The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Shadow-Dragon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

On balance a ban on guns 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 3 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,148 times Debate No: 56257
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

Mikal

Pro

The resolution is pretty simple.

This is a shared BOP

Clarifying a few definitions

Gun Ban - This is not referring to more strict background checks or limiting magazine capacity. This is talking literally about a ban or buy back. Basically either trying to recall or stop production of guns.

Effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result.

Rules/Outline

Pro

(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/Rebuttals
(4) Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.

Con

(1) Acceptance
(2)Contentions
(3)Contentions/Rebuttals
(4)Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.

(1) No semantics or trolling. This will result in a FF
Shadow-Dragon

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

C1) Reviewing the intent of a gun ban

As I noted in the resolution this is about whether a gun ban would be effective (in accomplishing it's purpose) or whether it would not be that effective at all. Obvious the goal of a gun ban is to reduce the amount of violence that occurs yearly. This is not just violence that is related to guns, but violence in general. The Con side will likely argue that by reducing guns, we reduce an outlet for deaths and I will argue that it will be entirely ineffective.

So for Con to win this he will have to show that a gun ban will decrease the amount of violence and deaths in the US enough that it is worth implementing.


C2) Amount of Guns in circulation in the Us

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 [1].

The defense forces of the United States are reported to have 2,700,000 [1]

In short there are nearly 300,000,000 guns circulating in private ownership in the Us with nearly another 3 million floating around in the hands of the government. Just take a look at this compared to Australia. There are only around 3 million guns floating around in private ownership. This means the US has nearly 100 times the amount of guns in private ownership than Australia does.

The reason I brought up Australia as an example is because it is one of the only countries to use a buy back type program[2] that was semi effective. A note is that they did see some nice results, but even they admitted they did not get the intended results that they wanted[2].

If Australia got results but even admitted the buy back or gun ban was not that effective think about how bad it would be in the US. It would be far less effective in the US than any other possible country because of how intertwined the US is with guns. Guns are apart of culture, they are engraved in it.


C3) Guns/Culture in the Us


Think about Americas history, it is drowned in gun lore. Anywhere from the original settlers, to the wild west, to revolutions, even to modern day war stories. A great majority of America has always loved guns and will always love guns. They are fascinated with it, and we have had guns in our society openly as far back as the founding of the country. This is even more evident with the promise to bear arms that is written in the second amendment [3]. There is no discrepancy about what arms means, arms is without a doubt firearms and guns. Another way to verify this point as I stated in my previous contention is the amount of Guns in private ownership.

View this chart

The only country that even comes close to us with the amount of guns in private ownership is India with a total of 46 million. We are still towering above everyone else at nearly 300 million. We have 7 times the amount of guns in the US in private ownership than any other country including the one in second place [4].

Buy backs and Gun bans would never work in the US with how fascinated the culture is with guns. People love their guns and would never be willing to turn them even if there was a buy back. Half the US and especially those in the south would almost go to war if the government tried to remove their right to guns. Our culture is far to obsessed with guns to see similar results from buy backs and guns bans that have been (semi successful and not really even that), used in other countries


C4) Gun Control on Balance has been ineffective in the Us

There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city , county, state, and federal level[5]. With all these laws in place you would think there would be a reduction in crime or that it would be effective, and that is not the case. Yet the government found nor reason to believe that firearm laws or any combination of firearms laws would be effective when compared to the goal of reducing violent outcomes[6]

Most gun control laws were written or started around 1968, yet we see an increase in violent acts and murder with guns in the 70,s , 80,s and 90,s[7].


Homicides rates over time, prohibition, gun control and CCW expansion periods


Also among 15 states with the highest homicide rates 10 of them have very strict or restrictive gun control laws[8]. There are even studies and research that shows that civilians owning guns can decrease the amount of crime that occurs[9]. This was an extensive study done by cato.edu.





C5) The root cause of the problem

Another issue we have to look at is the root cause of the problem. Guns do not kill the people, people kill the people. The argument that can be made is that guns act as a catalyst for crime, but banning guns will not solve the problem at hand. Per the resolution the intent of a Gun ban is reduce the amount of violent crimes, not just gun deaths. Reducing gun deaths is futile, if it will just lead to to other forms of death and violence. It will fix nothing and is counterproductive. We would have just wasted countless amounts of money trying to implement and set into place polices and laws that can regulate gun distribution, all to have people find a different way to kill people. This is proven true in other countries as well. When you ban guns or regulate them heavily people will just find others way to commit crime, which is not solving the main problem at hand.

