The Instigator
retroz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 749 times Debate No: 84611
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

retroz

Pro

This is an LD Style debate, if you do not know LD do not accept

Impossible to accept, if you do... Forfeit all rounds to me. To accept please post in comments section

I'd prefer a traditional debate (no K's, no theory)

First, let me clear that I do not believe the Pro side of this

People who vote on this debate ignore Round 5 CON

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Pro Constructive/Con Constructive and Rebuttals
Round 3: Pro rebuttals + extensions (no new arguments, but new evidence can be brought up)/Con Rebuttals + extensions
Round 4: Pro rebuttals/Con final Rebuttals + Voters
Round 5: Pro voters/ CON DOES NOTHING THIS ROUND (Kind of like IRL)
For Round 5 CON: please post nothing of importance (post a joke or some random letters,)


8000 character per argument (IRL LD constructive arguments are 6 minutes PRO, 7 minutes Con) Since 8000 characters is 6 minutes 40 seconds if spoken at 5 words per second that will be the limit.

48 hours time to argue (I'm hoping we can move this debate along... I will be debating this on the 16th and I'd like to get a couple of attempts debating this in different ways)
Cooldudebro

Con

I accept this debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
retroz

Pro

Definitions: Private ownership: tangible and intangible objects owned by individuals which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner's consent.

Handgun: “A handgun refers to a firearm designed to be operated with one or both hands, but otherwise unsupported.”

Ought: A moral acceptability, this places the burden of showing that banning handguns is not morally acceptable, but the main BoP continues to reside on me

For today’s debate I value Deontology

Deontology is the theory formulated by Immanuel Kant. In this theory, he claimed that actions are morally wrong if they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free rational being, and only those acts that further people as free and rational beings are morally right. Therefore, the goal of justice is that we all have an absolute duty to avoid acts that treat people as a means to some other end and to perform acts that affirm people as ends themselves

We should weigh today’s debate based on the Categorical Imperative

The Categorical Imperative is the mechanism Immanuel Kant used to establish moral rules, he argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. The CI is made up of 2 components… First, act so that you can at the same time will your maxim should become a universal law, and second, act so that you treat humanity, both yourself and others, never merely as a means, but always as an ends.Simply, we must weigh the round on whether or not each side can achieve the absolute standard of treating people as people, not as a step to a further objective. By using the categorical imperative, we can make the correct judgment of the debate.

1: Current Gun laws are not consistent with the CI

A: The United States Embodies Militarism

The United States is one of the greatest military powers in the world. The social consequences of this are disastrous. As a society, we have become engulfed in militarism, defined by David Kinsella as disposition to “employ military over non-military means of conflict resolution." Because gun ownership represents a disposition to employ violence, it perpetuates this militaristic mindset. Carl Boggs elaborates, writing that "Due to decades of conflict, foreign and domestic, the United States has become the hub of global violence, gang warfare, domestic violence, spontaneous outbursts of youth violence like the one at Columbine High School, and a mass media saturated with images of violence and bloodshed. Linkage between military and civilian forms of violence has come to play in politics, the economy, culture, media, and everyday life since the brutally violent culture has been ingrained into the people of the United States. People are taught to behave like those who are most respected in society, and the military is at the top of that pecking order in America. Politicians put the military on a pedestal while the media downplays their atrocities. Due to this, American citizens will think that the way to resolve a conflict is by force, or that knee-jerk military action. If governmental elites appear as regular purveyors of death and destruction, an ethos of violence can be expected to develop as ordinary people follow the lessons taught by the power structure. As a result, a quarter-century of war has polluted American politics, culture and media with the glorification of military violence, and the normalization of everyday violence waged against black youth, immigrants, and others considered disposable, which ultimately promotes individual and small-group violence.” Essentially, we have become so normalized into a culture that values violence as a solution that we view attack as the first means of conflict resolution. This has resulted in high rates of homicide, domestic violence, and aggression throughout society. Handgun ownership only contributes to this militaristic and immoral in reference to the CI society in the United States.

