The Instigator
adontimasu
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun rights.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,715 times Debate No: 25350
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

adontimasu

Pro

Resolved: Gun rights should remain legal or become legal in secular societies.

I noticed in Con's big issues that he is anti-gun rights. After asking for clarification he stated that he thought guns were bad for society, and gave exception to "maybe" the police and militia. With that in mind, let's set up a general definition for what it means to have a right to gun ownership, or a right to bear and keep arms:

Gun Rights: "The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia." [1]

Therefore, someone who is against gun rights would be against either one's personal right to (a) gun(s) for personal use, or would be against the use of guns for a militia, including the military and police. As I assume my opponent is against the former and not the latter, my arguments shall be opposition to this idea. My opponent may choose whether or not to start argumentation in his acceptance to this debate, or he can simply accept. I say this, as BOP is shared between the two of us. I eagerly await a response.


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


Rules:
  • Plagiarism will be viewed as a forfeit
  • No new arguments within the last round; doing this will be viewed as a forfeit.
RationalMadman

Con

Well ok I accept. You are pro so you should put case first.
Debate Round No. 1
adontimasu

Pro

C1: Restrictions on guns will never work.

This is simple logical deduction. If my opponent is aware of American history (as I am aware he is not American) during the 20s’ and 30s’. During this period, alcohol was prohibited. However, statistically, this did not stop alcohol consumption. In fact, it went back to normal almost immediately after declining, despite the laws remaining in effect several years afterwards. Alongside it not working, it increased income and influence for organized crime. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that complete prohibitions of tangible items would never work. [1]


C2: Gun control does not lower crime rates, statistically.

Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, ‘Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.’

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. ‘The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic,’ says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. ‘Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.’

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say ‘Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low.’” [2]

As can be seen through this quote (supported by several sources), gun control in several countries has failed to lower crime rates and, in fact, has increased them. To further support the claim that gun control increases criminal activity (which also supports the idea of C1), I shall proposed the following:

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.” [3] The reported explanation for this was because criminals were smuggling in guns and ammunitions from legal countries into Britain. Britain’s gun laws after the Dunblane massacre clearly did not solve the problem of gun rights. Police areas which had low levels of legal guns, more than half had above average armed crime rates; areas with high levels of legal guns reported only that only a tenth of the police area relevant had above average gun crime rates.

Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.” [4] reported John R. Lott, Jr., an academic speaker and advocate of gun rights. It is clear from the above quote that gun control did not work in control-heavy countries, more specifically, Australia.


C3: Gun rights lower government corruption.

http://pajamasmedia.com...

As can be seen through the graph [5], guns per capita decrease corruption levels (the higher the number, the least corruption is taking place, as is explained in the source).

http://pajamasmedia.com...

The same can be seen in this graph [5], with the same explanation: higher numbers mean less of it occurring (which means countries like America, which offer free gun rights, feature lower rates of corruption and lower homicide rates, while countries like Syria have high corruption and high homicide rates).


C4: Gun rights lowers crime, statistically.

Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI. The FBI recently released its Crimes in the United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders — which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 — have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.” [6] As is shown in this quote from the Daily Caller, gun sales within America directly correlate with a decrease in overall crime; the NRA also provides similar statistical information. [7]

http://www.fbi.gov...

This graph from the FBI’s report in 2010 involving the decrease in violent crimes [8] clearly shows that crimes went down significantly, despite the fact that gun ownership hit an all-time high, as explained in Source 6. Furthermore, gun rights decreases: suicide rates, economic limitation, and corruption. [5] Guns are 60 times more likely to be used in acts of self-defense against violent or sexual offenses; furthermore, police have an 11 percent error rate in the potential for shooting innocents, while armed citizens get an error rate of 2 percent. [9]


Conclusion:

Gun rights is a positive in society; it decreases gun violence against one’s self and others and decreases corruption rates. Furthermore, gun control does not lower crime rates, and prohibitions of any kind never work, as can be seen in the prohibition of alcohol in America, the war on drugs in America, and gun control in much of Europe.


[1] http://www.albany.edu...

[2] http://gunowners.org...

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...

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

[5] http://gunowners.org...

[6] http://dailycaller.com...

[7] http://www.nraila.org...

[8] http://www.fbi.gov...

[9] http://www.fff.org...

RationalMadman

Con

What I find funny is that basically everything you argued was copy paste but just because not all fro same link I guess not plagiarised to be considered forfeit. I only point this out because you raise this in your round 1 conditions.

Before I begin my constructive, I shall rebut most of my opponent's points.

Firstly, we are discussing gun rights in the scenario whereby the law is successfully carried out (the feasibility should not be taken into consideration as you can't judge whether or not gun rights are good or bad based on failed implementation of it).

