The Instigator
raddestguns01
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Gun rights should be granted all over the world

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 3 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,140 times Debate No: 66016
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

raddestguns01

Pro

My opponent (Whoever chooses to accept) and I will be debating about whether or not gun rights should be granted all over the world. I am in favor that it should be.

Anyone who wishes to debate me on this topic must follow these set of guidelines:

  • You must follow common guidelines, such as plagiarism.
  • A few jokes in between are acceptable, but other than that, take the debate seriously.
  • Both sides must share their BoP.
  • First round is for acceptance only.
  • Gun right: The right to own, give, or sell guns.

Failure to do so will result in an automatic loss.

Note: Once you accept this debate, you must agree with all my set guidelines.

Blade-of-Truth

Con

I thank Pro for instigating this thought-provoking debate, and accept the guidelines.

I now return the floor to Pro for opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
raddestguns01

Pro

We will be debating whether or not gun rights should be granted all over the world. I, pro, am in favor. Con is not. I look forward to a great debate! Good luck to my opponent!

I believe that gun rights should be granted all over the world because it leaves people with something to defend themselves with. For instance, if someone came after you with a weapon, you have the gun to defend yourself. In can not only deter the person from even coming any closer, but if he neglects that chance, to not be shot, to take on you, you simply pull that trigger and you avoid harm from coming to you.

Now, you may say, "What if he did not have the intention to harm you? What if it was a prank?" Yes, an innocent would be shot. However, that is that person's fault; He should have known the circumstance; that if he would have kept running at the person, the guy would shoot him. It's common sense, and we all know this.

I believe, however, that guns should only be sold legally. The stores follow certain procedures before they sell you a gun, such as looking through your record to determine if you are trustworthy for a gun. Now, indeed, your past may be good, but does not mean your future be; Someone you know might kill a loved one of yours, and you will seek revenge. You have that gun with you, so... However, hear me out on this:

People can do anything to kill. For instance, say gun rights were not granted, you may use a crowbar to kill the person whom killed a loved one of yours instead of a gun. It is even worse because people will never suspect you to use crowbars to kill; They are tools, not weapons, though it could be used as one. Guns are known for lots of the killing out there, so precautions are taken.



Gun rights being granted or taken away have their own advantages. However, it typically works to be better when gun rights are granted than when they are taken away. Here are some examples:

Scottsdale, Arizona is ranked one of the top cities with the lowest crime rate, and get this: It has almost NO gun control.
"Scottsdale, AZ tops our list mainly due to the low number of violent crimes."[1][2]

Plano, TX is also a top ranking in the top 10 cities with lowest crime rate, and it has little to gun laws.

Third on the list is Virginia. You will see that here, as gun laws goes up, so do crime rates, little by little.

From all the information provided above, I can conclude that it generally works better when gun rights are granted than when they are not.

I await my opponent's arguments.



[1] http://www.areavibes.com...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Blade-of-Truth

Con

I thank my opponent once more. I will now present my rebuttals.

I. "Leaves people with something to defend themselves with."

I can't argue against guns being used for defensive purposes, by all means that was part of the reason they were invented in the first place - to have a means of defending oneself more effectively than a sword allows. With this said, there are a wide-array of objects which have been created with the intent of being used for defensive purposes. To think that we can only defend ourselves by using guns is incredibly short-sighted on Pro's part. We have less lethal means like mace, stun guns, martial arts, bats, knives, the list goes on and on. We can pretty much use any object capable of being lifted and carried as a defensive weapon should the situation arise. I believe things such as mace or stun guns can achieve the same defensive properties as any gun could and I'm not the only one who thinks so. [1] Keep in mind, the scenario you presented is a short-range conflict scenario. This also provides a non-lethal way to dissuade a potential mugger from being killed so that the law officers can sort him out upon arrival.

