The Instigator
jm_notguilty
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

New Member Tournament: Gun Rights Debate

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 6 votes the winner is...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,753 times Debate No: 18372
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

jm_notguilty

Pro


Full Resolution:The benefits of the right to carry (guns) outweigh the harms.


Outline of the Debate:


*Standard debating rules/ethics will apply, with 72 hours of argumentation where the maximum character limit is 8K, also each debater has 4 rounds to argue then we proceed to voting, where the RFD voting style will take effect and voting will last 2 weeks.


R1- Acceptance of Debate/Terms/Definitions


R2- Openings


R3- Clash


R4- Closings


Definitions:



  • Benefit/s {1}- something that is advantageous or good; an advantage

  • right to carry (guns) {2}- ...is the assertion that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both.

  • outweigh {3}- to exceed in value, importance, influence, etc.

  • harm/s {4}- something that is disadvantageous or bad, a disadvantage.



Burden of Proof:


PRO will argue that the benefits of said right outweigh the harms.


CON will argue that the harms of said right outweigh the benefits.


Notes:


{1} http://bitURL.net...


{2} http://bitURL.net...


{3} http://bitURL.net...


{4} (Comments)


Please post on comments for questions or if I need to change something, I thank F-16 in advance for accepting this, I wish him luck on the R2 of the New Member Tourney.


F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

Accepted. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
jm_notguilty

Pro

I thank CON for his acceptance, I hope to have a wonderful debate, and once again, wish him luck.

So, for this round, I will argue the benefits of having an individual right to guns, which relates to gun control and gun-related activities.

Arguments

  • Contention 1: Self Defense: It is beneficial as means to protect society from abuse.

With the problems and commotion between law enforcement and the citizens, we can assume that this is a disadvantage on protection, since police will develop an undesirable attitude or sense of higher authority on the citizens, or believe that they are above the law {1}. With gun rights exercised, this allows citizens to ensure their safety when police may behave brutally and irresponsibly, since police are likely to think that the citizens are defenseless.

Depriving people of these rights is abusing them further, in 1938, European Jews (and other undesirables) were deprived of firearms due to the Nazis’ enactment of a strict gun-control law, this disarmament was not done for their (the undesirables’) benefit, it wasn’t done to lessen crime, it was done to make killings (the genocide) easier {2}.

  • Contention 2: Self Defense: It is beneficial as means to protect from criminals.

And by criminals, lots of them, murderers, muggers, rapists, and other potential ones alike, who are most likely to commit crimes while armed. Based on statistics of the National Crime Victimization Survey, 533,470 victims of serious crimes stated they faced their attackers carrying guns {3}.

These people prefer victims that are unarmed and defenseless. Wherever you go with gun control laws, a criminal can obtain any firearm, usually obtained illegally {citation needed}, and if these people target law-abiding citizens, they can rob, rape and murder without hesitation. But, when people exercise their right to bear arms, these lawbreakers are less likely to attack and victimize people if they believe that their potential victim may be armed, these criminals are likely to think twice before committing crimes once they have knowledge that the victim’s are in possession of a firearm. Criminologist Wright and Rossi surveyed prisoners regarding deterrence, they found out that strict gun control and the police is ineffective, and criminals aren’t afraid to get caught, but the criminologists found out that the criminals choose their target, whether or not they’re defenseless, but with or without guns, criminals will find a way to commit more violent acts {4}.

These outlaws may carry guns regardless of their legality, this is a disadvantage to the law-abiding, and it can be a benefit if these rights are exercised responsibly and thoroughly, the purpose of defending ourselves from assailants, guns do not kill, people do, it depends on the person’s capability, we can assume that if these people who are responsible and competent enough to own a firearm succeeds, we know he takes proper precautions and proper training, we’re only missing more accurate education on safe gun ownership so that risks can be decreased.

***In conclusion to self defense, it’s an individual right, it’s every citizen’s right and obligation to defend himself, using guns as a means to self-defense, universal access to guns may also be a necessary and beneficial because it’s the only way to ensure equality before the law in regards to self-protection.

