The Instigator
Baconzd
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
voxprojectus
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Gun control is good.

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 8 votes the winner is...
voxprojectus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 793 times Debate No: 55988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (8)

 

Baconzd

Con

Gun control is not good. First off guns don't kill people. People kill people. Second off if we outlaw guns law abiding citizens won't have guns, but criminals would because if they break the law to kill people they will break the law to get guns. The problem here is obvious but I will spell it out anyways. The criminals will then attack unarmed people, but if guns are allowed the criminal will be attacking an armed person who can blow his brains out.
voxprojectus

Pro

My thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate.

One comment pointed out that the term "Gun Control" is not defined in the opening rounds of the debate. As such, I am going to take a controversial approach and argue two different definitions. My opponent can engage which he wishes, and I will drop one if he doesn't address it.

Definition 1: Some limitation on access to/ownership of firearms.

Under these terms, law-abiding citizens would still have access to guns, therefore law-abiding citizens WOULD have guns, yet law enforcement would have at least SOME tools to restrict the general flow of guns into the hands of the public, some of whom, inevitably would be criminals as pro points out.

Definition 2: Complete illegality of firearms.

This seems to be the definition my opponent is interested in arguing. To quote The Onion's response to the most recent mass shooting, "This couldn't have been prevented, says only nation where this regularly happens!"

To ruin the joke by explaining it, many countries ban firearms and do not see increased rates of gun violence. In fact, in virtually all nations where guns are banned, the overall death toll from firearms every year is miniscule compared rates of gun death in the United States. Despite "gun freedom" advocates' frequent statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns make killing much easier and seem to factor in a huge number of killings when they are available over other alternatives.

Let's take my opponent at his hypothetical best, though. Let us assume that *some* number of criminals are repelled by the use of firearms. I would argue that this number is very small over all: Criminals typically have the drop on who they wish to rob or kill and tend to put themselves in a better position to avoid return fire, and the presence of a gun may make a criminal who only wants money feel pressured to kill to protect himself where he otherwise might not have. In essence, the presence of two guns at a robbery raises the chance that SOMEONE is going to die, and the death is still more likely to be in favor of the criminal.

It comes down to an interesting ethical question: Is it better to lose 100 lives to gun violence if 10 of those lives lost happen to be the lives of criminals who "deserve it" OR is it better to simply have 10 lives lost to guns overall? I would argue the latter is far more favorable, both from a utilitarian perspective and a moral one. Less death is better without seriously mitigating circumstances, and in this example, the mitigating circumstance is a false sense of safety given by possession of a firearm.
Debate Round No. 1
Baconzd

Con

First off i would like to thank you for accepting my challenge. Also the topic i was arguing was a complete ban of guns just to be clear. You bring up valid arguments in your first response, however you are neglecting to talk about the shootings that have been occurring lately. In those cases citizens having guns would be far preferable. In those cases the criminal just wants to kill. Let's take the Fort Hood shooting for example. ( I am referring to the one that just happened). There the shooter was able to kill and wound several people. If everyone in the building were carrying a gun, then the shooter might have killed or wounded one maybe two people before he got shot himself. Also i strongly disagree with your statement that few criminals are repelled by the thought of guns. Most criminals want easy targets and don't actually want to kill people. That is why they break into houses when they think the family is away. Most criminals are cowards and don't want to put their life on the line. Also in cases of rape, they would definitely think twice about abutting a woman if they knew that she had a revolver in her pocket. You also forget the main reason the constitution says that we have the right to bear arms. In case a tyrant tries to take over the government and take away our rights. Right now it seems far-fetched, but we can't let them take away our guns now while everything is fine and dandy because if that situation does arise we will need our guns, and then we will just be saying oops shouldn't have done away with guns. Another point I'd like to mention is that guns protect us more than most people know. During WWII Hitler stated that he didn't dare invade the US knowing that there were guns at every door. In response to your argument that other countries don't need guns I would like to point out Afghanistan . There the Taliban force themselves into the peoples homes to use as cover. This puts the family at risk. If everyone there had guns, they would be in a better position to refuse the Taliban access to their homes.
voxprojectus

Pro

Complete gun-ban it is. I will state for the record that I don't actually support a complete ban of guns in the slightest, but for the purposes of this debate will continue to argue as though I do. Moving on!

So to rebut your first point, I have to stop and ask if you're looking at what you're writing. Fort Hood was a FORT, an active one, with trained military personelle and guns in ample supply. That shooting very much makes my point that a shooter who has the drop on those he is shooting isn't particularly more threatened by an armed populace than an unarmed one. Fort Hood is a point for my side, not yours.

It's true we don't technically know exactly how many criminals are repelled by the mere thought of guns, and for all we both know, that number could be very high indeed. But here's the problem with that: in order for us to assume that guns are deterring all sorts of crime, we have to assume that without guns, Crime rates in the US would be many many times higher than in other countries. We already have a crime rate that is just as bad as some developed nations, and worse than others. If guns are deterring anything, we're just a uniquely bad high-criminal population, and I, personally, refuse to believe that. But you know what crimes we DEFINITELY experience more of despite the presence of guns? Mass shootings. We lead the world in mass shootings many many times over, and have the least gun-control over any of these other countries. If guns deterred mass shootings, we'd have less of them, not more.

Now to the brand new constitutional argument you introduce, I have this to say: I'm sick and tired of gun advocates taking this split-logic approach to the presense of guns in America. Think about it: If the lives we lose to guns every year are a noble sacrifice we make in the name of preserving our freedoms in the long run, that's fine, we can make that choice as a nation, just as we choose to keep cars despite the fact that they kill so many (though less than they would kill if unregulated, just as guns would kill less if they were regulated, but I digress) every year. Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you argue that guns are actually SAVING lives and we're not sacrificing anything at all. Which is it? Are guns a noble freedom-preserving sacrifice or something that serves public safety? While I realize this may seem like a false choice in practice, I'd like you to consider that for the purposes of this argument, if guns are saving lives who cares whether or not they somehow also keep tyranny at bay? And, if they aren't saving lives, how free are you if you're dead. We're just trading some supposed amount of all of our freedoms to take freedom completely away from tens of thousands of people every year.

As to Hitler and the Taliban, I always love it when people bring these things up. Starting with Hitler, I could point out that he actually spent almost no time officially banning or taking away guns, and that Germany was not that abbundantly armed a populace prior to his seizing of political power, but for the sake of argument, let's say it happened your way. People had guns. Hitler sent armed forces to people's homes to collect those guns. People, when weighing the choice between having firefights which they would have lost against trained soldiers and losing their lives and surrending their arms, chose to surrender their arms instead. That's the reasonable human response.

We're losing all these lives to gun violence every year, yet if we ever go truly facist, the fact that we've held onto those weapons aren't going to prevent a slow disarming of the populace backed by greater force than the populace can muster. Unlike the revolutionary war, the enemy would be right here on American soil, well backed up by bombs, chemical weapons, nuclear missiles, and death machines capable of crushing a civillian population from the land, sea, and air, all this to say nothing of drones. Do you really think your .38 Special or .356 Magnum is going to take down a tank or stealth bomber? You'll surrender your weapons if it comes to that, or you'll die, and then all the time we spent hoarding them during non-facist peace time will have ultimately resulted in totally unnecesary, tragic, pointlessly lost lives.

And how about that Taliban? Afghanistan was and is saturated in guns, most of them held not by Taliban but by the civillian populace. Said guns did not prevent Tyrany at all did they?

I'm going to close this round on something that caught my eye today. If you follow the logic of "Guns don't kill people, people do" Then "Cigarettes don't kill people, cancer does."

Pretending that we would have the same number of casualties from guns or worse if they were banned is complete folly. We have hundreds of other countries to examine who vary in size, the presense of guns, crime, diversity, and everything else, yet our hands-off approach to guns has cost too many lives for too long.

And if you address no other argument I've made in your final round, address this: Other countries have both freedom, regulated or banned guns, and low murder rates. If they can accomplish this, why can't we? Are we just worse people?

I think not.
Debate Round No. 2
Baconzd

Con

I appreciate that you brought up the notion that Fort Hood was heavily armed. This presents me with the opportunity to clear this misconception. No one on a military base has a gun except the police. It took the police more than 10 min to get there allowing the criminal to shoot many innocent people. Also guns are used more than 1.5 million times a year for self defense according according to the Clinton Justice Department. Also take Texas for example. They have very few gun control laws, and they are one of the safest states in the country. Also, Detroit has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, but some of the highest crime rates. Also I think you underestimate the power of the people. People have a lot more power than you think.
voxprojectus

Pro

I will happily concede the point on Fort Hood. That being said, I think it's very easy to point at any shooting and say "if there were guns there, this wouldn't have happened!"

Here's the problem with that: There ARE guns. This is the US. This country has the free-est access to high quality munitions of ANY industrialized country in the entire world. (Yes even Swtizerland, but we haven't time to get into that.)

If access to guns prevented mass shootings, we would have less mass shootings, not more, and we have more, a lot more. We simply have more gun deaths period.

Gun Advocates like to say that guns are really preventing many more deaths than they cause, as you do with your 1.5 million statistic above, but I think this is predicated upon proving a negative. You could say they're preventing ten million or 100 million and there's really no way to prove or disprove it.