This is especially important in the second scenario Pro presented where he's basically advocating that it's alright to kill whoever charges at you - regardless of if it's a prank or not - because they "should have known better". With other alternatives like mace or a stun gun, you will still effectively stop a potential threat without the possibility of taking their life should it turn out to only be a prank or something. With guns, you don't get a second chance, they are dead.

[1] http://blackhawkhardware.com...

II. "Guns should be sold legally."

This is a given, all guns should be sold legally if they must be sold at all. The main issue I have with this argument from Pro is the fact that we have no objective standards in place on a global level. What I mean by this is that it's easy to say we could sell guns legally in America, because we know the standards here - someone must be at-least 18 years old, have no felonies, etc., but Pro is advocating for the legal sale of guns globally. Furthermore, even in the United States of America the laws are subjective, with some states having certain restrictions for ownership that other states might not have. [2]

What are we to do if one country thinks it's safe for 7 year olds to come into stores and purchase an assault rifle? This is actually tied into one of my main arguments, but my point is basically that without objective standards for what is the legal sale of guns it's just not feasible. Will there be a global coalition overlooking these matters? It's just not something that I think everyone would be able to agree on. Pro will need to show otherwise for this argument to maintain its place within this debate.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

III. "It typically works to be better when gun rights are granted than when they are taken away."

Pro has given three cases of American cities/states where low to no gun laws is tied into the low crime rates.

This is merely a correlation, not a causation. Pro will need to prove two things for this argument to uphold:

1- Prove that the low gun laws/restrictions are the cause of the low crime rates

2- Prove that these three locations somehow resemble or justify the effects of implementing gun rights around the world.

The most obvious issue with these three cases that I ask myself is, "are these three locations enough to justify the implementation to locations all around the world?" I think not. Not every country is the same, heck, not even every state in America is the same. To think that a random correlation for three locations could possibly justify the implementation of gun rights on a global scale is absurd. Why? Because as I said previously, these three locations do not resemble the rest of the world as a whole.

In closing,

I have provided rebuttals for all three arguments raised by Pro. I now return the floor to Pro and await his response to the challenges I've raised.

If I deem it necessary, I may present further counter-arguments of my own in the next round depending on if Pro can overcome these challenges or not.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
raddestguns01

Pro

I thank my opponent for presenting his rebuttals so thoroughly. I am expecting a good one!

I would like to remind my opponent that he may be able to successfully put a dispute on all my arguments. However, both sides must share their BoP. So, if my opponent does not, it remains a tie.



1. "Leaves people with something to defend themselves with."

"We have less lethal means like mace, stun guns, martial arts, bats, knives, the list goes on and on. We can pretty much use any object capable of being lifted and carried as a defensive weapon should the situation arise."

"This also provides a non-lethal way to dissuade a potential mugger from being killed so that the law officers can sort him out upon arrival."

Indeed. However, keep in mind that if you do not grant gun rights, criminals will not lose possession of them, while legal citizens do; Criminals like to hide the fact that they own a gun because it is something they love to hold on to, while legal citizens choose to follow the law, thus they will turn theirs in.

So, non-lethal weapons range very lowly[1], and even more so compared to guns. There are lots of mid-range or long-range conflict scenario if you consider all possible scenarios. And if you were put in one of those scenarios with a very short-range non-lethal weapon, it is very likely that the criminal will kill you rather than you putting the criminal down.

"Keep in mind, the scenario you presented is a short-range conflict scenario."

Yes, indeed, the scenario I presented was a short-ranged conflict scenario. However, as I stated, considering all possible scenarios, lots of those will be mid-range and long-range conflict scenarios. And if you were put in one of those scenarios with a short-range non-lethal weapon, it is very likely that the criminal will kill you.

"This is especially important in the second scenario Pro presented where he's basically advocating that it's alright to kill whoever charges at you - regardless of if it's a prank or not - because they "should have known better""

Indeed; A potential threat is stopped effectively without taking their life considering the possibility that it was a prank. However, again, you are pointing a gun at them, ready to shoot. The person should know that they will get shot if they keep playing out their prank. This is common sense.



