The Instigator
slightlyirategentleman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should the United States of America put forth a nation-wide ban on ownership of firearms?

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...
Mharman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 99501
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

slightlyirategentleman

Pro

This is my first debate on this website, so I would like to thank in advance all participants and voters for taking your time to read through. Please forgive me if I am unfamiliar with usual posting tendencies.

I am holding the position that the United States should seek to implement a ban on firearm ownership in order to tackle gun related crime.

Round 1 will be used for acceptance, rounds 2 and 3 will be for arguments and rebuttals, with round 4 ending with final rebuttals and a conclusion.
Mharman

Con

Alright, my schedule is freed up a bit more. Let's go.
Debate Round No. 1
slightlyirategentleman

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge, and I hope we have a fruitful debate.

The United States's gun ownership, in years recent and later, has resulted in the deliberate and accidental deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

The United States is often compared to the United Kingdom, where gun laws are much stricter. Legal ownership of hand guns and semi automatic weapons, and many other legally acquired weapons in the U.S., is completely illegal for civilians in the U.K.

In 2013, the United Kingdom had 144 total "gun deaths", equating to 0.22 per 100,000 people. Meanwhile, the United States had 33,636 total "gun deaths", equating to 10.63 per 100,000 people. This is slightly over 48.3 times as many deaths per 100,000 people, or 233.58 times as many deaths.
How this can be seen acceptable in the modern world is beyond my understanding. Firearms are weapons designed for the intent to injure and kill.

The justification for ownership comes from the United States' second amendment rights. A very outdated law, written late 1791, can not possibly have the same meaning and impact that it does today. The weapons of the time were not capable sustained weapon fire. Most importantly, the style of war has changed dramatically since then. The idea of the second amendment was to allow for a militia of the people to be formed in the event that a tyrannical government was to arise against the people. Considering today's technology and style of war, even if this event was to occur there is no way that a people's militia could realistically defeat a government with access to remote drones, mechanised armour, advanced missile systems or even tactical nuclear weapons.

This amendment is outdated and will only serve as detrimental to the health of U.S. society. It is my belief that by banning legal ownership of firearms, gun deaths will naturally drop as a result.

http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Mharman

Con

Thank you for this debate.

I will start with the rebuttals first.

"The United States is often compared to the United Kingdom, where gun laws are much stricter. Legal ownership of hand guns and semi automatic weapons, and many other legally acquired weapons in the U.S., is completely illegal for civilians in the U.K."
Although gun deaths did go down, that didn't stop criminals. If you somehow manage to get guns completely off the streets, they will find some other way to kill. In fact, after the Gun Restriction Bill in the U.K. was passed, the crime rate for knives skyrocketed [1].

"In 2013, the United Kingdom had 144 total "gun deaths", equating to 0.22 per 100,000 people. Meanwhile, the United States had 33,636 total "gun deaths", equating to 10.63 per 100,000 people. This is slightly over 48.3 times as many deaths per 100,000 people, or 233.58 times as many deaths."

Yes, this is a bad stat for America, but it is not because of the Second Amendment. There any many other contributors to it that have nothing to do with guns.

1. The Big Cities
It's no secret that big cities have a high murder rate. This not because of guns, but a lack of police in the inner cities due to liberal policies, a high amount of drugs due to liberal policies, and a high rate of poverty due to liberal policies. Take Indianapolis for example. In Indianapolis, a city filled with Democrats and anti-gun laws, the crime rate is 113% higher than the national average [2]. In by hometown of Bremen [3], a city filled with Republicans and no anti-gun laws, the crime rate is 38% lower than the national average [4].

2. Gun Free Zones.
In criminals are more likely to invade a place if it is a gun free zone, because they know there will be nobody who will be able to shoot back. They are less likely to invade conceal carry zones because they know a good bystander who happens to own a gun can shoot back. Here are some images to help capture the idea if you are having troubles understanding it.

399399-6471-p6gar-a.jpg

399399-6471-vznky-a.jpg

399399-6471-hqbhc-a.jpg

399399-6471-ysurn-a.jpg

399399-6471-hnv4g-a.jpg


"Firearms are weapons designed for the intent to injure and kill."
Yes, but they were designed to injure and kill bad guys.

