The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

On balance a ban on firearms would not be that effective in the US

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 8 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,660 times Debate No: 65883
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (8)

 

Mikal

Pro

Standard Debate Rules

No new arguments in the last round. First round is for acceptance, no semantics.

effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result.

This is a debate about whether a ban on firearms would actually be successful in drastically reducing the amount of deaths that occur from robberies, gunfights, gangs, and other such avenues.

I am defending the resolution which is that banning guns on balance would not have the desired result of drastically reducing the amount of deaths that occur.
AlexanderOc

Con

I. Opening Acceptance

Couldn't pass up a chance to debate Mikal!
I'm accepting all of Mikal's rules and definitions. I hope for a strong debate.

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

Going to jump straight into this but we are debating if a ban on firearms on balance would be effective in the US. As I stated in my opening round, this is about whether or not it will achieve its desired result and drastically reduce deaths to the point the ban would actually achieve its purpose.

C1) The real problem

I think this is the main issue in a gun ban debate. The focus on gun bans are always to reduce deaths, and generally it is assumed decreasing deaths from guns will benefit the society as a whole because it is drastically changing the amount of deaths that occur overall. The issue is the assumption that comes along with it. The basic line of logic is one we always hear which is "Guns Kill People". This entire line of logic is entirely false. Guns obviously do not kill people, people kill people. Guns are just the catalyst for people to commit a crime or murder with. So the proper line of logic and what a gun ban should be focused on is deleting a catalyst for murder(guns). So I think most people can agree that a gun ban would have an effect, which is to reduce the amount of gun deaths that occur. We can logically assume this since guns cause deaths indirectly when used as a catalyst, and banning a large amount of guns would reduce the number of deaths that occur from the guns that are banned. I will dive more into this later but there are major flaws with this argument even if we were to accept it. A ban will reduce some gun deaths but does not reduce the death count enough to actually make a difference and it does not solve the problem at hand or address the core of the problem.

(a) A ban on gun ownership will generally only affect law abiding gun owners
(b) You are not addressing the core problem which is the people doing the killing.

People will and and always will murder for reasons of their own. You can rewind history back to its start and murder has and always will occur. It will occur with any type of weapon that is available. Even if a gun ban were implemented, people would find different ways to commit crimes and kill. This is not debatable its an objective fact, that is supported by history.

C2) Comparing Gun Ownership with Murder Rates

Now going back to the last contention, let's assume that a ban was implemented. There is another primary issue that would occur, which is something we also hear quite a bit. Bad guys will still get guns even if a ban or tighter restrictions are put into place. No criminal is going into a background check to buy a gun, they are getting it through illegal avenues. This will occur the same way if a ban was actually implemented. A ban would only affect people that buy guns legally. It would strictly reduce the amount of civilian gun ownership while allowing criminals to still obtain guns through illegal means. With that being said, most states with a high gun ownership rate compared to states with lower gun ownership actually have lower crime rates. This is especially true of states with concealed carry permits. To put this in simple terms, states that allow you to carry have significantly lower crime rates than states that do not allow you to carry. Just to give you an example take a look at some of statistics.

These are ratings based on a per 100k scale

Michigan/Detroit Population - 707,096 Crime - 2,122.9 Murder - 54.6 [1]
Missouri/St. Louis Population -318,667 Crime - 1,776.5 Murder - 35.5 [2]
California/Oakland Population - 399,487 Crime -1,993.3 Murder - 31.8 [3]

You will see this trends continue and what you will notice is that these are states with strict gun control laws, at least stricter than others[4]

state-gun-laws-map



Even if you want to compare crime and murder in other counties you often see the same thing. If you compare Britans crime rates after they initiated a hand gun ban, right after the hand gun ban crime rates and murder soared. It took years after the handgun ban for crime to decline and that was only because they hired more police officers and the high influx of police officers began to affect the crime rate. Immediately after the handgun ban however crime rates sky rocketed higher than ever. [5]




The next thing we can address is that there is no direct correlation between guns and murders. At least other than high population. More people = more murders, and if there are a good many guns in those states the influx can appear high but normally there is virtually no correlation between gun ownership and crime rates. The only correlation you can possibly make is with robbery, which is not even that influential. Murder rates however literally have no correlation and as I have shown states and cities with strict gun bans have just as high if not higher crime and murder rates than states without strict gun control laws.




C3) A gun ban is not practical

You would have to look at ways to actually implement a ban that could work. One of the primary ways a gun ban is usually started is with a buy back. The government tries to buy back guns from its citizens in a attempt to reduce the total gun count. It is considered one of the most practical ways to actually reduce gun counts and help regulate gun control. I would refer you to where I'm living now and that is Atlanta.

Atlanta tried a buy back program to reduce the gun count and tried to help recover guns that they "considered to be a threat to the community". A great crowd actually turned out and they recovered a great deal of guns, but a primary issue is the type of guns they were receiving. A lot of guns in the buyback were actually broke or older guns that were considered to not even "be a real threat", and through surveys conducted at the buy back it was learned that people were selling older guns and keeping the more effective ones. Some citizens were even quoted that they sold "crappy guns to go buy better ones".

It's not even just in Atlanta, but as supported by the British handgun ban failure, experts say the best way to reduce gun violence is to increase the amount of police.

" Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks. " [6]

The follwoing source also supports that increasing police officers is the best way to reduce crime[7]. There is no doubt that when you increase the number of armed police officers crime will in turn reduce, but there is no correlation between banning fire arms and reducing crime or muder.

C4) Concealed Carry Permits Reduce Crime

This is also something else to consider. There is no correlation between murder and gun ownership but there is a corrleation in the lack of murder and concealed carry permits. States with concealed carry permits have seen a drastic decrease in crime. Chicago is just one state that has seen the effects of this [8].

It's not just Chicago but studies back this as well

"The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent."[9][10]


“We found that the size of the drop [in crime] is directly related to the percentage of the population with permits,”. Between 2007 and the preliminary estimates for 2013, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.4 per 100,000." [9][10]

Conclussion

Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and crime, but carrying guns actually reduces the amount of crime that happens. Not only will a gun ban not acheive it's desired effect, but it will have the exact opposite one.

AlexanderOc

Con

I. Concession

Three days worth of research has yeilded nothing more than number supporting Pro's case. Due to my failure to find as much as a single refutation to any of his contentions, I will be conceding this debate over to my opponent.

I understand that I'm disrespecting Mikal by essentially nullifying this debate and not allowing him to face a capable opposition, and I apologize for that, however I don't see nitpicking at a few minor points to be a much better fate.

Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

I would like to thank con for his gracious concession, sometimes 3 days is enough to find time to finish a debate. I would advise anyone that votes to offer him conduct for his honesty
AlexanderOc

Con

Concession Extended.
Debate Round No. 3
AlexanderOc

Con

Final extension, thanks for the understanding Mikal.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Mikal is our team debate a no go
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
The argument jeannie used is basically what I was stating. It's taking data and using it out of context. High populations with a non gun ban would attribute to high homicide and murder rates with guns because of strictly the amount of people. When you pull it into the proper context its literally marginal, when compared to placed that have actually had placed an outright ban.

Canada in addition does not have a full ban, its more a semi ban and they also have like 5 percent of the total guns we do. We have somewhere near 300 million , I think Canada is like 3 million. Its much the same with Australia

Most people that use graphs and data never actually pay attention to the control groups and variables that affect them.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
@o0Jeannie0o RFD

I looked into japan, but the low homicide rates are better attributed to their homogeneous population. Also, their seclusion from the majority of the world makes people less able to smuggle ilicit firearms into the country.

Canada on the other hand has only somewhat restrictive firearm regulations, not a complete ban. That wouldn't be that much of a help to my case.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
But I can't disagree, the majority of his arguments are consistently supported by a variety of sources.
Really difficult to contest any of them without nitpicking.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Really feeling the enthusiasm guys...
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
looking at round 2 I know alex is going to lose
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Hitler banned guns from the folks and he killed 11,000,000 in just 4 years. Stalin banned guns and he killed 20,0000,000 of his own people. Mao killed 30,000,000 . How many would Obama kill if it were not for the second amendment?
Posted by Anunaki 2 years ago
Anunaki
banning fire arms to reduce deaths is as logical as making drugs illegal.because obviously no one does drugs being that they are illegal. theres already a ban on the illegal firearm trade. doesnt stop criminals from getting them. the only people who wont be able to get them are the people who dont go around shooting everyone. plus if you want to kill someone bad enough, youll find a way.

"if you outlaw guns , only outlaws will have them"
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
"Heaven helps the man who fights his fears." ~ Kenny Loggins 1984
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
I was trying to work out semantics

If you the goal is to reduce gun related deaths, it would be effective somewhat. Anyone can argue that gun related deaths would decrease from a massive ban, that is only logical but its not addressing the problem. If you ban gun others avenues would be used. I actually want a debate about the effectiveness of the true intent of the ban which is to reduce killing. Removing guns as a type of catalyst will only open up other catalyst to be used.

Obv I would exclude military deaths, police, etc and so forth.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
MikalAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: AlexanderOc was honest about doing what he did but he didn't say anything so Mikal wins.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
MikalAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by drewyman83 2 years ago
drewyman83
MikalAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow that is some best research I have ever seen almost to much. You over did pro ,but I am still voting for you.
Vote Placed by IvenMartin 2 years ago
IvenMartin
MikalAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Statistics, examples, links, sources, and conclusion makes for a strong argument. I think both the con and pro had a really great attitude, and con came to learn rather than utter BS. I don't get to see that too often in debate- especially with apologists.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
MikalAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Full concession. I only gave conduct to Con because Pro suggested as much.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
MikalAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark1 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: As requested, conduct points to con for honesty. Pro did, however, use many reliable sources as well as make some very strong and interesting arguments.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
MikalAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: awe con.... gave up but gracefully (conduct) argument, organization and sources go to pro. Its too bad really. You could have compared the states (per capa) to Canada. We have very low murder rates, or even Japan.
Vote Placed by Cermank 2 years ago
Cermank
MikalAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Con conceded