Resolved: Guns should be Banned from civilians
No new arguments in the final round
Failure to follow the rules above will result in a full forfeit in all points to the opposing side
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.
Should - used to indicate correctness
Banned - legally prohibited
Civilians - a person not in the armed services or the police force.
72 hour rounds. 10k characters.
Accepted. The Burden Of Proof is shared.
C1: Gun culture
The reason why I believe gun bans would not be that effective is because there is already a prevelant gun culture currently existing in America. We Americans love guns. Guns are part of our culture. Banning guns nationwide would severely effect those who depend on guns for their daily activities. For example, the state of New York. There are appoximately 15.1 hunters per square mile. So, banning guns would have a major impact on their way of life. (2)
C2: Little effect in certain states
Let me take the state of Vermont for example. It's a state that has much less restrictions on guns , and its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 . So, here is evidence that banning guns would not make a huge difference. Vermont is basically a state with 0 gun control, and it's homicide rate its one of the safest in the country. What exactly would be the point of gun bans? People in Vermont depend on guns for hunting etc.., and it is very clear that most of their gun owners are responsible law abidding citizens. So, essentially, a gun ban would prevent these people from using guns' for their daily activities, even though their homicide rate is one of the lowest in the country.
C3: Guns are used for self-defense
Guns are used by Americans for self-defense annually. Studies found that approximately 200,000 to 2million defensive gun uses occur each year  . , which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. Let me compare this to the annual homicide rate.(4) You can see in 2013, the # of murders that occured were about 14,827. So the amount of times guns have been used for defensive purposes is nearly 100 times more than the total homicides that occured. Keep in mind, that not all of those murder's were commited by guns. Only 60%, or 8.855 murders. Well, you might think, "well gun bans would atleast prevent 8,885 murders." I'll show in my next contention why that is not the case.
C4: Illegal guns/ Pro's of CCW
So the United States has a big issue dealing with Illegal guns. There are approximately, 250 to 280 million guns in circulation in the U.S. In other words, 93% of gun crime is actually commited by illegal guns. (5) This number is so insanely high, it almost wouldn't make any significant difference, if all law abiding citizens were forced to give their guns away.
Now I will explain how CCW actually has benefited more. Ever since CCW states have enacted CCW's to their citizens, states have witnessed an 8.5% drop in murders, 5% in rapes, 7% in aggrevated assaults and 3% in robberies. So, in some states, CCW does serve as a detterent to crime. (7)
R1: Gun Culture
Gun culture is irrelevant. Do you think that culture compares to the deaths caused by guns? Clearly not and I will elaborate on this point further in my contentions.
R2: Little Effect In Certain States
We aren't talking about certain states. Even my opponent admits that a gun ban wont have much of an effect in certain states this means that it still will have an effect, just not on a large enough scale. We aren't just talking about Vermont. One example out of 50 states is not a valid reason to introduce a gun prohibition. It is evident that there are multiple factors involved. This is evident since there are other areas with exactly the same conditions (in terms of no gun control). You have to also look at the job and housing quality. Education is also a key factor since depending on the quality of education people may have weaker moral standards that do not coincide with our universal morality.
R3: Guns are used for self-defense
This is the main argument I expected from my opponent.
Guns don’t kill people, children do. Cassie Culpepper, age 11, was riding in the back of a pickup when her 12-year-old brother pointed his father’s pistol at her. He believed he had removed the bullets, and so jokingly pulled the trigger. He was wrong.
Since January 1st, there have been 11 reported gun fatalities involving preschool children as the shooter. Ten more toddlers have accidentally shot themselves or somebody else this year. And this statistic represents only data for which a toddler is the shooter in a death (71 children have been killed by guns since Newtown).
The BBC originally reported on this phenomenon in 2009 when, in the span of 24 hours, two children were shot by their toddler siblings. In both cases, the deaths were a result of improperly secured weapons. A New York Times’ piece added to the controversy showing that, due to idiosyncrasies over what constitutes a ‘homicide’ or an ‘accident’, child firearm accidental killings happen roughly twice as much as they are reported in national databases.
