The Instigator
PointlessQuestions
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Should Guns Be Completely Banned In The U.S (U.S Residents Only Please)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 69486
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

PointlessQuestions

Con

Sorry it took so long, my internet was out.
I look forward to finally debating this, good luck (The first round is for acceptance).
Debate Round No. 1
PointlessQuestions

Con

Just For A Moment, Lets Say Hypothetically Civilian Owned Firearms Are Completely Banned In The U.S Tomorrow.
Citizens Are Allowed A Two Day Grace Period To Turn In Their Firearms To A Firearm Collection Center But After That Citizen Firearm Possession Is A Felony Crime. Well After That, The Crime Rates Going To Be Smoothe Sailing Right ?
Not At All. If Other Western Nations Are Any Example, Banning Guns Decreases Gun Crime Rate But Increases Overall Violent Crime Rate. Look At Australia ( They Didn't Completely Ban Guns But The National Firearms Agreement Was Highly Restrictive) After The Law Was Passed, The Gun Crime Rate Went Down, But The Overall Violent Crime Rate Stayed The Same.
It Makes Sense, Guns Aren't The Only Thing That Can Kill People, They're Just The Most Efficient.
Although The Australian Crime Rate Can't Be Applied Everywhere, The United States And Australia Are Very Similar In Terms Of Both Politics And Sociology. This Shows That A Complete Gun Ban In The U.S Would Not Accomplish The Intended Goal Of Reducing Violent Crime.
Another Point Against A Ban Is The U.S Constitution. It Is Clearly Stated In The U.S Constitution That Because People Should Have The Ability To Over Throw Their Government Should It Become Corrupt, Citizens Should Have the Right To Bear Firearms. The United States Was Trying To Limit It's Own Power And History Has Shown Us That A Government Limiting Their Own Power Is A Very Good Thing, If A Gun Ban Was In Place, Nothing Would Be Standing In The Way Of The United States Government From Oppressing It's Own People ( Civilian Gun Bans Have Been A Characteristic Of Most Tolitarian And Fascist Regimes). This Data Alone Shows That A Complete Gun Ban In The U.S Would Be An Overall Negative Thing. I Will Provide More Support And Examples In Round 3.
16kadams

Pro

P1) Guns increase crime


Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”(1)


The vast majority of the research suggests the presence of gun in the home increase suicide, homicide, and accidental risk. If this is correct, reducing the amount of homes with firearms would decrease suicide, homicide, and accidental risks.


Another study using “data from 26 developed countries”, the study found “where guns are more available, there are more homicides”(1).


Guns are positively correlated with the homicide rate.


P2) Gun ownership would decrease


As noted above, gun ownership increases violence--both intentional and accidental. This means if the gun supply was reduced, there would be less firearm and overall violence. Law abiding citizens would turn in their firearms. This means fewer accidental deaths and suicides would occur, according to the evidence I provided.


5% of criminals had stolen their firearms, 10% borrowed it, and 8% traded for it (2). This means banning firearms would at least reduce the gun supply by 5%, and maybe 15%. It is also possible they traded for legally purchased firearms, so the gun supply could fall 23%--almost one quarter. This would significantly increase the price of a firearm. Increased prices decrease consumption.


Therefore, as gun ownership would decrease in both law abiding and criminal spheres, death rateswould decrease.


C) Banning guns reduces the crime rate


(1)http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

(2) http://www.pbs.org...


== Rebuttals ==


R1) Overall crime


My opponent claims overall crime does not decrease after gun bans. My opponent admits guns are the most efficient way to kill people. If the efficient means are removed, killing becomes inefficient. This means the amount of people killed in, say, mass shootings would decrease as no efficient means exists to kill 3 or more people. Also as killing people with a gun is impersonal--you can do it from feet away, no physical contact--people who are fairly docile can kill people and feel no regret until after they do it. This means guns facilitate overall murder rates, too.


It should also be noted “[i]n the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards.” (3) Thus, australian gun laws made the mass-shooting death rate 0.


As the firearms death rate fell, so did overall violence. If the efficient method is removed, it is fairly obvious that overall death rates would fall.


(3) http://www.loc.gov...


R2) Constitution


This is a debate as to whether or not guns *should* be banned. Legal constraints don't tell us whether or not something *should* be banned, only if they *can* be banned. Laws *can* be good, but they don’t tell us what *is* good. SO merely because our laws say don’t ban guns does not mean bans *should* not be banned. I provided evidence that bans would save lives--meaning we *should* ban guns.


