The Instigator
aseldrew
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 83926
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

aseldrew

Pro

Round 1.
A. Injuries to children from firearms is largely a problem of the proliferation of handguns and the acceptance of handgun violence in our culture
Phyllis F. Agran 1987 Public Health Reports "Injuries to Children: The Relationship of Child Development to Prevention Strategies" (1974-) Vol. 102, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1987), pp. 609-610
Injuries to children from firearms is largely a problem of the proliferation of handguns and the acceptance of handgun violence in our culture. The young child is introduced to the handgun as a toy; violence with handguns is a mainstay of television drama. Moreover, there are an estimated 50 million guns in America, including tens of millions kept in households in which there are children. The young child does not understand the danger of the real object or the difference between it and a toy gun. While "playing" with the family gun, one child somehow kills another child. As for the adolescent who has grown up in our "gun culture," the handgun is all too often seen as the quick solution to conflict, and there has been increased incidence of handgun suicide and homi? cide among adolescents, ages 15-24
B. Gun ownership proves to be associated with a culture of gun violence
Edward L. Glaeser and Spencer Glendon 1998 "Who Owns Guns? Criminals, Victims, and the Culture of Violence" The American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1998), pp. 458-462
We have four tests of the view that guns are a symptom of a "culture of private justice." First, we predict that gun ownership is higher for individuals whose peers own guns. This strategic complementarity occurs because in a fight the benefit of having a gun rises if your opponent has a gun and because the likelihood of being punished for using or having a gun declines if everyone is a gun user. Second, gun ownership should decline with police availability and confidence in the legal system. Third, following Nisbett and Cohen (1996), we expect to find a connection between a general tendency toward violent retribution and gun ownership. Fourth, since handguns provide a less visible signal, we expect to see that the three effects just described are stronger for guns generally than for handguns " The next row in the table shows that individuals who answer yes to the question "Would you approve of hitting someone who hit your child?" are more likely to own guns. Gun ownership appears to be associated with a general taste for violent retribution. The next row shows that gun ownership is negatively correlated with confidence in the Supreme Court. Gun ownership is also negatively correlated with the number of police per square mile in the state, holding overall population density constant. In the fourth row from the bottom, we see that gun-owners are less likely to believe that public officials care about them, suggesting that private and public justice appear to be substitutes
C. The Weapons Effect
Craig A. Anderson, Arlin J. Benjamin, Jr., and Bruce D. Bartholow 1998 "Does the Gun Pull the Trigger? Automatic Priming Effects of Weapon Pictures and Weapon Names" Psychological Science July 1998 9: 308-314, doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00061
In 1967, Berkowitz and LePage demonstrated that the presence of weapons (a rifle and a revolver) produced more retaliative aggression against an antagonist than did the presence of badminton rackets. These results, and several failures to replicate them (e.g., Page & Scheidt, 1971), led to considerable debate about the validity of the effect. But now, more than three decades later, it is clear that this "weapons effect" is real. It has been observed with knives as well as guns, with weapon pictures as well as real weapons, in field settings as well as the psychological laboratory. Early concerns that the weapons effect might be an artifact of participants" suspicion or experimenter demand have been met by studies revealing the opposite: The weapons effect occurs only when participants are not suspicious or under heavy experimenter demand (Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1990; Turner, Simons, Berkowitz, & Frodi, 1977). It is clear that the presence of a weapon"or even a picture of a weapon"can make people behave more aggressively. In essence, the gun helps pull the trigger.
For these reasons i urge a vote in the affirmative.
Stupidape

Con

I'm not sure exactly why you have the resolved: in the title.

Hand guns are very useful everyone. People can use them to defend their selves against both humans and animals. Our forefathers wanted the right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment to protect against totalitarian governments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As you can see bears' arms are important to Americans.

http://constitution.findlaw.com...
http://www.mrwallpaper.com...
Debate Round No. 1
aseldrew

Pro

First i will address my opponents argument.
You use the constitution as your sole example for your con stance on this topic, but the amendment you used was written hundreds of years ago by people who couldn't even imagine weapons with modern day efficiency. The constitution can become outdated,which is the whole reason we have the amendment system set up. I have proved the current unrestricted amendment does more harm than good. And if we were to apply my opponents logic to a few other texts in the constitution African Americans would still be three fifths of a person and women couldn't vote. We have to change the law as our society advances. Besides that the resolution simply proposes a ban on handguns not guns altogether. The weapons we would need to "ensure a free state" are not infringed upon by the resolution.
Now for my argument.
My opponent has offered no counter argument, claim, or evidence (besides that bear picture) to negate my contentions, therefore all my arguments still stand.
A. Injuries to children from firearms is largely a problem of the proliferation of handguns and the acceptance of handgun violence in our culture
B. Handgun ownership proves to be associated with a culture of gun violence
C. The Weapons Effect: the presence of handguns causes an increase of aggression.
Stupidape

Con

I'm going to have to ask my opponent to use paragraphs and line spacing. Right now there is no line breaks. Making it more difficult for me to read.



Our forefathers fought in a war. Vietnam or was it Korea. Anyways bear arms helped them win. When Thomas Jefferson crossed the Nile river he knew that the larger threat was dictatorships like the pharaohs of Egypt. Remember the creed "representation without taxation."

Do I really need to show what happens when a polio state occurs? The whisk out weights thou consequences. We need to see the small picture.
Debate Round No. 2
aseldrew

Pro

First I will address my opponents argument
My opponent fails to recognize the resolution in its stance of abolishing HANDGUNS, not arms altogether. He continues to use the second amendment as a mantra despite the fact, which he has failed to disprove, that larger weapons than handguns are needed to "ensure a free state" and that this debate has nothing to do with those larger weapons. We are here to debate handgun ownership not gun ownership altogether.