- Police protection instead of gun ownership?

It would be a dream come true, but no, the authorities can’t guarantee the safety of the public, a US Supreme Court case (Warren v. DC), the justices ruled that police have no obligation on protecting/rescuing potential victims, they can’t be held reliable with these mistakes, and mentioned that the individual is the only one responsible for defending themselves {5}.

This is harmful to society, when we can’t depend on the law enforcement to serve and protect, but by exercising our rights to bear arms, it can benefit us, it gives us an advantage, to defend ourselves and others, to save lives, it can be considered as a personal duty to serve and protect.

You may say that there is a part of the police that really gives a damn, just dial 911, and hope they come save you like in the movies, but you’d be lucky if the operator on the other side isn’t jerking around, or, if a patrol car is roaming the streets near your house eager for some action, or if they really care, but it might also take a long moment for them to respond, inside those moments, you could be raped, robbed or even murdered while holding no weapon but a phone call.

But according to a Police Survey of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, about 92% of the officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes, since the cops do not need to protect us every time, it’s our job to do that. {6}

  • Contention 3: Crime Deterrent: It is beneficial as means to reduce crime.

Contrary to popular opinion, guns saves lives, there is a deterrent effect when these rights are exercised, it benefits the person carrying a gun, that person may feel safer and confident on his protection. He’ll feel freer to go outside at night or in dangerous areas.

According to a survey by John Lott, PhD, homicides were decreased by 8.5%, aggravated assaults decreased by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%. Lott stated that if states permitted handguns in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992 {7}

As I said, guns are beneficial when talking about self-defense, a study by Gary Kleck, PhD, from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found that when someone draws a concealed gun in self-defense, the criminal simply retreats 55.5% of the time. {http://concealedguns.procon.org...}

  • Contention 4: Sports and Recreation: It is beneficial as means to entertain ourselves or for sporting purposes.

Guns sports (i.e.: shooting) is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding citizens, it’s beneficial to enjoy our leisure time, it’s considered a fun and safe sport, harmful risks are less likely to happen, I quote {8}, that says that:

“...according to the National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999 and a 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study:
You are 100 times more likely to be injured in a swimming pool than by a gun.
You are 31 times more likely to be injured riding in a car than by a gun.
You are 1,900 times more likely to be injured by an "iatrogenic" error than by a gun ("iatrogenic" error is medical speak for a doctor or hospital injuring you accidentally).”

This sport can be considered a training exercise, for physical and mental discipline, it’s a healthy sport that increases strength and stamina, as for mental benefits, it can help with concentration skills, thinking and character development, let’s you overcome your fears.

It trains the person on responsibility using a gun, to enhance their skills on defense and safety and security, to promote the education needed to teach society for a safe society {8}.

References

{1} Paul A. Policing the Police. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. pp. 45–55

{2} http://goo.gl...

{3} http://goo.gl...

{4} http://goo.gl...

{5} http://goo.gl...

{6} http://goo.gl...

{7} John Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws, 2000

{8} http://goo.gl...

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

Thanks to jm_notguilty for instigating. Due to lack of time, I will just use this round for a brief overview, and expand on these points in round 3.

REBUTTALS

C1) Self Defense from Police
Pro says it is necessary to protect against police brutality and cites the Nazi regime. The current government cannot be compared to the Nazi regime and has come far from the days when the gas chamber was legal.

Allowing citizens to have guns does not reduce police brutality. The police always check to see if the suspect has a weapon before apprehending him. If an innocent suspect has a gun, it will be taken away anyway. If a guilty suspect has a gun, it is only a negative and will cause violence. Pointing a gun at the police will not make the situation better in any way.


C2) Self Defense from criminals
Yes, guns can possibly be used for self-defense, but the question is: do the benefits outweigh the harms?
Guns kill people, not people. If guns weren't readily available, the fight wouldn't escalate. The ready availability of guns is what kills people.

The police do need to protect citizens as it is their job. I will address Warren vs DC in the next round.