Secondly, my opponent say that armed robberies rose by 51%. What is key here is that they were armed (almost definitely with a gun) and using this data only proves that no civilian should be allowed a gun at all. There is no point justifying one's right to guns by saying that when they are banned, people illegally use guns to kill. This is the reason people shouldn't be allowed guns in the first place!

The third point raised states that it is probably because the government itself was shifting out of corruption that the shift offered opportunity to make new laws, such as gun crime, which they seemed beneficial to society. However, there is no proof that the gun rights actually assisted towards lowering of government corruption, the law being implemented happened to be at the same time as the government felt change was necessary, they didn't suddenly stop corruption DUE TO gun rights. It was two simultaneous events occurring, not one due to the other.

The fourth contention doesn't count as my opponent simply repeated the second.

Now for my constructive.

First of all, The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person. In Jeffrey A. Roth's Firearms and Violence[1], he points out the obvious dangers:

Approximately 60% of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death.

In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.

Self-defense is commonly cited as a reason to own a gun. This is the explanation given by 20% of all gun owners and 40% of all handgun owners contacted for a household survey conducted in 1979. [1] On the other hand, research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.[2] The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death.[3]

There may be some self-defense benefit: victims who defended themselves with guns were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33% of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25% of those who offered no resistance and 17% of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30%, 27%, and 12%.[4] However,these statistics are an insufficient basis for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection.... First, the decision involves a trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action.[5]

Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides![5]

Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.

Sources:
[1] NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994, found at http://sun.soci.niu.edu...
[2] Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.
[3] FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48
[4] Kleck, Gary, "Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Forces, 35 (1988):1-22.
[5] Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091
Debate Round No. 2
adontimasu

Pro

“What I find funny is that basically everything you argued was copy paste but just because not all fro same link I guess not plagiarised to be considered forfeit. I only point this out because you raise this in your round 1 conditions.

There is a difference. Firstly, what I stated were quotations: I put them in quotation marks and provided proper representation of the original source of these claims. This is not plagiarism, as I am not presenting the words as if they were my own.

“Firstly, we are discussing gun rights in the scenario whereby the law is successfully carried out (the feasibility should not be taken into consideration as you can't judge whether or not gun rights are good or bad based on failed implementation of it).

I completely disagree with this condition. At no point did I even suggest such a thing. I stated that gun rights should remain in secular societies. The very fact that it is impossible to carry out is my entire point, and therefore I refuse to accept this. If you are going to combat my points, you have to do so without playing word-games with me.

"There is no point justifying one's right to guns by saying that when they are banned, people illegally use guns to kill. This is the reason people shouldn't be allowed guns in the first place!

Except, this was done in areas were gun control was highest. The fact is, most civilians didn’t have guns, and yet this was still done. The reason for this is because, no matter how much control you have of guns, you will not stop people from smuggling them into country. The fact of the matter is, your point is illogical: gun control was enforced, therefore robberies increased, therefore more gun control should be enforced? That makes no sense.

“However, there is no proof that the gun rights actually assisted towards lowering of government corruption, the law being implemented happened to be at the same time as the government felt change was necessary, they didn't suddenly stop corruption DUE TO gun rights. It was two simultaneous events occurring, not one due to the other.

The problem with this line of logic is that we reviewed multiple nations. Not just America. The U.N. found that countries with freer gun laws had less corruption, while countries with stricter gun laws had more corruption. The reason behind this is because a corrupt government needs strict gun laws in order to prevent riots against it. Even if the gun laws did not cause the decrease in corruption, the fact of the matter is this: there is a correlation of some kind. Either the gun laws are lowering corruption, or a lack of corruption is allowing gun rights; either way, gun rights are correlating with a lack of corruption, showing that a country with less gun laws are more likely to be fair to its people. Therefore, gun laws are a good thing for a secular society either way.

“The fourth contention doesn't count as my opponent simply repeated the second.

Except, it isn’t the same. Gun laws could have absolutely no effect, while gun rights have extreme effect; however, this is not the case. Gun laws actually increase gun violence. This is a fact based on the statistics provided. Gun rights could have absolutely no effect; however, this is not the case either. Based on the statistics, it is shown that crime actually lowered when the amount of people purchasing firearms increased. Therefore, I concluded that I have negated your points.

In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.

Well, clearly. No one is arguing that guns aren't used to hurt people. But as I have already pointed out, a gun is 60x more likely to be used in self-defense than to commit a crime. However, what you seem to be ignoring is the fact that people are more likely to be attacked if they do not have a weapon on their person. The 1997 National Crime Victimization Survey states: “Robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” [1] The very reason these victims were dying with armed perpetrators was because they did not have a weapon on their person. Therefore, point negated.

“On the other hand, research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.[2] The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death.[3]

Sure, there is a risk to owning guns. This is irrelevant, however; of course a person with a gun is more likely to kill a member of their household or friend. Any weapon will increase those odds. However, my opponent did not read his source: 34 times out of that 43 were suicides (which were increased, as we saw, when guns were not involved), 4.6 were used in criminal homicide, and only 1.3 were accidents. Not to mention that the study was not properly done, as it only studied cases in the United States. [2]

“First, the decision involves a trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor.