Now i will address my argument
My opponent still has not addressed any of my contentions specifically or provided any counter evidence. I urge a vote in the Affirmation because my opponent keeps using a broad statement to excuse the massive amount of lives lost to handguns. I have proved that handguns result in the loss of lives due to murder and suicide. I have pointed out specifically handguns are a cause of increased levels of aggression and increased rates of suicide, while my opponent lacks any evidence whatsoever to support his claims. I have specifically focused on handguns, unlike my opponent, as is required by the resolution. Handguns, i have proved, do far more harm than good.
Stupidape

Con

Summary of previous rounds

I'll admit, I didn't take aseldrew seriously because of the lack of paragraphs and line breaks. Aseldrew has shown at the least that he/she is serious in the resolution.

We are pitting a potential huge threat versus a smaller but more consistent threat. The united states government could potentially become a brutal police state that only violence will hinder. The consequences as seen by other police states could be catastrophic.

Versus, the down to earth everyday threat of handguns. Every human life matters. How do we weight the potential of millions to be rounded up and executed by a brutal totalitarian government versus a toddler firing off a hand gun?

stupidape's argument

I've held off making a serious argument until I was sure my opponent was serious. This not a fun topic to debate.

Holocausts

There has been many holocausts in history. Children do not seem to be spared from these oppressors. Have we so easily forgotten the holocausts? Has the recent terror made us not see the big picture? [3][4]

Forefathers

George Washington didn't cross the Delaware river in vain. Our forefathers may not have predicted handguns, yet what about nerve gas, cameras, and satellites. Any argument that the Constitution is old and that our forefather did not know the technology that would advance can be cancelled out by the new technology being in the hands of dictators.

People perform reckless actions all the time

Ever see the way people drive these days? Cellphones and texting? People sit in their cars with the backup lights on in parking lots and don't move. This provides a red herring. Since, pedestrians then ignore cars, despite the back up lights.

People still smoke, drink, and eat unhealthy. Just look up the number of obese Americans. Then, the top ten causes of death. Cancer, heart disease, and diabetes are way up there.

"
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
" [5]

As you can see handguns doesn't make the top ten. People find all kinds of careless ways to hurt each other. Remember all those toys that toddlers were choking on? Speaking of toys, maybe toy manufacturers should stop making toy guns. I'm all for the banning of toy guns.

Then there is the backup deaths caused by SUVS. I contend that more gun safety courses should be taught instead. How to keep guns away from children and so forth.

Finally there are many lethal weapons other hand guns.

Opponent's argument

My opponent in the first round quoted a bunch of resources. Yet, without the link to the source, I cannot see the sources in their original context. Unless, my opponent can link to the sources, he or she has gained an unfair advantage.

"The young child is introduced to the handgun as a toy; violence with handguns is a mainstay of television drama." aseldrew

This is a cultural problem. I present the counter proposal to show death as more real. When an evil person is killed on T.V. rarely is there a funeral for that person. An aunt, uncle, mother, father, sister, brother, friend, neighbor, and religious community member at the funeral. Instead, blam blam blam onto the next action scene.

"The young child does not understand the danger of the real object or the difference between it and a toy gun. While "playing" with the family gun, one child somehow kills another child." aseldrew

Again, a cultural problem.

"B. Handgun ownership proves to be associated with a culture of gun violence" aseldrew

Need proof for this. There is a world of difference between an association and a correlation. An association eliminates reverse causality and confounding factors.

"He continues to use the second amendment as a mantra despite the fact, which he has failed to disprove, that larger weapons than handguns are needed to "ensure a free state" and that this debate has nothing to do with those larger weapons. We are here to debate handgun ownership not gun ownership altogether." aseldrew

This is simple, both large and small weapons are needed. Large weapons for targets that are far away, and small for close quarters. Does it make sense to fire a rocket launcher at point blank? No!

Summary

Most of my opponent's argument is based upon children and adolescents with handguns. Why a child would need a handgun I don't know. This seems to be more of a cultural problem. Media showing violence on T.V. without consequences, especially when a villain dies.

My opponent has failed to take the threat of an absolutist government seriously. Children and teens die to all sorts of reckless actions both on their part and from members in the community. There are many other weapons like bare hands, fists, and motor vehicles that can kill. Thanks for the debate.

Links

3. http://rehmat1.com...
4. http://www.nytimes.com...
5. http://www.cdc.gov...



Debate Round No. 3
aseldrew

Pro

aseldrew forfeited this round.
Stupidape

Con

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by raskuseal 11 months ago
raskuseal
If people weren't so d*mn stupid with firearms and knew how to handle them, like if they went to a hunter safety training course, then so many dumb Dumbf*cks wouldn't hurt them selves. OR if they actually kept them out of children's reach, then stupid children wouldn't be able to hurt them selves with guns.
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 11 months ago
MakeSensePeopleDont
my god....and you seriously jumped in on the debate just to troll it? And with a cheesy plural form " s' " play-on-words AND you even completely failed at that! Furthermore, you make it a point to conclude your round arguments and rebuttals by stating that a bears arms are important to Americans, referring to the animal. Yet you seriously couldn't be bothered to locate a photo of a bear which includes a visual representation / identifier of America or Americans? Why?
Posted by Jumpingspider 11 months ago
Jumpingspider
Stupidape - what? This is not a fair fight. Even if Stupidape is armed with lots and lots of guns and plenty of ammunition... I'm thinking we may not hear from Stupid again on this one... Stupid is as Stupid does.
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 11 months ago
MakeSensePeopleDont
@Stupidape -- NOOOOOOOOO!!! WHHHHHYYYYYYY???? I had this one in the bag with one statement and one source.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
aseldrewStupidapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.