C3) Crime Deterrent
Guns can also be taken from the person by a smart criminal. If the citizen does not know how to use to gun or is weak, the criminal can grab the gun and use it againt the citizen. For the same reason, police walking into a prison cell go in unarmed with other officers for backup holding guns for the same reason. A gun is not safe in everyones hands. Only trained personnel can safely use guns. A gun is a like a bomb waiting to go off in the midst of society. Can the person feel safer and more confident?


C4) Sports
Pro's arguments here are that shooting sports are safe and beneficial. The "beneficial" part is really a stretch. Physical strength etc can be gained by working out in a gym. It is not required to play shooting sports to get those benefits.

Pro also says that shooting sports are safe and compares them saying that you are more likely to be injured in a swimming pool or in a car than by a gun. A lot more people ride cars and go swimming than own guns so this isn't really accurate. It is the same as saying "In the U.S., your chances of getting killed by lightning are 30 times greater than dying of a shark attack" [1]. This is an inaccurate analogy since most people don't live near the coast. People also use their car far more often and for a variety of purposes such as work, and school than they use their guns. The "safe" analogy simply doesn't work. Guns aren't safe and they are certainly not as safe as cars.



ARGUMENTS
There are many harms due to the individual right to carry guns which outweigh its benefits.

1) Increases risk
There is no doubt that the individual right to carry guns increases the number of guns floating among society. This increases risk.


2) Criminals obtain guns more easily
Making it difficult to obtain guns discourages the criminals. The notion that criminals break the law anyway so will obtain a gun is false. Allowing them to get guns without jumping through hoops is a clear disadvantage of the right to carry. There are different kinds of criminals and not all lawbreakers are willing to break the law to get a gun.


3) Increased domestic violence
Most murders are caused by people that the victim knows. Having guns easily accessible increases the violence.


Sources
[1] http://www.infoplease.com...
[2] http://reason.com...
[3] http://www.google.com...
[4] http://www.policyalmanac.org...
[5] http://www.pulpless.com...

Debate Round No. 2
jm_notguilty

Pro

I thank CON for his reply.

Rebuttal

“Self Defense from Police”

All I’m saying is that anything is possible, that there is a possibility of any government taking advantage of its citizens when depriving their gun rights, it may happen in a country where a leader corrupts himself and obsessed with power uses it to disregard the right to bear arms to be superior to its citizens.

Yes, the cops are likely to search a suspect before arresting, but as I said, there are police officers who think they are above the law and will act violently and irresponsibly to its citizens when they know they are, in fact, defenseless, these officers will ignore and disregard their duty and put the law into their own hands, pointing a gun to a corrupt and abusive cop may not make the situation better, yes, but it would likely save someone you are defending (say, a cop enters a house of a probably suspect, who, in this case, an innocent man, for a search, but the cop has no warrant, and intimidates the people in the house as he points his firearm to them, knowing that that cop has a reputation for being abusive and incompetent).

“Self Defense from Criminals”

It’s up to the question of who carries the gun, if a person carries a firearm, and when he is taught basic and advanced education and responsibility on handling a firearm, it surely outweighs the harms. As I also said, we can assume that the owner does not cause harm when he is competent, responsible, well-educated and takes proper precautions on his firearm. As I said previously, guns don’t kill, people do, saying it the other way around is like saying, “Pencils cause mistakes, people don’t,”

We can also hypothesize that if people with no criminal record are willing to exercise their right to bear arms, they are more likely to participate in responsible carrying education and training programs, this can surely be advantageous to society.

I think I’ve somewhat explained Warren vs. DC in R2, so I’ll be awaiting your response next round.

“Crime Deterrent”

Can the person carrying the firearm feel safer and confident? Yes, as I’ve argued in R2, once criminals have knowledge that their potential victims are armed, they are more likely to retreat, this is an advantage to the people and this surely gives reasonable conclusions that carrying deters crime. A gun may not be safe in every person’s hands, but we can assume that gun owners with no criminal record are likely to use guns wisely and responsibly.

