The Instigator
fire_wings
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
missmozart
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
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 4 votes the winner is...
missmozart
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,553 times Debate No: 94496
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (388)
Votes (4)

 

fire_wings

Con

Introduction

This will be for missmozart, as we agreed to debate, and it happended to be this topic. It's been around 2 months since I debated a gun debate, and I like doing this topic, so I will be doing it right now.

In this debate, the voting standards will be the opt in standards, look here: https://docs.google.com...

Full Resolution: Resolved: In the United States, guns/firearms should be banned


Rules

1. No forfeiting, if you forfeit then you lose, becuase there will be a glitch. You can say, "Pass this round", and pass the round, the main point is that I don't want this to touch the glitch. So if you forfeit, and make a glitch, you lose.

2. No trolling, as I don't want debates with no-moderated votes. So if you troll like vi_spex, you lose the debate.

3. No kritiks or no semantics in the debate. If you use semantics, or kritiks, you lose the debate.

4. There can't be more than 30 sources in each round, or else it will be called as source-spamming, which is not allowed.

5. No source wars, meaning the debate should not only be about sources, and refuting them only in the debate.

6. All arguments must be posted in the debate. The debate text, not the comments, forums, or google docs. Sources can be posted in an external link.

7. No new arguments in the last round (Arguments count as contentions, not rebuttals or defense, or those things)


8. If you break these rules, you will be granted an AUTOMATIC loss.

Structure

1. Rules from Con/ Arguments from Pro
2. Arguments from Con/ Rebuttals from Pro
3. Rebuttals from Con/ Defense from Pro
4. Defense from Con/ Rebuttal of Defense from Pro and Conclusion
5. Rebuttal of Defense from Con and Conclusion/ Pro waives.

Definitions

Guns: a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise [1].

Ban: officially or legally prohibit (something) [2].

Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The debate is hosted, and from the "Secret Team" I thank my opponent missmozart for accepting this in advance.
missmozart

Pro

First, I would like to thank my esteemed opponent Feu for challenging me to this debate. I'm sure it will be a very interesting and enjoyable exchange. Good luck!

Italicised: directly quoting from a named source
Underlined: quoting my opponent
Italicised and underlined: directly quoting my opponent's source

I'm going to go straight in with my opening arguments.

Crime

Guns are the main tools used in homicides and crimes in the US.

In 2011, a study was undertaken by the FBI to show that guns were used in 68% of homicides [1]. Approximately 41.4% of robberies involve guns [2] "21% of aggravated assaults nationwide"[1]. The USA is ranked the third out of a total of forty-five developed nations in regards to the incidence of homicides committed with a firearm [3] and compared to the UK which has one of the lowest rates of gun crimes the world [4], it is not surprising that it bans guns. Other countries that have both low rates of gun crimes and gun ownership include Japan and China. However, specifically to the US which is the main point of this debate, it has been proven that states with a strict gun control have less crime rates than those without [7].

Guns are a very effective way of killing, therefore, it is clear that banning guns would decrease the crime rates in the US.

Suicide

More than half of all suicides in the US are committed using a firearm [5] and a study by the Harvard School of Public Health "reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides"[6]. The availability of firearms have caused an increase in suicide rates [5]. This is because a gun is one of the quickest and least painful (depending on where shot) ways to die. This can make people shoot themselves on impulse due to the speed of death in comparison with using a knife, which is both painful and slow- a decision that requires extra thought to carry out.

Guns encourage and increase suicide, so therefore should be banned.

Bad for defence

Contrary to what many people would think, guns are actually not a good form of defence. As S. Martelle once said: "the notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime"[8]. Events where people can defend themselves with a gun are extremely rare. Think about it, if someone broke into your house suddenly, you'd probably get shot by them first before you even have a chance to run upstairs or to wherever you store your gun. A study found that there are "less than 70,000 defensive gun uses annually while there are 300 million firearms owned in the United States."[9]

Therefore, guns are bad for defence.

Accidents and harm to children

As I mentioned before with suicide, the accessibility of guns can make accidents very easy to occur whether by complete accident or on impulse. Guns also are significantly more likely to kill a family member or a friend than a stranger. "Nearly 1.7 million children live in households where guns are stored either loaded or not locked away according to the Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence." This makes American children 16 times more likely to be unintentionally killed by a gun compared to other countries [10]. Over 5% of young students indicated that they carried a gun in the past month, and it is estimated that approximately one million children bring guns to school each year [11]. Children do not understand the seriousness of guns and at a young age like that, accidents can often occur. Therefore, people must remove guns from their homes so that not only them but their children, can be safe.

Conclusion

Guns should be banned because they are highly dangerous, used in most crimes and suicides and bad for self-defence. From all of my points, it is clear that guns/firearms should be banned immediately in the US.

Thank you for reading. Over to Feu!

Citations:

[1] http://www.nij.gov......
[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov......
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org......
[4] http://www.unodc.org......
[5] https://www.bradycampaign.org......
[6] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu......
[7] https://img.njdc.com......
[8] http://www.latimes.com......
[9] http://www.hopesandfears.com......
[10] http://www.ibtimes.com......
[11] http://www.aacap.org...
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Con

I thank my opponent mllemozart for accepting the debate, and posting his/her arguments. My arguments will be slightly changed from my usual gun debate arguments, but it will be mostly similar, at the most. (It’s kinda funny that we are talking about the US, when we are both from Europe) I will be using the same as what missmozart used of underlines, etc.






Framework





My framework will be centered around some laws that will be important, like the 2nd amendment, and self-defense. My framework will mostly be centered around 2nd amendment, and self-defense, and I will give definitions for both of these, then go onto my arguments.






Self-defense: the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as bycountering blows or overcoming an assailant [1].






2nd amendment: he Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms [2].






Now I will move onto my arguments.






Argument 1: 2nd amendment






My first argument will be about the 2nd amendment. Here is what it says in the 2nd amendment [3]. And in the shorten definition above, it shows that the 2nd amendment shows that people have the right to bear arms, or basically, have guns. If we ban guns, then that means that we are violating the second amendment. Socrates says, “A bad law is still a law [4]”. The second amendment isn’t a bad law, though it is a law, as socrates says, a law is a law, and laws must be followed. And as the 2nd amendment is a law, the second amendment from the U.S. Constitution, the law must be followed. Therefore, we should not ban guns, because of the 2nd amendment, and if we do ban guns, we are directly harming this law, and doing the opposite of it. A law is a law, so we can’t ban guns, so the resolution is negated, and vote for Con.






Argument 2: Self-defense






My next argument will be about self-defense. Some people say that there are around 2 million cases of self-defense each year. Some people think 3.6 million. Some say around 75,000 [5], and reasonably, I think it’s either of 75,000.