"Considering today's technology and style of war, even if this event was to occur there is no way that a people's militia could realistically defeat a government with access to remote drones, mechanised armour, advanced missile systems or even tactical nuclear weapons."
First off, the U.S. is not going to drop a nuclear bomb. Second, with the divided political spectrum in the government, we'd probaby have some freedom fighters within the government helping us. And third, the British didn't think we stood a chance in 1776.

Now, it is time for my arguments.

I. Criminals will ignore gun laws.
Criminals are already committing a crime, why would they care if they're committing another crime by using a gun to do it? They won't. Here are some more images to help you get the idea.

399399-6471-gqhhw-a.jpg

399399-6471-b7sg9-a.jpg

399399-6471-b35y9-a.jpg

II. Criminals are resourceful.
Criminals are criminals. Even if you are successful in getting rid of guns for good, criminals will find other ways to kill people. They may use baseball bats, knives, hammers, cyanide, or an axe. It happened in London with knives [1].

III. Guns Even the Battleground.
I'll provide an example for you.

Without Guns:
Adam is a rapist who has been stalking Trisha for weeks. In the middle of the night breaks into her house armed with only a knife. Trisha, who was woken up by the racket, quickly unlocks a box on the lampstand and picks up the knife inside. At that moment, Adam breaks into the bedroom. The two caracters fight, and Adam, with his physical prowess, overpowers and subdues her. Adam then proceeds remove her clothes and his clothes. He then holds her down as he sexually violates her.

With Guns:
Adam is a rapist who has been stalking Trisha for weeks. In the middle of the night breaks into her house armed with only a gun. Trisha, who was woken up by the racket, quickly unlocks a box on the lampstand and picks up the gun inside. At that moment, Adam breaks into the bedroom. Trisha fires the gun, hitting him in the shoulder. Adam drops his gun in agony and Trisha picks it up. Trisha then proceeds to point both guns at him and orders him to go chest to wall and not move. With the guns in her hands, she calls the police. They arrive at her house shortly and arrest Adam.

IV. Conceal and Carry Zones Ward off Criminals.
Think about it. If you were a criminal, would you try to rob a store where you know the owner has a gun under the counter, or would you try to rob a store where you knew the owner didn't have a gun? I have an image for this as well.

399399-6471-qy5nq-a.jpg


V. Overall Crime Rate Goes Down in Places With No Anti Gun Laws.
Here's some advice for you. Compare the crime rate of Bremen, IN [4] with the crime rate of Indianapolis, IN [2]. The crime rate in places where there are more adults with guns, the crime rate has gone DOWN [5]. Here are some charts to back this up.

399399-6471-93cch-a.jpg

399399-6471-v36dn-a.jpg

399399-6471-q9br3-a.jpg

399399-6471-x9a8p-a.jpg

399399-6471-vrhda-a.jpg

399399-6471-5qhhn-a.jpg

As you can see, the stats are in my favor.

VI. Peple Kill People.
Guns don't kill people. The reality is that people kill people. A gun is just an inanimate object, it cannot fire without a human behind the trigger. Blaming the gun for a murder is rediculous. Here are even more images to show you what I mean.

399399-6471-mvkar-a.jpg

399399-6471-f84ru-a.jpg

399399-6471-r6wxm-a.jpg

399399-6471-u9y8m-a.jpg

399399-6471-x7fms-a.jpg

VII. Innacurate Depiction of Gun Use.
If you've seen the movies, or political cartoon made by liberals, chances are that you have seen superheroes of NRA members armed to the teeth with guns and this crazy look in their eyes. This is not what gun use looks like. Even in the image I showed earlier, the terrorists have alot of weapons, when in reality they don't have as many (usually, you never know with terrorists) guns. I have EVEN MORE images to show you here.

399399-6471-yssgu-a.jpg

VIII. Political Megalomaniacs
A lot of politicians who want to disarm you are only seeking to gain more power.

"The best way to take over a country is to take away their guns first." -Adolf Hitler

399399-6471-zqd9c-a.jpg


IX. The Reasoning Behind the Second Amendment.
The reason the Founding Fathers placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was in case the government had become corrupt, and We the People needed to rise up and defend freedom. Back when America was under the control of the British, the Colonists were not allowed to own guns, only the military was. The Founding Fathers had experinced the effects of this and added the Second Amendment to protect the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

X. Sources
[1] http://www.bbc.com...
[2] http://www.areavibes.com...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.areavibes.com...
[5] https://bearingarms.com...