“Sports”

Physical exercise can be gained in the gym, yes, but that’s not the only benefit I’m talking about the advantages of the sport when training for self protection, we can assume that most gunning sport players are the people who have license to use a firearm for personal and protective use, so it can likely train the owner’s mental and physical capability on guns, protection and the surroundings, I think the real question is, do these shooting sports have benefits to people exercising their right to carry? Does it have an advantage when people do shooting sports as means to train themselves for accurate protection? Do these advantages dominate the harmful effects of the right to carry?

Gun sports, like all sports, are dangerous. But is it more dangerous than safe? No. With the increase of training programs on gun use, we can assume that the risks and injuries are declining {1}.

“Increases risk”

But with the benefits I’ve argued previously, the risks can be minimal and lessen the concerns.

“Criminals obtain guns more easily”

Yes, not all criminals break the law to get a gun but we can’t escape the fact that there are, who will do anything to take a gun in their possession to kill and commit illegal acts.

“Increased domestic violence”

It really depends on the owner, as I said, there are training programs, educational institutes and other programs that help people to use guns wisely.

Since CON only stated that he will just be doing a brief overview, we’re not done yet, I await F-16’s arguments next round and his evidence to support his claims and we’ll see what happens next as I hope to refute them.

Thanks again and good luck!

References

{1} http://goo.gl...

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

Thanks JM
RTC = Right to Carry


ARGUMENTS

1) Increases risk and fear
The individual right to carry guns does not make people feel safe. A study done by Harvard shows that 59% of American citizens felt less safe if more people in their community were allowed to carry guns, 24% felt the same, and only 12% felt more safe [1]. About 90% thought that citizens should not be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, bars, and college campuses [1]. It can be seen that people don't feel safer but are more worried about who might have a gun when they are sitting in a bar, or going to college.

Their fears are not unfounded. Incidents like the highly publicized Virginia Tech massacre have been occuring every few years since 1990 [2]. More guns floating in society not only increases risk to individuals, but also increases their fear making us a more fearful society overall.

Suicide attempts are impulsive. From a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, 24% of people who attempted suicide took less than 5 min from the decision to kill themsleves from the actual attempt while 70% took less than an hour [10]. The easy access to guns makes them highly dangerous. If guns weren't available, people will have more time to rethink.


2) Criminals obtain guns easily
Pro says that criminals will break the law to get a gun. Let's consider how criminals get their guns: 46% of criminals in the US get them through a process known as "straw purchasing" [3]. The process is simple. A convict gets someone else to buy a gun for him [3]. It is difficult, almost impossible to catch. The criminal's friend or family member will simply buy a gun and give it to him. That is a disadvantage of the right to carry (RTC): people can buy guns for others by bending the law. Without an RTC, people who can legally buy guns cannot just buy a gun and pass it onto their friend who will then use it to commit a crime.

3) Increased domestic violence
Pro says that there are training programs that help people use guns safely. But are they mandatory? Would everyone in the house have had the training? It is more likely that a gun kept in the house would fall into the hands of an untrained person who would either accidentally shoot their own family, or from whom the burglar can immediately snatch the gun away.

30% of victims were murdered by people known to the victim, 13% by family members, and only 12% by strangers [4]. This shows that it is over 3 times more likely for a victim to be murdered by someone they know and has access to their house. So the harmss of having a gun in the house outweigh the benefits of a small possibility that it could be used defensively against an intruder.

A study conducted by UCLA involving over 9000 subjects concluded that having a gun at home is a risk for adults to be shot fatally or commit suicide with a firearm at a ratio of 1.41 [7]. This means a gun at home makes you about 41% more likely to be a victim of homicide or suicide. A separate study conducted by the University of Tennessee, Memphis concludes that "rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance" [8].



REBUTTALS

1) Self Defense from Police
Pro says "anything is possible." The question is: Is it likely? Likelihood is more important that possiblity when doing a comparison of benefits and harms.

