Outlawing guns will not stop terrorist attacks.
Debate Round Forfeited
CobaltWaVe has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||2 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||229 times||Debate No:||94542|
Debate Rounds (3)
If you accept my challenge, your job will be to defend the theory that banning some/all guns will stop mass killings.
My job is going to be explaining why a gun ban will stop nothing.
As far as debate format or structure, I'll just let it play through. I'll go first, then you, then me... and eventually, you get the last word.
So, to start off my argument, banning semi-automatic rifles with a lot of ammo will not stop terrorist mass killings. There's plenty of ways to get these, and automatics, illegally. And if there wasn't a possible way to access them, they would resort to, for example, 1.) a bomb strapped to their chest, 2.) 30 terrorists, each with a bolt action, 3.) Running over people with vehicles.
There are many more ways to kill hundreds than with a semi-automatic/ automatic gun, that is just the most convenient. Taking guns away though will not stop terrorists, it would be a mere inconvenience. They will find ways to kill.
I will be mainly using the US as my prime example (although not exclusively) as it is an area of controversial gun laws and regulations, as well as suffering from mass killings and shootings in recent years.
Mass Shooting: an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.
Terrorist Attack: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. coup de main, surprise attack.
Your first argument was "banning semi-automatic rifles with a lot of ammo will not stop terrorist mass killings. There's plenty of ways to get these, and automatics, illegally." Yes, this is true, however, nothing ever will completely obliterate the threat and possibility of mass killings. There has been mass killings as long as humans have existed on this planet. In May 1182 in Constantinople, there was a massacre which killed between 60,000-80,000 Latin inhabitants of the city. This was before the firearm was invented in China in the 13th century. What making guns illegal will do, is make mass killings much more rare. You don't hear about it on the news, but almost every day people are shot, injured and killed by guns in the US. You can simply look at the Gun Violence Archive to see the damage that guns really do for yourself, and to see why it is so important that guns are made illegal.
You also state that "There's plenty of ways to get these, and automatics, illegally." However you 'forget' to name any ways in which people can get semi-automatics and automatics illegally.
The argument of "There are many more ways to kill hundreds than with a semi-automatic/ automatic gun, that is just the most convenient. Taking guns away though will not stop terrorists, it would be a mere inconvenience. They will find ways to kill." is not entirely true at all. You also seem to switch between "Mass Killings" and "Terrorists" in your argument which makes it hard to decide what you're really arguing about. Mass Killings are not only committed by what you and I would most likely label 'terrorists', but also mentally unstable people and others. Not all mass killings are committed by firearms, and attacks through bombings can be more deadly than with firearms. However, a fair proportion of mass killings are done by firearms, therefore making guns illegal will reduce the number of deaths, especially through impulse killings, as it is easier to fire a gun than to create explosives capable of killing many people.
To conclude this round of the debate, making guns illegal will reduce the amount of mass killings/shootings as people such as the mentally unstable and insane will not be able to do them anymore due to not being able to possess or obtain a gun. It will also help to reduce the amount of terrorist attacks and shootings as people will not be able to get a gun easily at all and shoot up schools, churches, malls or places with large amounts of people. Although bombings/driving through crowds (Such as the Nice - Paris Attacks) will still occur, making guns illegal is a leap in the right direction.
United States is a good country to focus on for right now, and your definitions, although not cited, are agreeable (but your mass shooting definition is not clear: "A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant."  Four people minimum.
I quote you right here in your fourth paragraph: "Nothing ever will completely obliterate the threat and possibility of mass killings." Exactly, that's what I'm arguing for. Not even a gun ban will stop attacks. You go on about the Constantinople massacre (again not sourced, but I'll trust you) in which thousands more were killed then the modern age (1984-2016, in which numbers in the most deadly attacks peak at only 218 murders) , where we have much deadlier weapons. This is not to say that we can't kill over 60,000 people with are weapons nowadays, but it just offers statistics that kind of shut your argument down (i.e. taking guns away will help prevent mass killings). It seems to me that back in the old days, without guns, there was more dead.
You argue that taking guns away from the citizens will make attacks more rare. There's no way to know that for sure. But if you're going by the route of inference, let's do it.
So, we made pot, cocaine, and the other deadly drugs illegal. Why? Well, they are deadly. And yet, does that stop people from using them? From importing them? From dying over them? What if they were legal? You might argue that more people would use them and die, but taking in the effect the thousands of people that die in the drug trafficking business , which would go down hopefully if drugs were legal, the effect would be less deaths. (Also, I'm using these two items, drugs and guns, as an analogy. You're thinking that's dumb because I'm comparing guns to a deadly material, but keep in mind drugs also have safe usage in the medical field. You depends on the user, not the actual thing.)
As I said before, just because guns are illegal, doesn't make the inaccessible. People will die even if they are gone from stores. You told me I forgot to name the ways (Don't add those quotes around forgot, I really did.) Here they are: criminal supply train of guns, un-stamped handguns imported from other countries, straw purchasing, or even CRAFTING guns. , .
Yes, I do switch between mass killings and terrorist attacks. This is because I feel terrorists attacks are just a category of mass killings. By saying terrorists attacks I am being more specific. But I will also argue that school shooting will not be stopped/lessened, either.
Once again you make another inference. You do not know what would happen if guns were taken away completely. It is true that guns are one of the best methods of killing, but I am telling you that THIS WILL NOT STOP MASS KILLINGS. It will not lessen them either. Bombs may be complicated to make, but guns are complicated to buy, at least legally. Also, setting off a bomb and killing hundreds instantly seems mighty convenient then reloading every ten seconds with an automatic. Also, driving a truck, and we can both agree that trucks are not hard to come across, is even more convenient to kill people. Simply find a celebration outdoors, packed with people, and drive. As in this case .
You conclude by saying insane people will not be able to possess or obtain a gun, which will lower the killings. False, I have showed ways to get guns illegally, properly sourced. Also, if they somehow can't get a gun, they can get a machete or a truck, time bomb formed from a clock, or other even more convenient weapons than firearms. You say that making guns illegal is a leap in the right direction, even though it will not prevent killing rates up to the 60,000s. If anything it will limit people's freedom and safety. I didn't want to say that because it's irrelevant to this discussion, but I had to let you know.
Also, you said I didn't give ways to prove my argument in round 1. Will, here they are. (Also, you lacked sources in round 1 as well, because you 'forgot'.)
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.