The Instigator
LittleBallofHATE
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Amedexyius
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Guns, guns. Everywhere, guns.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 93222
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

LittleBallofHATE

Pro

I will be arguing that the availability of guns has no bearing whatsoever on the number of gun murders in America. I will back this up with FBI statistics, as well as other sources. Does anyone have the balls to challenge me?

First round: Acceptance.
Second round: Opening arguments.
Third round: Rebuttals.
Fourth round: Closing arguments.
Amedexyius

Con

I accept your challenge on gun control. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
LittleBallofHATE

Pro

I honestly didn't think anyone would accept. Well, here we go.

First, some statistics.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

These are broken down by state. Statistics include population, population density, total number of murders, number of gun murders, and the percentage of the population that own firearms.

Let's first look at DC. Gun ownership is 3.6 percent. The lowest in the country. Now look at the number of murders per 100K. 21.8. The number of gun murders is 16.5. That's several times the number of every other state.

Now, let's direct our attention to the state of Hawaii. They also have a very low percentage of gun owners, at 6.7 percent. Number of murders per 100K is 1.8. The number of gun murders is .5. That's one person out of 200,000 shot and killed by a gun. Also note that Hawaii has twice the population, twice the number of gun owners, and yet has only half the number of murders.

Now, let's look at some states with a high percentage of gun owners. Once again, we see a discrepancy. Wyoming has the highest percentage of gun owners of any state, yet their numbers for murders and gun murders are pretty close to that of Hawaii, at 1.4 murders per 100K, and .9 gun murders.

Now, there is Louisiana. Another state with a high gun ownership percentage. Their numbers are 9.6 and 7.7. As you can see, there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of murders.

And, finally, there is the simple fact that gun dealers are doing record business the last few years, yet the number of gun murders continue to drop. More guns. Fewer murders. This is according to FBI statistics. I would also like to point out that more people are killed by knives and blunt objects than by so called assault rifles.
Amedexyius

Con

Thank you for creating your argument, Pro.

There is an absolutely undeniable correlation between gun ownership and gun related murder. Looking at the United States on a national level, they have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth [1]. It is not surprising that these permissive gun laws have also paved the way for an ease of mass murders to disturb the peace in many neighborhoods and cities across the United States. The amount of guns per capita in the United States allows them to claim the title of 'Leader in Mass Shootings' on a global level [2]. Using states as a murders per capita example can be easily refuted as a proper argument for gun murders correlation because American crime rates on a state level vary regardless of ownership of guns and populations. It is the outlier of mass shootings that throw the graph into high shooting rates because that's where gun control really plays its role.

To prove that, an international example of the near-abolishment of guns having been successful in curbing both murders and mass shootings by guns is Australia [3]. Having tightened gun control to an ultimate level, Australian murder rates have plummeted since their shooting event 20 years ago which swayed them to create strict control and restrictions on access to weapons. Also, as you pointed out with knives and blunt objects, the reasons for crime and criminal activity in specific areas depending on geographical and demographic factors plays a major role on the sum of those numbers.

Sources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.wsj.com...
[3] http://www.reuters.com...
Debate Round No. 2
LittleBallofHATE

Pro

Correlation does not equal causation. And Australia is a poor example to use. The gun buyback reduced the number of guns by about a third. Since that time, the population has grown by 19 percent, yet the number of firearms has increased by 45 percent. Crime rates continued to fall, along with suicides, despite this increase in gun ownership. Also, suicide rates had been falling for a decade before the gun buy back. They continued to fall at the same rate AFTER the buy back.

Bottom line. A gun requires someone to pick it up, aim it at someone, and pull the trigger. Study after study has shown that gun laws have no significant effect on crime rates. Criminals do not obey gun laws. Law abiding citizens will turn in their guns. The criminals will keep theirs. So any law you pass will have no effect. This is basic common sense.

Also keep in mind that this debate is about gun crime in America, so I have no idea why you mentioned Australia. I have shown that gun ownership has no relationship to the number of gun murders in AMERICA. You have failed to prove otherwise.
Amedexyius

Con

Thank you for providing your argument, Pro.


Correlation does equal equation and our arguments are met. The United States leads mass shootings and since you did not refute that statement means that your chart is full of outliers which breaks the foundation of your argument. You offer absolutely no source or evidence to support your radical claim concerning the increase and decrease of your arguments. Even if your claim of Australia's rise in gun ownership is true, the strict gun laws in Australia completely filters the mentally unstable and criminally dangerous of acquiring firearms [1]. Suicide is not murder, by the way, which is in no way helpful to either of our arguments.

You have yet to offer any 'study after study' that has shown any significant effect on gun laws. You can't use the United States as an example because they have the most permissive gun laws on the globe. "Criminals do not obey gun laws" is an obvious statement. When Australia seized guns from their citizens after their own mass shooting 20 years ago, they raided suspected criminal activity and gun owners [2]. Back to my argument with the US having permissive gun laws, that is why I used Australia as an example. If you use a nation with much of the same socio-political thinking that the United States has like Australia, it could prove as a similar example if those regulations were implemented in the United States.

I have not failed to prove otherwise in this debate as your argument was eaten away by your refusal to provide evidence to back up your claims and your statement of the equivalency of correlation and causation as the United States has a serious section of their population holding firearms without the suggested mental capacity to do so.

Sources
[1] http://theconversation.com...
[2] http://www.vox.com...

Debate Round No. 3
LittleBallofHATE

Pro

I'll keep this brief. I made the claim that the availability of guns in America has no correlation to the number of gun murders. I gave several examples. I have shown that the number of gun owners in a state have no effect on the number of gun murders. I have also shown that the number of gun murders has fallen even though the number of guns are at a record high. I forgot to provide a link for that, but it's common knowledge. You have failed to refute my claim that guns have no effect on the number of gun murders in the US. In fact, you claim that the availability of guns is responsible for violent crime. This is what's known as a logical fallacy. You blame the guns, without considering other factors, such as poverty or other well known causes of crime. Do we have a lot of guns? Yes. Are they the reason for all of this violent crime? The answer is no. You have provided no evidence that shows otherwise.
Amedexyius

Con

I wouldn't have recommended to keep your argument brief, it doesn't cover a fraction of the absence to refute my arguments of your lack of sources or the vague target of your debate.

You gave me a graph which showed, according to you, an in-equivalency of correlation to causation, which I disproved (with a source) of the outlier of American mass shootings [1]. You did not offer a foundation to back up the claim of gun rates at high while murders being at an all-time low. US National shootings are higher and states vary due to their outliers of the mass shootings. I, on the other hand, have a source that actually proves firearms as a homicide tool escalating [2].

I haven't failed to refute your claim, I've actually disproved it with the sources I continuously state but you seem to ignore. The availability of guns is responsible for violent crime as I stated in both rounds before, and this round as well. I stated the sources before, and here it is again [2]. Your argument of poverty and other 'well-known' sources of crime are unfounded by sources and not previously mentioned by you which would have helped you earlier in the debate. Does the US have a lot of guns? Yes, the most in the world. Is it helpful in the amount of violent crime the Untied States experiences? Indubitably.

Thanks for the fun argument.

Sources
[1] http://www.wsj.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by foxxhajti 7 months ago
foxxhajti
In the US, there are about 112 guns per 100 people. That's a staggering amount. I don't support the complete abolishment of guns, but more gun restrictions should be made.
Posted by migmag 7 months ago
migmag
there are WAY too many gun in the US, and ALL statistic prove that IF there were FEWER guns we'd have FEWER deaths and injuries by guns, that's just a no brainer
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
No reason to be sorry. Miscommunications happen, no biggie.
Posted by Amedexyius 7 months ago
Amedexyius
It was my fault, I was questioning the form I wrote the joke and it's possibility of being portrayed as sarcasm. Sorry.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
Jokes are, admittedly, difficult to convey through text. You're hardly the first to state things like this, and some of those that have have been quite serious. In any case, I do hope that you get some better votes on future debates.
Posted by Amedexyius 7 months ago
Amedexyius
I didn't mean to offend, whiteflame. My comment was supposed to be a joke, regarding you were involved in 2 of my debates having their votes revoked. I don't really care about the votes themselves, I thought it was uncanny and I decided to make a remark on that.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
First off, I'm not an admin. Airmax is the only admin on the site. He removes the votes, I just assess and post comments.

Second, do you really think I'm going to spend hours a day perusing votes on random debates looking for votes to remove? I have nights when there are upwards of 50 reports to go through. Most nights, it ranges between 5 and 10, which is at least a solid half hour just to go through. I work and travel for work 14 hours a day every weekday. I have absolutely no interest in expanding my workload on something like this where I am solely a volunteer.
Posted by Amedexyius 7 months ago
Amedexyius
Do you need to report a vote? You are an admin, you can take the initiative to remove a vote if you find it weak and incompatible with the argument.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
I'm not specifically selecting your debates in this process. I haven't reported any votes on your debates, either.
Posted by Amedexyius 7 months ago
Amedexyius
@whiteflame It's nice to know that you care about my debates. Gotta make sure the only debates I win need to be won the fairest, and most importantly, squarest.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 7 months ago
Hayd
LittleBallofHATEAmedexyiusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The BoP is shared. Pro has to show that availability of guns does not affect gun homicides, and Con has to show that it does. Now, the "no bearing whatsoever" does not allow for correlation relationships since the no bearing whatsoever suggests that gun availability is the one determining the amount of gun murders, thus a causal relationship. In R2 Pro gives examples of places with low gun ownership and high gun homicide. Con shows that the US has the highest gun ownership in the world, as well as the highest mass shootings in the world. Con also suggests that using statse as examples isn't valid since crime rates vary regardless of gun ownership, because of other factors. Con fails to establish causation, as the only arguments he brings up are based on correlation, and spends the rest of the debate on rebuttals. And Pro fails to bring up any evidence besides anecdotal, of which Con already explained isn't valid. Thus, neither side wins, tie