Pro also says that cops might abuse their power. Pointing a gun at them isn't going to help. The solution is to call 911, get other cops at the scene. It is far less likely that the entire department is corrupt. Cops are much better trained than the average citizen to use their guns so actually shooting a cop is out of the question. If Pro only advocates waving the gun at the corrupt cop hoping he will go away, the suspect will be taken into custody for pointing a firearm at a cop. This is absolutely not a benefit of the RTC as Pro tries to argue. If anything, it is a disadvantage.


2) Self Defense from Criminals

(A) 534,000 cases of self-defense? That is 0.001% of the US population. Quite small.

Guns are not likely to be successfully used for self-defense. The American Journal of Public Health conducted a study in Philadelphia and concluded that on average, guns did not protect their owners from assualt [6]. This is because attacks are often surprise attacks and the victim has no time to draw his weapon. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise avoidable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Gun owners also 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 [6]. The study concluded that a person with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault than one without a gun [6].

(B) Police protection
Pro says that police can't guarantee the safety of citizens. But as I have shown, neither can guns.

Warren v DC only stated that police had no special responsibility to protect any individual. It upheld that police did have a responsibility to protect the public at large. The ruling was in response to a victim suing the police for not checking the backdoor of the house even though the police had arrived at the front door. Instead of suing the police on a small technicality, the victims should have helped prosecute the criminals.

The average police response time was 8 minutes in 1995 [9]. This is steadily decreasing [9]. It is better to wait for the police rather than use a gun and get shot in the process.


3) Crime Deterrent
Pro says that people feel safer. This isn't true. 59% of people felt less safe with more guns in the community, only 12% felt more safe. Pro's argument relies on the assertion that once criminals know that a person is armed, they are more likely to retreat. However, the criminal is just as likely to shoot the person if they think that they will be shot.

Pro relies on the assumption that gun users are safe, responsible people with good training on how to use a gun. There is no way to guarantee this.

Pro cites John Lott to say that crime decreases with right to carry. I don't have John Lott's book but I have evidence showing that Lott used fraudulent data. The Washigton Monthly reports that Lott produced a statistical model "Model 1", that showed that significant crime decreases when guns were banned. Errors were discovered in Lott's work. Lott admitted the errors and posted a new table with new results. However, his new results were similar to his old ones [12].

This was bcause, since Lott had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact [12].

Lott then quitely removed the old model from his website and put the new model in. He used the new model with the old data as well as the new data to make it seem like he used the new model all along [12]. Lott also misrepresented the findings of the FBI [13]. John Lott has been discredited, he was caught using falsified data. RTC does not decrease crime.

A study published in the Journal of the American Institute for Economic Research shows that RTC actually increases instances of aggravated assault [11].


4) Sport
Pro says shooting sports are safe. I disagree and negated his stats. He still asserts that shooting sports are safe with no new evidence. Shooting sports are not only dangerous, but what does it even matter whether or not they are safe? By itself, it is not a real benefit of the individual RTC.

People could do target practice with replica guns and bullets. Just the fact that people want to play with real guns is no reason to allow people to carry guns while at home or in the community.


Sources
http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 3
jm_notguilty

Pro


I thank F-16 for his more-defined arguments, I have to make this brief since I’ve got a busy schedule, and since this is the last round and it’s only for closings and conclusions, I’m barred from using new arguments, I will try and refute my opponent’s contention as best as I can.


Rebuttal


“Criminals obtain guns easily”


Based on the source CON has given to support this claim (page 4/5), about the report of firearms trafficked by straw purchasing, it only stated 46.3% of 709 investigations, that’s about 328 investigations of criminals with guns, but that’s like 0.0001% of the US population, which is quite small and it’s insufficient to certainly assume that half of the (10 million?) criminals in the US are obtaining guns via this activity, so this source is inaccurate since there are criminals who can obtain guns via any kind of illegal way aside from straw purchasing (breaking into a gun shop, and, well, basically stealing).