These deaths, quite obviously, could have been avoided had any adult, at any point in time, exercised even a modicum of discretion concerning the availability of their firearm. Our outrage towards these deaths should be proportional to how senseless they are, how utterly avoidable they were. We put child-locks on our medicine cabinets, secure our pools with gates, put on helmets during bike rides, and we give our 12-year-old boys a rifle to play with in the backseat of a truck. Wouldn’t want him to get bored. After all, the only way to stop a bad child with a gun is a good child with a gun.
Would you kill children just so people could defend themselves? These are only the examples involving children. I will mention the examples involving everybody in general as part of one of my contentions.
R4: Illegal guns/ Pro's of CCW
Whilst these guns my be illegal it would be extemely difficult to gain possession of these guns if they weren't sold legally. Nearly 200,000 guns were reported lost or stolen last year, according to federal data. The following table shows the number of guns reported stolen and the number of guns reported missing in National Crime Information Center. Statistics include firearms reported stolen by private individuals and Federal Firearms Licensees.
Here is a link to the table: (http://www.governing.com...)
It contain the precise statistics of guns stolen in each of the states.
I do not doubt the credibility of my opponent's statistics although my statistics prove that with a gun ban guns will be much harder for people to posses - both legally and illegally.
C1 - Accidents
This contention links in with my previous rebuttal regarding self defense although in this case it is more general and applies to not only children. Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.
But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. That's according to a Center for American Progress report, which cites CDC data that shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. More than a quarter of the teenagers—15+ - who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Knowing that my opponent is from America, I am almost certain that they have heard of at least one of the mass school shootings in recent years. There have been over 150 school shootings in the last 50 years in the USA alone! That is not an exaggeration and I will provide multiple sources for this statistic just to remove any doubt from voters and my opponent. Now, lets compare that to the UK. The Uk has had 1 school massacre in the last 50 years and this was considered to be one of the deadliest firearms incidents in UK history. I didn't need to do much reasearch to realise that this school shooting was a lot less severe than the ones in the USA in terms of deaths. In this horrific event 1 teacher and 16 children were shot (not all of them were killed). Now let us compare this to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. This resulted in 20 children killed fatally shot and killed. 6 adult member of staff were also shot and killed. Adam Lanza (the shooter) then added to the death tally by commiting suicide on the scene of shooting. As well as this there were 2 non fatal injuries too. Although this may not be entirely relevant to this particular contention, the mass murderer also shot and killed his mother before the shooting. This is another reason as to why guns should be banned. Even with tighter regulation this will not completely elimate the possibility of this happening. I doubt that my opponent is pro school shootings. Since he is 15 and goes to school himself I would have thought that even one school shooting would have pursuaded him to be pro a gun ban. One school shooting is not worth having a gun for self defense. If you had the choice to keep guns for self defense or save those kids (and adults) who were killed in the Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting what would you choose? By being Con a gun ban this essentially means that you would choose the guns over the children.
C4 - Effect on homicide rates
There are a few things I would like to mention.
My opponent seems to be arguing that a gun ban would safe lives. That is fine, but the resolution doesn't specify for what purpose the gun ban is for. So, I can argue for other reasons other than just saving lives.
Also, my opponent has given his rebutall in the 2nd round itself. By DDO customs people would argue first, and it the next round would for rebutalls. I never specified such rule in my resolution, so that is fine on my opponents behalf, but Pro's rebutalls are complete, so he cannot provide extra rebutalls in the coming rounds. Only counter-rebutalls and conclusions will be allowed. This is keep the debate fair. So, for the next round, Con will have no choice to pass it, because he already provided the rebutalls. Note, this isn't a forfeit pass, so voters cannot take of points for this.
