The Instigator
Locke33
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KnowItAll
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

More people with guns will help stop the criminals from abusing them.

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 3 votes the winner is...
KnowItAll
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,509 times Debate No: 29122
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Locke33

Pro

If more people have guns and know how to use them it will make America a safer place.

Criminals are always going to have guns we can not stop them from getting them we need to keep them from using them.

I would like to start with putting a gun and training experience in every teacher in America's possession. Think of the recent shooting the only person who could have stopped the shooter in that school was a teacher with a gun locked in her desk(to keep from misuse).

If every store owner and bank owner not to mention house hold had at least one gun handy, but also out of the way of misuse, criminals would be much more reluctant to commit crimes, this would probably drastically cut thievery down because some punk kid will think twice about ripping of some television or something like that knowing he can be easily apprehended.

It would also cut down mass murders to because before they became mass the gunman such as the one in the movie theater in Colorado could be shot down before to much damage is done.

Yes of coarse guns are not to be permitted in schools(students) or for people under 18 without adult supervision. You might argue that this gun use will cause more murders in skirmishes and arguments well we can take care of that with a strict law that gives a minimum of 20 years for gun use outside self defense or recreation.

We will never be able to stop gang related murder violence but people caught in the cross fire will be able to protect themselves.

I believe the government should look into supporting this in since they are so in love with handouts they should give out free gun training and safety classes to the head of every household.

I am not encouraging vigilantly justice I'm encouraging protecting yourself and your families the way it's been done in America for about the last 250 years.

Good luck to my opponent and I am eager to hear your response.
KnowItAll

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this debate. It is my opponents" position that arming people with guns will prevent criminals from using them. I will disprove my oppenenst position.

The United States has by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. The United States holds less than 5% of the world"s population yet is home to 35-50% of all guns in the world. [1] Although the United States holds the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, the United States does not have the highest firearm murder rate which would seem to corroborate my opponents" position.

However, there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crime associated with firearms as concluded by the National Research Council in 2004. " Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates." [2]

It would seem that the best way to prevent criminals from abusing firearms is to virtually eliminate guns from circulation as has been done in Japan. " In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally. [3]

As there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crimes associated with firearms my opponents' position that more people with guns will help stop criminals from abusing them is false.

I now pass this debate to my opponent for rebuttal.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[2] http://factcheck.org...
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com...#
Debate Round No. 1
Locke33

Pro

I would like to start my rebuttal with this, my opponent can list what other countries have done to support his case I can not and would not if what I propose was at work in some other country because America is a whole different country then any other in history; it can not be compared to other countries, because the situation is very different then any other and in my opinion better(overall). But I will leave you with this, "In 1985 before the gun ban in Japan they only suffered 10 gun related murders with hunting guns that year."[1]

The only reason Japan could ban all guns anyway is because its a constitutional monarchy they do not believe in having freedoms that we do and did not use democracy as the foundation of there country. I hope a complete gun ban is not an option for my opponent or any one else out there because it is not constitutional and takes freedom out of America.

What I can do though is list the numerous statistics that prove households with guns in America are safer and have less violent crimes.

Firstly, I start with this quote from justfacts.com which says, "A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[2]

Second, "Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]"[2]

Third, "A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]"[2]

Fourth, "A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

" 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
" 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]"[2]

And lastly your own source factcheck.org lists these numbers here, "in 2010 there were 11,078 gun related murders the lowest since 1985, while gun ownership was at its highest 88.8%. This source also notes a drop in gun robberies and aggravated assault while manufacturing also went up."[3]

Of course we should in fact take more precautionary measures like back round checks and safety classes and maybe even mandatory gun locks opened by a password when a house has minors. If all this was accomplished what I said here and in my last segment, I guarantee that it would cut down gun murders and violence.

I wish that in that school in Connecticut when the first gunshot was heard that one of the teachers could have gotten out there handgun told those beautiful children don't worry I've got you and taken down that terrible man. same thing in Colorado or in these many other shootings.

I will end with this, I know that most of the people reading this like me believe in the way are country was founded, we know how smart those founding fathers were, how much they loved and protected this country, how they fought for this country, how they believed in this country, and how when they wrote that Bill of Right, the second amendment of the constitution they knew putting "the Right to Bear Arms" was in the best interest of the protection and freedom of the people and America the great free state.

Not the wrote to go hunt with guns, not the right to own guns as antiques, but the right to bear them for protection.

SOURCES

[1] http://www.davekopel.com...