With gun control being enforced or not, these illegal gun-obtaining activities will still happen, as you said, it’s a simple process and almost impossible to catch the criminals behind it, criminals can get guns regardless of strict gun control laws.


“Increased domestic violence”


A small percentage of the victim’s perpetrator are the ones who live with them, the rest are people known to the victim whom we can assume lives in another place, that’s the same to the strangers also living away, a burglar is as likely to find a firearm as an acquaintance can when attempting to break in his/her victim’s home and finding a gun.


The only thing we can do here is to keep your gun away in a safe place.


“Self Defense/Police Protection”


But the RTC is more useful than waiting 5 minutes for some cop to come, an 8-year-old sees 2 men raping and assaulting his mom one night, his dad isn’t there, he phones 911, but he’s a child and he has no idea what to say, what are the possibilities that the operator will believe him? Let’s say, sure, yah, but the likelihood is, that the operator is probably going to stall him, ask him questions and verify if he’s telling the truth or not since they do not want false alarms or some kid pulling a prank, the process would take a few minutes of questions and a few minutes of duration for the patrol car to come to the victim’s house, that is surely a disadvantage to society.


Even if it is 1 minute of waiting for the police, can you survive 60 seconds of pain and suffering when you are being raped or assaulted that can possibly kill you instantly? I think not, with guns near your reach, you can stop the perpetrator from taking your life.


“Sports”


My main point of this argument is that shooting sports have an advantage rather than a disadvantage on RTC. This argument somewhat relates to the self defense benefit as it trains the gun user to shoot with caution, and as I previously said, with the increases of training programs and gun ed, the risks can certainly diminish, regardless of the statistics.


Closing


I admit this isn’t the best arguments I can make, but it’s worth a shot, and since I haven’t finished rebutting all arguments, all I want to point out is that statistical evidence can be inaccurate and biased, we cannot base them on one statistic only, just google stats relating to gun rights, gun control, gun violence, etc., then you’ll see loads of references supporting one side, I did state some arguments based on statistics, it’s just to add more effect to what I’m arguing, but we need to assume that guns do save lives, people kill, guns don’t. It all depends on the person using it.


And as I quote my opponent’s source on guns increasing assault: “successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.”


We must remember that, regardless of statistics, depriving guns away from the public doesn’t lessen the criminals.


If an armed assailant has knowledge of his victim being unarmed, that is already a disadvantage on not having the RTC, guns are everywhere, and without the individual RTC, people are unprotected with the risk of criminals carrying a firearm while having knowledge of their defenseless victims.


I thank F-16 for the last time for this debate. Vote PRO.


F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

ARGUMENTS

1) Increases risk and fear
Pro does not argue against this. I understand if he wants to make a short closing. But he provided no rebuttal at all to the fact that increasing gun use does not make people feel safe. More guns floating around in society increases risk to individuals.

It also increases risk of suicides. I have shown suicides to be impulsive, so the person committing suicide would have changed their mind if they did not have that easy access to a gun. This just proves my point that guns kill people, not people, because without the gun, there would not have been a killing.


2) Criminals obtain guns easily
The source I showed was a study to determine how criminals get their guns. The entire US population can't be part of the study. Also, Pro gave no competing evidence, instead speculating on how criminals steal guns with no sources whatsoever, so my evidence stands.

"as you said, it’s a simple process and almost impossible to catch the criminals behind it, criminals can get guns regardless of strict gun control laws."

Pro completely misrepresents what I said. I didn't say that it was impossible to catch criminals who obtain guns illegally. What I said was: It is impossible to catch someone doing straw purchases. Recall that Straw purchases occur when a criminals friend or family members buys a gun (legally) and gives it to the criminal (which is illegal). The Right to Carry allows the friends and family of criminals to buy guns undetected and pass it on to the criminal. Without the legal right to carry guns, we can prevent 46% of the guns from getting into the hands of criminals. So this is a huge disadvantage of the RTC. And since Pro provided no other evidence for how criminals get guns, my contention that the biggest chunk (46%) of the criminals get their guns through straw purchases stands.