Pro's arguments for accidents are that that gun accidents are to surpass car accidents by 2015, but doesn't give me any clear message on why a gun ban should be implemented. For Pro to win this debate, he needs to show that by banning (legally prohibitiing) civilians from owning guns, it would be a net positive, rather than a net-negative. This correlation to accidents isn't very clear, because there are many other factors involved.For example, in the sources Pro has provided, it doesn't specify whether the guns that were used in those accidents, but rather just a total tally of those who were killed with guns.
The problem with such a comparision, is that cars and guns are not designed to do the same thing. For example, if a somebody is killed by a car, it is classified as an accident. With a gun, that isn't nessarily the case. You could use gun's for self-defense, to actually kill somebody, or misuse the gun, and cause a fatal injury by accident. So, Con's argument is a bit misleading, because that 32,251 number isn't just all accidents, but just the number of people killed by a firearm. This ties into my arguments I made on defensive gun uses, and my stat of 93% of gun crime is comitted by illegal guns in the black market. Pro's proposed gun ban, would theorectically only impact the 7% that is used to by legally owned fire-arms. Pro could argue for some sort of "war on guns" but that isn't what the debate is about. The purpose of a ban is only to prevent civilians from buying guns. All the "war on guns" is just extra.
So, to the summarize, Pro's argument that gun bans would reduce gun accidents is misleading, because he only provides stats for the total deaths committed by fire-arms, rather than accidents.
C2: School Shootings
Just from reading my opponent's arguments, I can tell this is filled with a load of emotion to appeal fallicies. First of all, Pro is saying that by me being 15, and going to school, I would be inclined to be pro gun ban. He then says, by being Con gun ban, you are putting gun's over the lives of children. Ok, so I'm not really offended by what Pro has said here, but this would really be offensive to some gun owners, and I would implore my opponent to never make such a comparision again, as it really is a baseless argument, without any substance. Being a gun right's supporter doesn't not automatically mean you do not care about the lives of children.I do understand the type of people Pro is aiming his message at, but those people are a very small minority, and most gun-owners do care about their family.
Now, going into the crux of the argument. Pro is saying that compared to the U.K, the U.S does experience a lot more school shooting. I'm not going to dispute this claim, but there are problems when you compare 2 countries with different cultures, and different demographics. It actually is hypocritical Pro is saying this, because earlier, he talks about different factors involved for his R2 rebutall. The same would apply for the U.K and the U.S. To begin with, the size of the U.K and U.S. are vastly different. The U.S is much larger, and the # of firearms in the U.S is just over 100 times the amount of guns avaliable in the U.K(1) For any country, it would be alot easier to regulate and manage 2 million guns, compared to 300 million guns. To compare the U.K guns laws to the U.S, and say it would work here, is not a viable argument.
To prevent school shootings, Pro is proposing we should ban guns, since stricter regulation would also not prevent school shooting completly. That is true, but the same could be said for banning guns. It isn't impossible for a person to obtain a gun illegally, as I have said before that 93% of gun crime is committed by illegal guns. Well, you may ask, well if both would not completely prevent a school shooting, which one should be choose? Gun control is a much better solution, because I have shown that owning guns has resulted in nearly 200,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. Banning guns would remove those defensive gun uses.
Look, I'm 15, and it is sad to think about the innocent children who are shot at the age of 5. I want to end senseless gun violence, but banning guns is to stop gun violence isn't a viable option. universal background checks, and armed guards at schools will help with this a whole lot better. Improving our mental health system is also another huge one.
C3: Effect on homicide rates
For Pro's final argument, he talks about how guns are the deadliest weapon, when the wound was the intended location to cause death. So, Pro doesn't actually say what this actually means for his actual argument, but I'm going to assume that by banning guns, you would make it harder to kill people with. Again, this is easily refuted, when I bring my 93% factor into play. Even if the gun's are banned, what about the guns that already are on the black market, and are avaliable for purchase?
I'm having a bit trouble refuting the the notion that increased gun ownership correlates to an increase in homicide rates, because my earlier source showed the exact opposite. In fact, Pro didn't provide the source for more guns more crime.
So this comes to my original argument. Overall, would a gun ban prove to be a net positive? I have shown that there are several flaws in Pro's arguments, and that the defensive gun uses outweigh those murders that could have been prevented by a gun ban. I also show that a ban wouldn't stop the 93% of guns crime because those are committed by illegal guns.
So, since Pro made his rebutalls in the 2nd round, he needs to pass the 3rd.
By DDO customs people would argue first, and it the next round would for rebutalls. I never specified such rule in my resolution, so that is fine on my opponents behalf, but Pro's rebutalls are complete, so he cannot provide extra rebutalls in the coming rounds. Only counter-rebutalls and conclusions will be allowed. This is keep the debate fair. So, for the next round, Con will have no choice to pass it, because he already provided the rebutalls. Note, this isn't a forfeit pass, so voters cannot take of points for this.
My counter rebutalls.
What do you mean it's irrelvant? Why should guns be banned with a whole lot of American use guns for their daily lives? Pro forgets that he never specified for what reason gun's should be banned for. Pro can't simply dismiss my arguments, because it doesn't have ansything to do with saving lives.
Little Effect in Certain States
So, Pro says that I admit a gun ban would't have a strong effect on Vermont, but he doesn't adress the Pro's of owning guns. I said Vermont uses their gun's for purposes such has hunting, so when we decide, what is more important? Preventing 3 murders committed by guns, or the nessisities of guns used by the citizens. This also doesn't take into factor that the defensive gun use may play a factor into the crime rate. Like I said before, the Gun culture and gun uses depend on this the states. Why should a state with such a low crime rate, have it's guns taken away, when they use them for legitimate purposes?
Guns are used for self-defense
Pro barely refutes my points on defensive gun uses. He concedes the notion that guns are used for 200k to 2 million times per year for defensive purposes, and that is clearly much higher than the homicide rate. (Note, I'm only mentioning homicide, because that is what Pro is arguing for) Pro's main arguments are about how the statement "Gun's don't kill people, children do" I must say, I never heard of such statement. I have always heard of "Gun's don't kill people, people do". So, let's cover Pro's first example. A 12 year old brother kills his 11 sister. It clearly says that the brother shot his sister, so it's in conflict of what Pro is trying to say.
Pro continues to list examples, but the logic still pertains. It's very clear the person A shot person B, not the gun magically was possesed and killed Person B. Regardless, this rebutall is largely irrelevant to my argument, because it doesn't adresss the defensive gun uses. Pro then commits another Appeal to Emotion Fallacy by saying "Would you kill children just so people could defend themselves"? This logic makes 0 sense to me, as I don't get at all why I would murder children to protect the right to bear arms.
Pro does slightly concede the notion that the 93% of guns used in violent crime is illegal, but says that banning guns would make it harder to obtain. Yes, in theory that makes a lot of sense, but keep in mind, that there are millions of guns circulating in the market right now, and banning gun's wouldn't nessarily reduce the crime. Note the Con's of this would be that by banning guns, this would leave law abidding citizens defenseless. So, while the ban of guns would eventually lower the crime, it wouldn't happen right away, and the crime rate will rise, from the lack of defensive gun uses.
Both guns and cars were not designed to kill innocent people yet both of these do kill innocents - not always on purpose. Both can be used irresponsibly to kill innocents and both can accidentally kill innocents. There isn't much of a difference between the two of these things. Actually, the source specifically speaks of accidents with guns - not all of those who are killed with guns. My opponent has stated that there are many other factors involved however they have failed to list any examples of these factors. This is problematic for my opponent since without examples for me to refute this part of their rebuttal has no impact on the resolution.
My opponent comes to the conclusion that if you get hit by a car it is classified as an accident. This is also false. It is not impossible for somebody to seek revenge on another by running them over with a car. All I need to do is source one example of a purposeful car accident and my opponent's point is contradicted. My opponent agrees with me that with guns it isn't necessarily the case but the same is for cars as I have just demonstrated.
I thought that I addressed the gun statistic regarding 93% of guns being committed by illegal guns. As stated in my previous round regarding robbery, these guns would be a lot more difficult to obtain if guns weren't sold legally. All somebody has to do is steal a gun for it to be classified as illegal (according to my opponent's source). In the UK it is close to impossible for a UK citizen to get their hands on a gun. Why is it difficult in America? The reason that it is difficult is because they sell guns legally. If guns are sold legally then all somebody has to do is break in and steal a bunch of guns. Therefore the statistic would not only help to remove that 7% (which is actually a lot if you put it into figures), it would also reduce robbery of guns; the usage of illegal guns and the illegal reselling of guns.
In addition to this, my opponent seems to have misread my source (or read the wrong source) because it clearly shows that these deaths are solely related to accidents.
C2: School Shootings
My opponent's argument is bewildering. It appears that he is providing me with statistics to help with my argument. They say that it is obvious that the US is going to experience more school shooting because of the number of firearms. This is what we are disputing. Without such a large number of firearms in comparison to UK, the US would experience less school shooting. I thank my opponent for the statistics which saves me the trouble of finding them. My opponent concedes that the US has over 100 times the amount of guns. If my opponent thinks that this is supporting their claim then they are mistaken. This shows that the US has too many guns and a guns ban would help to prevent school shooting and will reduce the number of firearms available.
My opponent seems to have gone back to using his (already refuted) statistic. They have stated that imposing a gun ban will only stop 7% of criminals that use guns. But my opponent's source clearly states that the percentage of illegal guns includes stolen guns. With a gun ban there would be fewer guns to steal and these guns would be concealed by the government for policemen and the military. There is far less crime in the UK. Here is a quote regarding self defense:
"The day after 21-year-old Dylann Roof allegedly shot and killed nine members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, Fox & Friends claimed congregants could have defended themselves if someone had a gun.
But a timely study from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) concluded that guns are rarely used for defensive purposes. According to the most recent data that"s available, there were 8,342 criminal firearm homicides by private citizens (non-law enforcement members) in 2012 " as opposed to 259 justifiable homicides. In other words, there were 32 criminal homicides for every killing of a felon who was in the process of committing a crime. And 13 states reported zero justifiable homicides that year.
As noted by VPC, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) observed a similar trend in previous years. Between 2007 and 2011, 29,618,300 people experienced a violent crime, but only 235,700 " 0.8 percent " of victims used or threatened to use a gun in self-defense. Findings from both the VPC and NCVS supplement studies verifying that more guns lead to more crimes.
Still, gun advocates keep arguing that guns are great for self-defense."
C3: Effect on homicide rates
My opponent has tried to bring his 93% factor into play (again) which has been refuted twice now. My opponent concludes by stating that he has shown that 93% of gun crimes are by those of illegal guns, which is true, however if you analyze his source you will find out that illegal guns also refers to guns that have been stolen. I have demonstrated that guns cannot be stolen as easily. I have also demonstrated that banning guns will have many positive effects including:
- Less crime
-Less illegal reselling of guns
-Less illegal transportation of guns to other states / countries
To summarize, I believe that I have won this debate since my opponent has failed to provide any rebuttals that have any impact on the resolution of the debate. My opponent has continuously used the 93% statistic to attempt to refute my points however this statistic has been refuted and therefore this is not a valid rebuttal.
I have refuted all of my opponent points with different statistics for each individual point depending on what the subject of the point is. This is so that the statistic is more individual and is related more to the point of the rebuttals and contention. This is also so that I do not make the mistake that my opponent has made. If one of my statistics is found to be untrustworthy or false, then I can rely on my other statistics to back up my point(s). Due to the fact that my opponent has heavily relied on one source that has been refuted, they have failed to meet the burden of proof and I have met mine because of their insufficient rebuttals.
I thank both my opponent and voters for reading this debate and I urge voters to vote Pro!
Guns in America: A Reader, page 219 -- accidents statistics
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|