Now, we don’t care about the *number* of self-defense cases per year. Yeah, there are a lot of self-defense cases, but that’s not the important part of this argument. It’s whenether guns *can* save lives, or *can’t* save lives. In the statistics above, it shows that there are self-defense cases each year, which show that guns *can* save people. Because it can save people, and one life is important, we should not ban guns, because guns save lives, and if we ban guns, these lives will be lost.






Lets give an example of this. A robber comes in you house, and demands for money, jewelry, or something precious. Like, "Give me all the money you have in this house, and all the diamonds, and everything precious in this house, or I will shoot your head with a gun!!!" Then you will be very frightened because of the man. Let's say that the robber has a gun, because he bought it illegally (will be explained more in my 4th argument), and you don't, because you are a citizen of the U.S., and don't buy guns illegally, because you follow the rules. You need to defend yourself. The things you bascially have are knifes, baseball bats, golf rackets, etc. This is harder to defend yourself if you have these things, because firearms are the best defensive weapon. So you have two choices, give everything to the robber, or get shot by the gun. You can easily die if you get shot by a gun. If you have a gun though, you do have lots of chances to defend yourself, by shooting the other one. That's shouldn't be immoral, and not justified, because it was a self-defense act. I forgot where I heard this, but I heard that US thinks of self-defense acts good.






Argument 3: Gun culture






My next argument will be about gun culture. Americans love guns, I can’t use this as a source, because this is plainly obvious. Guns are part of our culture, and if we ban guns, then that means that the people who will use guns will make some people get hurt, because they can’t use their guns which they used daily. There are many poachers and hunters with guns in the US, and if we ban guns, they can’t do this, and it will have an impact on their life.






So… who cares about their life? We need to care of their lives, because if we ban guns, their culture, and our culture of using guns will have severe impact to many, and the government needs to help the citizens, not harm them by taking away their culture. So, we should not ban guns, because it will harm, and make many suffer.






Argument 4: Economy






My next argument will be about economy. If we ban guns, then it will make an economic impact, and the economy will suffer. Let me give a chart first, then some quotes.






Economic Impact of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Industry in the U.S.



Direct



Supplier



Induced



Total



Jobs (FTE)



132,584



65,180



90,222



287,986



Wages



$5,513,898,500



$4,355,521,100



$4,581,758,300



$14,451,177,900



Economic Impact



$19,533,701,800



$14,998,408,400



$14,755,836,700



$49,287,946,900







That is a graph from this source [6]. My quotes will be on this same source also.






"Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 132,584 people in the country and generate an additional 155,402 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in companies supplying goods and services to manufacturers, distributors and retailers, as well as those that depend on sales to workers in the firearms and ammunition industry [6] [7]."






and also, from another source






"All told, the firearms industry contributes more than $33 billion to the U.S. economy and supports about 220,000 jobs, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation [8]."






Here is a picture in the same source




s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="491" height="455" />






According to all the sources and pictures I have shown, guns give over 150,000 jobs in the US alone, and contribute 33 billion dollars to the U.S. economy. If we ban guns, then all of the jobs will be thrown away, and all the money, which is 33 billion dollars to the economy will be thrown away into the drain, and it will disappear.






Not only the economy, there will be a black market formed. Guns will be bought and sold illegally. It is said that over 90% of guns are illegal guns. So if we ban guns, then only illegal guns will be left. Illegal guns will go to the black market, of course, and citizens, who follow rules will not have guns, when robbers who do not follow rules will still have guns, which makes citizens less safe, as criminals still have guns, when they don't. The impact of this argument is clearly shown. Vote Con.






Argument 5: Waste of time






Let’s first see how many guns Americans have.






“According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all [9]. This computes to 93 guns per 100 people. In the same article: "But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes." The graph shows a decline from 50% in 1975 to 31% in recent years.[10]”






Guns are used by too many people of the U.S. Even though we ban them, some people will still have them illegally. Even though we ban them, they will still use them. Banning will do not point. It will cost more money if you ban it, but not much need because no one will follow it, and they can’t check over 300 million guns.






This does an impact to the resolution, because if we do actually ban, it will be pointless because of the numbers, people wil still use guns.







Argument 6: Gun reduces crime






As the short amount of characters, I won't really be talking about this argument a lot. It will be my most short argument. It is that gun reduces crime. I thank Taj for telling me this argument. As there are sources for bot UK, and New York, and this is an America debate, I will be using the New York one, as this is an US debate.






s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="428" />






As it shows in the diagram above, let's look at the 1976- 1978 ban. After the ban of guns, and a few years later, crime rates go over 80, when it was less than 30 before the gun ban. We are not sure if it is because of guns, but we know that banning guns don't cause crime. Though the only change is guns, so reasonably, but not 100 % sure, guns make higher crime rates.






Conclusion






I have shown that guns are protected by the 2nd amendment, self-defense, that guns don't reduce crime, that banning guns are a waste of time, and banning guns will cause the economy go down very low. I have shown why guns should not be banned, and why they should be legalised. This is a clear win for Con, therefore please vote for Con!!! Thank you for the debate mllemozart, and the debate goes back to you!!!






Sources






[1] goo.gl/GUbz2G




[2] goo.gl/FXajpo




[3] goo.gl/mLdcYn




[4] Book of History, Ancient Greece Philosophers, Han Chae




[5] goo.gl/BbHiAr






[6] goo.gl/4qtCYt






[7] John Dunham and Associates, New York, December 2015. Direct impacts include those jobs in firearms and ammunition manufacturers, as well as companies that manufacture products such as ammunition holders and magazines, cases, decoys, game calls, holsters, hunting equipment, scopes, clay pigeons and targets. Direct impacts also include those resulting from the wholesale distribution and retailing of firearms and ammunition in sporting goods retailers and variety/mass merchandise stores.






[8] goo.gl/CQtv7r




[9] goo.gl/I2MTNL




[10] goo.gl/qTgQMR




[11] goo.gl/jOSYgN






Therefore, vote for Con!!! Thank you to Pro for the interesting debate so far. Vote for Con!



missmozart

Pro

Thank you Feu for your points. There seems to be a slight problem with my links in Round 1 so I will include them at the bottom of this argument again.

I now begin with my rebuttals.

___

2nd Amendment

"as the 2nd amendment is a law, the law must be followed"

Just because something is law, does not mean that it is always completely correct or ethical. Although we are always striving for a perfection we can never achieve, we have to admit, there will be faults, even in our (well, the American) justice system. That is why countries hold referenda in order to change and improve their laws. For example, in Ireland, one of our most recent referenda was the referendum on same-sex marriage. Before that, it was illegal (ie. against the law) for homosexuals to marry. Now, because of the votes of the Irish people, it is legal. Using your strange logic, it would appear that the Irish government should not have held the referendum in the first place because nobody should ever question the law (according to you).