2. "Guns should be sold legally."

"Furthermore, even in the United States of America the laws are subjective, with some states having certain restrictions for ownership that other states might not have."

That is so because the governors typically focus on their own state; They are governors, and are put in charge only of their state. However, governors should be sharing their thoughts with others to come to the furthest possible conclusion of a problem, and equally on all states too. There may not be objective standards. However, we only need one that most agree with; These only apply to us humans. So, as long as most of us are fine with it, then it is.

"What are we to do if one country thinks it's safe for 7 year olds to come into stores and purchase an assault rifle? This is actually tied into one of my main arguments, but my point is basically that without objective standards for what is the legal sale of guns it's just not feasible."

As I stated, there may not be standards that are absolutely objective. However, there may be standards that is humanly objective; All people agree. And I believe that if my side is considered, this must be discussed with scholars, governors, and presidents, even from other countries.

My point is, we do not need standards that are absolutely objective. We just need one that most, maybe even all, agree with; These standards only apply to humans, and if most are fine by it, then it is.



3. "It typically works to be better when gun rights are granted than when they are taken away."

"The most obvious issue with these three cases that I ask myself is, "are these three locations enough to justify the implementation to locations all around the world?" I think not. Not every country is the same, heck, not even every state in America is the same. To think that a random correlation for three locations could possibly justify the implementation of gun rights on a global scale is absurd. Why? Because as I said previously, these three locations do not resemble the rest of the world as a whole."

I agree; I gave three locations, which is definitely not enough to justify the implementation to locations around the world. However, [2][3][4][5][6] should be. Check it out. There are many graphs that show that the higher the gun availability, the lower the crime rates.

There are some countries or states that seem to have a higher crime rates when the gun availability is higher and lower crime rates when the gun availability is low. However, that is not the majority. For instance:

- Shown in the second figure from the top to bottom in [6], the more firearms people own per country, and lots of countries are listed, the more crime rates tend to go down.

<a href=http://www.gunfacts.info...; />

-Also shown in the second graph from top to bottom in [2], the crimes rates tend to go down the more people own firearms, though this only applied to America.



Remember that these were only a few instances to give you an idea about what the provided sources are going to be showing to you. Check all five of them. These sources show that the world as a whole seem to work better with less gun control.



I await my opponent's arguments.



[1] http://www.todayssurvival.com...


[2] http://www.infowars.com...


[3] http://www.armedwithreason.com...


[4] http://www.zerohedge.com...


[5] http://www.forbes.com...


[6] http://www.gunfacts.info...
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Pro is correct, I must show that gun rights *should not* be granted all over the world. Pro fails to understand that my rebuttals are doing that though. For the sake of upholding my end, I'll gladly introduce some additional arguments aside from just my rebuttals so that this doesn't remain an issue for Pro.

I. Leaves people with something to defend themselves with.

"keep in mind that if you do not grant gun rights, criminals will not lose possession of them, while legal citizens do"

Legal citizens can't *lose* possession of guns if they were never allowed to have them in the first place. Pro's error here is assuming that by not granting gun rights, you are actually stripping guns from citizens. This is based on the faulty premise that there were already gun rights in place and I am taking them away, which isn't the case in this debate. To *grant* gun rights implies that they weren't there to begin with, so no citizens would actually be losing anything since they didn't have gun rights to begin with. You can't *grant* gun rights if they are already in place, so by me arguing to *not* grant guns rights doesn't necessarily mean I'm taking them away. In order for me to *take* guns away, this resolution would have to use different terminology other than *grant* which implies that something was given.

"if you were put in one of those scenarios with a very short-range non-lethal weapon, it is very likely that the criminal will kill you rather than you putting the criminal down."