Gun accidents made up 1.3% of the statistics in your own source. Guns were more likely to be used in suicide attempts, which made up a majority of your 43x, which actually increased when guns were not in the equation, as pointed out in Round 2. My opponent states, then, that guns protected more against lower injury crimes. This is not the case; while it is true that it is more likely to be used in cases of low injury crimes, it also has statistics of decreasing the odds of death during armed robbery and assaults, which are high injury crimes. The reason it is more commonly used in low injury crimes is because low injury crimes are more likely to occur overall.

“Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one."

My only response to this is this quote “The observed gun-homicide association is so weak that it could easily be due entirely to a higher rate of concealing gun ownership among controls than among cases.” [3] People with concealed weapons are more likely to lie about this; therefore, all it would take for this study to be void is if 3% of cases or 13% of controls lied during their survey. Furthermore, the homicide were committed outside criminals using their own guns, and not by someone with access to the house-gun, which was the entire point of the study. [4] Point negated, I think.

My opponent failed to give a source for his information in the last point. However, I will address the point: the fact of the matter is, guns are manufactured. You can’t just turn back time and stop their prduction While the fact that guns were sold may contribute to the problem, what my opponent is essentially saying is that gun production, which has already been performed, must be stopped. However, those guns will still be in circulation; it will simply be in the black market. Similarly, if production were to have ceased, people would make their own guns, as was done during the prohibition in the 1900s in America with alcohol. The way this would be done is by the simple fact that people know how to make them; after all, how else would they be produced to begin with. I conclude that, even if this was the case, it is irrelevant.

[1] Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, 1997

[2] http://stason.org...

[3] Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997. P. 245.

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

RationalMadman

Con

I thought we were discussing gun rights' philosophy not the implementation or feasibility of the law. I'm sorry and I forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3
adontimasu

Pro

Ah, my apologies if the resolution was misleading in any way.
RationalMadman

Con

Wait. I read your entire round 1 debate. Nowhere does it say that the feasibility of gun control is what we're discussing. The debate itself was only ever over gun rights. You treated this debate as if were pro gun control, but i'm simply con gun rights. You took away philosophy and replaced with politics. Now I shall use the UK as a case study to tear your argument apart.

In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law In England & Wales in 2009 there were 0.073 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the USA was 3.0, about 40x higher, and for Germany 0.2.[2]

In 2006, writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis[3] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall"[4]. Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences.

Possession of a live firearms round can lead to severe penalties. Shotgun cartridges can be possessed by anybody over the age of 17 but a Shotgun Licence is required for purchase.
While Scotland has had its own parliament (Holyrood) since the Scotland Act 1998, power to legislate on firearms was reserved to the UK Parliament, which led to tensions between the British and Scottish parliaments, with the Scottish government wanting to enact still stricter laws.[5]

A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare, with fewer than 3% of offences resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[6] The number of homicides per year committed with firearms remained between 49-97 in the eight years to 2006. There were two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period, and 107 non-fatal shootings.[6] In 2005/06 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.[6]

For international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[7] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[8] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average.[9]

While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[10] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[10]

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[11] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (they did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[12][13] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."

This is proof of the fact that gun control can be successfully implemented. Solid, undeniable, unquestionable proof. You wanted to talk pure statistics? You got it. I look forward to seeing how you counter this.

Sources:
[1] Malcolm, p. 91-98
[2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicides by firearm statistics. Total 2009 firearms homicides for the England & Wales are given as 41, which equates to 0.073 per 100,000 of the 56 million inhabitants; this figure is rounded to one decimal place in the table, i.e. 0.1.
[3] http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org...
[4] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[6] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...
[7] http://www.fbi.gov...
[8] http://www.unodc.org...
[9] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...
[10] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...
[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[12] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
[13] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
adontimasu

Pro

adontimasu forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Con

Forfeit accepted.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 5 years ago
RationalMadman
So hilarious. I forgot to laugh.
Posted by Manbearpanda 5 years ago
Manbearpanda
If*
error,*

IrrationalDerptard, don't try to win debates using semantics in a language you quite clearly don't understand. lol.
Posted by RationalMadman 5 years ago
RationalMadman
if you misuse language or make a lingual error I will find it and manipulate it. That is the art of debating.
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
Fine, whatever. Semantics rules are removed. Just remember, however, that most people give conduct to the opposite side if someone uses semantics, as many of them view a semantics argument to be a sign that they aren't being serious or don't care about the arguments. Just a fair warning.
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
Semantics are the weapons of an individual who can't fight an actual argument, mate.
Posted by RationalMadman 5 years ago
RationalMadman
I only debate if I can use semantics.
No votes have been placed for this debate.