The 2nd amendment may be a law but it is obvious that a lot of Americans are unhappy with it as we can see clearly from the charts in source labelled 15.

From the charts, we can see that each year, more and more people are dissatisfied and want stricter gun control in the US. I would also like to thank ThinkBig for providing me with this link. I would have liked to copy the charts directly onto this debate but I don't know how to and since I'm on my phone, I don't want to risk it.

"A law is a law, so we can"t ban guns so the resolution is negated, and vote for Con"

This I believe, is an example of circular logic. You are saying that a law cannot be changed simply on the premise that it is a law. Therefore, it is logically incorrect and the resolution as a result is not negated.

Self-defence

"Some people say that there are around 2 million cases of self-defense each year. Some people think 3.6 million. Some say around 75,000 [5], and reasonably, I think it"s either of 75,000."

I don't really understand or see the point of those odd statistics but okay. From my source labelled 9 in the previous round, we know that the number of guns used for self-defence each year is actually less than 70,000. I know that your source is definitely unreliable because when I clicked on it, there was a notice from Wikipedia saying "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Seems to be copy/pasted from another site and is not in Wikipedia's style (July 2015)".

"It"s whenether guns *can* save lives, or *can"t* save lives (...) one life is important, we should not ban guns, because guns save lives, and if we ban guns, these lives will be lost."

The main problem right now about guns is not the risk of getting attacked by armed people. It is in fact, suicide. From my source labelled 5, it clearly shows that the rate of suicide in the US is increasing dramatically. I have already explained in Round 1 how easy people can commit suicide on impulse. Please see the map which clearly shows the link between firearm suicide rates and gun ownership (see source labelled 5).

Therefore, banning guns will save lives and if we allow guns, these lives would be lost.

"A robber comes in you house, (...) "Give me all the money (...) in this house, or I will shoot your head with a gun!!! (...) So you have two choices, give everything to the robber, or get shot by the gun. You can easily die if you get shot by a gun. If you have a gun though, you do have lots of chances to defend yourself..."

First, if guns were banned, there would be a less likely chance of the "robber" carrying a gun in the first place. In Ireland for example (where guns are banned), most robberies occur when people are out of the house [12] and even if the burglars are caught, they usually try to run away as fast as possible instead of grabbing the first thing they see and using it as a weapon. Second, if you find a burglar with a gun in your house, it's very unlikely as I mentioned in the previous round that you will have a firearm handy near you perfectly ready for defence.

Gun culture

"Americans love guns, I can"t use this as a source, because this is plainly obvious."

I'm very sorry to say but you are making an obvious bare assertion. From the graphs (source 15), it is clear that Americans in fact, do not "love guns".

"There are many poachers and hunters with guns in the US, and if we ban guns, they can"t do this, and it will have an impact on their life."

If we ban guns, it does not mean that every single firearm is literally banned. The police force, army and of course, appropriate hunters will still be allowed to use guns (just like in any country).

Waste of time

"Guns are used by too many people of the U.S. Even though we ban them, some people will still have them illegally. Even though we ban them, they will still use them. Banning will do not point. It will cost more money if you ban it, but not much need because no one will follow it, and they can"t check over 300 million guns."

That is another bare assertion. Yes there will always be people who break the law but most people don't. For example, do you think there will be more people doing drugs if it were legal or illegal? Exactly. What you said there was basically that rules shouldn't exist because they will be broken. Laws should be followed as you stated yourself in your first point. You have just contradicted yourself.

Guns reduce crime

"We are not sure if it is because of guns, but we know that banning guns don't cause crime. Though the only change is guns, so reasonably, but not 100 % sure, guns make higher crime rates."

Our sources differ and as a result I am slightly confused. You are also uncertain as you say you are "not 100% sure". However, I am 100% certain that guns make higher suicide rates, at least in the US [5] which is what this debate is about.

Economy

"contribute 33 billion dollars to the U.S. economy. If we ban guns, then all of the jobs will be thrown away, and all the money, which is 33 billion dollars to the economy will be thrown away into the drain, and it will disappear"

Most of the guns in the US aren't even bought by Americans [13][14] so I highly doubt it would result in such a dramatic and exaggerated event like you mentioned.

Conclusion

Guns are the leading cause for the increasing suicide in the US. From my points and rebuttals, it is clear that banning them is right now, for the best interests of American citizens.

Thank you for reading. Vote Pro!

Citations:

[1] http://www.nij.gov...
[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.unodc.org...
[5] https://www.bradycampaign.org...
[6] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
[7] https://img.njdc.com...
[8] http://www.latimes.com...
[9] http://www.hopesandfears.com...
[10] http://www.ibtimes.com...
[11] http://www.aacap.org...
[12] https://www.insuremyhouse.ie...
[13] http://edition.cnn.com...
[14] https://news.vice.com...
[15] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

I will now be making my rebuttals of my opponent’s arguments.


Crime


My opponent argues that if we ban guns, then there will be a reduce of crime. She shows that the UK has low rates of gun crimes because they banned guns. First of all, there are way more guns in the U.S. then England, so we cannot say it is the same as the U.S., and it isn’t, because there are 310 million guns in the US [1]. Per 100 people, there are 112.6 guns in the US [1] [2], when there are only 6.6 guns per 100 people in the UK [2].


So I have shown that the rates of guns are very different, so we have no guarantee that there will be less crime. Also, I had not enough characters in my last round to talk about the UK’s gun rates, but I will just make it here as a rebuttal because it makes sense.


s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="Homicides Reported By Police in England and Wales" width="624" height="424" />


That is a graph of the gun crime rates [3]. I will be talking about the 1997 gun control law. After the 1997 event, gun rates went up way higher than before. Even in the 1968 gun control law, after it, there were still non-drastic changes of higher rates. So what my opponent said about crime rates going down after a ban is false, when showing my UK statistic, and my New York statistic in my 2nd round.


“Guns are a very effective way of killing, therefore, it is clear that banning guns would decrease the crime rates in the US.”


What my opponent says is false here. As I showed above, guns do not decrease the crime rates in New York for example, as criminals will still have guns, as I showed in my black market argument, so gun crime rates will actually increase. This argument is refuted, by me showing that crime rates actually increase if there is a gun ban.


Suicides


My opponent’s next argument is about suicides. My opponent shows that guns are the easiest to make suicides, so we should ban guns. First of all, even though we ban guns, there will still be suicides. The people who want to suicide will still like jump off a 10 story building, or something creative. I will give the definition of suicide.


Suicide: the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living [4].


So why can’t the ones who want to suicide, suicide? They want to not continue on living, so we should let them do as they please, which in this situation for them is killing themselves. People have self-ownership [5], and has the control of his/her life. They want to do suicide, and we are harming their self-ownership if we don’t let them suicide. They want to suicide. If we ban guns because of suicide *actually*, it will bring less happiness because the people who want to suicide can’t, which brings less happiness for them.