But you know what we can prove? Nearly ten thousand gun deaths (by murder, this number excludes suicides which we can leave for another debate) every year for the past 5 years. Ten thousand lives gone. Fifty thousand families without husbands, wives, or children coming home any more.

And we have access to guns. Lots of access. If it is really keeping us safer, than why doesn't it?

I realize I've dropped some points in this closing round, you did as well and I don't want to go on for pages so I'm going to leave it here.

I wish you luck in the voting! well-debated.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Baconzd 2 years ago
Baconzd
I'm just curious, how old are you vox
Posted by voxprojectus 2 years ago
voxprojectus
I'm surprised too. I lose more of these than I win, and usually on just two or three voters.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
In addition to the vote; I am really pointing out, that it is really, really poor style to argue (un-sourced) that Hitler said something. I've personally encountered that his person has been subjectively equalized with the devil in many English-speaking countries. This argument is firstly wrong (there are many reasons why Hitler did not attack the USA and not just the gun-regulation) and second it's a manipulative argument. And mind-tricks don't belong into a debate. / And because I am German, I feel like adding that I don't defend Hitler here, I critique the use of his person as an emotionally trigger.
Posted by Baconzd 2 years ago
Baconzd
I'm surprised at how many people are voting in such a short period of time i thought that 2 people were going to vote for all 10 days
Posted by voxprojectus 2 years ago
voxprojectus
Okay, not to be bitter, but so far I'm losing this because of a point neither of us made or argued. Hmmm....
Posted by Baconzd 2 years ago
Baconzd
Hey thanks for debating with me. You argued extremely well and it has been a pleasure.
Posted by voxprojectus 2 years ago
voxprojectus
Of course I will, Baconzd. And hey, with no disagreement, no debate, which is why we're all here, right?
Posted by Baconzd 2 years ago
Baconzd
I thank you for giving me constructive criticism. I do disagree with some of your statements, but I will use this to improve my debate performance in the future.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Con makes several mistakes by 2nd response.
1. Using Case-by-case arguments. The opinion that the gun-owner in shootings would still have a gun, or still use the gun, is based on nothing but opinion.
-Gun control would be across the board, not applied to just one case. Therefore saying people could "defend themselves" is not a valid argument.

2. Completely avoiding the issue of relative statistics from gun-control people.

3. Bad use of the constitution. In a different time, yes, the people could have defended themselves against the government. There is no longer a way for that to happen thanks to modern military technology.

4. Guns act as a "deterrent" argument. Giving two people a weapon just insures one is going to die. The criminal would feel more threatened and react more violently then without the trigger.

5. HItler reference: Propaganda for WWII?

6. Afghanistan. There is no shortage of weapons. The problem is that the taliban are both "friendly' and if they are enemy they surely outnumber/out-pressure the civilians.
-Bad reference there entirely.
Posted by Baconzd 2 years ago
Baconzd
Voxprojectus after the debate could you please give me feedback on my arguments and debating style. I love hearing from my opponents on how well I performed. Also good luck in the next few rounds.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by debatingequality 2 years ago
debatingequality
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good Conduct, Gives Evidence
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 2 years ago
ChadIrvin
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con didn't use paragraphs. It was a jumbled mess. Neither one used sources.
Vote Placed by KatieKat99 2 years ago
KatieKat99
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro?s closing statement in the second to last round is what sold me
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
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: Conduct points for Pro, because I need a way to critique the lack of structure in Cons statements (paragraphs are common courtesy); Argument points Pro managed the rebuttals and overall performance better and because Con made a few very controversial, polarizing and fact-based statements (I am particularly pointing out the Argument that "Hitler said") that he did not source and which are therefore null.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
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 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: Pro proves the more guns cause more loss of life, which Con does not significantly rebut. Pro turns preventing tyranny, Hitler, and Taliban against Con by pointing out that guns don't work against military organizations. Pro makes case for guns not preventing mass murders due to higher rates of mass murder despite more guns present, which Con does not signficantly rebut (except the mentality that would lead to having everyone armed, all the time, and alert for attack, all the time, aka paranoia that would prevent any work from getting done).
Vote Placed by CentristX 2 years ago
CentristX
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G, some punctuation and capitalization issues for the Con. Conduct because Con kept going on about Fort Hood and no rebuttals. Pro was more convincing, neither had sources.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Both did great. Conduct goes to Con because Pro made some excessive talk.
Vote Placed by FrEeMaSoN1692 2 years ago
FrEeMaSoN1692
BaconzdvoxprojectusTied
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: Gun Control is preposterous because guns are a necessity for protection from all types of life threatening situations. War and crime are and are not limited answers to the reasons for protection.