The Instigator
theobjectiveobjective
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ABeard
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

More Guns are Not the Answer to Stopping Gun Violence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 303 times Debate No: 92940
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

theobjectiveobjective

Pro

More guns is will not decrease gun violence, it will increase it.

Multiple studies have shown this to be true. Before you post any statistics or studies, please make sure they are fair comparisons. For example, in comparing gun violence in two locations, we must account for the differences in amount of poverty, crime trends, drug use and trafficking, etc.

I will cite the following studies that have confirmed that higher gun ownership leads to higher gun violence:

American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 2015: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

American Journal of Public Health, 2013:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org...

Even though some people think owning a gun makes you safer, its not true. First, there are more guns available legally and illegally, thus there is more gun violence. Second, having a gun does very little to protect you against a pre-meditated crime. If a criminal sneaks up behind you, you will not have time to draw your weapon. Third, having a gun emboldens some criminals and makes some crimes easier - such as robbing stores. Finally, with gun ownership comes a certain amount of tragic accidental deaths and many of these are children. More gun ownership will only result in more of these accidents.

These reasons, along with actual data analyzed in the studies I provided, clearly show that higher gun ownership results in more gun-related violence and death.
ABeard

Con

The american constitution principles are made by the principles of John Locke. Therefore all american law has to abide by the principles of John Locke. John Locke states that people should be able to do as they please as long as they don't impede on peoples life, liberty, and property. Our founding fathers recognized this as the basic fundamental of law but they also understood they couldn't let the people rely on the governments safety which is one of the reasons we have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is a way to defend our own life, liberty, and property. Its not the case of more guns but the case of more people with guns that would make us safer. Just use common since would you attack someone if you knew that the person your attacking and the people around have a gun? would you rob a house if you knew everyone inside has a gun? no you wouldn't. I'm not saying that bad guys wouldn't get guns i'm stating that bad guys will always get a gun or some kind of weapon, so do you think its okay to let only bad guys be able to carry a weapon and let us law abiding citizens bring a knife to a gun fight. Thomas Jefferson the author of the constitution states that it's better to live in dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. To own a gun is a way to be able to defend yourself and self defense is obviously a right (I hope I don't have to explain to you why.).
Debate Round No. 1
theobjectiveobjective

Pro

The American constitution was based on the principles of more than one person. And to say that because A was based off B then A must uphold all components of B is incorrect logic. There are many ideas that are based off one idea or person but have incorporated other ideas or dismissed some of the associated ideas. Which brings me to the Constitution. If we were to abide by the Constitution, women and black people would not be able to vote. The point being, we don't want society to be exactly as it was in 1776, we want our principles to growth with the times. But to be clear, I do not believe gun ownership should be illegal, but I believe we should have a high standard to allow ownership of a gun. Higher than we allow now.

But to the main point, higher gun ownership (I don't care about the # of guns) is currently associated with higher gun related deaths as documented in the articles I presented. Your point about the criminal not attacking someone because they may own a gun was already addressed in my initial point - it will not stop a criminal because a criminal will just sneak up behind you. Whoever has the gun drawn first wins. The same is true for robbery. Beyond that higher gun ownership makes guns more easier for criminals to get, which empowers them. Even more importantly, accidental and wrongful gun violence is more prevalent with higher gun ownership. Take for example when a woman shot across an department store parking lot in broad daylight because security was chasing a shoplifter. An innocent bystander could easily have been injured or killed. Are we safer in that situation? Would you be safer if you had a gun? No. And we all know about kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally killing themselves or someone else. Responsible gun owners will take all measures to prevent that from happening, but it will still happen and it will happen more when more homes have guns in them.

