slippery slope to lawlessness. If police are never fast enough, why even have a police force? As for my claims, I showed with two cases (Fort Hood and Naval Yard) that if background checks (a form of gun control) went farther, those shootings could have been prevented. When a shooter is able to legally purchase a gun, even though he thought microwaves could talk to him, we have a serious issue here. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

R4: Source Issues
For some weird reason, DDO coding is not giving my opponent the proper coding to see the sources. I'll repost them here: http://smartgunlaws.org... https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu...

As for my Harvard Health source, it actually does link each study in a peer-reviwed journal showing without question causation links between gun crimes and relaxed gun control laws. The main reason behind it is simple: guns are emotionally empowering. When guns are used in a “self defence” claim, the Harvard Journals pointed out that most folks used them ended up escalating violence instead of stopping it. Worse yet, it almost always was done illegally in the first place.
Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Even in cases where one claims self defence, how do we know? No one actually wants to go to jail (unless they do not care of consequences) ergo we must look ourselves with an objective eye. What we see...isn't good. Its rather frightening. Furthermore, my opponent claims it only shows higher rates of suicide. That isn't true. It clearly shows higher rates of both suicide and homicide. Otherwise, here is another study proving my point further: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu...

R5: Cases
Here my opponent conceeds that if background checks (a form of gun regulation) were to have been furthered, both the Fort Hood Shooting and Naval Yard Shooting would have been prevented.

In fact, he almost furthers my case: Hasan had people investigating him, same with Alexis. The failure of the military and FBI to deem them unfit for weapons carry results in them gaining and utilizing their arms. Other factors were an issue here (personal psychology) however, in both cases, both were displaying troubling behaviour, which caught attention, and no one decided to act on it. This argument highlights why gun control needs to go further. They both had guns, and should not have been able to aquire them, and if they were unable to have posessed those weapons in the first place, the crisis could have been averted.

Worse yet, personally, I cannot think of a more bold move than having a shooting right where the military is. Literally, the most armed group one can find. If the logic of my opponent was correct, this would never have happened, as the military is most heavily armed. It still happened regardless. In particularly bold fashion too for both cases.

R6: Causation
I just wanted to remind everyone reading his, that causation can be established through several methods when statistical significance is shown. If we were to roll dice over 100 times, we would have an equitable distribution among numbers, meaning no statistical significance is shown (its falling where its suppose to with chance). If thew dice were loaded, then statistical significance would appear, thus showing something is up with the data, the distribution isn't being hit, and thus we have to examine the dice. My Harvard studies show statistical significance with gun control. Its pretty clear: less guns, less crime. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Meta analysis on the issue: http://jonathanstray.com...;

And for your comedic pleasure. Please enjoy this (funny) comedian take on gun control. Cheers guys! (source: https://www.youtube.com...)


Over to my opponent
Debate Round No. 3
tajshar2k

Pro

Rebutalls


R1: Correlation is not Causation

I’m not sure what Pro is trying to say here. When I compared Hawaii and New Hampshire, I made sure that other variables such as poverty, income was very similar to each other so that when I compared both of the states. So In my opinion, me comparing the two states made sense.



R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire

This comes to my other point. Since Hawaii’s homicide rate is higher than New Hampshire, it proves that gun control didn’t prevent overall crime from happening, because criminals resorted to other methods. Lets look at more in depth look at how many people were actually killed by guns in Hawaii. Out of the 24 murders that occurred in 2010, guns did only 7 of them. If I compare that to New Hampshire, it had a total of 13 murders in 2010, and 5 were committed by guns. So, yes if I look at it by %, You’re less likely to be killed by a gun, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be killed at all. Remember, I’m trying to prove that gun control did not reduce crime, not gun crime. I’d like my opponent to know that I didn’t try to nitpick a bad example, as Hawaii’s has to lowest homicide rate, among states with strict gun control. So I feel like this was a good comparison.

R3: Psychopaths by Nature Lack Empathy/Fear

Pro is saying that the right to self-defense should be revoked, because we have law enforcement to deal with the threat. My point wasn’t to say that we should get rid of police, but rather to take measures to reduce causalities as much as possible. If CCW owners were allowed to carry guns, there could have been a chance to reduce the causalities.

To address the Fort Hood and Naval Yard shootings, my job was to prove that gun control did not reduce crime, and in these cases it didn’t. Pro however conceded that gun control failed in this case, and is insisting that had gun control gone further, there might have been a chance to stop the shooter. The problem with this argument is that Pro never specified how gun control could have gone further. In the Naval Yard shootings, Alexis was deemed mentally fit to wield a gun. If Pro is insisting that the gun seller or the employer should have done a better job, there is no way people could regulate that, because gun sellers who are assessing buyers are indeed human, and humans cannot be 100% perfect.