That is why Euthanasia [13] and Abortion [12] are such big deals, for example, because we don’t have self-ownership and liberty, and my opponent is Pro Euthanasia and Pro abortion [14], I don’t get why she wants suicides banned and decreased, when it is almost the same thing.


Bad for defense


My opponent makes an argument that guns are bad for defense. This is false, as I already showed 75,000 self-defense cases where there, and my opponent argues basically near that number also. My opponent says that is few, considering there are 310 million guns in the US. First of all, not all houses get attacks from robbers, or the opportunity to get robbed. So, counting all 310 million guns is unreasonable. Around 80 million is a reasonable answer, and there is still lots if you count it like that.


Also, as I said in my argument. We don’t really care about the *number* of self-defense cases, only *if* there are self-defense cases, or *if* there aren’t self-defense cases. And my opponent also agrees, there are around 70,000 self-defense cases, and that is a lot, therefore we can’t say that guns are bad for defense, the self-defense cases do occur. So I have shown that it is not bad for self-defense, and we don’t care if it is bad for self-defense, or if it is good, we just care about if there are self-defense cases, and there are.


There are even many lists of guns that are good in self-defense [9] [10] [11]. With these guns, which are good for self-defense, self-defense isn’t even a problem. Therefore, this argument is refuted, as I have shown that guns are good for self-defense.


Accidents


This is perhaps the hardest argument to rebut, but I’ll try. "Federal law imposes no design safety standards on domestically produced firearms. As a result, many firearms are manufactured and sold in the U.S. without undergoing appropriate safety testing and without including basic safety features [6]." And also, "Although unintentional or accidental shootings account for a small share of firearm related mortality and morbidity, these deaths and injuries are highly preventable through proper design of firearms [7].” This shows that because the firearms were badly made, it is why accidents happened.


And, also I can have a counterplan with this also. We can make the children by not getting the guns, like putting them in high closets where kids can not reach the guns. We can also put them in a safe, and put a password that a child does not know to put the guns out of the children’s reach. There are many other ways to make children not touch guns. This will make children not get guns, which will lead into less accidents.


And, we can also make gun licenses, like Iceland.A license is required to own or possess firearms. National government safety course required before applying for a license. Special license required to own pistols [8].” That is Iceland’s law for forbidding lots of gun accidents, because they give a special license, and obviously they give it to people who can handle guns well. America doesn’t have these licenses, and if they do have gun licenses now, accidents can increase by a lot of percent, because only people who have licenses will have guns.


It is the parent's responsibility to actually care for their child. It is her/his child, and he/she must care for her, because the it is the parent’s child. So the parents must handle and make the child responsible and not make him/her touch guns, because it his their responsibility, and we should not ban guns and harm others because of the irresponsible parents.


Also, the number 15,000-19,000 is incorrect. There is much less gun deaths and accidental deaths than that. Only 505 people died from accidental deaths [15]. That is very different from the number that many people propose. I think my opponent didn’t say, but knew or thought it is 15,000-19000 people, but it is not, it is much less than 15000-19000.


My impacts of self-defense and economy also outweigh this impact, because there are more people who are getting harmed. Therefore this argument is refuted.


Conclusion


I have shown that my opponent’s arguments are all wrong, and I refuted all of them. 90% of Americans don’t want to ban guns, so we should do the same, and not ban guns!!!! The resolution is negated, therefore vote for Con!!! I thank Pro for the debate so far.


“Secret Team”


Sources


[1] (http://tinyurl.com...)


[2] (http://tinyurl.com...)


[3] (http://tinyurl.com...)


[4] (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)


[5] (http://tinyurl.com...)


[6] (http://smartgunlaws.org...)


[7] (http://www.jhsph.edu...)


[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org...)


[9] (http://guncarrier.com...)


[10] (http://www.washingtontimes.com...)


[11] (http://urbansurvivalsite.com...)


[12] (http://law.justia.com...)


[13] (http://studentsforliberty.org...)


[14] (http://www.debate.org...)


[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org...)


missmozart

Pro

Thank you Feu! I now begin with my defence.

___

Crime

"My opponent argues that if we ban guns, then there will be a reduce of crime (...) First of all, there are way more guns in the U.S. then England, so we cannot say it is the same as the U.S., and it isn"t, because there are 310 million guns in the US [1]. Per 100 people, there are 112.6 guns in the US [1] [2], when there are only 6.6 guns per 100 people in the UK [2]. So I have shown that the rates of guns are very different, so we have no guarantee that there will be less crime."

Just to tidy up your paragraph, this is what you're basically saying:
-There are way more guns in the US than the UK.
-We cannot guarantee that there will be less crime in the US if we ban guns because the rates between the two countries are too different in order to compare them.

I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me. The fact is, the UK has less crimes and less guns. The US has more crimes and more guns. Therefore, we should ban guns to reduce crime!

"I will be talking about the 1997 gun control law. After the 1997 event, crime rates went up way higher than before."

That is a very long time ago and therefore outdated. What we are debating is about whether guns should be banned in the US right now. From my more recent source, it is quite clear that in the US, places where there was stricter gun control had less crimes [7].

Suicide

"even though we ban guns, there will still be suicides. The people who want to suicide will still like jump off a 10 story building, or something creative."

Yes of course there will still be suicides, I agree with you. But in the United States, a Harvard study shows that the suicide rates are directly linked with the percentage of gun ownership [6]. This proves that the accessibility of guns actually encourage suicide.

"So why can"t the ones who want to suicide, suicide? They want to not continue on living, so we should let them do as they please, which in this situation for them is killing themselves."

Encouraging suicide is encouraging cowardice. Obviously, there are situations where this is not the case but in general, allowing people an easy way out of their life problems is not going to help a society. People who handle stress better are more successful than those who cannot and I think therefore, banning guns in the US would be very beneficial to the American people.

"my opponent is Pro Euthanasia and Pro abortion [14], I don"t get why she wants suicides banned and decreased, when it is almost the same thing."

Euthanasia is defined as "the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition." What's the point of enduring a painful end when you know you're going to die soon anyways? Suicide is mostly an escape for those who are too weak-minded to push through their troubles (and I don't say this lightly). Euthanasia and suicide are therefore two very different things.

As for abortion, I believe that women have a choice over what happens if it concerns their own health and in other extreme cases. That is very different to suicide.

Bad for defense

"My opponent makes an argument that guns are bad for defense. This is false, as I already showed 75,000 self-defense cases where there, and my opponent argues basically near that number also."

Yes but banning guns will reduce crime as I explained earlier [7] so there won't be much need for guns for self-defence.

"My opponent says that is few, considering there are 310 million guns in the US. First of all, not all houses get attacks from robbers, or the opportunity to get robbed."