I think the challenge is this: we feel safer personally when we have a gun. As a father and husband, I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that we are all less safe when more people own guns and the statistics bear that out. Even personally, a gun will only protect you in specific situations. Someone can always get the drop on you, and groups can always target individuals, and criminals can always hold a hostage, or threaten someone else, to get you to do what they originally wanted. But point is, even if you can come up with a few examples of a situation where a gun might prevent a crime, we are all more likely to be subject to gun violence if more guns are available via higher gun ownership. Therefore, to the question posed in the debate, more guns/gun ownership is not the answer to reducing gun violence.
ABeard

Con

ABeard forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
theobjectiveobjective

Pro

theobjectiveobjective forfeited this round.
ABeard

Con

You see you are incorrect when you say that black people and women would be unable to vote because it is written in the constitution that they are now able to, so don't make up stuff to make you sound better. If you are for giving up liberty for safety then by all means you be a slave. What i am saying is that if you say government should be allowed to say anyone can't defend themselves, where exactly did they get that power to take over someones right of self defense from. When the government gets too decide who can or cannot defend themselves their is obviously tyranny, so you think its okay to live life as a slave to tyranny as long as the tyrants don't restrict you from owning a gun? I'm sorry but that sounds like hypocrisy. More guns is better than less guns. You see if our government would stop discouraging people to defend themselves then more people would defend themselves, our government is 100% institutionalizing children to be scared to defend themselves, this can be seen in zero tolerance school rules where you are arrested for defending yourself. I'm sure you will refuse to hear me out and continue to believe the whole 'if we are nice to them they will be nice to us, BS". But if you learn anything from what i'm saying it is this, if you call yourself American and you are for putting restrictions on the only right in the constitution that says shall not be infringed (use common sense ask yourself "why did they write that only in the 2nd amendment?")You are spitting on the graves of the thousands of soldiers that died so we could do what we want, you are sticking the middle finger our founding fathers principles of law declaring your's are better. What you support is lawlessness you are supporting a strong government rather you know it or not. I know i posted this in the comments but i will post it here as my argument now. http://www.cnsnews.com.... http://dailycaller.com.... https://www.washingtonpost.com.... That was for round two so now lets get to round three. If the government was allowed to restrict or limit a RIGHT that then turns your right into a government PRIVILEGE meaning that the government then gets too decide who can or cannot defend themselves this then gives the government more power. The people own their own rights meaning only we can restrict or limit our rights not the government. What i said about John Locke is true, the right to defend our own life, liberty, and property, is definitely 100% part of constitution principles. go to this website,( http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com....) and you will then find out exactly our principles. in case you didn't know they didn't support government tyranny. This is all I have too say now. I will now leave it to the voters. I will sum up my debate in case the voters didn't read it all. I have based my principles off of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, And George Washington. All of these people understood that government by nature wants too rule over people, they knew if a government was to try to grow in power they will first go for the peoples arms, making people unable to revolt, also if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would then have guns, which would then leave law-abiding citizens no choice but to rely on government safety. My argument for "more guns are not the answer to stopping gun violence" is that neither of them would stop gun violence if you restrict guns, their will still be gun violence, and if you have more guns their will still be gun violence, the only thing is that if we had more people with guns i would still be able to defend myself. Instead of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ABeard 7 months ago
ABeard
In contrast Benjamin Franklin says if we were to give up liberty for safety we would deserve neither those words 100% means people aren't suppose to give up liberty. When i said you are spitting on the graves i meant it. They fought so the government would not be tyrannical, so they can do what they want in their own lives, you are literally supporting the opposite of what they fought for. All gun laws do is make government turn tyrannical. I don't see how anything your saying will make us safer. When the government gets too decide who can or cannot have guns their is tyranny. Government by nature wants too rule over people, this is because when someone has power their is corruption, which is why communism only works on paper. How can you give up liberty for law, when the fundamental of law is for people to do as they please as long as they don't impede on peoples life, liberty, and property, we in contrast have a right to defend our life, liberty, and property. A right is something that everyone owns meaning only you, yourself can restrict or limit your right. You can't run life on assumptions. The government has no power to restrict any right because the PEOPLE own the rights, if the government owned it, it would then be a PRIVILEGE not a right, my rights are not a privilege. You give up freedom for lawlessness not law. Alexander Hamilton said if any law oversees the constitution it is lawless, Alexander Hamilton helped create the American law system so this quote is valid. About your resources the first one is from MEDICINE like come on dude. Here is something from the washington post. https://www.washingtonpost.com.... I'm sorry but tyranny is not America we are celebrating independence today so please, especially today respect the rights we own.
Posted by ABeard 7 months ago
ABeard
In contrast Benjamin Franklin says if we were to give up liberty for safety we would deserve neither those words 100% means people aren't suppose to give up liberty. When i said you are spitting on the graves i meant it. They fought so the government would not be tyrannical, so they can do what they want in their own lives, you are literally supporting the opposite of what they fought for. All gun laws do is make government turn tyrannical. I don't see how anything your saying will make us safer. When the government gets too decide who can or cannot have guns their is tyranny. Government by nature wants too rule over people, this is because when someone has power their is corruption, which is why communism only works on paper. How can you give up liberty for law, when the fundamental of law is for people to do as they please as long as they don't impede on peoples life, liberty, and property, we in contrast have a right to defend our life, liberty, and property. A right is something that everyone owns meaning only you, yourself can restrict or limit your right. You can't run life on assumptions. The government has no power to restrict any right because the PEOPLE own the rights, if the government owned it, it would then be a PRIVILEGE not a right, my rights are not a privilege. You give up freedom for lawlessness not law. Alexander Hamilton said if any law oversees the constitution it is lawless, Alexander Hamilton helped create the American law system so this quote is valid. About your resources the first one is from MEDICINE like come on dude. Here is something from the washington post. https://www.washingtonpost.com.... I'm sorry but tyranny is not America we are celebrating independence today so please, especially today respect the rights we own.
Posted by theobjectiveobjective 7 months ago
theobjectiveobjective
Well I appreciate the fact that you are actually looking for real data to support your argument. However, both of those articles are very poor pieces of evidence. The first, is simply looking at 6 months of data and it does not take into account any other factors that could be contributing to the decline in violent crime.