[2] http://www.justfacts.com...

[3] http://cdn.factcheck.org...
KnowItAll

Con

The purpose of me bringing up the gun ban in Japan was not to compare Japan to the United States but rather to show that the most effective way to stop criminals from abusing firearms would be to eliminate firearms as a whole.

My opponent dismissed the fact that there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crime associated with firearms as concluded by the National Research Council in 2004 and instead chose to point to moot surveys that do not strengthen his argument but weakens his argument.

For example, "A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." 3.5% of 4.977 households equates to approximately 174 households which means that 4,803 of the households in the survey did not have any members that had used a gun for any of the above reasons.

Second, "Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]"[2] Although guns were used, the question remains were guns necessary to defend themselves. How many of the households could have achieved the same result with a bat or a knife?

As there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crimes associated with firearms, the other surveys my opponent has posted are moot. My opponent posted the following; "And lastly your own source factcheck.org lists these numbers here, "in 2010 there were 11,078 gun related murders the lowest since 1985, while gun ownership was at its highest 88.8%. This source also notes a drop in gun robberies and aggravated assault while manufacturing also went up."[3]" However, my opponent failed to mention the following; "Barber said gun violence has "dropped precipitously" from the early 1990s " a trend criminologists chalked up to "changes in the crack cocaine market." Her observation is supported by crime data and surveys." [1]

My opponent states that if the teachers in Connecticut were armed they may have prevented the shooting from happening. However, in another school shooting, specifically the shootings in Columbine, there were in fact armed guards on campus. Unfortunately, they were unable to prevent the shootings from happening although they tried. [2]

This debate is not about gun ownership nor the 2nd Amendment. It is my opponents" position that more people with guns will help stop criminal from abusing them. Nothing my opponent has stated has proved his position.

I thank my opponent for this debate.

SOURCES
[1] http://factcheck.org...
[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
on my facebook feed one of my friends had shared a picture captions to say "NRA's argument defeted by Regan"
in which a picture of Regan just before his attempted assassination notes where people got shot along with who all had guns. this picture alone deferats pro's argument
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
Banning guns completely had nothing to do with this debate this debate was not the way to cut down murder the best it was about whether or not more guns would lessen crime.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
My morning ended up differently than I had expected, and seeing as some one had accepted before I had a chance to get back and accept myself i was in no hurry to make this post. I would like to apologize to Grantmac18 because my actions kept him from being the con. Good luck KnowItAll
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
I would like to ask permission from KnowItAll to post this debate on my blog demontheses.wordpress.com

It is very knew and i am trying to fill it with great content.
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
I would love any feedback on how to make my debate stronger content wise and the way I wrote it.
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
I believe in a perfect world guns should not be outlawed people still own them but cops do not need them and no one uses them for wrong reasons, but that is as far fetched a perfect world as your gunna get. I also believe they will never be banned so the hot topic of today should be how to handle guns in America, and security things that can be done to stop mass shootings.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Good Debate, It's a sad world where even I have to agree to this. But in an ideal world I would prefer to outlaw the use of fire arms. and those who commit crimes punished for it instead of a citizen having to shoot them down.
Posted by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
Aargh, I will graciously concede this challenge to you autodidact.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
I plan to accept this in the morning after i get some sleep.
I live in Wisconsin, in the Milwaukee area the I was only 2 miles away from the Sikh temple shooting. Given the timing I most likely saw the the first responding cop at the moment he got the call.
Also I drove by the Azana spa the day before the shooting there as well...I think I might have some important insight on this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Locke33KnowItAllTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro may have got my Vote if the debate had a few more rounds, I have to agree with Con on the issue of banning GUNS all together, And how gun related crime dropped in japan since they banned guns. If Pro rebuttealed this argument and showed that it is more than likely impossible to do that now the guns are there in abundance, I would have been swayed. Also the resolution went against Pro, it was poorly stated. Something like the right to carry a gun could stop crimes happening would have suited his argument better.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
Locke33KnowItAllTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G from Pro was quite poor compared to Con's. Conduct was tied, sources were not used correctly by Pro. Such as, applying a small sample study of 5,000 to the remaining population of America. As Con pointed out Pro's arguments did little to support his case; Pro was not able to prove his resolution, which was his required burden. Ultimately, arguments were given to Con.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
Locke33KnowItAllTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had good arguments but they were not relevant to the title of the debate. Maybe he could have been more successful if the debate was about gun rights. And con used more sources whereas most of the pro's sources were based off of con's sources.