I'm sorry, but I genuinely find it difficult sometimes to understand what you're trying to say. What is the point you're making here?

"So, counting all 310 million guns is unreasonable. Around 80 million is a reasonable answer, and there is still lots if you count it like that."

Could you please give sources instead of a random guess?

"We don"t really care about the *number* of self-defense cases, only *if* there are self-defense cases, or *if* there aren"t self-defense cases."

I don't understand your logic. In that case, we should just legalise all drugs because even though a lot of people will abuse it, if there are a few people who use it for medical or health purposes, then it should be worth it.

"America doesn"t have these licenses, and if they do have gun licenses now, accidents can increase by a lot of percent, because only people who have licenses will have guns."

That is a bare assertion because of your lack of citations. Also, it goes against everything you've just said. Up until now, you've been arguing that guns will still be available in black markets despite banning them. Then all of a sudden, you agree to ban guns but want to implement a special license in order to acquire them? That doesn't make any sense to me.

"Also, the number 15,000-19,000 is incorrect."

I couldn't find this figure, could you please show me where you got it from?

Accidents

"Although unintentional or accidental shootings account for a small share of firearm related mortality and morbidity, these deaths and injuries are highly preventable through proper design of firearms."

I don't think you read my arguments properly. I didn't say anything about bad-quality guns and I don't think accidental shootings as a result of a faulty gun is a large percentage of the problems caused by guns anyway. As I said in Round 1, approximately one million children in the US bring guns to school each year [11]. Young children do not understand the dangers and the seriousness of guns and they could easily cause accidental shootings due to immaturity regardless of the gun quality. Also, this ties in with my previous point on suicide. Suicides by guns can be impulsive due to the speed at which it kills and its painlessness. A lot of these impulsive deaths can be considered 'accidents' because if it was a different method of killing, for example, using a knife, it would require a lot more thought and decision. In the US as I mentioned earlier, the percentage of gun ownership is directly linked with the suicide rates [5] [6].

"I can have a counterplan with this also. We can make the children by not getting the guns, like putting them in high closets where kids can not reach the guns."

That is so terribly obvious and logical, I don't think anyone regardless of intelligence would not be able to think of that solution. However, the sad reality is that numerous children still have access to guns despite common sense. I'm going to restate my quote- "Nearly 1.7 million children live in households where guns are stored either loaded or not locked away according to the Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence." [10]

"We can also put them in a safe, and put a password that a child does not know to put the guns out of the children"s reach (...) This will make children not get guns, which will lead into less accidents."

Supposing that was the case, what would happen if a robber came to your house (using your previous example about self-defence). I highly doubt you would have sufficient time to run all the way to your hidden safe, put in the code that your children do not know about, extract the gun and use it for defence. As firearms are currently still legal in the US, it would be very likely that the robber would also have a gun and as a result, shoot you before you have time to enter your code. Therefore, the gun is still useless.

"It is the parent's responsibility to actually care for their child. It is her/his child, and he/she must care for her, because the it is the parent"s child (...) it his their responsibility, and we should not ban guns and harm others because of the irresponsible parents."

That principal could be applied to anything. Certain toys and products aren't meant for children under a specific age due to small parts that could easily choke them etc. Using your logic, certain toys shouldn't be banned for young children simply because it's their parents' responsibility and they should be making sure that their children don't choke or injure themselves.

"I have shown that my opponent"s arguments are ALL wrong, and I refuted all of them (...)The resolution is negated, therefore vote for Con!!!"

Well you seem very confident :D

Conclusion

I have managed to successfully rebut all of my opponent"s points. I have proven that guns should be banned in the US because they are dangerous and banning them will reduce both crimes and suicide.

Thank you for reading. Vote Pro!

Citations:

[16] http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Con

Thanks, Mlle. Onto my defense.


Observations

O1: My opponent says to post this late, so I will try to post it as late as possible. I will be very brief this round as I need to post this in late Sunday, and I am very busy at the moment.


O2: My opponent needs to waive the 5th round, I am just reminding her for this.


Framework


It seems that my opponent did no contradictions of my framework, and didn’t even say anything about my framework, so I assume that Pro accepts the framework, and follows it.


2nd amendment


The first argument I will be defending is the 2nd amendment.


"Just because something is law, does not mean that it is always completely correct or ethical."


I know that it might now be a good law, but I have shown what Socrates have said about a law, even a bad law is a law. That is what Socrates had said. So we should follow the law, because it is a law, but I will go into the point about if it is correct or ethical now, as I already shown that we should/must follow it.


"The 2nd amendment may be a law but it is obvious that a lot of Americans are unhappy with it as we can see clearly from the charts in source labelled 15."


That, certainly is not true. Americans love guns. Here is a chart for it [27].





"Preventing all Americans from owning guns."


Favor


Oppose


Unsure


%


%


%


6/16-19/16


9


90


-



It is shown that 90% of Americans do not want to ban guns. 90% is a big number, and with 310 million guns around with Americans, we can conclude that most Americans love guns. So I have shown that Americans are happy with guns.


“From the charts, we can see that each year, more and more people are dissatisfied and want stricter gun control in the US.”


First of all, I did find the chart, but you are not supposed to make me find it. Actually, if you look at the chart of the stricter gun control chart, More strict fell by 23% then what it was supposed to be. Kept as now went up by 16%. Less strict went up by 9 percent. If anything, Americans now want gun controls to be less strict than before.


And people are dissatisfied with guns mostly because of the terror attacks, and those things, and we can prevent them getting guns by getting rid of guns in the black market, etc. And also, they didn’t do this thing on all of the people in the U.S., only 100 people to make a percentage. 100 people are quite unreliable. Therefore, this source is unreliable. This argument is not refuted.


Self-defense


“The main problem right now about guns is not the risk of getting attacked by armed people. It is in fact, suicide. From my source labelled 5, it clearly shows that the rate of suicide in the US is increasing dramatically.”


My opponent says that suicides are the main problem. First of all, how are suicides the main problem. They want to suicide, no one is forcing them. Also my opponent is making a bare assertion that suicides are the main problem, hence the voters should not buy this claim. Who cares if it is getting increased? It just means that more people want to suicide.


“First, if guns were banned, there would be a less likely chance of the "robber" carrying a gun in the first place.”


Yes, that is true, though there is the black market, and the robbers can buy guns illegally. However, citizens who follow the law will give their guns if there is a gun ban. That means only robbers will have guns when we ban guns. The reason we are banning guns are to prevent robbers from getting them, but that won’t help.


“Second, if you find a burglar with a gun in your house, it's very unlikely as I mentioned in the previous round that you will have a firearm handy near you perfectly ready for defense.”