The second is based on a study from the CDC which identifies reasons for the drop in gun violence NONE OF WHICH ARE GUN OWNERSHIP. It is merely the authors speculation that gun ownership caused the decline NOT THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO CONDUCTED THE STUDY.

These things are obvious, so I'm surprised you are putting your faith in this stuff.

Lets not say that I am spitting on the graves of thousands of American soldiers. Do you think that might be a bit of a stretch? First of all, you cannot say what they died for.. Typically, they died defending foreign dictators from acting with disregard for human life, and I am thank them for their bravery and honor. Second, even if some of them believed they were defending the constitution, the constitution stands for many things besides the right to bear arms. With such a dramatic and illogical statement, I wonder if you should revisit the basic concepts of logic.

Your strongest argument, in my opinion, is that the government does not have a right to prevent its citizens from protecting themselves. Well, I argue that the government is implementing our national interest of protecting ourselves through strict controls on guns. We all choose to live in this country and abide by its rules and give up some freedom to do so. We give up some freedom for law and order, safety and security. And we give up some security for our rights. We decide the balance. If we decide that guns caused more harm than good, we may choose to restrict gun ownership. We decide to limit speeds on highways, but how can the government claim to have the right to restrict how fast we want to drive. It is our collective decisions
Posted by ABeard 7 months ago
ABeard
heres my proof
Posted by ABeard 7 months ago
ABeard
i have not forfeited but here i will respond too round two here then. You see you are incorrect when you say that black people and women would be unable to vote because it is written in the constitution that they are now able to, so don't make up stuff to make you sound better. If you are for giving up liberty for safety then by all means you be a slave. What i am saying is that if you say government should be allowed to say anyone can't defend themselves, where exactly did they get that power to take over someones right of self defense from. When the government gets too decide who can or cannot defend themselves their is obviously tyranny so you think its okay to live life as a slave to tyranny as long as the tyrants don't restrict you from owning a gun. I'm sorry but that sounds like hypocrisy. More guns is better than less guns. You see if our government would stop discouraging people to defend themselves then more people would defend themselves, our government is 100% institutionalizing children to be scared to defend themselves, this can be seen in zero tolerance school rules where you are arrested for defending yourself. I'm sure you will refuse to hear me out and continue to believe the whole 'if we are nice to them they will be nice to us, BS". But if you learn anything from what i'm saying it is this, if you call yourself American and you are for putting restrictions on the only right in the constitution that says shall not be infringed (use common sense ask yourself "why did they write that only in the 2nd amendment?")You are spitting on the graves of the thousands of soldiers that died so we could do what we want, you are sticking the middle finger our founding fathers principles of law declaring your's are better. What you support is lawlessness you are supporting a strong government rather you know it or not.
No votes have been placed for this debate.