Regardless, the meaning of the second amendment is really debates. Although the supreme court--twice--ruled the second amendment protects individual gun ownership, that overturns centuries of rulings to the contrary. Until those two cases, “the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals.” (4)


(4) http://www.huppi.com...


On to you, Con.


Debate Round No. 2
PointlessQuestions

Con

PointlessQuestions forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PointlessQuestions

Con

First Of All I Do Not Claim That Crime Rate Flatlines When Guns Are Completely Banned , I Claim That Violent Crime Rate Flatlines When Guns Are Completly Banned. There Is A Differcence, Crime Is Anything That Is Illegal And Encompasses Everthing From Tax Fraud To Drug Possesion. Violent Crime Is Crime That Is Carried Out To Harm A Human Being.
According To The Source That I Used In My Previous Argument About Australia This Is True.
http://www.aic.gov.au...
Secondly Pro's Harvard Scource Acutally States That "They Found No Correlation Between Gun Ownership On Non-Gun Homicide. This Invalidates His Previous Point That Overall Homicide Rate Is Reduced When Firearms Are Banned.
Another Point Is That Truly Violent Criminals Are Not Going To Become Law-Abiding Citizens Just Because A Very Efficent Method Of Violence Has Been Made Harder To Access. Think About It If, A Complent Gun Ban Would Only Make It Harder For Criminals To Get Guns, While Law-Abiding Citizens Would Turn Theirs In, Leaving The Civilain Sector Relatively Defenseless.
Over To You Pro.
16kadams

Pro

== Guns and overall crime ==

I actually demonstrated that firearms do have an effect on total homicide rates. And even assuming they primarily effect the firearm homicide rate, it must be noted my opponent admitted how guns are the most efficient weapons. Thus, as efficiency would be removed, homicide would still be higher when guns are legal. The source has many studies and their summary, so even if one of them claims lesser of an effect it does not refute the simple point that firearms are positively correlated with homicide rates--both firearm homicide and overall homicide. To cite a few of them (1):

"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide." -- Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

"Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide." -- Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

"We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded." -- Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." -- Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

Evidence on suicide rates is about the same. Multiple studies, meta-analysis, etc. all using different methodology suggest firearm availability increases the risk of suicide (2), and firearm accidents (3). As a ban would reduce availability, suicide and firearm accidents would decrease significantly. A firearms ban would save lives.

(1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
(2) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
(3) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

== Australia ==

My opponent cites a link but does not summarize it's contents. Note it does not refute my contention that mass-shootings decreased when Australia banned firearms. Now, the link does suggest crime increased after the gun laws were passed. However, the same source also suggest victims of violent crime has been decreasing since 2001, when stronger gun controls were passed (4). Homicide rates have also decreased since 2001 (5). Gun control in Australia works.

(4) http://www.aic.gov.au...
(5) http://www.aic.gov.au...

== DGU ==

My opponent seems to argue that a ban on guns would reduce the amount of firearms used in defense--this is true. Indeed, it is possible that guns have some reducing crime effect through deterrence or defensive use, but on balance they increase death rates. So a ban would save lives. I will note that the positive effects of firearm ownership--defensive use--is not very common. Although many suggest guns are used in defense over 2 million times per year, this is highly unlikely and most scholars disagree with that result. "We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid."(6)

(6) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Banning guns would save lives.
Debate Round No. 4
PointlessQuestions

Con

PointlessQuestions forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
This debate wasn't even that good XD
Posted by LordHelm 1 year ago
LordHelm
XD I was gonna say... Traitor!!! lawl!
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
yes lol
Posted by LordHelm 1 year ago
LordHelm
This is an interesting debate... Were you devil's advocate?
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
lol so let's just abandon laws
Posted by CooCooClockofDoom 1 year ago
CooCooClockofDoom
Since when do criminals follow the law? Even if owning a civilian firearm was a felony, criminals would still keep their guns
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Should air be bottled up and sold? Oh wait they already do that.. its called taxes!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
PointlessQuestions16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited multiple rounds within the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con dropped a majority of Pro's arguments, which culminated in Pro standing unchallenged by the end. Due to this, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. While both utilized sources in this debate, I found Pro's to be of higher quality and quantity, serving only to strengthen his points with excellence. This is a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
PointlessQuestions16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by KonstanBen 1 year ago
KonstanBen
PointlessQuestions16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
PointlessQuestions16kadamsTied
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: Usually happens when someone takes on 16kadams.