Debate Round No. 2
slightlyirategentleman

Pro

Note: unfortunately, I am unable to observe those images that you have posted.

[b]Although gun deaths did go down, that didn't stop criminals. If you somehow manage to get guns completely off the streets, they will find some other way to kill. In fact, after the Gun Restriction Bill in the U.K. was passed, the crime rate for knives skyrocketed [1].[/b]
Knife crime did increase to compensate for the lack of firearms, yes. However, it is needless to say that a knife is more difficult to kill a person, or multitudes of people with, than a firearm. In 2013, the homicide rate in the U.K. stood a 0.9 per 100,000, whilst the rate in the U.S. stood at 3.9 (602 against 12,253).
http://www.unodc.org...

[b]Yes, this is a bad stat for America, but it is not because of the Second Amendment. There any many other contributors to it that have nothing to do with guns.[/b]
Public access of guns without a doubt makes this easier and is certainly the largest contributor. I am baffled that you can say that a law which allows for ownership of weapons is not the sole root of the issue. Allowing legal ownership and sale of weapons obviously requires having a free market access of firearms requires for the manufacture, import and distribution. This allows for corruption, illegal sale and creates avenues for black market access. Preventing their circulation outright does nothing but make it easier for guns to be obtainable, with or without licensing.

With regard to your points about big cities and gun free zones:

1. You did not specify which state Bremen is in, but a search reveals that they all share a significantly smaller population and population density than that of Indianapolis. Passing the blame to liberals is very much a scape-goat argument, as large cities will naturally have higher crime rates due to their higher population density and income disparity, both of which are catalysts of crime. Having a more or less relaxed gun law would be irrelevant if they were not so easily acquired and distributed in the first place. Additionally, police do not have to be disarmed of the weapons so long as they are used carefully and trained appropriately to handle armed-response style situations. A law enforcement that is armed with a population that isn't is much more of a disincentive to commit crime.

2. Of course criminals will naturally target areas which will be of less risk to them, in the same way that someone is more likely to attack at night as they are less likely to be caught or have their appearance seen. This, again, goes back to the point that cutting circulation of weapons makes them harder and more expensive for criminals to acquire, legally or illegally.

[b]Yes, but they were designed to injure and kill bad guys.[/b]
The "bad guys" are subjective to the person holding the gun. Just because that's why they were designed doesn't mean a bad guy isn't going to use one.

[b]First off, the U.S. is not going to drop a nuclear bomb. Second, with the divided political spectrum in the government, we'd probaby have some freedom fighters within the government helping us. And third, the British didn't think we stood a chance in 1776.[/b]
You wont know for certain if a government would nuke its own people. Whilst the U.S. probably would have freedom fighters, it wouldn't change the fact that the government forces would possess the far more advanced technology that would render small arms irrelevant.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the revolution comment. That only proves the context of the amendment as the British forces were still restricted to the same low-tech gunpowder weaponry as the colonial army had.

[b]I. Criminals will ignore gun laws.[/b]
Criminals will ignore laws, that's obvious. However, what you are not taking into account is the fact that:
A) a civilian who legally acquires a weapon with the intent to kill is not yet a criminal until they have killed the person in question.
B) a potential criminal will find it much more difficult and costly to purchase a black market weapon. Again, cutting the circulation of weapons will drive up prices substantially, acting as a strong disincentive to purchase.

[b]II. Criminals are resourceful.[/b]
Criminals will use a different weapon to achieve their goals, yes. What is forgotten here is that these weapons are far less capable of killing in the same quick and efficient manner as a firearm. As the United Nations homicide stats I presented earlier show, homicides per 100,000 is almost 4 times less in the U.K. than the U.S. Assailants are going to feel far less confident in committing a murder if the weapon requires them to get up close to their victim.

[b]III. Guns Even the Battleground.[/b]
Your disturbingly detailed analogy doesn't have any backing. I see this argument many times from pro-firearm arguers that possession of a firearm will prevent a crime. You're heavily assuming here that:
a) Trisha managed to wake up
b) She was able to grab and load her weapon in time
c) She was able to control her fears and has had enough training to operate the weapon effectively
d) She managed to get the advantage over her assailant
e) Adam did not shot first and turn what would have been a rape case into a murder

This is a poor example you've conveyed, and heavily biased. I would very much like to see reports on how many crimes, either in progress or were about to happen, were stopped or prevented by a law-abiding citizen with a firearm.