Yes, it might be hard, but there were around 70,000 self-defense cases. That means there are still cases like this, so we shouldn’t ban guns, or else all of these cases of self-defense will not be there, and those people will get killed, or robbed.


Gun Culture


“From the graphs (source 15), it is clear that Americans in fact, do not "love guns".”


This is false, as I shown in the self-defense argument. I did show a source that Americans love guns. Therefore my opponent’s assertion is wrong.


“If we ban guns, it does not mean that every single firearm is literally banned. The police force, army and of course, appropriate hunters will still be allowed to use guns.”


My opponent basically concedes that not every single firearm will be banned. That basically means that robbers will still have them. And my opponent says appropriate hunters will have guns. My opponent clearly makes a bare assertion. This argument is not refuted.


Waste of time


“That is another bare assertion. Yes there will always be people who break the law but most people don't.”


First of all, that is not a bare assertion. Of course there will be some people who do not follow the rules. And there are over 300 million guns, I have already shown it in another source. I don’t get how this is an bare assertion.


Yes, most people don’t. That’s the problem. Most robbers and criminals don’t follow the rules. The literal definition of criminal is, “involving illegal activity : relating to crime [28].” So by the definition of criminal, it is clearly shown that criminals do not follow rules, and engage in illegal activities. Because they don’t follow the rules as they are criminals, so they will have their guns. When most citizens follow the rules, making that most guns are to criminals, which makes citizens undefended.


“Laws should be followed as you stated yourself in your first point. You have just contradicted yourself.”


I don’t get how I contradicted myself. I said that criminals won’t follow the rules. Yes, and we should follow rules, but criminals don’t. I don’t see how I contradicted myself in that statement.


This argument is hence unrefuted.


Gun Crime


“Our sources differ and as a result I am slightly confused. You are also uncertain as you say you are "not 100% sure". However, I am 100% certain that guns make higher suicide rates, at least in the US [5] which is what this debate is about.”


Sorry, I said that wrong. First of all, we are not sure that it is because of guns, but logically, 99% of the time, as guns are the only thing that changed in that scenario, gun bans cause more crimes. My opponent says the thing about suicides again, but as I said, it is the person who suicides liberty.


My opponent also rebuts nothing of my graph that I have shown, and the statistics that I have shown, only rebutting the thing I wrote wrong, and with that, the argument is still unrefuted. Vote for Con because of this argument.


Economy


“Most of the guns in the US aren't even bought by Americans [13][14] so I highly doubt it would result in such a dramatic and exaggerated event like you mentioned.


First of all, yes, Americans don’t buy all the guns, but even though they buy the guns, well it still helps the economy. Just because other people in other nations buy lots of guns in the US, doesn’t mean that the other countries gets the money of the economy, the US still gets money in the economy. My opponent also doesn’t rebut my argument about jobs, and just says that it is an “exaggerated event.” This is not true, as I have shown that the jobs are still there, and if we ban guns, then the companies will be banned also. My opponent also fails to refuted about the money to the economy, as I have shown above that my opponent’s assertion was wrong. Therefore, the argument is unrefuted.


Conclusion


I have clearly shown that all of my arguments in the debate are unrefuted, my opponent says I made bare assertions, when clearly I didn’t, and you can’t source every single thing you can write, and sometimes you just need to use your logic. In most of my arguments, my opponent just ticks out one or two wrong things, and misses the point of my argument, hence not refuting it. Pro doesn’t explain much of her rebuttals clearly, and she doesn’t finish her rebuttal, only makes a very light assertion. Therefore, as I clearly shown that my arguments are unrefuted, please vote for Con!!!! Thank you for mllemozart for this debate, it’s quite fun for right now.


Sources


[27] (http://www.pollingreport.com...)


[28] (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)


(Counting all of my sources, they are my 27th and 28th source, etc.)


Thanks for mllemozart for this debate. Onto her last “round” of the debate!!!!









missmozart

Pro

Thank you Feu!

___

Rebuttals of defence:

2nd amendment

"I know that it might now be a good law, but I have shown what Socrates have said about a law, even a bad law is a law."

Socrates is amazing I have to admit, but quoting from him isn't exactly 'proof', just another opinion. With that being said, yes, even a bad law is still a law, but if we know that it's a bad law, we have the ability to change it. This debate is on whether we should ban guns, which means changing the law. We are not debating about whether allowing guns at the moment is a good law or a bad law.

Americans "love" guns

"Americans love guns. Here is a chart for it [27]."

That is really an excellent source that you have found, please let me quote some statistics from it:

Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?
(16-19/06/16, CNN/ORC Poll)
Favor 55%
Oppose 42%
Unsure 3%
"
Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?
(21-27/06/16, ABC News/Washington Post Poll)
Support 59%
Oppose 37%
Unsure 4%
(16-20/12/15)
Support 58%
Oppose 38%
Unsure 4%

"
As we can see, the majority of Americans favour stricter gun control laws and support a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Therefore we can conclude that Americans do not love guns.

"It is shown that 90% of Americans do not want to ban guns."

You have misinterpreted your own source. That 90% statistic only applies to people who do not want to prevent "all" Americans from owning guns and does not refer to a general gun ban, which your source also states that Americans favour.

"Actually, if you look at the chart of the stricter gun control chart, More strict fell by 23% then what it was supposed to be. Kept as now went up by 16%. Less strict went up by 9 percent (...) Americans now want gun controls to be less strict than before."

You can't compare present statistics with statistics from 1990! It took me a while to see where you got your calculations from. (This is from source labelled 15 for those who don't know.) From the exact same chart, if we compare 2015 and 2016, this is what we get:

Should the gun laws be more strict or less strict?
More strict- increased by 8%
Less strict- decreased by 5%
Keep as now- decreased by 3%


This means that more and more Americans in fact, want stricter gun control. I have refuted your point.

"And also, they didn"t do this thing on all of the people in the U.S., only 100 people to make a percentage. 100 people are quite unreliable. Therefore, this source is unreliable."

Oh, you've misinterpreted the chart, I'll explain to you now. At the beginning of every chart, there is a percentage sign above each column of numbers. It just saves them from writing out '%' every single time. It doesn't mean that there are literally only 100 people in the sample space. Therefore, my source isn't unreliable!

Self-defense

"First of all, how are suicides the main problem. They want to suicide, no one is forcing them (...) Who cares if it is getting increased? It just means that more people want to suicide."

People commit suicide because they are too weak-minded to face their troubles and look for an easy solution. Guns encourage suicide in the US [5][6] as I explained in my previous rounds. If we ban guns, people who want to commit suicide but are too scared to face pain will be forced to solve their issues and as a result, strengthen their character. This will make stronger minded people and benefit the American society.

"there were around 70,000 self-defense cases (...) we shouldn"t ban guns, or else all of these cases of self-defense will not be there, and those people will get killed, or robbed."