" [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" [10]

When and if we were to ban guns, the only thing it does is force people to get them through more illegal means and in turn cause desperate people to find more desperate ways to kill who they want to kill.

C6) Practicality and the NRA

The NRA has the government by the balls. They literally have them in a death grip. By the time any gun control law actually got in place to be passed, the NRA would have whittled it down to being useless thus solving nothing. The NRA has extreme influence within the government and has a huge impact on laws that are passed. Here is just one example [11].

The NRA is also getting more and more extreme with it stances on gun control, so any chance of a national ban actually being passed is so minuscule it is not worth considering. The nra would destroy it before it cold get passed and take it down to where it is virtually useless. We are not arguing about gun control in practice, but whether or not it would actually be effective and for it to actually be effective it would actually have to be passed which it has no chance of doing[12]



Sources



[1] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
[2] http://www.loc.gov...
[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4] http://www.theguardian.com...
[5] http://www.gunfacts.info...
[6] http://www.gunfacts.info...
[7] http://www.gunfacts.info...
[8] http://www.gunfacts.info...
[9] http://object.cato.org...
[10] http://theacru.org...
[11] http://www.cnn.com...
[12] http://www.nraila.org...
Shadow-Dragon

Con


Thank you for this debate.

Let me begin by saying: Pro made some interesting points, however, he made a few fundamental mistakes through assumptions.

C1) Reviewing the intent of a gun ban

Mikal stated: “Obvious the goal of a gun ban is to reduce the amount of violence that occurs yearly. This is not just violence that is related to guns, but violence in general.”

This is not the full case, however. Violence, as defined by the Mariam-Webster dictionary, is “the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.” [1]. As defined by a direct google search, violence is: “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something” [2]

From those statements, the following conclusion can be made:
{P1} Violence is intentional harm
However, as per my point, a ban on guns not prevents violence {P1}, it also prevent unintentional injury.
As shown by statistics from smartgunlaws.org, unintentional deaths is a large problem.
“In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people...From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.” [3]

This may seem like only a small drop in the bucket, but these are the lives of innocent people, being taken by accidents that would not have occurred if the homeowners did not have a gun accessible.

Thus, the statement can be made: {S1} A ban on guns prevents violence, and accidental injury.

Assumptions by Pro

Throughout his round, Pro made a series of assumptions.

Let’s begin with this one:

(Assumption 1) “It would be far less effective in the US than any other possible country because of how intertwined the US is with guns. Guns are apart of culture, they are engraved in it.”

To put it in context, Pro said that since the gun ban was not as effective as those in Australia would have hoped, the ban would not be effective in America. Not a conclusion, but rather an assumption.

With a nation that has so many guns in circulation, there are certainly many who would support them being taken away. We know that many are willing to give up guns, because gun buybacks are still popular.

(Assumption 2)
“Buy backs and Gun bans would never work in the US with how fascinated the culture is with guns. People love their guns and would never be willing to turn them even if there was a buy back.”
Once again, an assumption made based on one’s own beliefs.

The following article [4] shows that gun buybacks are indeed successful.
One man, L.C Stevenson Sr., expresses the point that many are yet to realize:
{P2} Guns are no longer needed
He says, “It's a hand-me-down gun. Never used it. Never shot it. I don't need a gun in my house anyway."

The testimony by a single man is similar to the ones made by many others. There is no longer a civil war, no red-coats to worry about, no Nazi’s or Russian spies. Guns are simply no longer needed.

In addition, gun buyback programs are still popular, and will continue, as long as success continues. [5] [6]

(Assumption 3)
“When and if we were to ban guns, the only thing it does is force people to get them through more illegal means and in turn cause desperate people to find more desperate ways to kill who they want to kill. “

Once again, Pro makes a point that is not true, but rather one that he predicts.

The following article [7] shows otherwise.
“ The power of this recent episode lies in its more mundane nature: Person with gun gets angry, loses control and shoots an unarmed person. It’s a more common occurrence than gun advocates care to admit.”

What recent episode is the author of the article alluding to? The situation where a man was jokingly taunting another person by throwing popcorn at them in the movie theater. How did the person react? The man shot the other one; a man, simply looking for a joke, was shot by an aggravated gun-owner.

This situation, and many others, come to show us:
{S2} Possession of a gun makes one more likely to use it, even when not necessary.

My fellow citizens, I have shown through extensive sources, articles, and statistics, that a ban on guns would indeed be effective. The main points I made- {P1}; {P2}; {S1}; {S2}- and all their sources and support show why this resolution is incorrect, and prove that a ban on guns would be effective in the United States.

Thank you.



[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] https://www.google.com...
[3] http://smartgunlaws.org...
[4] http://www.jsonline.com...
[5] http://bpdnews.com...
[6] http://www.nyc.gov...
[7] http://www.nationalmemo.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Offering rebuttals

R1) The intent of a gun ban

This entire argument is a fallacy. Note the resolution which says on balance. My adversary claims that

" This may seem like only a small drop in the bucket, but these are the lives of innocent people, being taken by accidents that would not have occurred if the homeowners did not have a gun accessible. "

On balance a small drop in the bucket does not counteract the cost, the effort, nor accomplish the initial intent of the gun ban. On balance would mean that overall or in most situations gun bans work and are effective in reducing harm. My adversary has just conceded that this only reduces a small amount of harm, therefore per the resolution he concedes this.


R2) Culture

My adversary makes a claim that because of the culture argument I am assuming guns bans would not be as effective in America compared to Australia. This is false. This is an absolute fact and I presented the amount of guns in private ownership and so forth to show how intertwined the US is with guns. We have 100 times the amount of guns Australia has in private ownership. To put this in perspective we have 3 million guns in the hands of the business/government which is more than all of the guns in Australia in private ownership alone.


he then claims

" With a nation that has so many guns in circulation, there are certainly many who would support them being taken away. We know that many are willing to give up guns, because gun buybacks are still popular. "


This is also false. On recent polls it is shown that an all time of low of 26 percent of Americans are in favor of a handgun ban. This is not even addressing a federal gun ban on all guns, but just hand guns. Logically this number would drop lower if the government tried to implement a full out ban.

1959-2011 trend: Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?



R3) Gun buy backs

He commits an ad populum here.

(a) This article only says a decent number of guns were received and this was primarily conducted in a city that is mainly for gun control laws.
(b) This is not considering the other half of the nation that is directly opposed to gun control such as the southern states and more conservative states

On balance gun buy backs would be opposed and not work. Check the graph in my previous contention that notes only 26 percent of Americans are in agreement with a ban on handguns. Again this number would drastically decrease if it was a full ban or buyback.


To add to this there are only 11 states even considering stricter gun control legislation so no a majoirty of the US would no comply with gun buy backs[3]







R4) The root cause/ gun laws being ineffective

This is just blatantly wrong. My adversary flat claims that people would not find other avenues to kill if a gun ban were implemented. I have cited a source to prove this wrong in the prior round.

In addition to this he fails to address this gun control on balance is ineffective. Here are just some more studies to prove that. These are situations where crime and murder rates went up directly after gun bans. [1]


" [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" [2]

Again this study from harvard shows that when guns are banned, crime with other weapons soar. This proves that people will find other weapons and ways to commit crime and violent if guns are banned. So on balance we are not addressing the problem



Conclusion

My adversary has dropped

(a) effectiveness of a gun ban
(b) case for practically implementing gun control and the NRA
(c) failed to address most of the on balance arguments by straw manning the points

In turn everything he offered as a refuation, I have in turn refuted. He commits an ad populum and fails to understand that on balance, which means in most cases gun control is ineffective.

Resolution negated


Sources


[1] http://townhall.com...
[2] http://theacru.org...
[3] http://www.usatoday.com...
Shadow-Dragon

Con

Thank you. I would like to present my rebuttals and counter-arguments.


R1) The intent of a gun ban

In his first argument, my opponent made some rather questionable claims. His statements beg the question: How much is a life worth?

Pro states, “On balance a small drop in the bucket does not counteract the cost, the effort, nor accomplish the initial intent of the gun ban.”

As stated above, the questions must be asked, whether a life has a price tag. I am sure that Pro would not mind a gun ban if then years from now, a gun that would have been taken away kills someone he knows. Using his logic, the lives of thousands are not important, but rather the money spent on buybacks and bans.