[b]IV. Conceal and Carry Zones Ward off Criminals.
Think about it. If you were a criminal, would you try to rob a store where you know the owner has a gun under the counter, or would you try to rob a store where you knew the owner didn't have a gun? I have an image for this as well.[/b]
Again, there would be no need for carry zone restrictions of any sort of firearms weren't in circulation and couldn't be easily acquired. A much better option would be to have a good police force that can respond to crimes much more effectively.

[b]V. Overall Crime Rate Goes Down in Places With No Anti Gun Laws.[/b]
This statement has been proven wrong. This 2015 study of firearm ownership and violent crime shows that states with high gun ownership actually see significantly higher rates of gun-related crime.
http://crimeresearch.org...
The stats are not in your favour, sadly.

[b]VI. Peple Kill People.[/b]
Yes, but clearing a room of people is a lot easier with a semi automatic rifle than a knife.

Regarding your last three points (I'm running out of words), we have already discussed the context in which the amendment was written. It is called an amendment, one which those founding fathers said should always be revised. It can change and should to suit the modern day context. The U.S. is under no threat of invasion, and possesses by far the largest military on earth. All moot points.
Mharman

Con



Note: You can find the images on my profile in a photo album titled “Guns and Crime”.




“Knife crime did increase to compensate for the lack of firearms, yes. However, it is needless to say that a knife is more difficult to kill a person, or multitudes of people with, than a firearm. In 2013, the homicide rate in the U.K. stood a 0.9 per 100,000, whilst the rate in the U.S. stood at 3.9 (602 against 12,253).”


The fact that knife crime rose shows that banning guns won’t decrease homicide rates. True, it is easier to kill someone with a gun, but a knife can do the job, you’d just have to get closer, and that’s why criminals prefer guns. Not to mention that a knife is stealthier than a gun. The homicide rate is high, yes, but guns are NOT the biggest contributor. Much bigger contributors are bad people, high amounts poverty, inner cities, lack of law enforcement, and drug sales.



“Public access of guns without a doubt makes this easier and is certainly the largest contributor. I am baffled that you can say that a law which allows for ownership of weapons is not the sole root of the issue. Allowing legal ownership and sale of weapons obviously requires having a free market access of firearms requires for the manufacture, import and distribution. This allows for corruption, illegal sale and creates avenues for black market access. Preventing their circulation outright does nothing but make it easier for guns to be obtainable, with or without licensing.”


It is not the sole root. I stated the bigger contributors in the previous paragraph. The gun is not the main cause. After all, a gun is an inanimate object and can be used for good and bad. If guns were removed, criminals would still get them. If we had a complete blockade, they would be smuggled in. Even if we somehow managed to get them off the streets for good, there are other ways to kill. The gun industry also helps the economy. Also, illegal sale will increase if they are banned. A law doesn’t stop a murderer. Enforcement does. I repeat, illegal sales of guns will increase the black market. Just look at the War on Drugs [6]. Illegal drug use actually increased, and law enforcement had a really difficult time trying to stop it. It will be the same thing with guns.




“You wont know for certain if a government would nuke its own people. Whilst the U.S. probably would have freedom fighters, it wouldn't change the fact that the government forces would possess the far more advanced technology that would render small arms irrelevant.”


Do I know for certain a government would nuke its own people? No, but I am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% confident that our government wouldn’t. As for freedom fighters, they could give us weapons to the point where we have almost what they have. Also, even if we don’t have their technology, it’s better to at least try than to sit there and let the government oppress you.



“A) a civilian who legally acquires a weapon with the intent to kill is not yet a criminal until they have killed the person in question.”


False. Before they have officially killed the person, they have already started the murder attempt. Even attempted murder will land you in jail for a very long time. They are a criminal the second they attempt murder.



“B) a potential criminal will find it much more difficult and costly to purchase a black market weapon. Again, cutting the circulation of weapons will drive up prices substantially, acting as a strong disincentive to purchase.”


If a crazy person really wants to murder someone, they will do it, no matter the cost.



“Criminals will use a different weapon to achieve their goals, yes. What is forgotten here is that these weapons are far less capable of killing in the same quick and efficient manner as a firearm. As the United Nations homicide stats I presented earlier show, homicides per 100,000 is almost 4 times less in the U.K. than the U.S. Assailants are going to feel far less confident in committing a murder if the weapon requires them to get up close to their victim.”


Although it is true that guns are better at killing people than knives, the same holds true for defending yourself with a gun instead a knife. It’s a two-way street. As I have touched on earlier, guns are the number one cause of gun deaths, but they are not the number one cause of homicides. Yes, they would feel less comfortable getting up close, they may feel more comfortable about the fact that a knife doesn’t make a loud noise. I’m not saying that knives are preferable, I’m saying that criminals will still be willing to kill even if they have to use a knife.



NOTE: I’m afraid I’ll have to cut this argument short. I have little time and lots of homework. Sources will be included in the next argument of mine.


Debate Round No. 3
slightlyirategentleman

Pro

"The fact that knife crime rose shows that banning guns won"t decrease homicide rates. True, it is easier to kill someone with a gun, but a knife can do the job, you"d just have to get closer, and that"s why criminals prefer guns. Not to mention that a knife is stealthier than a gun. The homicide rate is high, yes, but guns are NOT the biggest contributor. Much bigger contributors are bad people, high amounts poverty, inner cities, lack of law enforcement, and drug sales."

The fact that homicide rates are significantly lower definitely shows that banning guns decreases homicide rates. Relating back to that report I linked in the previous round, it shows that there is a definitive increase in the amount of gun related crimes when compared to the rate/amount of gun ownerships.

"It is not the sole root. I stated the bigger contributors in the previous paragraph. The gun is not the main cause. After all, a gun is an inanimate object and can be used for good and bad. If guns were removed, criminals would still get them. If we had a complete blockade, they would be smuggled in. Even if we somehow managed to get them off the streets for good, there are other ways to kill. The gun industry also helps the economy. Also, illegal sale will increase if they are banned. A law doesn"t stop a murderer. Enforcement does. I repeat, illegal sales of guns will increase the black market. Just look at the War on Drugs [6]. Illegal drug use actually increased, and law enforcement had a really difficult time trying to stop it. It will be the same thing with guns."

You state that a gun is an inanimate object, yet you were more than happy to use knives as a substitute when in fact knives serve far more utilitarian purposes than guns. Hand guns can be just as easily concealable as knives also. Again, I will state that guns INCREASE the homicide rate, so are therefore a contributor to homocides. Your constant referral to "bad people" and other factors completely disregard the fact that a gun is far easier to kill with. You then use drug sales as an example, to which I will say "drugs don't kill people, people using drugs kill people". See how ridiculous that sounds? Drugs are an inanimate object as well, yet people are happy to die using them and kill others over them. Similarly, people are happy to shoot other people for whatever reason. Gun crimes do not happen without guns. Therefore, guns are an issue. Bad people cant shoot people without a gun, thereby lowering deaths.

"It is not the sole root. I stated the bigger contributors in the previous paragraph. The gun is not the main cause. After all, a gun is an inanimate object and can be used for good and bad. If guns were removed, criminals would still get them. If we had a complete blockade, they would be smuggled in. Even if we somehow managed to get them off the streets for good, there are other ways to kill. The gun industry also helps the economy. Also, illegal sale will increase if they are banned. A law doesn"t stop a murderer. Enforcement does. I repeat, illegal sales of guns will increase the black market. Just look at the War on Drugs [6]. Illegal drug use actually increased, and law enforcement had a really difficult time trying to stop it. It will be the same thing with guns"

You need to stop using this inanimate object straw-man argument. Guns, whilst inanimate, can eject lead at lethal speeds, in any given direction. Other inanimate objects don't do this. Guns are not a cause of violence, they're a means of inflicting violence. Criminals would still get guns? Yes, but this number will be incredibly reduced. Black market weapons are far more expensive than legally acquired weapons. This comes as a result of the influx of weapons being curbed when the market is no longer a legally distributed one. I.e. People can't buy guns > manufacturers stop making them > distributors stop shipping them > much more difficult for tiny volumes to leak into black markets > extortionate price increase > disincentive for criminals to purchase. As criminals typically tend to be those of low-income backgrounds, and incidentally those most likely to commit homicides, they're the least likely to be able to afford massive price hikes in black market weapons. End result sees a decrease in criminal gun ownership. And illegal drug use obviously increased when you make them illegal, since it wasn't illegal before so it now is categorised as illegal. The difference with drugs is that people develop addictions to drugs and require their consumption. Drugs don't physically affect anyone else when consumed, making their comparison, in this context, incomparable.

"Do I know for certain a government would nuke its own people? No, but I am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% confident that our government wouldn"t. As for freedom fighters, they could give us weapons to the point where we have almost what they have. Also, even if we don"t have their technology, it"s better to at least try than to sit there and let the government oppress you."

Irrelevant point.

"False. Before they have officially killed the person, they have already started the murder attempt. Even attempted murder will land you in jail for a very long time. They are a criminal the second they attempt murder."

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the person is a criminal before they've killed someone, or attempted to. Since anyone can buy a gun, there is so reason to suggest its purchase was for lethal intent.

"If a crazy person really wants to murder someone, they will do it, no matter the cost."

And most people aren't crazy. Gun crimes go down in states with fewer gun ownerships. That sounds sane to me.

"Although it is true that guns are better at killing people than knives, the same holds true for defending yourself with a gun instead a knife. It"s a two-way street. As I have touched on earlier, guns are the number one cause of gun deaths, but they are not the number one cause of homicides. Yes, they would feel less comfortable getting up close, they may feel more comfortable about the fact that a knife doesn"t make a loud noise. I"m not saying that knives are preferable, I"m saying that criminals will still be willing to kill even if they have to use a knife."

So because guns are not the number one cause of deaths, they're not a problem? Anything that causes deaths are a problem. The difference here is that guns do not serve much purpose other than shooting things. And you state that criminals will still be willing to kill with a knife, yet the evidence is stacked against you on that claim.

Unfortunately, most of your arguments are dispelled with proper evidence and logic. Your reasoning for keeping legal sale of firearms is going to need a lot more backing. Most importantly, a real reason to own a firearm should be given. As of now, there is no evidence to suggest guns make the United States a better place.
Mharman

Con

"The fact that homicide rates are significantly lower definitely shows that banning guns decreases homicide rates. Relating back to that report I linked in the previous round, it shows that there is a definitive increase in the amount of gun related crimes when compared to the rate/amount of gun ownerships."
False. Homicide rates decrease when gun ownership is increased [7]. In the first round you said gun deaths decreased, but since you've expanded that point to say homicide. Although gun deaths did go down, overall homicides actually increased. You want to decrease gun homicides, but your not looking at the big picture here. It's OVERALL homicides we want to lower. Not JUST GUN homicides. Every stat you've brought up looks at gun deaths, but they don't even touch on overall deaths. Let me tell you this, which is a 100% proven fact. The gun control plan you are advocating for may decrease gun homicides, but it also increases OVERALL homicides. Would you still advocate for that plan, knowing that?

"You state that a gun is an inanimate object, yet you were more than happy to use knives as a substitute when in fact knives serve far more utilitarian purposes than guns. Hand guns can be just as easily concealable as knives also. Again, I will state that guns INCREASE the homicide rate, so are therefore a contributor to homocides. Your constant referral to "bad people" and other factors completely disregard the fact that a gun is far easier to kill with. You then use drug sales as an example, to which I will say "drugs don't kill people, people using drugs kill people". See how ridiculous that sounds? Drugs are an inanimate object as well, yet people are happy to die using them and kill others over them. Similarly, people are happy to shoot other people for whatever reason. Gun crimes do not happen without guns. Therefore, guns are an issue. Bad people can't shoot people without a gun, thereby lowering deaths."
My point is that bad guys will be just as eager to use a knife to commit their murders. Again, guns do not increase the OVERALL homicide rate, just the GUN homicide rate. There is a difference, please know it. You say guns are easier to kill with, which is true, but again you miss the big picture. They are also easeier to defend with. It is a two way street; it works both ways. Saying guns kill people is like saying pencils misspell words. And actually, people using drugs do kill people, it doesn't sound rediculous at all. A person kills himslef by being stupid and getting addicted. In which again, drugs are inanimate, they can't control how addictive they are, just like how guns have no control over when they fire. It's completely in mankind's control. One more thing. Knives have one good use, food preparing. Guns have three good uses. Defending yourself, hunting, and cooking bacon. (The cooking bacon one was a short clip I saw of a man wrapping uncooked bacon around the barrel of a semi-automatic rifle and firing and at circle-shaped target.)

"You need to stop using this inanimate object straw-man argument. Guns, whilst inanimate, can eject lead at lethal speeds, in any given direction. Other inanimate objects don't do this. Guns are not a cause of violence, they're a means of inflicting violence. Criminals would still get guns? Yes, but this number will be incredibly reduced. Black market weapons are far more expensive than legally acquired weapons. This comes as a result of the influx of weapons being curbed when the market is no longer a legally distributed one. I.e. People can't buy guns > manufacturers stop making them > distributors stop shipping them > much more difficult for tiny volumes to leak into black markets > extortionate price increase > disincentive for criminals to purchase. As criminals typically tend to be those of low-income backgrounds, and incidentally those most likely to commit homicides, they're the least likely to be able to afford massive price hikes in black market weapons. End result sees a decrease in criminal gun ownership. And illegal drug use obviously increased when you make them illegal, since it wasn't illegal before so it now is categorised as illegal. The difference with drugs is that people develop addictions to drugs and require their consumption. Drugs don't physically affect anyone else when consumed, making their comparison, in this context, incomparable."
'Tis no strawman. The fact that you think it is shows that you don't see the obvious correlation. Also, tanks and cannons can fire like guns do. In the fourth sentence when you said guns are not a cause of voilence, only a means by which humans use to kill humans; that is a self-defeating argument, considering throughout this debate you said guns are the cause. Now you have completely switched your statement to say that it is the person's fault. In fact, by saying it is the person's fault, you completely proved my argument true.Yes, prices for guns on the balck market would be high, but they aren't going to care, their homicidal for Pete's sake! If they want to kill someone, they will. And with guns being exclusive to the black market, it will be even harder to keep track of gun crimes. And although they may not be able to afford guns, well, they already plan on breaking one law, so stealing the gun from the black market store, therefore committing another crime, isn't going to phase them.

"There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the person is a criminal before they've killed someone, or attempted to. Since anyone can buy a gun, there is so reason to suggest its purchase was for lethal intent."
People have been arrested for attempted murder, and there is usually sufficient evidence to tell when a homicide is being planned.

"And most people aren't crazy. Gun crimes go down in states with fewer gun ownerships. That sounds sane to me"
It sounds reasonable on the surface, but it is a different story when you look at the stats beneath the surface. More on that later. Gun crimes to go down, but OVERALL crimes increase when a gun ban is in place. Well, maybe gun crimes will go down. But evidence shows that many gun crimes areprevented by guns. I've noticed how you like to piont out high numbers of gun deaths, but a large portion of those are law-abiding, gun-owning civilians killing bad guys.

So because guns are not the number one cause of deaths, they're not a problem? Anything that causes deaths are a problem. The difference here is that guns do not serve much purpose other than shooting things. And you state that criminals will still be willing to kill with a knife, yet the evidence is stacked against you on that claim.
I'm tired of telling you this. Guns themselvers are not a problem, the bad guy with his hands on the trigger is the problem. Complete baloney that you say evidence is stacked agaist me. I showed you a source that proved knife crime did rise in the absence of guns.

My sources are in comments section.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
I'll vote on this. Just remind me a couple times a day on my profile comments
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: AmericanDeist// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Cpm (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct and used good grammar. Both cited sources. Con made the better argument about gun ownership driving down murder rates. Criminals prefer soft targets, not well defended ones. They prey on the weak. Con also touched on mens rea, which is Latin for the guilty mind.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both debaters. The voter appears to provide some assessment of Con"s argument, but never assesses Pro"s points either separately or by comparison.
************************************************************************
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
Your data shows "gun-deaths" but it never shows "overall deaths".
Posted by slightlyirategentleman 11 months ago
slightlyirategentleman
We have our first vote! Though I'm surprised that they thought you made a better argument about guns driving down murder rate, when my data showed it does the opposite....
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
I would be glad if this debate didn't suffer from no-votes disease.
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
The numbers may have change since those years, but the ratio did not.
Posted by slightlyirategentleman 11 months ago
slightlyirategentleman
You are aware that the argument is over and anything posted here is irrelevant, correct?
Regardless, outdated information is not reliable.
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
http://americangunfacts.com...

One final source.
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
More guns, less crime.
Posted by Mharman 11 months ago
Mharman
Even if it is from the 90's, that wouldn't change my point.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by subdeo 11 months ago
subdeo
slightlyirategentlemanMharmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct and grammer were about equal. Con made better arguments and gave the point I never saw answered about how, although gun deaths decrease with bans, overall homocides do not. He also cited more and better sources. Great debate, you two!