The Instigator
dhaase
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Loose Gun Control

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 5 votes the winner is...
BlackVoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,734 times Debate No: 15449
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

dhaase

Pro

Gun control is something that has been controversial for a long time in america. Yet year after year you see crimes and robbery's all over America. If everyone had a gun in their house it would reduce crimes. Guns equal power, if a man has a gun and the other is unarmed he is in control of the situation. However if both the people have a gun nobody is in control and one person wont have power over the other. If a criminal knows that the owner of the house that he is about to rob has a gun, than they will think twice about it. Also, with illegal guns roaming the streets, when there is a gun crime the gun is often unregistered. If everyone has a gun that is registered and a crime is committed it is much easier to track the ownership of the gun. I know that there will be scenarios where guns are stolen, and cant be traced when used in crimes. No matter what there will always be faults in the system. I am just stating my position and that is everyone should have the right to own a gun unless they have a criminal back round. I mean the right to bear arms is the second amendment and with out that right the people are being oppressed.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks for introducing ths debate. Good luck.

However, my opponent has not given any resolution whatsoever. I will assume we will just debate whether or not the average person should be allowed to own a gun.

I'll have one very short point for this round. First however, I'll go over his arguments.

His points had no real structure or fomatting, so I'll just pick them out as I seem them.



1. If everyone had a gun it would reduce crime

a. Warrant please?

b. When 68% of murders are committed with a gun (1), allowing more people to have them is just adding fuel to the fire. If we want to reduce this type of death, the answer is to have less guns, not more.

2. If two people (supposedly in a conflict) both have guns, neither has control.

Control is meaningless. If person 1 is intending to harm person 2, knowing person 2 has a gun, there will be no face-to-face confrontation where "control" would be necessary. Person 1 will make sure he attacks from behind, ensuring that person 2 does not have a chance to retaliate with his own gun.

3. Criminal wont break into a house where the owner has a gun.

No, he probably wont. What you dont realize though is that he probably wont break in if the owner doesn't have a gun either. He likely waits for the owner to leave, then makes his move.

4. Most guns are unregistered

No sources behind this. But more importantly, no impact whatsoever. Why does this matter? He never tells us.

5. Right to bear arms

a. The right to bear arms is about source 2, contrary to what you may believe.

b. Even if you dont buy that (though I dont see how you couldn't), we only limit the right to bear arms, we dont eliminate it. We only require a permit for ownership. Thats the main reason that most gun control laws haven't been overturned on grounds of your argument.


My argument

1. Guns worsen self defense

As previously shown, if one is looking to harm you, knowing you have a gun, they're more likely to refrain from direct combat and instead attack from behind. This gives you a lesser chance of defending yourselfas you are now defending from a surprise attack rather than a frontal one. Furthermore, if the attacker himself has a gun, you're screwed whether you have one or not, as all he has to do is get the first shot off and you're too blinded by pain to respond.


I've purposely kept this short, but I'll expand if my opponent has a decent response. I urge a con vote, thank you.



1. http://www.pbs.org...
2. http://coto2.files.wordpress.com...



Debate Round No. 1
dhaase

Pro

You talk about me not having a warrant, meanwhile you have no warrant that proves if two people have a gun that person will attack the other from behind. You have no idea that person 1 is smart enough to attack from behind, unwarranted assumption.

Also, if we have less guns, than we are being oppressed by the government because we will have nothing to fight back with if there is ever a dictatorship. That is why we have the right to bear arms, so we can fight back if there is ever a need.

If my opponent was reading my debate he would understand my point about unregistered guns. I said that there are crimes where illegal guns are used and the suspects are never found because the gun was unregistered or obtained illegally. I will state this again and hopefully my opponent reads it this time, if all guns are registered, than when a gun is used in a crime it will be easier to catch the perpetrator.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

I found this statistic on this website http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Another point my opponent made was a criminal breaking into a house when the owner isn't home. Another unwarranted assumption, he is assuming that all criminals are smart enough to know when the owner isn't home. Not all robbers are as smart as the ones you see in movies.

As for your source on the right to bear arms, there is no reason for me to do research on something you present. Therefore i will not leave the debate to do your work for you. If you want to include a source, use the information in the debate, i will not waste my time.