Pro now flips this on me by saying that non-lethal alternatives aren't as effective as guns in mid-to-long range defense scenarios. Here's the problem: There is no clarification given by Pro in regards to these scenarios. Sure, if someone has a sniper rifle aimed at you, in a long-range scenario, then mace won't save you. If it's a scenario like that though, there is little that anyone can do, gun or not. You'd literally need a sniper rifle as well, know the location of your assailant, and then take him/her out before they snipe you. It's a silly argument on Pro's part.

In regards to the distance mace or pepper spray can reach, there are brands that can reach as far as 35 feet away. [1]
It's actually pretty common to see mace or pepper spray that can reach up to 25 feet in the general market. [2]

That's most certainly mid-range. So, my opponent really has no grounds in saying that mace/pepper spray are ineffective at mid-range scenarios. The brand I shared in the first source is actually strong enough to stop a bear.

In regards to long-range scenarios, you would need to be equipped with a rifle, not a hand-gun. So, while I concede that *certain* guns would be more effective in long-range scenarios, my argument still stands that there are better alternatives to guns for short and mid-range defense needs. The fact remains that guns only stand superior in long-range scenarios, and even then those are extremely challenging to defend against regardless of if they have a gun or not.

My opponent then concedes that it'd be better to have a non-lethal alternative - in the case that someone is pranking you - yet still argues that even if they get shot they should have known better. Unfortunately, Pro fails to consider those who are mentally handicap or unable to see clearly due to poor eyesight. In both cases, the person "pranking" wouldn't have the sense to stop and would then be shot, possibly lethally. This is NOT justification, but rather, just Pro assuming that everyone has common sense and that if they lack it, then they deserve to die. Unbelievable.

[1] http://www.udap.com...

[2] http://peppersprayflorida.com...

II. Guns should be sold legally

"There may not be objective standards. However, we only need one that most agree with; As long as most of us are fine with it, then it is."

Pro concedes that there are no objective standards. A *global* allowance of gun rights would most certainly need a set of objective standards, or else one country's definition of gun rights can totally differ from the next. For instance, gun rights in country A might include hand-guns and ammo only, while the rights in Country B include semi-automatic rifles along with hand-guns, and country C might include grenades, long-distance rockets, etc. That's my whole point, if we grant global gun rights then we definitely need an objective standard, or else we risk having countries with huge differences in their definition of 'gun rights'.

"My point is, we do not need standards that are absolutely objective. We just need one that most, maybe even all, agree with."

There are inherent flaws with making the assumption that if a majority agree with the standards, then it's fine.

In America, that's how it is because we are a democratic nation where majority rules. This is where Pro makes a mistake, not every country is a democracy with majority rules. Some are monarchies, some are dictatorships, etc., To assume that *most* people agreeing is something that will work for every country is nothing short of an error on Pro's part.

In countries under dictatorships, allowing the civilians to own guns would undermine the power and authority of the ruler. For instance, does Pro actually believe North Korea will allow their citizens to have gun rights? It's simply foolish to assume that such nations would allow gun rights when the ruling class is barely holding onto power as it is. To give their citizens guns would mean they are giving them the chance to fight back against the leaders who might have been oppressing them for countless years. Pro needs to understand that this is the reality of the world, there are going to be countries that will not grant gun rights. So, Pro arguing that "if most agree, then it's fine" is fundamentally flawed, as it is not certain that "most" will agree.

III. It typically works to be better when gun rights are granted than when they are taken away.

"I agree; I gave three locations, which is definitely not enough to justify the implementation to locations around the world. However, [2][3][4][5][6] should be. Check it out. There are many graphs that show that the higher the gun availability, the lower the crime rates."