3) Increased domestic violence
It is not conclusive whether someone the gun-owner knows will have access to their house. Some would, some wouldn't. Those that would should definitely be added to the list of family members making it even bigger. Even if they are not added, the percentage of victims murdered by family members is still greater than the percentage of victims murdered by strangers. So, on balance, having a gun in the house is worse. Also, extend that self-defense against the surprise attacks of strangers is not effective (although a family member can easily take the gun and murder the victim in their sleep).

Pro doesn't address the UCLA study which shows that having a gun in the home increases risk for being shot fatally or committing suicide with a firearm at a ratio of 1.41 is to 1. With this, I have proven that people shouldn't be keeping guns at home as it isn't safe.



REBUTTALS

1) Self Defense from Police
Pro does not address my point that brandishing a firearm at a cop will do more harm than good. This is not a benefit of the RTC, if anything, it is a harm. As for the point about the Nazi's, Pro doesn't address the fact that likelihood must be taken into consideration, and effectively drops this point. Extend both points.


2) Self Defense from Criminals

(A) "an 8-year-old sees 2 men raping and assaulting his mom one night, his dad isn’t there, he phones 911, but he’s a child and he has no idea what to say, what are the possibilities that the operator will believe him?"

Well, far more likely than the 8 year old finding his father's/mother's gun, having the courage to point it at the attacker, and actually aiming right and hitting the attacker rather than his mom. Should 8 year olds get training on how to use a gun?

The point here is that even with a gun in the house, the only sensible thing for the 8 year old to do would be to call the police. Expecting a kid to handle a gun correctly is completely unreasonable. In the scenario, two men are raping his mom, they must be moving around quite a bit. Do you really think he would correctly aim and shoot? Shooting his mom by accident adds to my argument about risk. This is precisely why more guns floating around in society is worse for society as a whole.

(B) Police protection
Con doesn't deny that police response time is short. Just waiting that short time is better. I must add that having a gun in the house might actually encourage kids to use them in the scenario above and shoot their mom by accident. So, that is a disadvantage of the RTC. Without RTC, there is no possibility of these accidents hapenning.

"with guns near your reach, you can stop the perpetrator from taking your life"

Just an assertion, no proof. I have shown that self-defence is ineffective due to surprise attacks. The gun have the gun taken away and turned on them. The American Journal of Public Health concludes that a person with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault than one without a gun. Pro offered no competing evidence.

Pro makes a case about Warren v DC in round 2 which he uses to say that police have no responsibility to protect citiznes. I refuted it showing that it actually says "no special responsibility to any individual" but still a responsibility to the public. In Warren v DC, the police arrived at the victims house but were sued anyway. Pro drops the study. Again, I do understand that he wanted to make a short closing but dropped many points that were refuted by me.


3) Crime Deterrent
Pro cites John Lott saying that RTC deters crime. I have explained in great detail how Lott was using fraudulent data and offered a competing study from the Journal of the American Institute for Economic Research showing that RTC actually increases instances of aggravated assault. Pro made no attempt to defend Lott, neither did he offer any other evidence corroborating Lott's claims presumably because there isn't any. How can there be when John Lott Phd. was using falsified data to prove his claims? In summary, the Right to Carry does not deter crimes but increases them. This point is enough to show that the disadvantages of the Right to Carry outweigh its benefits.

Pro also says that people feel safer having a gun which I refuted many times. Pro doesn't deny that 59% of people actually feel less safe, only 12% feel more safe with guns in the community.


4) Sport
Pro still offers no evidence, and shows no unique benefits of the RTC. He says that shooting sports can be used for training but its effectiveness is dubious because of my point about surprise attacks.


Pro's "Closing"
Pro says that statistical evidence can be inaccurate. Yes, it can as I have clearly shown John Lott's study to be falsified. I have also presented far more reliable sources which Con doesn't refute.

"I did state some arguments based on statistics, it’s just to add more effect to what I’m arguing, but we need to assume that guns do save lives, people kill, guns don’t. It all depends on the person using it."