As for your "guns worsen self defense" argument, if one is looking to harm you, and you don't have a gun it is much easier for them to harm you. Also, your argument is states only if the person is trying to harm you. What about when people don't have an intention on hurting you. Having a gun prevents confrontation, if someone has a gun your not going to start problems with them for no reason. This stops people from getting bullied and picked on by bigger, stronger people.
BlackVoid

Con

His arguments then mine

1. Guns = Less crime

Pro criticized me for not presenting a warrant. However, he continues to give none of his own. At that point we drop this from the debate, as after two rounds there has been no reasoning put behind this argument.


I'll get to the attack-from-behind argument in a minute.

2. Guns help fight government if it turns into dictatorship

a. New argument

b. With the sometimes ridiculous amount of checks on government power, division of the government branches, and the whole point of the constitution being to limit the power of government, I highly doubt that the US government will become a dictatorship anytime soon.

c. He gives no link as to how the government could even become one. Its just an "if", with no backing.


3. Unregisred guns

I apoliogize, I did misread.

Looser gun control encourages people to get more registered guns. Tougher control encourages people to get no guns. Even if he accesses his impact of more registered guns, the safety created by tougher laws creating less gun ownership in the first place outweigh.

4. Break-in deterrance

Pro: Not all criminals know when the owner isn't home

I know that. My argument is that they likely wait until they are absolutely sure no one is there. If they know the owner of the house has a gun, like you imply, then the effect is magnified. With this threat, the criminal will make absolutely sure that the owner isn't home when he makes his break in.

5. Right to bear arms source

Dont take it so seriously, the joke should have been obvious.

6. Guns worsen self defense

Pro: If you dont have a gun, others can harm you more easily

Already answered. Having a gun encourages harm to come from behind rather than from the front. Chances of defending yourself from a surpise attack are significantly less than the alternative.

Pro: Guns prevent confrontations other than when one is trying to directly harm you

Guns are typically only used to defend from direct attacks. If I start arguing with someone about abortion, its unlikely that they will whip out a gun and shoot me for it. I know this, so I wont feel afraid of continuing the argument. In the case of bullying, its still unlikely for someone to shoot another for just saying a few bad words. Still no deterrance.


My opponent dropped my argument that allowing more gun ownership adds fuel to the fire, creating more crime, and that control laws do not violate the second amendment. Please extend these. I honestly can win based off the crime argument alone.

For all of these reasons I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
dhaase

Pro

I will start off with debating my opponents argument that allowing more gun ownership adds fuel to the fire, my opponent is assuming that if people are allowed to have guns, they will use them. Some people just want guns to feel more powerful and protected.

We have no proof that if we allow people to get guns easier than they will use these to commit crimes. I am not saying that anybody should be allowed to have a gun. Obviously if you have committed a crime before you should not be able to get a gun, but the real thing is either way people are going to get guns. People get guns illegally all the time, how do you think people in gang wars, or drug dealers get guns? Do you think they get their guns legally? My answer is no, they get them illegally in the streets. I am not saying that we should give guns to criminals, that is not my intention. All i am saying is people are going to get guns regardless of the laws. Wouldn't you rather them get them legally so we can track the guns than illegally?

Your argument saying that it creates more crimes is not true. Here are some facts i found about strict gun control laws put in place with the relationship to crimes:

In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported,

"In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual."

http://www.fff.org...

My opponent says that more guns create more crimes when it is actually the opposite, less guns equal more crimes. I have the facts, i dont see any sources or backing in my opponents argument saying that more guns will create more crimes. However i have a source that shows less guns create more crime.

All my opponent is trying to do is argue against my arguments, when this debate is about loose gun control. I urge you to vote pro because i am giving support to the main argument, not just arguing my opponents arguments.
BlackVoid

Con

There were three main arguments made in his speech, so I'll number them.

1. Guns and crime

Pro: Not everyone will use the gun, some just want it for protection

Turn: By saying that "some" only want it for protection, he concedes that others will not, and will desire it for offensive purposes.

Pro: People will get guns whether we have loose controls or not

This takes out his own argument about self defense. His arguments are predicated on more people getting guns to defend themselves. But if those people will guns even with tight restrictions, we have no incentive to change the status quo.

Secondly, he just says that "people" will get guns regardless of their illegality, so I will assume he is referring to people categorically. He gives no warrant to prove that absolutely everybody can get guns with tight restrictions. I argue that even if gun control can stop only a small percentage of people from acquiring these weapons, which is inevitable, society is still that much safer.

Pro: England more shootings after control laws

Logical fallacy. If A happens then B happens, it doesn't mean A caused B.


2. Getting guns illegally vs legally

Pro: Better for more people to get guns legally so we can track weapon

I answered this in the last round. It was dropped. Please extend that No Gun > Legal Gun.


3. Con burden

Pro: I only attack his arguments


I gave a pro argument; guns worsen self defense. He dropped it.

Secondly, I dont need to give a ton of my own arguments because he advocates a change in the status quo. Currently there are control laws in place. If I prove his arguments in favor of changing the SQ wrong, we have no incentive to do so.


Finally, he also drops Government Tyranny, Break In Deterrance, and Conflict Deterrance.


For all of these reasons I urge a con vote. As always, thanks for reading.

Debate Round No. 3
dhaase

Pro

My opponent says that i am violationg a logical fallocy, however there are many other cases in which this has occured if you dont not believe that the one caused the other. Also, you have no evidence that the one did not cause the other you are just stating fallocies, which i could do also. Plus, according to the 42 fallocies there is no such thing as a "logical fallocy" you can look at this website which lists the 42 fallocies. http://www.nizkor.org...

However back to my argument, it has happened not only in England, it has happened in other countries.

"What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent."

So nice try calling out a fallocy, but it has caused it more than once.

You are also, trying to twist my words to the audience. I didn't say that some people only want it for protection, i said that some people want it for power and protection, not to use it in a violent way. You are violating a fallocy, that if one thing isn't true the other must be true. Which is not the case, people who buy guns to use them offensively end up in jail and the way we have the gun control even if you aren't using it offensively you end up in jail. Look at Plaxico Burress, he had a gun for self defense it went off and he shot himself in the leg, now he is serving time in prison. He had a gun license in florida, but not in new york. That is a problem if a person has a gun license in one state, and move they have to get a new license. For a professional athlete who goes to a lot of different states and wants self protection they have to carry a gun illegally because it will be so difficult for him to get one in each state.

Also, like i said in previous rounds countries will apply gun control to oppress the people so they can't fight back.

Send to a friend
Print PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily

Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 2
by Benedict D. LaRosa, November 2002

Part 1 | Part 2

What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent.

In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported,

"In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual."

The Manchester Guardian of January 14, 1999, lamented that their city was being called "Gunchester." Police sources were quoted as saying that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young criminals. Some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons. The police risk confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing machine guns. A 1971 Cambridge University study showed that in heavily gun-controlled Great Britain, "the use of firearms in crime was very much less before 1920 when Britain had no controls of any sort."

In fact, crime has increased so much in Australia, Canada, and Britain, all of which have strict gun-control laws, that the Wall Street Journal has since reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially lower than in those three countries.

Gun control abroad

In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate.

"But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated."

I understand my opponent says we have checks and balances, so that we won't ever become a dictatorship, but everything has grey areas and there are ways to work all systems. If every system worked perfectly we would live in a perfect world, and as we have seen over time every country has a downfall. If that wasn't true there would still be the Roman Empire. I understand the U.S. Government's system is working at the moment and has worked in the past but all it takes is one person to figure out there way around the system. When that time comes do you want to be defenseless? I dont think so.

Here is the source i used for my information, http://www.fff.org...
BlackVoid

Con

1. Correlation vs Causation

Pro: Other cases of increase happening

I'll get to this later.

Pro: I have no evidence that one did not cause the other

You introduced this statistic, you need to give the link. Without it you can make no assumptions from these statistics.

Pro: There is no such thing as a logical fallacy

http://www.logicalfallacies.info...

My point stands that correlation does not imply causation. However, I will still refute his statistics in a minute.


2. Guns for protection

Pro: People use guns for things other than offense

He made this exact argument last round and I already refuted it. I point out how my opponent said that "some" people wont use them for offense, which implies that others will.

Pro: People who use guns end up in jail

Yeah, AFTER they use the gun. Better to have tight laws and prevent the gun from being used in the first place.

Pro: Plaxico Burress shot himself

Con argument. He admits that Plax wanted the gun for self defense. If he ended up hurting himself with it, that indicates that there is a risk of accidental shootings. As such, he shouldnt have had a gun in the first place.


3. Guns and crime


Pro: Gives all these stats about guns and crime abroad

All your stats are abroad. My evidence (1) indicates that gun control has a positive effect in the United States, and that the presence of guns creates an inherent risk of accidents and homicide. You reference the second amendment (although drop it later), so I assume we are debating gun control in the US. At that point I outweigh on sources, mine is specific to the US while yours is only about foreign nations.


4. Tyranny


Pro: Someone will eventually find a way around the system

a. Already dropped

b. No warrant. Never explains who, when, how, etc.

c. Even if I buy that our governmental system can collapse and fall into tyranny, he gives no link to prove that the government will become Saddam-like and be aggressive towards the people.

d. This is all speculation


Please extend all drops once again.


For all of these reasons I urge a con vote.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
dhaase

Pro

So my opponent is saying that we should prevent people from having guns because accidents can happen. What about the saying you live and you learn. The people should have the chance to make the mistakes, if they believe that having a gun on them makes their life safer, it is their choice. We shouldn't stop people from wanting to be protected and thats what the gun laws are doing. I will make a basketball analogy since it is march madness, announcers and basketball analysts say don't let the referees decide the game, let the players decide it. This is just like the government in gun control, the refs are the government controlling the peoples lives (the players). The people should be able to live their life how they want to, if they feel a gun will protect them they should have the option to be able to get one. From personal experience, i see how having a gun can make you feel unsafe. I had a basketball game at my school and during the game there was a kid shot by an older man who was in his 30's. No one else had a gun on them, now we are all at the will of this man with the gun because he has power over everyone. Unless you have been in the situation where someone near you has been shot and a person is holding a gun to everyone you do not know how the people feel. It feels very unsafe knowing someone can get an illegal gun bring it into school and just take over the place and he has the power to choose whether or not you live or not. If someone like a security guard or a teacher or a faculty member was able to carry a gun legally, deaths could have been prevented. Lives could have been saved, but because control laws are so strict my friend was shot down and he wasn't even the intended target. Guns are like drugs, people get them easily on black markets, and it is the people who don't have access to the black can't get illegal guns, they fall victim to these people carrying illegal guns.
BlackVoid

Con

OK, I'll use this last round to summarize and explain why I win this debate.

Voting issues are as follows.

Arguments:

1. Drops

In round 2, my opponent dropped Guns = Less Crime, my argument that More Guns = More crime, and Second Amendment. In round 3 he dropped Legal vs Illegal Guns, Guns and Self Defense, Government Tyranny, Break In Deterrance, and Conflit Deterrance. In round 4 he dropped everything other than Guns vs Crime and Government Tyranny, which were only responded to after I called out their drops in earlier rounds. I wont even go over all the missing arguments in round 5.

2. Guns and Crime

I provided a source showing that gun control is having a positive effect on crime in the United States. I pointed out how this outweighs all his stats, which are based in foreign countries and not in the one we are debating. This argument was also never responded to, so the argument about crime flows con.

3. Guns and Self defense

I proved guns worsen it by enouraging enemies to attack from behind rather than from the front. Ultimately my opponent dropped this in his last three rounds; this must flow con as well.



Spelling/Grammar

I also encourage a grammar vote for con. I probably made two or three mistakes somewhere here, but my opponent never labeled any arguments, and his first and last rounds were walls o' text with no paragraphing to seperate different ideas.



Ultimately, the biggest issue is that almost all of my arguments made were dropped by pro at some point. Therefore, due to a lack of responses, I urge a pro vote.

Thanks for the debate.




Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
dhaaseBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con should have addressed the sourced arguments from Pro with similar in return.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
dhaaseBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments werent fleshed out at all. However, con gave many more warrants than pro for his claims. As such I lean towards con.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
dhaaseBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Lots of dropping by dhaase. Also terrible grammar. I actually marked Pro off for "there is no such thing as a logical fallacy". Come ON!
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
dhaaseBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: All in all, guns for all
Vote Placed by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
dhaaseBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made pretty weak arguments. Con used sources and had better spelling.