The Instigator
bwjunkie6
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pickle-Face18
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should the United States Ban Guns?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 49380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

bwjunkie6

Con

To start, I will begin this debate with one sentence and one sentence only:

If we establish laws that ban guns, citizens will follow the law and give their guns; if we establish laws that ban guns, criminals will not follow those laws... since they are criminals.
Pickle-Face18

Pro

A criminal, according to the dictionary, is "a person who has committed a crime"" [1]. My opponent is referring to criminals as if they are are an entirely separate race of people from normal citizens. A criminal may choose to continue his/her illegal behaviours, but a law banning guns in the US would make this much harder to do.
A criminal may not WANT to follow these laws, but they would have to. There will always be those individuals who have the motive to actually find a way to get around this law, but the damage they can cause is much, much less than the damage that is being caused by the availability of guns right now. "Gun-related death rates in the U.S. are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it"" [2]. Also, according to guncontrol.ca, "The death rate by firearms in the United States was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, for a total of 31,347 deaths", [3] which is ridiculously high compared to countries like Canada (2.5 per 100, 000) or the UK (0.25 per 100, 000). Banning guns would be an enormous benefit to the United States.

[1] Google"s dictionary search www.google.ca
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://guncontrol.ca...
Debate Round No. 1
bwjunkie6

Con

I will rebuttal by analyzing every phrase in my opponents argument and then move on to any new points to reenforce my argument.

1)""A criminal, according to the dictionary, is "a person who has committed a crime"" [1]. My opponent is referring to criminals as if they are are an entirely separate race of people from normal citizens. A criminal may choose to continue his/her illegal behaviours, but a law banning guns in the US would make this much harder to do."

R1) Illegal things are always obtainable. Cocaine is illegal, but I could easily find a dealer and obtain it. We must understand in today's debate that banning guns will deprive good citizens any and all opportunities to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm. Criminals, no matter what, will always be able to obtain a gun illegally if they wish to do so, just like today. The citizens will be defenseless, while the criminal has the gun.

2)"A criminal may not WANT to follow these laws, but they would have to."

R2) They are called criminals for a reason. They don't follow laws to begin with. You even gave that in your opening argument, "a person who has committed a crime." Why would they follow a new gun ban?

3)"There will always be those individuals who have the motive to actually find a way to get around this law, but the damage they can cause is much, much less than the damage that is being caused by the availability of guns right now."

R3) The damage criminals will cause can be just as severe with or without gun control. I don't understand this statement.

4) ""Gun-related death rates in the U.S. are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it"" [2]. Also, according to guncontrol.ca, "The death rate by firearms in the United States was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, for a total of 31,347 deaths", [3] which is ridiculously high compared to countries like Canada (2.5 per 100, 000) or the UK (0.25 per 100, 000). Banning guns would be an enormous benefit to the United States."

R4) To rebuttal, I shall remind the debater that 31,247 deaths in 2009 out of 317 million people in the US is roughly .0009% of the population, which is incredibly miniscule. Also, if the debater wished to continue with this statistic, I would like to ask if any of these 31,347 deaths from firearms included victims of guns that DID NOT posses guns to defend themselves.

For additional points, I will prove that gun control helps no one.
According to a Harvard Study on theacru.org:

P1) Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

P2) According to Wikipedia and Just facts:

Chicago has one of the highest murder and crime rates in the country, and holds the 4th most gun control in the USA.
California has the 2nd highest crime rates in the country, and holds some of the strongest gun control in the country.

I will now request a rebuttal for round 2.
Pickle-Face18

Pro

Thank you for your rebuttal. I apologize in advance for all the incorrect double apostrophes; my computer does it for some reason.

In response to R1) : Illegal things may be obtainable, but if there was a law banning guns, it would undoubtably be much harder to access them. It would be unreasonable to think that making a law banning guns would automatically stop all gun use. But what it would do is make it much harder for a criminal to access a gun, which would result in less criminals having guns, which leads to less gun violence and murder.

My opponent states, "Banning guns will deprive good citizens any and all opportunities to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm"". This isn"t true. Not having a gun to shoot at the person trying to shoot you isn"t really a downside of banning guns. There are plenty of other ways to defend yourself. Try googling "ways to defend yourself without a gun"". There is more than enough proof there.

In response to R2) : Criminals are required to follow the law, same as any normal citizen. Therefore, my statement was correct. Criminals have to follow the laws. And in response to your question? A criminal (or many criminals, anyway) would follow a new gun ban because of the consequences that would arrive if they didn"t. Think about it this way; murder is illegal in the USA. If you were allowed to murder people, there would be many more murders than there are right now, because now, people know there are consequences. It"s the same concept with guns. If guns weren't allowed, people would be scared of the consequences. The number of criminals using guns (and criminals themselves, actually) would drop significantly, because of the consequences.

In response to R3) : My opponent states, "The damage criminals will cause can be just as severe with or without gun control"". My previous rebuttals prove that this isn"t true. The harder the guns are to access, and the fear of the consequences of using a gun will stop many criminals from causing damage with a gun. So my opponent"s statement is false, because with a gun ban, there will be less criminals with guns, which logically leads to less damage caused by the criminals who would still have accessed guns.

In response to R4): The number of deaths by firearms may be small compared to overall deaths, but any crime is a bad crime. Even ONE innocent citizen being killed by a gun is horrible, let alone 31, 347 people. Banning guns would save many people"s lives.

Guncontrol.ca did not specify if any of the 31, 347 deaths included victims without guns to protect themselves, and the government is still not quite sure about how many deaths could have been prevented by having a gun. Whatever the case is, having guns to defend yourself isn't really a legitimate reason to keep them available. If we banned guns, there would be less chances for a citizen to even USE a gun to defend themselves. There would be fewer deaths.

My opponent states "Gun control helps no one". This statement is absolutely wrong. Gun control helps many people, and has lowered the murder rate in many countries, including Australia, Japan, and the UK. There are impressive decreases in crime and gun-related deaths after these countries put gun control into place.

It"s true that some countries still have high murder rates even with low gun ownership rates, but there has never been a case where gun control has INCREASED the level of murder. So if the United States put gun control into place, it could not possibly be a bad thing. Another rebuttal against your P1) and P2) facts; death by a gun does not always need to be a murder, necessarily. Guns are dangerous things. There is a ridiculously high number of gun "accidents" every year. Perhaps that explains the low murder rate in Norway. . . or any other country where the "gun control = low murder rate" does not apply.

I await your rebuttal, and since this debate is only three rounds long, your conclusion as well.
Debate Round No. 2
bwjunkie6

Con

I shall re-analyze my opponents's article phrase by phrase, then summarize. (Conclusion on the bottom)

-----------1a) "In response to R1) : Illegal things may be obtainable, but if there was a law banning guns, it would undoubtedly be much harder to access them. It would be unreasonable to think that making a law banning guns would automatically stop all gun use. But what it would do is make it much harder for a criminal to access a gun, which would result in less criminals having guns, which leads to less gun violence and murder."------------------

R1a) I could agree that a nation-wide gun band COULD make it harder for criminals to obtain guns. But not once in this debate has my opponent given any evidence that it would drastically discourage American Criminals from obtaining guns the illegal way (since they already do illegal things.) Even if we "assume" that a gun-ban will discourage a decent amount of criminal gun violence, my opponent fails to realize that this would strip ALL LAW OBEYING CITIZENS FROM THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND ANY AND ALL EFFECTIVE MANNERISMS TO COMBAT GUNS.

------------2a) My opponent states, "Banning guns will deprive good citizens any and all opportunities to defend themselves against a criminal with a firearm"". This isn"t true. Not having a gun to shoot at the person trying to shoot you isn"t really a downside of banning guns. There are plenty of other ways to defend yourself. Try googling "ways to defend yourself without a gun"". There is more than enough proof there.------------------

R2a) My opponent obviously has never had a gun pointed 6 meters away from their face. It does NOT matter if one could possibly defend themselves in a different way because there is already a 2nd Amendment that gives us self protection. Have you ever heard the expression, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"? It's simple: THE MOST EFFECTIVE way of defending yourself from a gun is with a weapon equal; that is a gun.

-----------3a) In response to R2) : Criminals are required to follow the law, same as any normal citizen. Therefore, my statement was correct. Criminals have to follow the laws. And in response to your question? A criminal (or many criminals, anyway) would follow a new gun ban because of the consequences that would arrive if they didn"t. Think about it this way; murder is illegal in the USA. If you were allowed to murder people, there would be many more murders than there are right now, because now, people know there are consequences. It"s the same concept with guns. If guns weren't allowed, people would be scared of the consequences. The number of criminals using guns (and criminals themselves, actually) would drop significantly, because of the consequences.-------------------

R3a) Okay, the following quote scares me: "A criminal (or many criminals, anyway) would follow a new gun ban because of the consequences that would arrive if they didn"t." CRIMINALS ALREADY DON'T FOLLOW LAWS ANYWAY. This is a logical fallacy. We cannot assume that people who already do not care about the law will "Suddenly Follow" a law about guns. We can assume law-obeying citizens will, and in fact, leave them defenseless. And " The number of criminals using guns (and criminals themselves, actually) would drop significantly, because of the consequences." Where is the evidence?

-------------4a)In response to R3) : My opponent states, "The damage criminals will cause can be just as severe with or without gun control"". My previous rebuttals prove that this isn"t true. The harder the guns are to access, and the fear of the consequences of using a gun will stop many criminals from causing damage with a gun. So my opponent"s statement is false, because with a gun ban, there will be less criminals with guns, which logically leads to less damage caused by the criminals who would still have accessed guns.--------------------------

R4a) I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I mean't that a criminal who has a Beretta before a gun ban, and after a gun ban, has the same amount of potential damage. Basically, what I am trying to say is that: A gun ban will FAIL to eradicate guns (both illegal and legal) amongst the underground community that are already in existence, disproving the premise that the amount of guns in the hands of criminals will decrease significantly.

--------------5a) In response to R4): The number of deaths by firearms may be small compared to overall deaths, but any crime is a bad crime. Even ONE innocent citizen being killed by a gun is horrible, let alone 31, 347 people. Banning guns would save many people"s lives.----------------

R5a) If we use this logic, then I could say: Even ONE innocent being saved by a gun is fantastic. According to GunsSaveLives.Org, guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used MORE THAN 80 TIMES MORE FOR SELF DEFENSE THAN ACTUAL GUN CRIME. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

All these stats show lives being saved that can be added up to significantly more than 31, 347 people. Your statistic is insignificant.

------------6a) My opponent states "Gun control helps no one". This statement is absolutely wrong. Gun control helps many people, and has lowered the murder rate in many countries, including Australia, Japan, and the UK. There are impressive decreases in crime and gun-related deaths after these countries put gun control into place.----------------

R6a) We are not talking about any other country except the United States. I gave ample evidence that gun control HELPS NO ONE in places like California, Chicago, and others where Gun Control has increased crime.

(CONCLUSION)

In this debate, I have proven that a nation-wide gun ban will put the lives of citizens in danger, and how guns are important in out everyday lives.
Celebrities have body-guards with guns. Why should they get to be protected by guns, and not us citizens? Cops are not around every corner to save every single life in danger. President Obama has body-guards with guns. Are my children not as important as his? Basically, with facts in my rebuttal, I have proven that guns are used for self defense WAY more than for criminal gun violence. Approximately, self defense by guns are reported over 2.5 million times per year. 200,000 women per year use guns as self defense against rape. Guns are important!
There is no argument that guns are the most effective way of self defense, and shall not be rebutted.
I have already given major evidence, both national and international, that gun control does NOT WORK. This evidence was not attacked.
No evidence was given that criminals will actually follow new gun-bans. My opponent only assumes that criminals (who already disregard the law) will suddenly become good Samaritans.
There is no actual way to strip criminals of guns they have already been obtained illegally. In order for a gun ban to be effective, people must surrender their guns. Do you think criminals will hand over their guns? Not a chance! At least, not a majority. But citizens will - leaving hem defenseless!
Another point that gun-control activists seem to forget is the PRIME REASON WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS. It's to avoid government tyranny. Countries like North Korea, China, or Russia do not give their citizens protection from heir OWN corrupt governments. The Fore Fathers wanted America to stay free from others and the american government. Tyranny of the giv is eminent w/o protection. I can see only a negative ballot.
Pickle-Face18

Pro

Thank you for your final rebuttals and conclusion. I will now follow up with mine.

My opponent states: "But not once in this debate has my opponent given any evidence that it would drastically discourage American Criminals from obtaining guns the illegal way (since they already do illegal things)."
My response: It's not a matter of 'discouraging' criminals. There will simply be less guns available, even on the black-market.

My opponent states: "A gun ban will FAIL to eradicate guns (both illegal and legal) amongst the underground community that are already in existence, disproving the premise that the amount of guns in the hands of criminals will decrease significantly."
My response: Yes, a gun ban would fail to eradicate guns in the underground community, but would significantly reduce the number of guns available. I'll say it again; the less guns available, the less gun violence. There is no 'evidence' needed, because this statement is common sense.

My opponent states: "We are not talking about any other country except the United States. I gave ample evidence that gun control HELPS NO ONE in places like California, Chicago, and others where Gun Control has increased crime."
My response: Yes, we are talking about other countries. My opponent has provided several international stats himself, including statistics about Norway, Holland, Sweden and Denmark. Even after making the statement above, he chooses to conclude with facts about North Korea, China and Russia. He discredits himself when he says we are only debating with American facts, when he himself has used international ones. Furthermore, gun control never INCREASES crime. Enough said.

My opponent states: "President Obama has body-guards with guns. Are my children not as important as his?"
My response: Bodyguards with guns are trained professionals. Obama would trust a body guard with the protection of him and his family and with the proper use of a gun, but does not keep a gun in his home. Guns in American homes are the cause of death for hundreds of children every year [1], and gun accidents kill more than 31, 000 Americans each year [2]. Guns need to be handled properly, and your children are statistically safer without a gun in your house.

We've both been sloppy with using the terminology "gun ban" and "gun control" (two very different things) throughout this debate, but the evidence that I've provided proves that both would be excellent for the US, while my opponent's evidence only suggests that gun CONTROL is not always effective. But those statistics aren't actually credible, for that matter. Throughout this debate, my opponent has never cited his sources, and I could not access those facts from Wikipedia, Just Facts, or any other site he suggested his information was from. This makes most of his arguments invalid. I have visited GunsSaveLives.org and could not find my opponent's gun defense statistic, nor could I find much else. GunsSaveLives.org is not a complete or reliable website.

My opponent states: "Another point that gun-control activists seem to forget is the PRIME REASON WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS. It's to avoid government tyranny. Countries like North Korea, China, or Russia do not give their citizens protection from heir OWN corrupt governments. The Fore Fathers wanted America to stay free from others and the american government. Tyranny of the giv is eminent w/o protection. I can see only a negative ballot."
My response: This entire paragraph does not make much sense. The Fore Fathers wanted America to stay free from the American government? And the prime reason we have guns is to avoid government tyranny? None of this is validated or reasonable.

So, in conclusion, here are my arguments:

-A gun ban would prevent many criminals from accessing guns, which leads to less gun violence and crime.
-It's true that a gun ban would deprive citizens of a way to protect themselves, but with a gun ban, there would be fewer scenarios to even NEED a gun for self-defence.
-The availability of guns right now is causing the death of hundreds on innocent children. These kids are not dying because criminals are shooting them, they are accidentally killing themselves with the guns lying around in their own houses.
-Gun accidents kill tens of thousands of Americans each year. These accidents can only be prevented by gun control and/or a gun ban. My arguments about gun accidents were never rebutted.

These sound arguments, my reasonable rebuttals, the valid evidence I have supplied, and Con's invalid or non-existent sources are all reasons to vote Pro!

I thank my opponent for an excellent debate.

[1] http://www.momlogic.com...
[2] http://www.bryancaulfield.com...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by INANGERWELOOSETRUTH 3 years ago
INANGERWELOOSETRUTH
I apologize for coming off as a bigot, but for many, this one issue is not for legislative debate as are other rights that were included in the Bill of Rights. The anti-gun debate is appropriate and has valid and moving points, especially in light of recent tragedies(much more compacted than access to guns so please don't start that debate without proper research and thought), but the tragedies that could come from a defenseless people is enormous, people need to make a stand for this right to defend your family and those you love from anyone who threatens them by any means.
Posted by INANGERWELOOSETRUTH 3 years ago
INANGERWELOOSETRUTH
The entire debate isn't focusing on the real reason why guns are legal to own in the US. The world as you know it is much less stable than opponents would like to admit. Similar to the "enlightened bubble" described in Hamlet, societies form very fragile "bubbles" in which there is ideally Law and Order and even ethics. Yet this isn't absolute. Easily could instability come and result in the disintegration of a strong US government in which case crisis would ensue, as history as shown time and time again. Guns are my right to defend my life against anyone, even my own government. The government is given the right to violence and through violence enforces the laws that the given government type formed. Just taking a step back and seeing the world for what it is and understanding history, there is in my opinion no argument here to be had, many Americans particularly in the SouthWest(including several sheriffs who've threatened to shoot federal officers enforcing their federal laws in State jurisdiction) will not surrender their right to defend themselves in an imperfect world full of corrupted humans. This debate always stuns me by the naivety of those who see the world as safe, when a "stable" world has only existed for a very short time. (the "state" as we know it and the "nation" are both relatively recent creations that helped bring people from Hobbe's constant "state of war"into a "state of peace". For clarification research these fundamental philosophies that shaped the world as we know it today. Hobbes, Locke, History of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the countless other genocides of the last century. No matter the legislation or discussion, MANY Americans including myself will not succumb to this blatant assault on my Constitutional Rights, something Piers Morgan never could grasp
Posted by Pickle-Face18 3 years ago
Pickle-Face18
@wwwwh. . . what do you mean? Guns are the problem, since it"s GUN violence.
Posted by wwwwh 3 years ago
wwwwh
If gun vilolence is 8 times higher in the us than countries simular to it doesnt that prove guns arnt the problem.
No votes have been placed for this debate.