B: Handgun Ownership Exacerbates Militarism

Handguns are commonly associated with defense, and as a result contribute to violence in society. "God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal. describes how handguns have fooled society, Samuel Colt, inventor of the handgun for years was unable to discover any demand for his perfect weapon for militaristic countries so, Colt created the demand. He engraved guns with heroic scenes, such as a man protecting his wife and children against a pack of savages, armed only with a Colt revolver. This disposition is still associated with handguns today. As a matter of fact, protection, according to PEW research center, is now the reason that handgun ownership is so common, and as a result, society has become more militarized.

School shootings are an example of a society engulfed in fear, militarism, a survival-of-the-fittest mindset, and a growing disdain for human life. Which is in direct contradiction to the CI. As the public collapses into these values of a war hungry culture and the lure of private defense, American society walks the line with forms of irrationality that are in complete contradiction to the CI, handgun ownership only sustains this militaristic mindset.

According to Dr. Phyllis F. Agran, "The handgun is all too often seen as the quick solution to conflict, and there has been increased incidence of handgun suicide and homicide among adolescents, ages 15-24." The violent connotation of handguns was also supported by psychologist Craig A. Anderson, who found that the mere presence of a firearm dramatically increases aggressive behavior. Guns in particular, due to their association with violent behavior, reinforced through common experiences in movies, television, and front-page stories, are linked closely with aggression-related concepts. This militarism in itself does not respect human beings, and as shown by the evidence, handgun ownership only supports this non-CI supported mindset. It views lives primarily as a means to security, not as ends themselves. Therefore, it is universally accepted to oppose this militaristic mindset.

Contention 2: Handgun Bans are Consistent with the CI


Militarism has invaded our concepts of security and defense. To address this issue, we need to begin combating this idea, which begins with instituting a ban on handguns. Levi Asher writes on the subject stating that “The world remains war-torn, and many Americans believe the country is surrounded by military threats. This has led to "muscling up" against all possible threats, a practice that has gotten badly out of hand. Our nation muscles up with big weapons, and the people muscle up with guns. The psychological tie between hysterical militarism and hysterical gun violence, and American paranoia caused by a perception of constant global warfare is a subconscious cause of our obsession with guns.” Militarism is reflected through gun violence... Look to the example of Dylann Roof or Harper Mercer, who went on an armed rampage, all because they had an idea they felt they should take up arms for a greater purpose. The lesson to be learned from this is that action needs to be taken to combat the militarism in society as it leads to gun violence… This is done by banning handguns in the United States. This is consistent with the CI because by banning handguns we are treating humans as an ends, by protecting them from the gun violence that is accompanied by militarism.

Thus, because our current gun laws are not consistent with the CI, first because of militarism in the United States, and second because the fact that handgun ownership exacerbates militarism as well as my second contention which is the fact Handgun bans are consistent with the CI. We ought to affirm because the only morally acceptable decision ought to be based on CI. And affirmation is the only argument that can be made under the CI

Cooldudebro

Con

First, I will use my opponents' definitions.

Definitions: Private ownership: tangible and intangible objects owned by individuals which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner's consent.

Handgun: “A handgun refers to a firearm designed to be operated with one or both hands, but otherwise unsupported.â€"

For today's debate, I will value protecting lives and safety

A1:

I'd like to assert that banning firearms would hurt the people of the United States of America.

Let's go and start with our first point


P1:

Countries with the strictest gun control laws tend to have the highest homicide rate.

This may not make sense to the average person at first, but let's look at some statistics.





As you can clearly see in the graph above, some of the countries with the strictest gun control laws have the highest homicide rates. Why, you may ask. Why does countries with some of the strictest laws in place for gun control have such alarming homicide rates? I believe I have the answer to this question. Guns can be illegally bought and sold. It can smuggled inside America. Some sites on the so called "deep and dark web" have sites where shoppers can buy handguns and assault rifles.

Countries with the strictest gun control laws tend to have the highest homicide rate. (1) Even in countries with barely any homicides due to guns, violent crime rate is more than two times higher than America. (2) This sustains the idea that banning guns are not good for protecting lives and safety.

Britain is often known as our sister nation. Let's take a look at what happened when they decided to imposed gun control and the banning of guns. This brings me to my next point:

P2:
As observed in Britain:

When Britain imposed its gun control laws, crimes involving guns skyrocketed!




By 2008, Britain had a crime rate nearly five times higher than the USA population in 2008. (3)

Crimes that soared in 2001 following the ban:
Rape was up by 14%
Murders were up by 4%
Street Robberies were up by 28%
Violent Crime was up by 11%
(4)

This would only add a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies by the time this alarming rise of crime rate was slowed down in 2004.

In fact, a survey conducted after the ban took place in 2007 noted that 66% of 2,156 residents didn't feel safe due to the alarming raise in the crime rate in gun related crimes. (5)

In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (6) To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. (7)

An ongoing parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation – double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago – and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. (8)


Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries. (9)

Handguns were used in 3,685 British offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. It is interesting to note:

  • Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
  • Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the aver
(10)

This has failed miserably in Britain and many other countries. If crime rates and homicides are supposed to go down because of gun control, then why do countries that enforce gun control have the highest homicide rates? Before I answer that in A2, let's look at some fun facts; AKA,mini points!!!

Mini Point 1:
Just wanted to say that America isn't in the top 100 countries for homicide. The top ten countries have either strict gun control or a ban on guns! (11)


Mini Point 2:
50% of the guns in the Philippines are illegally made. (12) Chinese police destroyed 113 illegal gun factories and shops in a three-month crackdown in 2006. Police seized 2,445 tons of explosives, 4.81 million detonators and 117,000 guns. (13) Doesn't that support my earlier point on how criminals can get guns illegally while you keep them out of the hands of good people?

P3: Gun Control in the USA

This argument will be from this article (14)

"

When one examines the 48 metropolitan areas with one million or more residents and for which a full set of FBI crime statistics are available, homicide rates range from 1.4 per 100,000 residents in the Portland, Oregon area, to 19 per 100,000 in the New Orleans area. Burglary rates range from 248 per 100,000 in the New York City area (often considered to be a relatively high-crime area) to 1196 per 100,000 in the Memphis, Tennessee area (often considered to be a relatively low-crime area). So much for preconceived notions!

So is there any correlation between gun control and either violent or property crime in these 48 metropolitan areas?

The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis. Quite the opposite.

Similarly, the overall burglary rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 442 per 100,000 residents, compared with 690 among cities in no-permit states. As before, the rate is somewhat higher in no-permit areas, although given the limitations of this analysis we caution against drawing any conclusions beyond the simple fact that no-permit areas clearly do not have lower crime rates, overall, than areas where permits are required."

Where there are no permits for guns given in the USA, the homicide rate is higher.



A2:
I'd like to assert that people can use guns for self defense and deterrence against criminals.
Out of space just read on site (15)

Safety and protection of life is filled by con.


1. Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001
2. Scotland tops list of world’s most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005
3.The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S., Daily Mail, July 3, 2009, citing a joint report of the European Commission and United Nations
4. British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002
5. YouGov survey of 2,156 residents in Sept 2007
6. Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000
7. Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police, Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996
8. Reported in The Guardian, September 3, 2000
9. 42 killed by handguns last year, The Times, January 10, 2001, reporting on statistics supplied by the British Home Office
10. Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies at King’s College in London, July 2001
11: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2010
12: Filipino gunsmiths are making a killing, Taipei Times, May 7, 2005
13: China Radio International Online, September 7, 2006
14: Bailey, D. (n.d.). Does Gun Control Encourage Crime? The Science of Crime Statistics. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
15: Guns and Self Defense. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2016, from http://www.cato.org...
Debate Round No. 2
retroz

Pro

As you read these arguments remember, the LD style debate is not a debate where facts prevail over philosophy, but where philosophy trumps facts.

Feel free to ask me in comments for sources if you would like them

Now my opponent accepts my definitions, but he does not provide a criterion… Thus, he must use my criterion of the Categorical Imperative.

Rebuttals:

“I'd like to assert that people can use guns for self-defense and deterrence against criminals.”