I'll give you another analogy. That's just like saying that the driving age should be lowered to 13 because even though a lot of young teens will be terrible at driving and immature, if there are some who are mature and responsible enough, then it is absolutely okay because at least they will benefit.

Ridiculous, right?

Gun Culture

"I did show a source that Americans love guns. Therefore my opponent"s assertion is wrong."

You just quoted from my source (15) which was unreliable because you compared 2016 with 1990 rather than with more recent statistics like I did. Therefore, I have proven that most Americans are in favour of gun control. Actually, let's look at the definition of 'love':

"Love- a feeling of strong or constant affection for someone [or something]" [17]

I don't know why you asserted that "Americans 'love' guns".

"My opponent basically concedes that not every single firearm will be banned."

In the UK, guns are banned but the police force still carries firearms for security reasons [18]. This is the case for most countries who ban guns.

Waste of time

"criminals do not follow rules, and engage in illegal activities. Because they don"t follow the rules as they are criminals, so they will have their guns."

Yes but if they are caught, they will be imprisoned and tried at court. That's the difference between banning guns and allowing them. More criminals being put in prison because of illegal gun ownership means that less criminals will possess firearms.

"I don"t see how I contradicted myself in that statement."

At the beginning, you explained how laws must be followed simply because they are a law. Then all of a sudden, you say rules shouldn't exist because they will be broken. That is what I don't get.

Gun Crime

"Sorry, I said that wrong. First of all, we are not sure that it is because of guns, but logically, 99% of the time, as guns are the only thing that changed in that scenario, gun bans cause more crimes."

99% of the time, are you sure? Can you please stop guessing random percentages and figures and provide some sort of source to support your claims! I am going to restate that in the United States of America, it has been proven that states with less guns and stricter gun control experience less crimes [7]. We are debating about the US and from my source, it is only logical for the safety of the American citizens that guns should be banned.

Economy

"if we ban guns, then the companies will be banned also. My opponent also fails to refuted about the money to the economy"

That is very true, I didn't think of that earlier. Banning guns will have some sort of an affect on the US economy. Therefore, I propose that they start to slowly phase in gun control while creating new jobs for the current workers in the firearm industry. Once that is completed, a full gun ban should be implemented as soon as possible.

Con's conclusion

"my opponent says I made bare assertions, when clearly I didn"t, and you can"t source every single thing you can write, and sometimes you just need to use your logic."

I don't think statements such as "Americans love guns", "it will cost more money to ban guns" and "if Americans have a license, then the gun crimes will increase by a lot of percent" classify as 'logic' without adequate and sufficient proof to support it.

"In most of my arguments, my opponent just ticks out one or two wrong things and misses the point of my argument"

I actually go through every single one of your sentences very carefully. The problem with your writing and I'm sure many people will agree with me is that you waffle way too much. You state your point and then say it over and over again just using different wordings until it becomes a large paragraph. I've noticed that you quite frequently, you use one whole paragraph to describe something that could have been said in one sentence. Repeating yourself like five times in succession doesn't make your points any stronger! I rebut everything I can and everything else is just repeating the same thing I said last so I don't see the point of saying it again.

Conclusion

Guns should definitely be banned in the US as it reduces crime, will reduce suicide, reduce accidents especially with young children, it's bad for defence and finally, Americans do NOT love guns.

I would like to thank Feu for this debate, win or lose, I immensely enjoyed it.

Thank you for reading. Vote Pro!

Citations:

[17] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[18] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
fire_wings

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. It has been a good and fun debate so far. Now I will go into my last round, or techincally the last round of the debate, as my opponent has to waive the next round because she used round 1. I will be using this round for rebuttals of defense, and my conclusion.

Crime


"...The fact is, the UK has less crimes and less guns. The US has more crimes and more guns. Therefore, we should ban guns to reduce crime!"

I was saying that the amount of guns are different, so we are not 100% sure that the same thing will happen. Also, I said that in the UK, there was an increase of crime, as I clearly showed that the UK had a higher crime level, and my opponent says that is "outdated." Well that was one of the gun bans, and if it turned out like that, and it was the latest gun ban, then it is not outdated. My point was that the statistics might differ from UK and US.

"...it is quite clear that in the US, places where there was stricter gun control had less crimes [7]."

In the source, which was hard to see, there was nothing about crime, only about licenses, open carrying guns and non-open carrying guns. There is nothing about stricter gun control having less crimes, unless you mean deaths. There were some states where it was prohibted, but it was still around 9 in the chart. That also isn't 100%, because that is what the citizens think, things can change, and crime can get worse, like my conclusive data. My opponent doesn't refute my crime argument, and doesn't defend hers correctly, so this is a objective win for Con!!!!

Suicide

"...But in the United States, a Harvard study shows that the suicide rates are directly linked with the percentage of gun ownership ... This proves that the accessibility of guns actually encourage suicide."

What my opponent says here is WRONG. There is a higher percentage of suicide rates because guns are effective tools from doing suicides, when like ropes and those things are hard for doing suicides. Guns don't encourage for suicide, they just help you die if you want to be dead, and this is a case for them, because you have a gun doesn't encourage suicide, that's a bare assertion.

My opponent also says that suicide is encouraging from guns, but that isn't true, as I said before, and my opponent makes a bare assertion on this, Harvard only made a study that suicides are higher rates if gun ownership, not that guns encourages suicide. This is very different, so that's basically why my opponent's "claim" is a bare assertion.

"What's the point of enduring a painful end when you know you're going to die soon anyways?"

That's what my opponent says. True, but that wasn't my point of the argument. My argument was about that you are basically giving liberty of life from those two, but not in these cases. Why not? My opponent doesn't answer this AT ALL. Also, another question, which is similar, which is basically the same question. What's a point to live when you don't want to live? Therefore vote for Con.

"I believe that women have a choice over what happens if it concerns their own health and in other extreme cases."

Same as the Euthanasia case. You are giving them liberty, but why not in this case? Point refuted.

Bad for defense

"...so there won't be much need for guns for self-defence."

This is once again, WRONG. Also showing that the crime thing is wrong, and I already said that because of the black market, and citizens following rules, when criminals do not follow rules, I showed that because criminals buy illegally guns in the black market, the criminals will have guns, when the citizens won't. That will make a less safe community, as criminals will be the only ones to access guns, and the citizens cannot access to guns.

"I'm sorry, but I genuinely find it difficult sometimes to understand what you're trying to say."

I said that you said, "70,000 is a little." I said that not all houses and people get robbed in their lives, so we can't count everyone, only around few hundred thousand, and that is a much. My opponent doesn't refute this argument.

"Could you please give sources instead of a random guess?"

That isn't a random guess, and it's pretty impossible to get a source. Logically, you can think like this.

P1: In the US, there are 120 million households [29].
P2: There were around 75000 self-defense cases in the US
P3: Not all houses get robbed.
P4: As an logical guess that 1/4 of the households get robbed, as that is a logical guess, it is 30 million.
C1: There isn't much a big difference, so self-defense cases are important

"I don't understand your logic. In that case, we should just legalise all drugs because even though a lot of people will abuse it, if there are a few people who use it for medical or health purposes, then it should be worth it."

I am not talking about that. It's also about Utility. It needs to bring more good than harm. My logic is that we don't care about the number of cases, whenether there is a case, or is not a case. As a libertarian view of mine, libertarians seek to maximize liberty, and they care about every single person, and if there are harms. From this, as if we ban guns, then the number of the self-defense cases, and those people will be harmed. From the libertarians view, that harms their liberty, and security, therefore we should not ban guns.

"That is a bare assertion because of your lack of citations. Also, it goes against everything you've just said. Up until now, you've been arguing that guns will still be available in black markets despite banning them. Then all of a sudden, you agree to ban guns but want to implement a special license in order to acquire them? That doesn't make any sense to me."

First of all, that wasn't a bare assertion, I showed an example of Iceland. I didn't say to ban, I said to make licenses to make less accidents, et cetera. So my opponent's assertion of my bare assertion, and what she thought is WRONG. THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR THE ACCIDENTS ARGUMENT, NOT THIS SELF-DEFENSE ARGUMENT JUST FOR A HEAD'S UP.

"I couldn't find this figure, could you please show me where you got it from?"

This is an argument for accidents, but from my laziness, and that my opponent put it here. This is plain sh!t. Didn't my opponent just see my source [15] of Round 3? Unless she just skimmed over the argument, she must have saw it in the "accidents" section, but she put it here wrong, as she made a mistake.

Accidents

"I didn't say anything about bad-quality guns and I don't think accidental shootings as a result of a faulty gun is a large percentage of the problems caused by guns anyway"

All I can say about this is What are you even thinking about? You were talking about accidents. I was talking that the accidents can be about bad-quality guns, etc, and faulty guns, etc. I just gave a few examples of that. I know that you never said anything about it, I was just saying some examples of why accidents can happen, /ENDRANT. And just to say about waffling, at least I waffle in one paragraph, you said about suicides in almost every hell argument in this debate!!!!

"That is so terribly obvious and logical, I don't think anyone regardless of intelligence would not be able to think of that solution. However, the sad reality is that numerous children still have access to guns despite common sense."

First of all, even though it is terribly too logical, we can restrict children from touching the guns, and that we keep the parents responsible, because it is their children, and to keep their young to be safe, they need to be responsible for it.

" Supposing that was the case, what would happen if a robber came to your house..."

But how was their self-defense cases? Also, when a robber comes in, the person won't just come in shoot, and go and steal stuff. Also, we can just stop that idea, etc. There are too many ways we can stop that from happening, so this argument is refuted.

"Using your logic, certain toys shouldn't be banned for young children simply because it's their parents' responsibility and they should be making sure that their children don't choke or injure themselves."

In my logic, I never said "ban". I said that we need to restrict and make parents have responsiblity to care for the child, I never said "ban".

Conclusion

In this debate, I said that Banning guns will violate the 1. 2nd amendment, 2. self-defense, 3. Americans use guns in daily life, 4. economic impact, 5. waste of time, the black market, 6. gun reduces crime. My opponent said that 7. Gun increases crime, 8. about suicides, 9. bad for defense, and 10. about accidents. I showed the rules of the 2nd amendment, about the number and if there are self-defense cases, about Americans love guns, and americans use guns many times, that guns have an economic impact on jobs, etc., and about the black market. Also, I have showed that Gun reduces crime. My opponent's crime argument was about of UK's crime, but I showed that my crime graph, and my argument outcomes it. My opponent's suicide argument was by reasons that guns encourage suicide, and I rebutted that from saying that it doesn't encourage, only makes easier, and we should allow suicide from liberty. My opponent's bad for defense argument is rebtuted because I have shown that there are many defenses, and the self-defense impact and about the people who use guns overcomes this. My opponent's accidents argument is rebutted because by Util, my self-defense argument saves more people than the ones who died by accidents. So my impacts outweighed my opponent's impacts. So, because I'm winning every point, and he's winning no points, I won and he lost. Vote for CON.

I can't give a proper thank you because I am so low on characters, but thanks for the debate mllemozart, I really enjoyed it, and win or lose, it was fun, and I hope you think the same as I do, as the debate was a fantastic one. You have to waive the last round, and thanks for the debate. Vote for CON, Thanks to the voters who will vote.


Sources

[29] (http://tinyurl.com...)

[30] (http://tinyurl.com...)

missmozart

Pro

Thank you so much Feu for the debate and most importantly, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

As per rules, I will waive this round. Thanks again. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
388 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 8 months ago
DavidMancke
This was not a every good debate, and I don't see the Con counterplan Whiteflame refers too. Unless I missed something there was no counterplan. That seems fine since there was not even a plan.

Anyone up for a gun ban debate that follows actual policy format and includes stock issues. If so hit me up, I'd be interested in either side.
Posted by Perussi 8 months ago
Perussi
BOTH FROM EUROPE???

WHY ARE YOU EVEN DEBATEING ABOUT THE U.S. HAVING GUNS???

'MURICA -censored-!!!
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Missmozart, I can't post comments in your profile.
Posted by ice_blaze 1 year ago
ice_blaze
wait, where is 16k's vote?
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
and thanks to the voters.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
good.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
Aw :) I enjoyed this debate too.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Congrats for Missmozart to win this debate, c'est treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees bon debate.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
ohkay, get it..
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Your framework didn't ever state that utility is paramount. You did at one point say that one life is always the most important thing, but I'm pretty sure you never mentioned it again after R2. All your framework accomplished was being a very generalized outline of some of your arguments.

I did, nonetheless, evaluate the debate based on utility, holding lives as paramount. The problem, and I think you should re-read the RFD because I explained this, is that your self-defense point was undercut at multiple points, mitigated by your own counter plan, and it was never directly linked to lives lost, only to incidence of protecting against crime.

Meanwhile, all of Pro's arguments were linked to life loss. They were also mitigated, but at least I knew exactly how they functioned. I never said any of them were undecided - I said she was winning them, though it was often difficult to weigh them and understand just how important they were. That was why the debate could have gone to you, though I found that she gave me more opportunities to vote for her.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
fire_wingsmissmozartTied
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 whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
fire_wingsmissmozartTied
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: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/93100/
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
fire_wingsmissmozartTied
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: Vote cast in place of warren42. Both debaters have given me permission to vote on his behalf. RFD here: http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/93027#2583346
Vote Placed by Overhead 1 year ago
Overhead
fire_wingsmissmozartTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments