The Instigator
salve
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

That we should ban guns in urban areas

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 10 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,243 times Debate No: 13238
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (10)

 

salve

Pro

*Sorry if I do some argumentation in the wrong way, this is my first debate online, and also if my formatting is a bit wrong; I don't do American-style debating*

Today, I am proud to propose that we vastly restrict gun control in the United States of America. PRO will argue that gun control must be restricted, and our model will be as follows:

•Guns will not be allowed in urban areas
•Guns will be allowed for farmers who are considered to need them for the purposes of protecting themselves against animals, but this flow will be highly restricted
•The 2nd amendment will be amended to define the right to bear arms as one that exists only in rural and regional areas.

In countries such as Australia [1] we believe that this model has been highly successful in stopping organized and petty crime and gun-related accidents.

As PRO, I will argue that the government has a responsibility to restrict gun control, that this will decrease organized crime, petty crime and spontaneous crime and finally that it will stop the occurrence of gun-related accidents.

As CON, I expect that my opponent will argue that guns should be available as in the status quo.

There will be four rounds of this debate. I recognize that I hold the burden of proof and, for this reason, will thank my opponent for not advancing arguments in Round1.

DEFINITIONS

I define:

Urban- Located inside a city. [2]
City- A center of population. [3]
Gun- A portable device consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.[4]

I expect my opponent will accept these definitions. I look forward to a good debate.

http://guncontrol.org.au...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://guncontrol.org.au...
LaissezFaire

Con

I accept Pro's definitions.

My position is that Pro's plan should not be implemented because it would make the United States significantly less free and less safe.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and look forward to a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
salve

Pro

America is a nation that has been ravaged by crime, a nation in which homicide rates are, per thousand, almost four times as large as homicide rates in the UK and rates which are pretty only topped in the developed world by countries like Russia. [1]We say this is especially surprising given that the US has a well-funded police force and some pretty tough deterrents like the death penalty for murder. So we say that the underlying cause of these high crime rates is the abundance of guns we see in the USA, which I'll discuss later.

I thank LAISSEZFAIRE for taking up the CON side of this debate.

The Pro has three main arguments today; whether people have a right to have guns, in the constitution or in a modern society, the decrease in spontaneous crime rates our model will cause and the effects on both petty and organized crime.

Firstly, to the right to bear arms, and we have two levels of analysis on this point: the constitutional right to bear arms and the modern right. So firstly, we say that when the constitution was written there was an overwhelming right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment was a descendent of a war-faring, fledgling nation that relied upon civilian militia in its war efforts. However, we say that in a modern society in which we have an established armed forces, a police force and where this model only applies to the urban areas in which these services are readily available, the 2nd amendment of the constitution is obsolete because such different circumstances apply. But secondly, I expect that my opponent will argue that citizens even living in the America of today have a right to firearms. We on the Pro side believe that indeed, the government has a responsibility to restrict this right. The right to having weapons is never absolute, and we can see this in the fact that having advanced weaponry like tanks isn't allowed. But moreover we say that there is no reason why anyone would need a gun. There are two justifications normally given as to why people would need guns; defending against nature and self-defence. On the first point, we stated in our model that the restriction wouldn't apply to rural areas, and we think this justification doesn't really matter. On the second, we say that while some crime will still happen under our model, the need to defend one's self is so rarely used that it doesn't matter, and, furthermore, we say that even when this right is used, it's done so poorly that often the person with the gun or their close family are injured. Furthermore, there are alternatives to guns as far as self-defence goes. And even if our opposition could prove that this right does exist, we would say it needs to be restricted because allowing a free flow of guns endangers rights to personal safety and indeed the right to life itself. We think that a very questionable right to have guns when they are largely unnecessary pales in comparison to the right to personal safety the broader population has.

Secondly, we think our model will massively decrease spontaneous crime rates. We say that when there are guns freely available, it makes crime that much easier to participate in. When we consider America's crime rates, as I discussed earlier, we can see that they are much higher than those of other nations. Law-abiding citizens can be led astray by having guns around them, and that they often do make irrational decisions and kill people using guns who they wouldn't if guns were not so easily available. In fact, according to the research completed by emergency doctors, there is a 43:1 ratio of aiming at and shooting an innocent person than an actual criminal. [2]

Thirdly, how will our model affect both petty and organized crime? We think that the gun market will be largely eradicated in America. This is because we not only stop people from buying guns in America but we can also stop guns from being imported into the country, which will also be prohibited. The only people who will be able to receive any guns will be farmers living in rural areas. However, I expect my opponent will argue that some gun trade will continue to exist, which we do not accept, but, even so, when you reduce the number of guns legally sold, we say two things happen to the supply of guns; it decreases as whole so less gun crime can happen and furthermore we drive up the price of any remaining guns, which will make it much harder for small-time petty criminals to get their hands on guns. As to the effect on organized crime, we say police will be able to better attack gangs and the like when their very lifeblood is made illegal, and we say that this will stop organized crime. We think that our model will reduce petty and organized crime.

Because there is no right to arms and because our model will reduce crime we are proud to propose.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
LaissezFaire

Con

I'm glad my opponent brought up the fact that the U.S. has higher homicide rates than the U.K. To see why these statistics are irrelevant, we have to look at the history of gun control laws in Britain. The first major restriction on guns in Britain came in 1920. [1] Before then, both British and Americans had virtually no gun control laws. During the time when neither country had gun control laws, the U.S. still had about 4 times the homicides per capita that Britain had. [1] Gun control, or lack of it, is not responsible for the disparities in crime rates between the U.S. and Britain.

Now, for Pro's 3 main arguments:

1. The "right to bear arms," the "right to personal safety," and the "right to life" my opponent mentions are misleading ways of thinking about rights. I am not arguing that anyone should have the absolute right to bear arms, as in things like nuclear weapons. Humans, however, do have the right to their own lives, and thus the right to defend their lives. Thus, one cannot legitimately use a nuclear weapon, because such a weapon cannot be used for self defense, while one does have a right to use guns, because they can be legitimately used for self-defense.

My opponent claims that allowing citizens to bear arms would violate the rights of the general population, such as their "rights" to safety and life. This is not the case. First, a right to something that necessarily takes away someone else's rights is not a legitimate right. I do not have the legitimate right to steal your stuff, for example, because my claim of that right would violate your right to own property. Similarly, one does not have the right to life in the sense that they have the right to violate another person's rights to stay alive. I assume you agree that I do not have the right to steal someone else's kidney if I can't find a voluntary donor. That's because my right to life, as I said before, means the right to not be murdered, not the right to violate the rights of others to stay alive, otherwise, it cannot be considered a legitimate right. And contrary to the supposed "rights" my opponent claims would be violated by allowing gun ownership, the right to self-defense does not violate the rights of anyone else. Someone could accidently shoot an innocent person, but then that wouldn't count as self-defense, and thus would not mean that the right to self-defense violates other people's rights.

As for the right to self-defense being obsolete in "modern society" because of police, this claim is completely ridiculous. Police rarely protect people from home invasions—by the time they get there, the crime has already happened, and the homeowner is dead, burgled, or fine because he happened to own a gun and used it to defend himself and his family. The police cannot be everywhere at once, and simply cannot get to homes in time to stop the vast majority of crimes, only clean up after them, and maybe catch the criminal some time later. Furthermore, who can an innocent person call for help if the POLICE are attacking them? Surely you would agree that the victims of Stalin and Hitler had the moral right to defend themselves against the police, even though they didn't have the ability to. While the United States is not Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany (yet), citizens must have the right to defend themselves against tyranny in the possible future.

2. That 43:1 ratio is misleading and intellectually dishonest. It doesn't count non-violent ways that guns can stop crime, such as deterring criminals from committing the crime in the first place, and the victim subduing the criminal with the threat of a gun without actually having to fire it. Every year, 2.5 million acts of self-defense with a firearm occur, most of them occurring without any shots being fired, and 200,000 of them are women using a gun to defend against sexual assault. [2] Robbery victims that own guns will be injured 8% less than unarmed victims, and the crime will fail 70% of the time instead of only 12%. [2]

3. Your law would not eradicate the gun market. It would certainly reduce the total amount of guns, but it would do so by taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, not out of the hands of criminals who already use illegal guns. There's absolutely no way the proposed plan would do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminal gangs. Millions of PEOPLE illegal cross our borders every year, but you think you can keep guns out of the country? And how exactly would you stop guns flowing from rural areas, where they would be legal, to urban areas? This would just increase the power of organized crime by increasing profits, as gangs would control the urban gun market, and making sure that criminals don't have to worry about their victims trying to defend themselves.

[1] & [2] No room, see comments section.
Debate Round No. 2
salve

Pro

The Con in this debate simply didn't respond to my material; instead of talking about rights, they theorised about what would happen if America became Nazi Germany; instead of discussing crime he made vague statistical points. But nonetheless there are three main areas of contention here.

Firstly, to the issue of the right to bear arms. On the Pro we were always pretty clear on this points; that people don't have the right to bear arms if it infringes on the rights of others to things like personal safety, and this is something the Con conceded when he said, "a right to something that necessarily takes away someone else's rights is not a legitimate right". So the question here becomes whether or not guns infringe on the right to personal safety. My opponent attempted to dodge this question by answering that hurting people wasn't included in the right to self-defence. However, the topic is not whether people have the right to bear arms, it is about the right to have guns, and my opponent must concede the other consequences guns have; of accidental shootings and criminal behaviour. These rights clearly infringe on the right to life and the right of personal safety. We on the Pro believe that, when a gun is used forty-three times to shoot someone accidentally or unlawfully to every one time it is used in self-defence, we should prioritize and realize that the right to life is much more important than the rarely used right to have a firearm. Even if the opposition considers the 1:43 ratio to be inaccurate by a factor of twenty, this is still two accidental or unlawful shootings to every home that was allowed to keep some possessions. Even if the very statistic were reversed and guns were used successfully 43 times to every one shooting, we consider the sanctity of human life to be so great that the right to life is more important. We never said that the right to self-defence is obsolete; simply that when we have protection from a high-quality police force that is often able to intervene in crime and a situation in which that right is used very rarely and often very poorly with resultant accidental shootings, we shouldn't protect it.

After this point my opponent attempted to claim that citizens need guns because the police and the government as a whole might start attacking them. This point is simply ridiculous because we are in a stable, democratic system with armed forces from other nations that could help us. My opponent recalling Stalin and Hitler and saying we could someday need protection from their likes is so improbable that the point isn't worth contemplation.

My second point in round one was about the decrease in spontaneous crimes that having less available guns would cause, which was something my opponent misrepresented as being about gun-related accidents. I apologize for placing my 43:1 ratio in that point; I meant it to be in my first. I request that my opponent looks at the main body of my second point in round one. The only refutation my opponent ever gave was this one:

"I'm glad my opponent brought up the fact that the U.S. has higher homicide rates than the U.K. To see why these statistics are irrelevant, we have to look at the history of gun control laws in Britain. The first major restriction on guns in Britain came in 1920. [1] Before then, both British and Americans had virtually no gun control laws. During the time when neither country had gun control laws, the U.S. still had about 4 times the homicides per capita that Britain had. [1] Gun control, or lack of it, is not responsible for the disparities in crime rates between the U.S. and Britain."

The reason the US had high rates of gun crime in the 1920s is that that was the time of prohibition, which allowed gangs to form. [1] But moreover, that analysis is simply irrelevant because it happened so long ago. If my opponent has any plausible reasons for homicide rates being so much higher in the US, I'd be glad to hear them.

Thirdly, to the effect on petty crime. My analysis on this issue was neglected by my opponent. On a purely economic level, price will go up because there will be more risks in procuring guns and that there will be, overall, less supply. This means that smaller gangs and individuals who are taking part in petty, low-scale crime will not be able to access guns, something the Con is yet to respond to.

Fourthly, in terms of organized crime. My opponent said that guns could flow from the rural areas to the city. While this is true, given that both sides in this debate agreed that organized crime had access to guns, any reduction in supply or making it harder to get these guns would be a good thing. Furthermore, Con never responded to our claims that
we could better combat organized crime when their very lifeblood is illegal. Currently, police can't stop organized crime because proof is so hard to find. However when their very lifeblood is illegal, we are better able to stop it.

We should ban guns
LaissezFaire

Con

Contrary to my opponent's claims, I did respond to his material and refute his points. Of course, I can see how he might have misunderstood, since the entire concept of rights is meaningless to a liberal. And facts showing that guns are often used to protect people are not "vague statistical points," they are evidence that guns fight crime.

1. First of all, 2.5mil cases of self-defense annually is not "rarely." You claim that someone's right to life includes the right to take away someone else's rights. This is clearly an inconsistent view of rights. Would you consider it my right to steal someone's kidney to save my own life? If not, why is it not OK to infringe on another's rights in that situation, but OK to do so when you're taking away a person's right to self-defense? I claim that the right to self-defense on one's own property does not infringe on anyone else's rights, and it clearly does not. If someone is concerned about accidental shootings, then they are free to simply not use guns or associate with people that use guns. If someone is concerned about criminals, then they should be free to own a gun, which is an effective defense against home invasions. (See statistics in 2. of my previous round)

As far as police protection from crimes goes, this claim is ridiculous. How does Pro expect the police to get to a house and intervene in time to stop someone from being assaulted or murdered? They do sometimes arrive in time to catch criminals, but rarely do they stop violent crimes before someone gets hurt. But don't take my word for it. The police themselves overwhelmingly oppose strict gun control laws. Asked about a proposed ban on assault weapons, 78.6% of police said that they opposed the ban. [1] There aren't any surveys that asked if police would support your proposed total ban, but it's safe to assume that very few would if only a small fraction supported a mere assault weapons ban. Even the very people that Pro believes would protect us say that they can't, at least not as well as we can protect ourselves.

[1] http://www.guncite.com...

Pro asserts that the chances of the U.S. becoming a police state are so low that the idea isn't even worth considering. Well, if he doesn't think that that situation is likely, then he's free to not own a gun. I merely suggest that those of us that see the creeping fascism in our midst should be allowed to defend ourselves and our families. It isn't so unreasonable to want to protect oneself against fascism. Genocides throughout history would not have been possible with a well-armed populace. Even the United States has a history of persecuting defenseless minorities and mass murder. During WWII, Japanese-Americans who had committed no crimes were sent to internment camps. The Supreme Court ruled that this was acceptable because we were at war. Nowadays, all sorts of tactics, from warrantless GPS tracking to the President's ability to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without a trial, are perfectly legal. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people, minding their own business and not hurting anyone, are arrested and jailed every year because their drug of choice happened to be one of the incorrect ones. The United States has killed millions of civilians worldwide, and continues to kill civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA has installed dictators throughout the world. What's stopping fascist tactics abroad from turning into fascist tactics at home, disguised as another anti-terrorism measure? Potential fascism in the U.S. is clearly not "so improbable that the point isn't worth contemplation."

2. Here, Pro completely misunderstood my paragraph. I said that before 1920, neither Britain nor the U.S. had any significant gun control laws. During that time, before 1920, the U.S. was much more violent than Britain. Therefore, the fact that the U.S. is STILL more violent than Britain proves nothing.

3. Perhaps some petty criminals would have moderately less access to guns under Pro's plan. However, since law-abiding citizens would have NO access to guns, this is something that would increase the relative power of criminals.

4. Guns are not the lifeblood of criminal gangs, unjust laws are. As you said, alcohol prohibition led to the rise of organized crime and a rise in crime. Gun prohibition would lead to a similar increase in the power and profits of criminal gangs. Pro also seems to mistakenly believe that gangs are currently legally using guns, and if we just ban guns, police will be able to prosecute them their gun ownership. The reality is that most gang members that own guns own them illegally. Why would they legally purchase a gun that could easily be traced back to them when they could just use an illegal and therefore less traceable gun? Furthermore, this law would decrease the power of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against gangs, as only the criminals would have guns.
Debate Round No. 3
salve

Pro

43:1 is the ratio Con wants to defend. 43 people who are shot accidentally or unlawfully for every one guilty person shot in the name of self-defence.

Today we've seen a Con that can't acknowledge the right of the broader population, whereas we on the Pro side wish to balance these rights. There have been three big questions in today's debate: the balance of rights, the effect on spontaneous crime and the effect on petty and organized crime.

Firstly, to the balance of rights in this debate. From the very start of this debate, we on the Pro told you that our model would protect the right to life and the right to personal safety. My opponent never refuted the idea that guns infringed on this right, and he failed to discuss it in the last round, so I have no reason to think that he has not. In return, my opponent discussed the right to bear arms. He accepted that the constitution wasn't really of relevance to this debate. But my opponent did offer two different justifications as to why people should be allowed guns:

1)Defence against the police
2)Self-defence

On the first point, which can fairly accurately be described as fear over America becoming one like to one controlled by Hitler and Stalin. My friend, the day you believe we are such a totalitarian state so as to justify shooting an American soldier is the day you can make this point. In the meantime, it is just too impossible. Furthermore, if this totalitarian state were established, it could not be defeated by gun-toting citizens; it would likely be too powerful.

The second justification was much more valid. The Pro concedes that guns may be used as self-defence. However, as the Con admits, the ratio of times in which the right to self-defence is used to the number of times the rights of others to personal safety or to life is 43:1. My opponent says this statistic may be inaccurate, but, even if it were reversed, even if it were 43 people shot in self-defence to 1 innocent person that was shot accidentally we believe the sanctity of human life is so great that we would still move to ban guns. In answer to the question of the hierarchy of right people have, the Pro argues that life sits well above the ability to tote guns. My opponent also tried to argue that anyone who was particularly concerned about personal safety could simply not buy a gun. But this just didn't take into account the fact that these injuries are of other people, not of the person who has bought the gun. We say that the right to self-defence is important, but that human life is more important, especially when our trade-off is 43 innocent people to one guilty one. [See round 2 for statistics]

The next issue of this debate was the impact on spontaneous crime, to which my opponent has only partially responded to. We made it very clear in this debate that when guns are around, it makes it that much easier to spontaneously commit unplanned homicides [1]. My opponent never disputed this line of reasoning. The only thing he refuted was the actual rates and why they were there, using a line of reasoning based upon statistics from the 1920s. He said that America still had a much higher rate of crime than Britain in the 1920s, and that this was still the same; that it was unconnected to gun crime. However, the only reason America had such a high rate of gun crime in the 1920s was because prohibition had allowed a gang culture to develop. Much more accurate statistics are from, say, our own time; the fact that America has an extraordinary rate of homicide compared to that of other nations. I asked my opponent to give me a reason for this other than the relaxed gun laws. He neglected to. We conclude that this is the factor that has led to large increases in homicide. It simply makes sense for the availability of murder weapons to increase murder rates. People kill people, but guns help a lot.

Thirdly, to the effect on criminal groups. In terms of petty groups, we argued that guns would not be available to these groups because prices would increase as supply lessens and risks taken to get guns rise. This would put guns out of the price range of petty criminals. In terms of organized crime, for the same reasons, the supply of guns to them would be lessened. My opponent claimed that organized criminals would gain profits from the ban because they could sell guns. However, the only group that we believe will be able to buy gains is organized crime itself, so this point seemed to assume that crime gangs would sell guns to themselves. Com misunderstood my argument as to why it would help to combat organized crime; the argument was that police could simply arrest anyone who had a gun rather than being forced to consider its legality. Furthermore, we think that the power of criminals with guns over the population would not be increased because there would be many fewer criminals with guns and they would be much easier to crack down upon.

Good luck to my opponent.

http://gunc
LaissezFaire

Con

That 43:1 ratio doesn't really mean anything. As I said before, it doesn't include situations where a gun is used to prevent a crime without firing a shot, such as if a homeowner subdued a burglar by threatening to use a gun, rather than just shooting a burglar, or if the criminal was deterred from committing the crime in the first place. Pro claims that even if the ratio of shootings of innocent people to shots in self-defense were 1:43, guns should still be banned, because of the sanctity of life. This is absurd. What about the sanctity of the lives that the guns saved? Pro is only counting deaths of innocent people by guns without counting the lives that the use of guns in self-defense has saved.

1. Pro is correct that I do not acknowledge the "rights" of a broader population. Only individual rights have any meaning. Pro claims that I did not respond to his point about guns infringing on the rights of life and safety. I did. I pointed out that if people do not want to accidently shoot anyone, they should not own a gun, and if someone doesn't want to accidentally get shot, they should avoid the property of people that do choose to own guns. Thus, the right to self-defense does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

My opponent misunderstands the idea of guns as a defense against tyranny. It doesn't matter whether or not an armed militia can defeat a totalitarian government. The point is that an armed citizenry would be able to stop tyranny before it was too late. If you look at the rise of tyrannical dictatorships worldwide, they always disarmed the populace before committing genocide.

Pro claims that he is placing the right to life above the right to bear arms. He is not. He is placing the right of some people to control others above the right of individuals to defend their lives and the lives of their families. He himself admits that he would rather see 43 innocent people become victims of rape, robbery, or murder than see 1 innocent person accidentally get shot. I am not putting the right to self-defense above the right to life. The right to self-defense IS the right to life in the most fundamental way, it is the right to save one's life, it is the right to not be killed. Remember that guns are used in self defense around 2.5 million times per year, and guns deter even more crime. Without guns, these millions of people likely be victims of rape, burglary, murder, or other crimes.

2. My opponent has misread my point here, again. I am not using crime statistics from the 1920s. I clearly said that during the time BEFORE the 1920s, when neither Britain nor the U.S. had gun control, there was much more violent crime in the U.S. than in Britain. Therefore, the fact that the U.S. STILL has just as many times as much violent crime as Britain cannot possibly be proof that gun control works.

3. Obviously, the supply of guns to criminals would be lessened somewhat with this ban. But the supply of guns to law-abiding citizens would be zero. Criminals would still have plenty of guns, especially if guns are still legal in rural areas and neighboring countries. But law-abiding citizens would be defenseless against these criminals. Criminals would have much more power over law-abiding citizens. Now, citizens can use guns to defend themselves against criminals with guns. Under Pro's plan, criminals would still have guns, although not quite as many. But the rest of the population would have nothing, and would be at the mercy of the gangs. Pro claims that giving the police the right to just arrest anyone with a gun would reduce the power of gangs. Does giving police the power to just arrest anyone with drugs reduce the power of gangs now? Of course not.

Conclusion:

a) Pro has not given any coherent argument for how the right to use a gun to defend one's life and family infringes on anyone else's rights.

b) Pro failed to explain how the police would be able to adequately defend citizens against criminals. He failed to respond to my argument in round 3 during this round, which I can only assume means that he concedes this point. If the police cannot protect us, then Pro's claim that people don't need guns to defend themselves because the police can do that is completely invalid.

c) Pro failed to respond to the argument that guns can be used to prevent tyranny, only stating that he doesn't think they'd be needed.

d) Pro failed to respond to my evidence showing that guns are used in self-defense millions of times per year, and gun ownership means that victims of crime are less likely to be injured.

e) Pro misread and failed to respond to my point that his statistic about violent crime in Britain and the U.S. is meaningless.

f) Pro failed to adequately explain how taking away the guns of every law abiding citizen while slightly reducing the amount of guns criminals have will reduce the power of gangs.

Pro has clearly failed to meet his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by billybobaustn 6 years ago
billybobaustn
In Florida, guns are allowed. Florida is one of if not the safest state in the US. And Washington D.C. banned guns. They have crime.

When the bad guys know people are carrying weapons that could harm them, they are more cautious than when knowing they can steel or kill with nothing the victim can do.
Posted by rogerdodger91 6 years ago
rogerdodger91
Guns dont kill people. People kill people, with whatever they have at their disposal. A guy is going after your daughter with a knife, wouldnt you want to be able to shoot him before he stabs her? Perhaps making it harder to get guns would be a better way of controlling guns. ID locked guns with special chips shot into the hand that releases the safety on a gun. Making new amunition that cant be used with the old guns. It wouldnt be that hard to enforce a better gun law then the ones in place now.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
I don't necessarily believe that gun control policies are racist, I was just explaining what MarquisX meant. Of course, I'm sure that many of the liberals who support such policies are racist in a condescending paternalist way.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Egh I wouldn't let LF get away with the racist point. A policy is racist based on its intentions, not who it effects. Every policy will have some disproportionate impact on certain groups. Hawaiian natives are more sensitive to high-fructose-corn-syrup than the average american, but that doesn't mean agriculture policy is racist.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Which people are most likely to live in urban areas? Which people are most likely to live in a crime-ridden area, and need guns to defend themselves? Which people are least likely to get adequate help from the police?
Posted by salve 6 years ago
salve
Thanks for the advice guys. In Aus we normally have a 'You have no rights' point first up, but I'll take that on board.

How is banning guns in urban areas racist?
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
"I'd also recommend avoiding discussion of rights if you're advocating more government intervention."

hehehe
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
@salve
For debates in the future, I'd suggest reading your opponent's posts more carefully. You misread my point about British vs. American violence rates twice. I'd also recommend avoiding discussion of rights if you're advocating more government intervention.
Posted by MarquisX 6 years ago
MarquisX
And banning guns is urban areas is just plain racist, lets be honest
Posted by TPF 6 years ago
TPF
Especially considering there's literally millions of guns in America.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by marty321 6 years ago
marty321
salveLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
salveLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mr.Gompers 6 years ago
Mr.Gompers
salveLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Blank 6 years ago
Blank
salveLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
salveLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
salveLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by djsherin 6 years ago
djsherin
salveLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by TPF 6 years ago
TPF
salveLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
salveLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
salveLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03