The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
My_Old_Age
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The US should ban all firearms

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 4 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,235 times Debate No: 24045
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

16kadams

Con

Firearm(s)-
A gun, especially a pistol or rifle or shotgun, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

No semantics or trolling

BOP prp, for being against the status quo.

1st round acceptance for pro.
My_Old_Age

Pro

I accept. I hear your friends with my soon to be husband so this will be interesting.

1st reason: Guns are dangerous, and well if there are guns then there is death and I personally don't know anyone who is for death. some people don't understand death is taking someone's life forever.

2nd reason: I just watched mission impossible 3 yesterday and well there was an assassin with a firearm in her jacket and she walked up right to the agent and killed him.

These are my reasons for this round. Now please hurry up because I am not going to get any younger! :P

Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

As stated in round one I said 1st round acceptance. My opponents points are therefore irrelevant, and she must re-post them next round for them to be relevant. But I recommend she edits her case a little.

– My case will revolve around 2 main ideas:

1. Gun bans are ineffective
2. Gun bans increase overall violent crime rate

The constitution leads to many what if arguments, so this will make it so we can rely on data and facts.

C1: Gun control and gun bans are ineffective

Gun bans historically have been highly ineffective in preventing higher crime rates, in other words gun bans fail to lower crime. This point is actually devils advocating for me, as this tries to claim gun bans have little effect.

Studies done by the harvard school of law and public policy have shown (whilst examining international evidence) "there is no societal benefit from banning guns". Everyone agrees, though, that guns in the hands of criminals are not beneficial to society. We also agree that getting guns away from these criminals is a good thing, but where we differ is the effects of banning guns to the average citizen. The average citizen is not a law breaker, so giving guns to all of the law abiding citizens would not raise crime, likewise arming every criminal would likely increase it. But, however, where we disagree is the overall effect. We agree disarming criminals is beneficial to society, but my argument is gun control fails to disarm criminals and only disarms citizens.

Now there is not just assumptions based in the paragraph above, it is supported by empirical data from Russia as well as other European countries. "As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use."[1]

In other words, the criminals can still obtain weapons, the same way they do many things. THEY BREAK THE LAW. It is a simple concept, they break the rules with rape, robbery, murder larceny, arson, and private property, why would we think another law would disarm them? Even if we assume we can disarm them, we can still argue they will still obtain them via a black market. So the people, not the criminals, would be disarmed.

But also based on other evidences, the amount of gun ownership has no effect on crime. In Canada, for example, crime rates where falling before the law was passed. They continued to fall at the same rate after the ban, but not relative to the US (our drop was more substantial).[1] So based on this, we can conclude a gun ban would have no effect on crime, and therefore there is no reason to ban weapons. When it came to ownership, some studies concluded only a 5% difference (the increase of crime on a ban is under 5%), which is statistically insignificant relative to the crime rate dropped in Keensaw Georgia after a law was passed requiring all people to own a weapon (the drop of crime was 70-80%).

C2: Gun bans increase crime

Now comparing countries from Europe to the US suffer many problems, mainly the societal difference. So comparing those two continents is a failed experiment. Comparing European countries together, though, works as their society is similar. (meaning comparing regions is ok, comparing across oceans is not)[1]. Lets look at the data:

Belarus - guns banned - murder rate 10.40
Poland - guns allowed - murder rate 1.98
Russia - guns banned - murder rate 20.54[1]

As we can see banning guns is correlated with higher murder rates. And I am well aware of correlation/causation fallacies, but as this is reproductive over many other gun laws (all gun control laws based on my research have lead to higher crime) the correlation is strong enough to cause many progressive scientists to actually turn against gun control. Most notably Gary Kleck.