I fail to understand how making assumptions is better than using statistics to prove general trends. Statistics must be analyzed, and their deficiecies examined and defended within a debate, rather than ditching statistics in favor of mere assumption.

"regardless of statistics, depriving guns away from the public doesn’t lessen the criminals."

I have already ahown that criminals get guns from their family and friends who are able to buy guns because of the right to carry. So, yes, it will lessen crime as I have proved above.

"If an armed assailant has knowledge of his victim being unarmed .."

I already pointed out that it is just as likely that the assailant would shoot because the person is armed to protect himself. This increases risk of violence escalating and someone being killed.


Conclusion

Guns do not deter crime but rather increase it, they don't make people feel safer, they in fact, make most people feel less safe, they are not effective for self-defense due to surprise attacks. The disadvantages of the RTC greatly outweigh its benefits.

jm_notguilty, it was a pleasure debating with you. Voters, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I looked into source 11 round 3, the ares Donahue PDF. Funny thing is that study is not academically referred XD
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Although i am against all gun control con won, though some of his case is statistically false. And pro cited the most comprehensive gun data yet never utilized it.
Posted by jm_notguilty 3 years ago
jm_notguilty
0-19.

Gratz xD
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jm, it was definitely awesome debating with you. I completely understand that you are short on time. In fact, I was short on time for Round 2 hence the brief overview. I spent a lot of time on Round 3 though and it would have been very interesting to see how my case would stand up against a full-fledged rebuttal from you. In any case, neither of us lost two debates so good luck on the next phase. We now have 7 people left so I have no idea how the matchups are going to be. Blackvoid, what do you think?
Posted by jm_notguilty 3 years ago
jm_notguilty
Meh, I knew this would happen, I wasn't prepared enough to refute, not enough time and therefore I took a long shot and rebutted CON's arguments very poorly, I'll try my luck in the next phase.
I thank F-16 again for the debate, for making a very strong and irrefutable (well, for me) case. It was a blast debating with you.
Posted by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
Dang, I haven't been following this at all. Lot of reading to catch up on.
Posted by jm_notguilty 3 years ago
jm_notguilty
and damn, forgot to shorten that other link T_T
Posted by jm_notguilty 3 years ago
jm_notguilty
*Whew*, this took a while, not really my best on these arguments, but worth a try, lol, anyways, happy weekend :)
Posted by jm_notguilty 3 years ago
jm_notguilty
Done.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I propose: Harms = something that is disadvantageous or bad; a disadvantage. This goes better with the definition of benefits.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by eltigrey 3 years ago
eltigrey
jm_notguiltyF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed better arguments
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
jm_notguiltyF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Man, it hurts to give f16 the win on this, especially because alot of what he said I flat out disagree with. ("Only trained personnel can safely use guns. ") Still, I feel that CON ultimately had the stronger arguments, rebuttals, and sources, particularly towards the end of the debate.
Vote Placed by Mestari 3 years ago
Mestari
jm_notguiltyF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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: Con's rebuttals were on point and extremely effective. I feel like his case could have been impacted better in round 2, but the correlational arguments were thoroughly explained throughout the debate.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 3 years ago
Lickdafoot
jm_notguiltyF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were stronger and he used more data to back them up. Con also effectively refuted many of pros points such as crime deterrent. I like how he touched on the fear of society. Con also gets SG because pro's format was a bit too much- I like the bullets for the titles but some of the bolding/itallicizing etc. could be toned down a bit for easier reading (all the extras can be distracting)
Vote Placed by dappleshade 3 years ago
dappleshade
jm_notguiltyF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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: Con's statistics on straw purchasing won this one.
Vote Placed by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
jm_notguiltyF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started with a good round 1 but his arguments only grew weaker throughout the debate in the face of Cons rebuttals. Cons use of statistics coupled with logic to explain the correlation was very convincing, and touched on every argument Pro made. Pros rebuttal to most of Cons case was the basic idea that having guns readily available for use will somehow reduce violence, which Con adequately refuted.