Sources 2 - 5 all deal with America, so again, there is really not enough evidence to assume that these studies are reflective of the world as a whole. Rather, they are localized studies done on just 1 country, in a world where there are 196 countries. So, Pro is basically saying that because this is the case in 1 country, it'll be the case in the other 195. That's not even a 50% balance in your favor Pro, it's less than 1%. In reality, your studies from sources 2 - 5 cover less than 1% of the countries in the world. If you were curious as to the exact number that the studies on America reflect in relation to the total countries in the world, it is 1/196 = 0.0051%

Only source 6 really touches on other countries. In it's own chart though it shows that America has high gun availability and high crime, compared to Switzerland that has high gun availability and low crime. Anyone can see that if they look at your 6th source. This proves that there is no real correlation and that it varies from country to country. Your source then goes on to say:

Fact: “… the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”

Pro's own source confirms what I stated in the last round, there is no causality - just weak correlation. Pro has still failed to resolve the two issues I presented last round:

1- Prove that the low gun laws/restrictions are the cause of the low crime rates

2- Prove that these three locations somehow resemble or justify the effects of implementing gun rights around the world.

Although I would amend the 2nd one to say America instead of three locations now. Still a big burden to overcome.

IV. Weakens our chance at military success.

One of the main benefits of having American citizens who are armed is that if an invading force, for whatever reason, happened to overpower our standing army and moved in on the civilians, our civilians would have a chance to fight on equal grounds - gun vs. gun.

The problem with granting gun rights globally is that this strengthens the civilian infrastructure by giving citizens guns. Can you imagine the difficulty we would have encountered if every citizen in the middle east had a gun? It would have been horrible for our brave soldiers over there protecting American interests and resources, especially when some of those citizens view America as the "Devil".

Pro is literally advocating that we allow our enemies to arm themselves... it makes no logistical sense in terms of military benefits. That would only serve to harm our current military efforts and surely increase the death rates as our soldiers would now have armed civilians who could potentially harm our soldiers with guns they purchased legally.

V. Actually maintaining legality

Not every country is as technologically advanced as we are here in America. Here, we can electronically check someone's background, in other countries that might not even be possible. Furthermore, not every country keeps track of every citizen born like America tries to with social security numbers. So, basically anyone can lie to a store-owner in a 3rd world country and get a gun, heck we don't even know what there standards would be! Pro fails to present a plan to counter-act such scenarios.

In closing,

I've presented additional arguments to maintain my side of the burden, as well as rebuttals for each argument raised by Pro.

I extend all unresolved challenges and now return the floor to Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
raddestguns01

Pro

raddestguns01 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has forfeited Round 4.

I, therefore, extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
raddestguns01

Pro

raddestguns01 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has forfeited the final round.

My arguments remain standing unchallenged.

I thank the audience for their patience, and urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Yeeeaaaaaa shout-out to Plano, Texas!! :D
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Lol, what?
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
*whomever
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Sorry, I should clarify: Alot of new members here tend to forfeit rounds in debates. So, when I initially start I'll put in around 20 - 50% effort. I see now that you are active, intelligent, and competent in debating, thus you deserve 100%. It's not everyday I get to go all out, so I'm excited to get this going. Best of luck and welcome to DDO!
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Yay :) Okay, now that I know you aren't someone who just forfeits, I'm going to actually try.

Expect my round by this time tomorrow.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
That would go a long way to clean up the mess governments have made to their people all over the world. When the government fears the people, you have freedom. When the people fear the government, you have tyrants.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Sorry, I should have been clearer: The new definition is fine, let's continue with the debate. Good luck!
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
That's cool with me.
Posted by raddestguns01 2 years ago
raddestguns01
I was editing the debate to detail my definition. However, since you accepted, I was not able to. Here is the more detailed definition:

Gun right: The right for anyone to own a gun or to sell one (Though legally).

If you are not fine with it, let me know, and we will just forfeit the rest of the rounds.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
I would actually debate it as is - Pro, you want to just go with that? I'm down - let me know.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
raddestguns01Blade-of-TruthTied
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 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: FF.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
raddestguns01Blade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
raddestguns01Blade-of-TruthTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF