Guns should be more difficult to obtain
1. No trolling.
2. No ad hominem attacks.
3. All information must be used in the debate. Don't extend on a separate webpage. (Sources are allowed.)
4. No new evidence or ideas in the final round. (Refutations are allowed.)
My opponent will start in the end of this round. I would prefer that he/she puts something in the end of the final round instead of forfeiture, but only something like "end of debate." No extra information is to be added.
Looking forward to an interesting debate.
Thank you for setting up an interesting debate, Pro. I look forward to a lively discussion.
Burden of Proof
We have sufficient laws
Let us discuss some of the current laws according to the ATF. Any individual meeting these criteria cannot legally possess a firearm:
1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
2. Is a fugitive from justice;
3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
9. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
10. Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. 
And we must also consider the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which requires a background check through the FBI before a purchase of a firearm can proceed from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer.
I am interested to see what major changes Pro would like to see made. Good luck, Pro, and back to you.
Guns are too apparent in modern society. There are about 88 guns for every 100 people in the US,  and about 40% of American homes have guns.  This leads to the next statistic: 10 people out of 10,000 die from firearm-related deaths every year  (which reaches about 300,000 people ). This is the highest in any developed country.
Obviously, some sort of change needs to be made. Although the BoP does not require me to make a suggestion as to what this should be, which my opponent has acknowledged since he wrote it, I will for the sake of debate.
This also brings me to the refutation of my opponent's point that "we have sufficient laws." Upon first glance these restrictions seem to be legitimate. But, upon further questioning, they are not really sufficient.
First, there is no law saying that you must actually be a citizen of the US. #7 appears to address this, but actually addresses those who have renounced their citizenship. Most of these are only bare requirements that restrict someone who definitely should not be able to purchase a gun. But so that we don't just let 300,000 people a year die, we need to prove that someone with a gun will not, beyond a reasonable doubt, use it in the wrong way.
I propose adding a more thorough background check, and the applicant must have full and legitimate reasoning for owning a gun. This is needed not only to prevent criminals but suicide: the ratio of people who were shot by someone else to people who shot themselves is 1:2 (Meaning twice as many people shot themselves than were shot). 
The next thing to address is the loophole that a background check is not needed in a private transaction.  This is a major problem which means that someone may even fit the criteria mentioned above by my opponent and still be able to purchase a gun. This can easily be changed by passing a law saying something along the lines of: One must have a license to sell guns, and one must have a gun license to hold a gun."
Have I addressed the BoP in these plans? Yes. By tightening the restrictions, we eliminate many firearm-related deaths and we prevent guns from showing up as frequently as they do in modern society. This is both large enough to be noticed and to have an effect, and fully meets the requirements of the definition.
Thank you, Pro! Let's get to it.
First, I would like to point out Pro's statistic are skewed. Even by his own admission, suicides utilizing firearms occur at twice the rate of homicides utilizing homocides.
A more thorough background check is a rather vague description. What does Pro hope to eliminate with this new and improved back ground check that is not already dealt with in the current methods? Also, “a full and legitimate reason for owning a gun” can be answered with the 2nd amendment every time –
Pro has pointed out a “loophole” in which private citizens can purchase guns from each other and no background check is needed. Other than being another law that is not enforced or enforced intermittently, it won’t make much of a difference to law abiding citizens or criminals. Law abiding citizens will have another hoop to jump through, while the criminals will simply continue with the standard operating procedure – ignoring the law.
Con's first graph is actually supporting my side. It shows that there is a legitimate amount of suicides and homicides by guns. Also, I said that there are 10 in every 10,000 deaths every year. If you look at the graph, in 2012, it says there were 1 million deaths total ((Suicides + Homicides)*100,000). This just proves my side more correct.
His second graph made a little more sense, but again, analysis is required. Here is why it is not fully relevant to this debate:
1. It uses only Canada to compare to. This makes it seem like suicide rates in other places do not match up with his claim of consistency. This not only proves that the graph doesn't support his side, it supports mine as well.
2. The only source on US suicide is the CDC, but it seems like the CDC wouldn't devote all their time and effort to counting the number of gun suicides.