Answer- As I stated earlier

“Handguns are commonly associated with defense, and as a result contribute to violence in society. "God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.” describes how handguns have fooled society, Samuel Colt, inventor of the handgun for years was unable to discover any demand for his perfect weapon for militaristic countries so, Colt created the demand. He engraved guns with heroic scenes, such as a man protecting his wife and children against a pack of savages, armed only with a Colt revolver. This disposition is still associated with handguns today. As a matter of fact, protection, according to PEW research center, is now the reason that handgun ownership is so common, and as a result, society has become more militarized”

The examples of England, the Philippines, are irrelevant as this debate is in the framework of the United States. The countries of England and the Philippines have not established a militaristic society, like the United States has. Thus, the examples of other countries will not be reflected in the United States, and are deemed irrelevant.

“Just wanted to say that America isn't in the top 100 countries for homicide. The top ten countries have either strict gun control or a ban on guns”

Answer- Maybe not for homicide in general, but for homicide by gun, The United States ranks 5th in the world. Below Venezuela and above South Africa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

My opponent values safety and protecting lives, but Suicide Rates are shown to be higher in high gun states

States with heavier gun prevalence have much higher rates of suicide
("Firearm Access Is a Risk Factor for Suicide."Means Matter. Harvard University School of Public Health, 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 14 July 2015.)

Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states. For example, one study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership (from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) while controlling for state-level measures of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and other factors associated with suicide. The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NJ, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, ID, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT). Overall suicides were almost twice as high in the high-gun states, even though non-firearm suicides were about equal.

Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002)

High-Gun States/Low-Gun States

Population; 39 million/40 million

Household Gun Ownership; 47%/15%

Firearm Suicide;9,749/2,606

Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060/5,446

Total Suicide: 14,809/8,052




So, I ask how can suicide be protecting lives? In simplicity, suicide is not protecting lives as it's definition is the act of killing oneself deliberately(Oxford Dictionary) Thus, it is the act of killing which is defined as an act of causing death (Oxford Dictionary). Life is defined as the existence of an individual human being, and if an individual human being is killing himself then he is not protecting life. Thus, because gun presence and suicide is correlated then the Con is not fulfilling his own value.

"When one examines the 48 metropolitan areas with one million or more residents and for which a full set of FBI crime statistics are available, homicide rates range from 1.4 per 100,000 residents in the Portland, Oregon area, to 19 per 100,000 in the New Orleans area. Burglary rates range from 248 per 100,000 in the New York City area (often considered to be a relatively high-crime area) to 1196 per 100,000 in the Memphis, Tennessee area (often considered to be a relatively low-crime area). So much for preconceived notions"

What is the point of this statement? It is not warranted... But what is worse is that the same source later says "The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis." So, my opponent didn't warrant his statement and what is worse he took his quote out of context and it helped me out

But my opponent's quote led me to an interesting (the same) source which helps my case... "In 2014, 328 persons were murdered in New York City. Yet this figure is down a breathtaking 85 percent since 1990, when 2245 homicides were recorded" This shows that the SAFe Act and other gun legislation passed in New York have been effective in stopping crime. The site continues to say "The latest homicide figures for these cities (NY, LA, Chicag0) are the lowest since solid data began to be collected in the 1960s." So, what can be seen is that gun legislation has been effective in stopping crime in NY, LA, and Chicago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


As you read his cases remember that:

My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of showing how it is not
MORALLLY acceptable to ban guns.

My opponent is using my criterion (due to a lack of one) of the Categorical Imperative, but he has not shown how he has fulfilled the CI. Whereas, I have fuffiled not only the CI, but my burden of proof.
Cooldudebro

Con

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Con

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
retroz

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited... Thus, I win on Conduct...

If anyone else wants to argue this topic, I am open
Cooldudebro

Con

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Tate.V 10 months ago
Tate.V
The Pro case sounds awfully familiar.........
Posted by Cooldudebro 10 months ago
Cooldudebro
Gomen! I've been real busy. Wanna debate this again?
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
If you would like sources I can give them to you... I ran out of characters
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
Ok, Cooldudebro... Good Luck and Have Fun
Posted by Cooldudebro 11 months ago
Cooldudebro
I'll debate you on this topic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.