“My adversary has just conceded that this only reduces a small amount of harm, therefore per the resolution he concedes this.”
I have not conceded this point. I have showed above and will continue: Gun buybacks, even if seemingly unsuccessful save lives. It doesn’t matter how many lives it saves or the cost, because that could be the life of someone you know.

R2) Culture

In this section, my opponent provides a graph of the percentage of Americans who are in favor of a ban, and those who are not. This graph, however, is not a reliable source. My opponent has not provided a source, and has not specified what Americans were surveyed. Since it is not specified, that chart could be a survey of middle aged people from the South. Understand the bias? Thus, that chart cannot be taken into consideration.

R3) Gun buybacks

a) Rather than commit an ad populum as my opponent claimed, I rather reviewed and displayed what the article show. That proposition is not correct, and has not backup or explanation, and thus cannot be considered.

b) I understand that many are against gun control laws from being passed. But, if they were passed, it doesn’t matter if you are against it, you would have to abide by it.

The following chart: {3} shows that the South has more deaths caused by firearms refuting your point. The south may be against it, but their extremely high number of firearms and their high number of gun-related murders prove that the south is all the more fitting for gun bans.
To continue…

-Regarding the NRA-
As my opponent states, “The NRA has extreme influence within the government and has a huge impact on laws that are passed. Here is just one example [11].”

In addition, he states, “for it to actually be effective it would actually have to be passed which it has no chance of doing[12]”

My opponent has to realize that the government does not have to be at the mercy of some organization. The government has more power than the NRA, and as long as people push for new laws and crimes continue to occur{2}, the politicians and NRA will feel obliged to listen-just like all the new gay marriage and marijuana legalizations. My point by that is that as long as people continue to push for it, politicians should do their job and pass laws that appeal to a common interest.


R4) The root cause/ gun laws being ineffective

My opponent states, “Here are just some more studies to prove that. These are situations where crime and murder rates went up directly after gun bans. [1]

" [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" [2]

Again this study from harvard shows that when guns are banned, crime with other weapons soar. This proves that people will find other weapons and ways to commit crime and violent if guns are banned. So on balance we are not addressing the problem”

Response: Like most of my opponents claims for this point, he directly connects gun bans to the increase in murder rates. What he fails to realize is that the increase in murder rates does not necessarily correlate to gun bans. As an example, simply because I take a shower after watching TV does not mean that TV causes me to take showers, or I took a shower as a result of watching TV.
In addition, my opponent has failed to realize that statistics are not always the most accurate depiction of the situation since other factors could be affecting the murder rates.

In addition, I can show that some of my opponents sources are not all absolute in their claims. The following article{1} shows that a lower percentage of gun ownership showed lower firearm homicide rates. As stated by the article, “With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.”
This information and data disproves those of my opponent that claim that fewer guns in circulation correlates with higher homicide rates. As I have stated before, there are other factors that are not being taken into account with that data.

In conclusion, I have effectively shown to you that a ban on guns would be effective in the United States. I have refuted the claims that my opponent has made, and have also disproved the false assumptions he has been using. I showed that his data is not reliable nor does it hold true. My fellow citizens, I thank you for reading this debate, and urge you to vote fairly. I would like to thank Mikal for this debate and this experience, one I have learned a lot from, and for all those who participated. Thank you.

- Shadow-Dragon -







Sources

{1} http://thinkprogress.org...
{2} http://www.stophandgunviolence.com...
{3} http://cdn.theatlantic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I luv guns
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/5:

Overall an interesting debate!

Shared BoP on a total gun ban.

Pro uses R1 for definitions, Con for acceptance.

R2 begins argumentation.

Pro's C1 is about framework. The resolution is about effectiveness. Pro says it's "obvious" the goal of a gun ban is to reduce the amount of violence that occurs yearly. Pro asserts that "For Con to win this he will have to show that a gun ban will decrease the amount of violence and deaths in the US enough that it is worth implementing."

Pro's C2 is about the sheer number of guns in the US. He contrasts Australia here, but the problem is he doesn't REALLY compare the two. The US doesn't have a ban, and has 300 million guns. Australia has a ban. Pro provides the statistic 3 million. Is that 3 million PRE ban, or is that 3 million POST ban?

(as an aside: I looked it up (though I confess, withoug Con putting this in the debate, it's irrelevant to my vote): it's 3 million POST ban, and it's an estimate that includes illegal guns. The per capita rate is around 15 firearms per 100 people. The estimates range from 260,000 illicit guns to 6 million illicit guns. It APPEARS that the level of gun ownership is the same now as it was before the ban, although the only source I could find to address this isn't all that great: http://www.theaustralian.com.au.... But again: it's not my job to make Con's or Pro's case for them. It is just problematic for Pro, since the number doesn't make sense. He concedes that the ban was at least semi-effective, but doesn't really explain whether gun ownership was comparable. IF the gun ownership is approximately the same as pre-ban, it's clearly entirely different than the US's culture (where the per capita rate of gun ownership is 89.0!). Again, these are statistics I know, that I'm not inserting for or against either side. In this case, I'm just giving the context as I bemoan Pro's FAILURE to give the cont
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/5:

Pro's C3 talks about gun culture in the US. He says that a forcible buyback would never work in the US due to gun culture.

C4 for Pro is his contention that Gun Control in the past has been ineffective.

His C5 is that the root cause of violence is not guns, but people. This may be true, but doesn't really address the motion.

In C6, Pro misuses "literally"--a pet peeve. He argues that a ban is unlikely to pass--but this is irrelevant to the motion, as the motion is whether such a ban would be EFFECTIVE. Getting $1 million dollars would be EFFECTIVE in making my debt go away. It isn't, however, particularly likely.

Con opens with a rebuttal of C1, arguing for what he seems to indicate is a broader definition of violence. Since Pro didn't preclude accidental death, it's not really a contradiciton or a rebuttal. It is, however, a shift in focus. Yet a "drop in the bucket", as Con calls it, is clearly not the goal of a gun ban.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/5:

Con argues against Pro's assumptions. I wouldn't call them "assumptions", I would call them Pro's argument for his case. If X didn't work in Y, we can guess it won't work in Z. Just attacking the link on the grounds of it being an assumption is insufficient to rebut the idea--and Con should remember the BoP here is shared. Con argues that because there are more guns, more people will support a gun ban. This is unsupported.

Con attacks another assumption of Pro's, saying that Pro's assertion regarding buy backs and gun bans is unsupported because it has worked in some places int he US. Of course, the problem here is that this is the context of a national, forced gun buyback/banning. It's qualitatively different than the programs in place. Still, just as it was valid for Pro to introduce a relative lack of effectiveness in a different place for support for the unlikelihood of effectiveness of the ban, Con can introduce similar evidence. In both cases, it needs to be rebutted by their opponent.

Con then argues against the idea that those who want to do violence will just find another means if they don't have a gun. Statistics would have very much helped his case, here.

As it stands, at the end of R2, Pro has made a case that the ban will be ineffective. Con has rebutted some points, but has failed to support his side of the BoP.

We go into the next round, R3.

Pro changes the convention from C# to R# for the final round (side note, Pro's rules don't make sense since they mention a fourth round, but there's only 3 rounds in this debate).
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/5:

In R1, Pro argues that the intent of a gun ban is to create an effect larger than a "small drop in the bucket". This seems to be a pretty valid point.

For R2, Pro says that we have 100X the number of guns as Australia. Unfortunately, he didn't link that to where Australia was Pre-ban, nor does he link it on a per-capita basis. So on its own its kind of a nonsequitur. But the point he's making seems to stand: there is a gun culture in the US. Pro shows that less than 30% of people support a ban, an all-time low.

In R3, Pro says that Con's example doesn't work because the place it's from doesn't correlate to the entire nation at large--this sufficiently rebuts Con's point, and Con should have done something similar about Pro's point if he wanted his own R2 rebuttal to similarly stick. Pro also notes briefly that "a majoirty of the US would no comply with gun buy backs" [sic]. He sources this assertion. His source talks about proposed legislation, but doesn't really address compliance if such legislation passed.

Con continues the R# system in his R3.

His R1 is, frankly, weak. It's an attempt to argue the "If even ONE life is saved, it's worth it!" type of argument. In a case like this, it's just completely uncompelling. When Con says: "It doesn"t matter how many lives it saves or the cost", Con is basically conceding the point and, largely, the debate. The idea that "on balance" a single life saved is worth the expense and change to rights that would happen from a gun ban is something that an ENTIRE DEBATE would have a hard time settling. It certainly can't just be asserted.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 5/5:

Con's attempt to rebut R2 fails. Remember, Con, you have a BoP, too. You can't just handwave away his evidence and provide none of your own. Pro's point stands for lack of rebuttal on your part and prima facie, all you've done is knock out his source leaving it null. But Con's rebuttal DOESN'T suffice to knock out Pro's graph. It's a very weak rebuttal.

Now Con has lost R1 and R2.

For R3, Con doesn't address Pro's objection regarding the differences in areas. He tries to handwave away the idea of compliance problems by arguing that if it's the law, it has to be abided by. Well, murder is against the law--and part of the justification for a gun ban is going to have to talk about reducing the murder rate, so this argument clearly fails. We're talking about practical effectiveness, and compliance factors into that. That makes the last paragraph, where Con makes Pro's point that more people would be against the gun ban, FOR HIM.

Con's rebuttal of the NRA point is fair.

Con tries to argue that correlation is not causation. It's not necessarily causation, no, but he has a BoP to prove that the ban would be effective--part of that would be showing that there IS a correlation in Con's favor. If the correlation goes AGAINST Con, he has to explain WHY it does, and why the ban would still be "effective".

Con then argues against some of Pro's points.

In the end, Con seems to have argued as though he did not have a shared BoP, and never made his own constructive. R1 outlined a shared BoP, and quite simply Con failed to uphold his side of it. Pro's arguments weren't perfect, but they were the only ones that in any way remained standing at the end of the debate.

Arguments to Pro. All other categories seemed equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
"Great googly moogly!" - Wylted (I'm pretty sure anyway. Sound like him, right?)
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
Max in response to whiteflame: "Holy cheese, whiteflame!"
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

While this was an intriguing debate, it seemed like the majority of the time, neither side was actually addressing the other side. That's not to mention that there were numerous problems on both sides of this debate. Irregular as it is, I'll be changing up my style here, and focusing on Pro first and then Con. I'll go through each of the points, tell you what worked and what didn't, and then provide a basis for the vote.

Pro's Contentions:

Intent " I think you needed to spend a lot more time here. A single paragraph plus another line is not sufficient to explain what you mean. Is the intent of a gun ban to reduce violence or deaths? Or is it both? If Con shows one but not the other, who wins? I don't get a solid idea of what the intent means, though I am now focused on the outcomes " both violent and those that cause deaths in general " for the remainder of the debate.

Number of guns/Gun culture " This point needed more warrants. You're essentially stating that an increased amount of gun ownership means more problems when it comes to a ban. I can think of several good reasons why that's true, but I don't see them spelled out for me in the debate, at least not completely. The sole piece I get here is that a gun ban would be ineffective because of the gun culture, which you partially explain, but I get no evidence that the gun culture will cause huge problems (there is plenty out there of people saying they'll protect their guns with their lives, and resisting police efforts to enforce such a ban would have been a fantastic point). I get the point later that "the south would almost go to war if the government tried to remove their right to guns," but little in the way of analysis as to why. More on that shortly.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
You do bring up Australia, and there's a good link here about how gun buybacks aren't all that effective, but that's problematic for a number of reasons. One, Con hasn't yet argued a buyback. He does eventually, but you're preempting what could have been a nonexistent argument. Two, you're admitting that gun buybacks are effective. Seeing expected results doesn't necessarily mean the buyback didn't reach its intent. Three, the effectiveness of a gun buyback doesn't necessarily have any effect on the effectiveness of a gun ban. Con chose not to separate the two, though he easily could have. Four, the effectiveness of gun buybacks in Australia doesn't necessarily reflect on their effectiveness here. I don't really see any sources showing that they don't work in the U.S., just an assumption based off of a gun culture that would be averse to their guns being physically taken from them. The point that they might have to take a lot of guns by force could have been made, but it's divorced from the buyback.

Gun Control Ineffectiveness " This point is basically a nonsequitor. You're stating that previous efforts at gun control, few of which involved an actual gun ban (interestingly, said ban occurred during that last era where gun homicides dropped dramatically), are indicative of what effect a gun ban would have on the homicide rate. I get the idea that denying guns to some may have increased homicides, but the link is tenuous at best.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
MikalShadow-DragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Linkish1O2 2 years ago
Linkish1O2
MikalShadow-DragonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: By use of good cited graphs and quoted knowledge I find pro had the better of the arguments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
MikalShadow-DragonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.