Now many tougher gun laws have been recently passed by countries to attempt to curb violent crime, and after these laws pass the already increasing crime rate increases. (meaning a normal crime fluctuation goes out of control, kinda like "global warming")



see source[2]

As we can see, a moderate crime cycle has turned into an abnormal rise in crime. "As the graph shows, after the passage of Ireland’s firearm control laws, the murder rate rose from about 10 a year to 50 a year in the space of just three years."[2]

Esentially saying crime before (if it continued at the prior rate) would take 50 years to get to the point in 1973, but the gun ban made it increase that much in 3 years, and then crime continued to increase. Meaning it was an unnatural increase in crime, and is statistically linked to the gun ban, meaning less guns more murders.

A look at Jamaca:


see source 2 again

The maker of the study then concludes it is hard to see what other gun bans do, other then raise crime. He said the unnatural icnreases mean the law must have had an effect, unless it is coincidence. (which is unlikely as almost the same exact results happened in ireland, therefore the replication means gun laws must have had a increasing crime effect, now the question is how much.)


see source 2

ignore the american line, look at the blue one.

We see right after the gun ban, a soar in violent crime rates. as we see, again, gun laws do have an effect on the unnatural increase, unless it is coincidence. Which is unlikely as I have shown the same thing happening after every gun ban.

Basically when guns are banned, crime increases! its very simple.

"After the introduction of British-style gun laws in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland and Jamaica, violent crime in all of these countries has not fallen but typically has increased"[2]

Cool with the foreign correlations 16kadams, you need to talk about the US!
Fine.

In Washington DC, 1977-2005, there was a decrease in populaiton by 20%. At the same time, crime increased relative to itself and the overall US, note according to certian statistical regressions (populaiton accounted for – no surge in pop. to account for the rise) murder still rose a significant amount. Simiar results happened with chicago, when the ban on handguns was put in place their crime rate rose relative to the US as well as itselfs. [3]

CONCLUSION:

Gun bans raise crime and should not be implimented, vote con.



[1] Kates, Don B. and Mauser, Gary A., "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (May 2006).
[2] "How Governments Create Crime, AN OVERVIEW OF CRIME CONTROL, GUN CONTROL, PEOPLE CONTROL AND THE LOSS OF RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE" by Dr. Lech Beltowski (NZ)
[3] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.
My_Old_Age

Pro

My_Old_Age forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

My opponents r1 is still irrelevant

Vote Con
My_Old_Age

Pro

My_Old_Age forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

.

... Vote con...

Look up John Lott on YouTube
My_Old_Age

Pro

My_Old_Age forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Why would she feel offended?
Posted by mee2kool4u369 4 years ago
mee2kool4u369
If my wife feels offended she will forfeit.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
lolol@Pro-contentions
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
It will be
Posted by mee2kool4u369 4 years ago
mee2kool4u369
This will be interesting its my wife vs a good friend
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
The only gun control that should exist is the NRA instant check
Posted by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
16k, i'll debate you on "the US should have no gun control" but this is a bit extreme of an anti-gun position to defend
Posted by rnick50 4 years ago
rnick50
Meh, I'm for Gun Control and the only argument I could see against it is the fact that the UK has a low amount (I read somewhere as low as 36) of gun related murders each year but it is also goig against the Constitution by taking away a basic civil right.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
It is also ok of you put sources in an external link
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Yeah, I just saw a gun control argument with the person to the right of the screen blank and was blinded by an easy argument :P
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
16kadamsMy_Old_AgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit. Obvious multi account is obvious
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
16kadamsMy_Old_AgeTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets arguments because Pro never made proven claims and dropped Con's rebuttal, Conduct because Pro forfeited, and sources because Con actually used them while Pro didn't. Also, I have no clue why Pro would feel offended, since her husband stated that's why she would forfeit.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
16kadamsMy_Old_AgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con as Pro never responded to his arguments and thus conceded them. Her original arguments were also shown to be unsupported. Sources also go to Con for utilizing them to prove his case. Conduct also for multiple forfeits and wasting a debate. Clear win to Con.
Vote Placed by socratesone 4 years ago
socratesone
16kadamsMy_Old_AgeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented solid case. Pro forfeited. Nuf said.