3. The graph stops at 2007. Again, perhaps consistency begins to flicker past 2007.
So, this graph again supports my side more than his.
His third graph was more or less irrelevant to this debate. If you look at the other means of suicide, most of them take time, meaning that an individual can actually think through and analyze their decision.  A good example of this is provided by my opponent: 50% of suicides are with a rope (from my opponent's final graph). With a rope, you have time before you suffocate to think through your decision to kill yourself and possibly reason out of it. With a gun (and this applies to homicides as well) once you pull the trigger, there's nothing to do to stop it. He agrees with me on this, saying that guns are preferred to rope for suicide, and are "more efficient." In England, guns are banned, meaning that most suicidal people resort to the rope, which is less efficient. So, all this graph does, along with his helpful analysis, is support my side.
I have no prejudice against non-citizens other than the fact that they are not fully registered. Someone from England could come over here, buy some guns, and smuggle them back to England.
He cited the Second Amendment for a full and legitimate reason for owning a gun. This is a heavily controversial topic, possibly the sole actual idea for possibly supporting my opponent's side of this debate. But, the Second Amendment is somewhat irrelevant today. In the times when it was written, there was an actual reason for wanting to own a gun: to protect yourself against invaders, Native Americans (not that I supported the genocidal killing of Native Americans, this actually proves my side in reasoning I provide below), bears, or just for hunting. Today, those reasons are all pretty much nonexistent.
Now, the killing of Native Americans actually supports my side. How did this genocide occur? With guns used by the settlers. My opponent is now arguing that it was just to kill an entire ethnic group for the reasons of the settlers: land.
My opponent has halfway refuted the loophole involving private transactions.  This may be the only legitimate point made by him in this entire debate. However, he has pointed out the more important, irrefutable evidence: criminals. Until we make this easy fix, criminals will no matter what use it as it is much easier to just use this loophole than to use the "standard operating procedure" suggested by my opponent.
Therefore, all of my points still stand and he has not provided any points for his side. At this point in the debate, the vote definitely goes to me.
Thank you, Pro!
Moving on! Pro has not addressed how the possibility of an inappropriate use of a tool, a tool which can help provide essential benefits necessary to the rights and welfare of US citizens, justifies eliminating it or severely restricting it. Essentially, Con is arguing 7 out of 100,000 people committing suicide (with this tool) means we should make sure the 999,993 still left must be protected from themselves. My point has been that eliminating guns (much less restricting them) will not change the fact that people commit suicide. And my graphics have shown that the suicide rate does not fluctuate greatly. When we look at Pro’s calculations for 2012, then we realize exactly what he is advocating. He said there were 1 million deaths due to firearms in 2012, but when we consider the population of the US, we calcluate that less than one third of one percent (.317%) of the entire US populations was affected due to firearms in 2012. We must consider the benefits firearms provide and not just a particular way in which people may misuse them. Pro argues that this small percentage of the population affected is justification to limit the rights of 99.638% of the population.
Pro speculates as to why my graphic on the suicide rates of Canada and the US is inadequate. I used this graph (based on information from the CDC and CANSIM) as an example of the fairly consistent rate or suicide. If Pro has statistics which contradict it, then he must present them. Any speculation as to how it might be inadequate is irrelevant.
Pro has suggested that my third graph is irrelevant to this debate, but that is simply false. I grant that is information is not in regard to the US, but the point stands. Rope is not to be blamed for the suicides anymore than firearms should be. In addition to this, Pro suggests that rope as a method of suicide is less likely to result in death, but (as much as I hate to be graphic) death by rope (if done properly) results in breaking the neck and does not necessarily rely on suffocation, as such, 'time to reconsider' is not neccesarily a given, nor are we able to completely limit choices for suicide to slow methods. Suicide using guns is simply not a good reason to argue against firearms.
Pro argues someone from England could buy guns and smuggle them back to England, but this is an argument relying on special pleading. If the laws against smuggling illegal firearms would not stop our would-be criminal, then how would making laws regarding the sale of legal firearms make any difference?
A Few Benefits of Firearms
My opponents has naively suggested guns might only be used to “to protect yourself against invaders, Native Americans, bears, or just for hunting”. Given this argument from Pro, I realize I should have convered this earlier. So let us look at the reasons Pro has supplied, and explore them and one crucial reason he has left out for benefits of firearms.
1. Invaders – I see invaders to means burglars, thieves, rapists, foreign attackers, murderers, etc. All of these groups exist today, and all wish to take something that belongs to their victims. In many cases, firearms can make the difference between an unarmed victim, and a person who is able to defend themselves against more powerful attacker. I have provided a link of an 18yo widow with a child who is able to defend against two attackers due to a simple shotgun.
2. Native Americans – This is a red herring and Pro builds a strawman of it. Individuals who support gun rights do not advocate genocide any more than peoples who only knew of swords. Guns are a tool, and the misuse of a tool does not correlate to an inherent evil nature in the item itself. In addition to this, guns were on both sides of the conflicts between Native Americans and the US calvary. For instance the battle of Little Bighorn didn't go too well for the 7th Calvary and Custer due to the repeating rifles of their adversaries. 
3. Hunting – in opposition of Pro assertions, hunting is necessary. Hunting can help supplement diets of low income rural families. He is an example in Northern Wisconsin:
4. Tyrannical government – without firearms, there is no protection from a corrupt government. The second amendment was instrumental in the McMinn County War in 1946.
All of these are valid reasons for firearms, and why I strongly object to attributing suicides to guns. Suicides do not cancel out the benefits. As a simliarly absurd example, if we find that motor vehicles are being used in suicides, exactly how many are necessary to eliminate this method of transportation or limit the privilege to drive thereby stripping away the benefits (freedom, convenient transportation for work, tourism, emergencies)? What about suicide by cop – How many suicides in this manner are necessary before we tell police officers they cannot protect themselves thereby restricting the effectiveness of our law enforcement? Essentially, the negative associated with a tool must outweigh the benefits before we can discuss eliminating or restricting it. Pro is conflating something that is a negative associated with firearms into something that makes firearms inherently negative. It is a non sequitur.
That being said, the wrongful actions of criminals are not a valid reason to disallow legal protection of life, property, and liberty to those who have not established themselves as 'law-abiding' from actual criminals. If that were the formula by which we restrict guns, then crimanals behaving badly will produce laws to restrict non criminals, and make life easier for the criminal. It is illogical. Making laws which essentially punish non-criminals for the acts of criminals is unfair and assumes all gun-owners are criminally minded. While this may not be said directly it is certainly implicitly understood, and we should avoid this type of thinking.
I would like to start by reminding the voters and my opponent that no new evidence or refutations are to be posted in the final round (which will begin as of the end of this).
Now, I will go right on to directly refuting each of my opponent's refutations to display how my points still stand.
Con has focused much too much on suicide than the overall problem that guns provide: safety. I have underlined this thoroughly throughout the debate. 1 million people die from firearm-related deaths every year. Now, my opponent has addressed this by pointing out that this is little of the population, but it still is 1 million people who've died from gun-related deaths, and this can change easily by setting up simple restrictions that many other countries have. This actually links in to my opponent's response to my response to his second graph in round 2. He (fairly) called me out on not having my own statistics directly disproving it. I think this graph on firearm related deaths dated 2012 should prove my point:
If you look, the Japanese have such adequate gun restrictions that their deaths per year were so minimal they didn't even appear. If we can just get on board with the rest of the world instead of remaining under the delusion that the year is still 1791 instead of 2015, maybe we wouldn't have death tolls like these.
My opponent was a bit graphic in his description of rope-related suicide, but my point still stands. Although breaking your neck does not necessarily give you time to think once you have initiated the suicide, there is plenty of time in setup. With a gun, all you need to do is go down to your local Walmart, pay a small fee, and shoot yourself in the head.
Con pointed out that my extension of the private transaction loophole is inadequate, but it as well still stands. A thorough background check and application for a gun license would be required for the would be smuggler in the example, (which involves someone from England, where guns are sufficiently restricted, to come to America, buy a gun through a private transaction with no background check, and smuggle it back to England), and it would definitely be much harder for this smuggler to get through.
For his first "reason for guns," my opponent has made a claim one frequently sees made by the NRA: guns protect people. However, when actually further looked into, this idea is not a constant. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them."  This shows that although when first looked at, it appears that guns provide more safety, really the opposite is true.
For his second "reason for guns," he claims that my point about the genocide of Native Americans is a "red herring." He specifies the example a little bit much, but he has a hint of truth. His main warrant is "the misuse of a tool does not correlate to an inherent evil nature in the item itself." While this is true, this tool has a strong potential for misuse. Does the tool not having true inherent morals really warrant us to give it out to someone who has "evil" intent?
For his third "reason for guns," he gives an interesting turn on my statement about the second amendment, saying that we need firearms for food. I have two reasons this is not a general reason against my vote: utilitarianism and generalization. From the utilitarian point of view, that being that "beneficial" is defined by something being helpful to the majority, this is completely false. It gets into the whole hunting debate; the question: is it right to kill many other living things to provide for yourself? Though this is debatable, any utilitarianism will vote me on this topic, and it is controversial enough for speculation. The second reason is generalization. Is my opponent is saying that everyone in the US is a low-income rural family? Of course, in the example he provides in Northern Wisconsin, "feeding my family" would be a full and legitimate reason for a gun license, therefore fitting my requirements and actually strengthening my side.
For his fourth and final illustrated "reason for guns," he chose tyrannical government. However, the example that he provides, (and any example he possibly could provide), is irrelevant to this debate, as in this instance laws are already being broken (such as firing at deputies).
For his fifth and final "reason for guns," (it's not underlined, so I will call it not illustrated), he used an attack on my still-standing suicide point. He used two "absurd examples," which I take to mean they are the most extreme: cars and cops. Cars' benefits far outweigh the possible negatives, unlike guns. The purpose of guns is shooting to severely injure or kill someone or something, whereas the purpose of cars is to drive around. In addition, suicide rates from motor vehicles are 9 times less than those with
firearms, citing his own graph:
Therefore, for him to say this would be to say his sources are inadequate and that they should be disregarded.
His second "absurd" example was suicide by cop, saying that we should take guns from every law enforcer. This would actually be detrimental; as we should not allow people to break the law seriously enough that it warrants a police officer shooting them. In addition, suicide by cop is not on the above graph, so again, he is claiming his own sources are inadequate.
In conclusion, I have seen no adequate refutation to my points thus far from my opponent and so they still stand.
I would like to finish by again reminding my opponent, the voters and myself that no new refutations or evidence are to be brought up in the final round. Any that are are to be disregarded fully.
Thank you, Pro!
Also, since Pro has mentioned it, I feel I should point out that round 5 is the final round, and per the rules of the debate, I will provide no new evidence or refutations. In fact, I intend to offer no arguments or refutations whatsoever in the final round (also per the debate rules) and will simply type “no arguments as agreed” with perhaps some sort of departing salutation. If Pro intended round 4 to be the last round for Con, then he should have stated that clearly in the opening round. As written, it can be ambiguously interpreted in different ways. I might have planned on new arguments in round 4, since it is not the last round of the debate. Fortunately, I had no intentions other than to continue developing previous arguments and refutations. I encourage the voters to consider docking conduct as necessary if Pro attempts any shenanigans in regards to this issue in the final round.
Pro is still conflating suicides using guns with gun deaths due to criminal activity. He has not shown that reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of suicides. I agree a reduction of guns will reduce suicides using guns, but what about suicides overall? Let’s say we ban guns, will we reduce a particular method of suicide and the overall suicide rate drops or will we simply reduce a particular method of suicide? If banning guns does not reduce the number of suicides, then we have sacrificed the many benefits of firearms to false statistics. My chart showing the preferred method of suicide in England (which has a gun ban) is rope in more than 50% of suicides. In other words, guns are not available but rope still is, and it is preferred as an efficient method by those wishing to take their lives. Pro still has a long way to go before he will show firearms have anything to do with suicides – at least as anything other than one method among many.
Pro provides a bit of special pleading as to why rope as a method of suicide provides more “time to think” over a gun. Going down to your local Walmart, paying a small fee, driving back to your house, loading the gun and shooting yourself can take just as much time, if not more, than killing yourself with a rope. This is a weak argument from Pro.
As to Pro’s smuggler analogy, he fails to realize someone willing to break the law by smuggling would also be willing to deal with criminals willing to break the law (selling him guns illegally). He would have no need to buy guns legally, thus running end round the new laws Pro wishes to establish. These laws would be pointless in this regard. Pro is naïve if he believes guns bought legally need to be smuggled out of the country.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies…
“almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
Firearms provide a means of defense which is statistically less likely to end in injury than any other method. This particular method is used between 500,000 and 3 million times every year. For the sake of fairness, let’s take the average between the two (1.75 M). 1.75 million people defend themselves with guns every year. That means almost twice as many people are saved by guns than killed by them including suicide, and 4 times as many people are saved by firearms when suicide is rightly taken out of the statistics altogether. Basically, we can take Pro’s online magazine advocating against firearms with speculation, or we can take the study of the CDC on this issue. I view the CDC to be a much more objective source.
Pro acknowledges his tactic of distraction in the genocide statement, but challenges:
Does the tool not having true inherent morals really warrant us to give it out to someone who has "evil" intent?
To which I would respond – Who is handicapped by legal restrictions, and who is not? The non-“evil”, or ‘righteous’ (to keep with the vernacular), are harrassed by legal restrictions more so than those willing to work outside of the law. Thus, banning/restricting guns hurts the ‘good’ more than the ‘bad’.
Firearms for food
Pro misinterprets my arguments or deliberately misrepresents it. I clearly stated hunting can help supplement the diets of rural societies in the US. That is not a generalization, as it is qualified. Secondly, utilitarianism will support hunting especially for population control. Killing an animal found close to human habitation can help decrease suffering in many ways. The general population of that species of animals will benefit by more chances for food, more chances for mates, and due to less competition there is less need for animals to venture into areas inhabited by humans (and their cars). In addition to this, if these prey animals are kept from close proximity to civilization, then we will also keep predators such as coyotes, bears, bobcats, etc., from being in close proximity to humans – so human suffering is minimized as well. Lastly, the animal killed can be eaten by the exact same low income rural societies I mentioned in the last round or given to the needy. This decreases suffering for the gretest number.
If this argument interests you, check out my animal rights debate.
Forgive my shameless plug!
Pro misses the point of the Battle at Athens. It is not against the law to oust a corrupt government, and that is exactly what the GIs did. It is an excellent example of how Americans can use armed force in extreme cases. Firearms cannot be banned by the government thanks to the foresight of our founders. Just like the checks and balances built into the government branches, our forefathers built checks and balances between the governed and the government. Giving up or allowing firearms to be restricted is to give up power to the government and welcome tyranny. It is the inalienable right of liberty that firearms protect. Thus, It is quite relevant to this debate, especially if Pro is an advocate for gun bans. (which would be a significant means of restricting access to guns)
Cars provide benefits for our society, but overall they actually take many more lives than guns. If we apply Pro’s logic and include all deaths attributed to methods of “driving around”, then self-controlled land transportation (ATV, motorcycle, automobile) are statistically far more dangerous (1 in 72 chance of death) as compared to assault by gun (1 in 300 chance of death), and should be restricted much more so than firearms.  Also Pro is using a graph (which I provided) that is not about the US – it is referring to statistics of suicide in England and Wales. He badly is misinterpreting it.
Since I was unable to find any reliable statistics on police shootings (much less suicide by cop) I will drop my second example.
Firstly, I would like to point out, Pro has provided no laws which would be a significant restriction to obtaining guns. He suggested a new and improved back ground check which will ask the crucial question ‘What do you need a gun for?’ His background check sounds no different than the ones we currently have in place, except they don’t ask a question already answered by the Constitution. Secondly, Pro advocates for non citizens being disallowed from possessing a gun, but this would make no noticeable difference for citizens of the US. Lastly, he suggested private transactions must be forced to complete a background check which essentially works on the honor system. We can expect law abiding citizens to follow this request, but it is completely useless for the purposes Pro desires. It would take a spectacularly stupid criminal to abide by this law knowing his name on a background check would be likely to set off a few flags on his transaction. Criminals would simply ignore this law just as they might neglect to pay taxes on cash transactions.
Pro's current arguments have failed, and he is allowed no new arguments in the final round, just as he reminded me. This would disallow any additional suggestions for laws or more reasons why guns should be more difficult to obtain. Keep him honest voters! Has Pro shown guns should be significantly more difficult to obtain? No, not in the least. He has used skewed statistics by counting suicides, which will happen whether firearms are available or not, in with violent crimes. As I have pointed out, this is an unfair and is essentially demonizing a beneficial tool as little more than an instrument of suicide. I have established 3 ways in which guns are extremely beneficial:
1. Protection – Firearms are used many times more often to protect than intentionally harm.
2. Hunting – Population control of prey animals serves a definite purpose. From a utilitarian view, it decreases the overall suffering of animals and humans in a major way. Thus, it has a strong benefit.
3 Tyranny – Firearms are the people’s power against a corrupt government.
The intentional premature deaths of those without hope should not be used to damn those who continue on. Suicides should not be used to bring about the death throes of life (right to life = right to protect it), liberty (freedom from tyrants), or the pursuit of happiness (utilitarian reduction of suffering).
I will begin this round, and the end of this debate, by thanking my opponent. This was a lot of fun for me, and I hope it was for him and all the voters as well. First I will clear up an issue on conduct, then weigh the debate, then finally show the voters why I win on all fronts of this debate.
My opponent, for whatever reason, has misinterpreted the rules of the debate. He asks for conduct points because I am pulling "shenanigans" on this topic of the final round. He asserts that I did not clearly state that round 4 is the last round for Con arguments in my opening round. Here is what I put in the opening round while on this subject: "my opponent will start in the end of this round. I would prefer that he/she puts something in the end of the final round instead of forfeiture, but only something like "end of debate." No extra information is to be added." These are clear rules asking that my opponent not post anything in round 5 and that thus, round 4 is his final round of debate. This however, is not the reason that I win on conduct, as I am forced to provide my own refutations in order for this to be fair. I will further elaborate on why I win on conduct, along with everything else, in the end of this round.
My opponent seems to have made a mistake. "I agree a reduction of guns will reduce suicides using guns, but what about suicides overall?" He agrees that a reduction of guns will reduce suicides using guns, thus he has acknowledged that suicides are a legitimate reason to ban firearms. Voters, how can this not affect suicides overall? If there are 5,000,000 suicides per year, and 100,000 of these are firearm-related, then there are 50,000 less suicides overall. Incidentally, I took these statistics using percentages from my opponent's own graph, which he has recently revealed is only from England, where guns are banned. I will further go on later in this round to show how his admission of this (though late) is actually yet another reason to vote for my side. For now, I would like to once and for all clear up the suicide issue on this topic. I used the example of going to Walmart as the longest time that it could possibly take any random individual that fits the very loose restrictions provided in round 1 by my opponent. Here are the steps and times that it takes someone to shoot themselves with a gun if there is one in the house:
1. Get the gun. (At most 2 minutes, and usually under)
2. Put it in the mouth, next to the head, etc. (2 seconds)
3. Pull the trigger. (0.01 seconds)
This is just a simple breakdown of steps that it takes to commit suicide using a gun, to show my opponent and the voters how incredibly short of a time it takes to kill oneself using a firearm.
This is the end of the final attempts to shake the suicide point fully pointed out by my opponent, but he also sneaks in a last attempt to subconsciously win over the suicide points entitled "slippery slope." It describes the most radical example my opponent could find for another thing that causes suicides to ban: cars. He abandoned his policeman example because he "was unable to find any reliable statistics on police shootings." This is a warning sign that his guesses in round 3 are not fully reliable. Next, he uses unreliable statistics for cars as well. I examined his source for his statistics, as they seemed impossible. He used a summed up total of all deaths using land vehicles in any way versus all suicides, and the transferal is skewed. He calls the former 1 in 72 when it is really 1 in 85, and the latter 1 in 300 when it is really 1 in 115. It is also according to Medhelp, a source I would not really use over common sense. In England, firearms are banned, and still the suicide rate using firearms is 9 times that of using motor vehicles. In the US, where this debate is located, firearms are much more widely used, and there is nothing affecting motor vehicle suicides. As such, his point about suicide using cars is not comparable to those using firearms.
As I have proven, suicide is actually a very viable reason to vote Pro by itself. However, there are many other reasons to vote Pro, as I will continue to prove throughout this round.
My opponent has dropped this point made by me in the second round and thus, homicides are a fully viable reason to vote Pro.
First, I will point out that my opponent's CDC card cited defensive gun uses of 500,000 to 3 million per year, not necessarily that in every case of those times, the victim would inevitably have been killed. This actually, though a seemingly weak refutation, is so very true that my opponent's statistics are proven irrelevant. I already provided this quote from the Guardian that my opponent seems to have dropped: "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them." To summarize, wielding a gun does not necessarily mean one is safer. They are psychologically encouraged to go to more dangerous environments and can also have the gun taken and turned upon them. Though my opponent noticed my quote, he only responded by comparing it to the CDC and calling it subjective. He didn't actually prove me wrong, and my quote directly refutes the CDC one. Thus, his claims of "protection" are inadequate.
My opponent has, in a final attempt to refute my analogy of an English person obtaining an American firearm, has claimed that the said person will buy from arms dealers. However, we can still create an easy law banning the private transaction loophole. It is an easy fix and an obvious one, and my analogy, which my opponent has only semantically refuted, was one of many examples of this.
My opponent has dropped my refutation on generalization, and this is the refutation that I will carry through on the hunting topic to save time. My claim on generalization was that people that needed to hunt would thus have a full and legitimate reason to have a firearm, and would fit my prescribed laws. This is also where my opponent's major conduct violation occurs, which I will elaborate on later. He has also shown some indecisiveness, first inacurately claiming that everyone must hunt for food, then that we must hunt to keep the animal population down.
My opponent has made an attempt at a refutation to my claim that the tool not having inherent morals doesn't warrant us to give it out to someone who has evil intent. We are, with these "gun rights," giving out guns to anyone who has enough money to pay for them. He claims that we are hurting those with good intent more than those with bad, but he forgets the police who replace the need of these vigilantes that my opponent talks about.
My opponent's final stand against my win was his tyrannical government point, that we need guns to overthrow the tyrannical government. First I will weigh on probability: there have been minimal incidents like this in the US, and there is an even more minimal chance of it happening in the future, as we are a democracy. Second, there are ways to display dislike for something other than rioting and shooting people. This is not a good reason to vote against guns.
Why I win
Voters, as I am sure you know, there are 4 things to vote on: conduct, spelling/grammar, arguments, and sources. Here is why I win on every one of these, or at the very least most.
My opponent has not only violated the general conduct rules and put in new evidence and refutations in the final rounds, but he has directly violated the 3rd rule set up by myself in the opening acceptance round of the debate: "All information must be used in the debate." My opponent agreed to this by accepting the debate, and yet he violated it by posting an entire animal rights debate. Voters, I obviously win on conduct.
My opponent has made slight grammar mistakes throughout the debate, but they were only slight, so I will acknowledge this factor alone could be marked as a tie.
As I have shown throughout the debate and throughout this round, my arguments all still stand and none of his do.
I have used very reliable sources including ABC news, World Bank, Harvard, the Guardian, and so on. The only reliable source I have seen from my opponent that is comparable to these is ABC news, which I have used in addition to more, and the CDC.
My opponent's points have all been refuted by me. His last statement was that suicide should not affect those who continue living. This, evidently, is how he chooses to end his debate. Here is the final statement that I will leave you with, voters:
Guns are meant to kill or injure things and people. By condoning the current standards used by the US, we are condoning virtually giving out guns to those who wish to kill themselves, those who wish to kill others, and those who do not intend to, but are capable of accidentally doing, both. There is no reason that we need to give out guns this way without asking why, and statistics prove that other countries who don't do this have exponentially lower firearm-related death rates than the US. We have people who protect us, the government, so why do we give out guns to people without a reason for needing one other than death?
Interesting debate, Pro! I thank the readers who have made it this far, and go ahead and vote Con!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|