R4: Lawlessness in Society, and Bad Gun Ownership

So I said I would refute Pro’s argument so here it is. According to this source, High gun ownershi





TheHitchslap

Con

My opponent is having DDO coding issues. Its unfortunate. We agreed that I would allow him to post the remainder in the comments for me to rebuttal as a former round.

R1: Correlation is not Causation

Even though my opponent accounted for some variables, my point was he didn't use any statistical methods to account for all variables. For instance, New Hampshire has more guns and less murders, but its because the area is rural in nature. The state doesn't have a heck of a lot of hand guns, which are most commonly used to kill someone, unlike other states such as Hawaii.

Source: http://nhpr.org...

As criminologist in the article pointed out rather well, New Hampshire almost leads the all states in higher income per capita, employment, etc... Its no wonder that it doesn't have a heck of a lot of gun trouble. These factors are not accounted for when looking at Hawaii.

Even then, even though the state has more guns, it also has a heck of a lot of gun regulations behind it as well. The state is a “may issue” state, meaning you still have to get a permit for a gun in the first place, as only suitable people in the state may posses a firearm.

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

As per my original point his source only accounts for homicides. Not gun related homicides. A huge issue.

R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire

I believe I just answered this (above in R1). My correlation is not causation fallacy accusation of my opponent pertains to more than just one area, so I think its okay to leave this here, as it applies to both and I'm just essentially repeating myself.

R3: Empathy/Fear in Psychopaths

I agree with my opponent that we need to try and reduce casualties as much as possible, but again this is the very purpose of the police. These individuals are trained in handling these critical situations, something typical gun owners are not trained to do. Worse yet, because they probably do not have the same legal knowledge as someone in the law field, their claims of self defence might not actually be the same in the eyes of the law, and thus more crime inadvertently happens.

In fact, I pointed this out in a previous round. In point 4, most judges who overlooked a case of self-reported self defence claims, claimed that they were not in fact self defence and thus liable for jail time.

Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

This unequivocally shows the problem with more guns, they do not reduce crime, they enhance it by empowering people with little legal knowledge to shoot first and ask questions later.

As for the Fort Hood Shooter and the Naval Yard Shooter, again, we needed more, not less, gun control to have gotten guns out of their hands. My opponent just drops my whole point: the database is for convicted criminals. However, most databases also do not permit the mentally ill from having one either. Both shooters were suffering from psychotic breaks and thus, if flagged, would not have been given a gun. This is an argument for more gun control. Not less. This would prevent the seller from being liable as well because of the lack of information. I mean imagine the guilt of a gun store manager for selling one of these goofs a gun! How do they feel?

R4: Bad Gun Ownership

(comments)

The source claims a majority. This means 50% +1. My opponent unfortunately plays semantics here.

Further, in the scenario, my opponent proves my point. If he was correct, pulling out a gun and attacking the robber did not prevent a crime, for the shooter themselves has committed one: manslaughter. The problem being that the store owner committed an imperfect self-defence and thus has committed a crime inadvertently. Worse yet, because a thief only wants goods, the gun resulting in death just proves my point, the issue gets escalated to one of a loss of life.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_law)#Involuntary_manslaughter

R5: Chicago

Okay, my opponent brings this up and thus I need to as well.

My opponent is simply wrong on Chicago. Again, because correlation is not causation, and again because the police powers are not given to seize illegal guns in the first place (a form of gun control) gang violence and organized crime runs rampant. This would be true regardless of if we were to hypothetically rid Chicago of all guns.

Because most guns in Chicago come from out of state. My opponents claim fails to take this into account. Furthermore, because urban segregation is still an issue, along with poverty rates as well, a variety of other factors makes crime more complex than simply picking a state and comparing gun crime with gun laws.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

In fact, even within my own source, if I were to take the same standard as my opponent, I could easily argue that gun control worked. Because in recent times, the crime numbers today compared to 1965 are still lower. Even though on the whole Chicago nationally has a pretty bad crime problem.

Finally, and I quote my source: “ Chicago police instituted several initiatives in an attempt to reduce the bloodshed, including a “summer surge” of officers working overtime in high-crime areas and an expansion of its “custom notifications” program, in which officers knock on the doors of gang-affiliated individuals to put them on alert, connect them with social services and even set up meetings with family members of gun violence victims.”


My opponent dropped my meta-analysis of gun control.
My opponent dropped my point on statistical signifgance, and correlation as well.

Thank you to my opponent for a lovely debate. I hope you audience will vote for me :)

Debate Round No. 4
233 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheHitchslap 1 year ago
TheHitchslap
I don't really consider it drama.

The voters who got their votes deleted never gave a good enough explanation as to why you deserved sources for wikipedia, when I used it too but I got punished for it.

I think they were more being martyrs for the cause than posting a genuine vote sometimes. Ergo why they were deleted.

Some of mine got deleted as well. Happens, they were bad votes too.

HarryTruman really hates me ever since this though, see my wall? Guy likes to borderline harass me. Its quite funny/pathetic to be honest.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Whole lot of drama in this debate lol
Posted by TheHitchslap 1 year ago
TheHitchslap
Glad we had said debate, though.

It was fun.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
I can't believe how shitty my arguments were in this debate.
Posted by steelers4ever40 2 years ago
steelers4ever40
Some of the republican presidential candidates believe that an environmental friendly and conscious U.S. is bad for our economy. Really? Yes, the EPA says that our environmental consciousness won't make a significant impact on the overall global footprint. However, any impact (small or large) is one worth pursuing. All great change starts with a ripple. Never a splash. Of course there is always room to improve legislation and guidelines, but to abandon the progress we have made thus far is irresponsible. How irresponsible is it to knowingly continue to destroy our environment to save money. That is unacceptable.
Posted by hendrakazama24 2 years ago
hendrakazama24
of course it can not be reduced by gun because gun just make crime bigger than we expected.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 2 years ago
Discipulus_Didicit
We know taj.

Trust me.

We. All. Know.

XD
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
I have changed 6 profile pictures since this debate finished.
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
225th comment!! Also why is this still in the front page!
Posted by KeepAmericaFree 2 years ago
KeepAmericaFree
More guns, less crime. It's a fact. The government can't protect you from crime, there simply aren't enough resources for them to do so.

The 2nd amendment was made to allow citizens to be armed so they can protect themselves where the government can't, and also to keep an armed populous so the federal government would not become tyrannical.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Gun control is using both hands.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm too lazy to put it in the comments. Alert me if you cannot access the document or if you find any mistakes (i.e. I mixed up Pro/Con somewhere), and feel free to question me on the RFD. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QTzA9FALZyG4cHT09qYSJDPTIlVlGEIj-fWQIB0ZA48/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: For PRO to win this debate, he has to show that there is no causal link between gun control laws and crime. That's a positive claim, and it means that PRO has the full burden, which he does not meet. What he does is offer very weak statistics that only offer incidental proof of the claim he's asserting. In the alternative, CON just has to show that some crime rates are reduced by gun control, and he did that. The problem is that PRO wrote a very broad resolution (all crime generally, not specific types of crime) and he doesn't meet that burden. CON also cut against PRO's attempt to counter causal links by presenting alternative causes. This doesn't work, because there has to be no connection for him to meet his burden. If PRO had said something like "other methods are more effective at lowering some kinds of crime" he might have made more progress in the way of meeting his burden. But, the resolution is clear. CON wins.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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: Most of the points on this debate were draws but a few weren't. Such as the point about psychopaths fearing armed guards, which was a good point made by Con, however Pro also added that regardless of whether or not the shooter is afraid of the guards, armed guards will have a much better chance of stopping the shooter, and therefore it's an added measure of security. Pro also was able to make a number of comparisons between states, such as New Hampshire and Hawaii, while taking into account other factors, and Vermont and DC. However the last one was shown to be unreliable after Con noted that other factors were not taken into consideration. Pro also showed the amount of times guns were used in self defense, which were 800,000 to 2 million. My vote for arguments goes to Con. Because they were able to show with effectiveness how guns can, and have been used for self defense. And that states with strict gun laws aren't necessarily safer than ones without.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: From the get-go, the attempts to link gun control laws to existing homicide rates proved to be a crapshoot. Each side can pick data to support their own side and in the very next round the opponent could present data that suggests the exact opposite. It was the correlation =/= causation argument which worked, and nullified a large chunk of the debate since a lot was sunk into trying to tie gun control laws to homicide rates. The only argument on either side that actually was proven and managed to stand on its own was the background check point that con brought up, which proved that more rigid background checks could have kept guns out of the hands of people who ended up becoming murderers. Arguments go to the con on that point, everything else tied
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
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: Two things really going on here. The first is correlation and causation. The second is the comparison between areas with gun control and areas without it. I feel that these two parts of the debates were the most important. The points with mass shootings, gun control protects, criminals, time of police arrival, etc. was thought to a draw. Pro shows that police take time to arrive so its better for people to have guns and Con shows that shootings still occur in places where it is known people have guns. I suppose Pro should have refuted that a military base is special circumstances. Con's problem with correlation and causation is statistically proving and stating how and why crime increases with other factors aside from gun control. Pro brought two states that were similar and debunked Con's points on different factors with NH and Hawaii. Chicago argument at the end was a waste of time, however. I think DC and Vermont, was a bit better and did get Pro's point off at least on gun control.
Vote Placed by TinyBudha 2 years ago
TinyBudha
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: round reason in comments, conduct for posting a round in the comments section.
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
tajshar2kTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Very close debate. Great job to both of you.