The Instigator
ufcryan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
emanfman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Ultimate Goal of the Gun Control Lobby is to Ban and Confiscate All 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: 6/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,997 times Debate No: 34509
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

ufcryan

Pro

This is NOT a debate on whether or not guns should or should not be banned, nor if guns should or should not be controlled more heavily. I can argue against most forms of gun control and gun bans, however that is a different debate. If my opponent or anyone reading this wishes to debate the pros, cons, and effects of guns in society, please send me the challenge.

This debate refers exclusively to private firearm ownership. Firearms possessed by the police, military, and secret services are exempted.

This debate is designed to gauge the behavior of the gun-control crowd and determine if their ultimate goals are to simply regulate firearms as they say or if they wish to ban private firearm ownership. I will not make any arguments using or referencing common conspiracy theories such as the existence of the illuminati.

Proposed Definitions:

Gun Control: regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns

Gun Ban: criminalizing the sale, possession, and distribution of firearms.

Gun Confiscation: mandatory or forceful repossession of privately owned firearms to be given to the government to be destroyed or reused. Mandatory Gun Buyback Programs are also considered gun confiscation.

Gun Control Lobby: The BradyCampaign and any of their affiliate organizations. These organizations include the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Violence Policy Center, Senator Feinstein's Administration, Mayor Bloomberg's Administration, and Barack Obama's Administration.

My Arguments:

Normally I am extremely cautious about using a slippery slope argument, however in the case of gun control it appears to be valid. Given the history of the Gun Control Lobby, audio recordings, failed proposals made by the pro-gun control politicians, and the structure of proposed gun laws, and how certain gun laws have progressed, I argue that the gun-control lobby is in fact "coming for your guns."
emanfman

Con

I am glad to participate in this debate. It should be entertaining.

"Given the history of the Gun Control Lobby, audio recordings, failed proposals made by the pro-gun control politicians, and the structure of proposed gun laws, and how certain gun laws have progressed, I argue that the gun-control lobby is in fact "coming for your guns."

I will immediately attack this statement with the most obvious response: SOURCES PLEASE!

Please provide a source that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gun Control Lobby's ultimate agenda is to achieve the goal of a total gun ban.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
ufcryan

Pro




In the first video, either watch the entire thing or please skip to 5:50.







BradyCampaign History and Statistics

The Brady Campaign Originally started as the National Council to Control Handguns, whose primary agenda was to try and ban and confiscate all handguns. Are we supposed to believe that they suddenly changed gears and no longer wish to ban handguns, or did they simply rearrange their priorities to try and pass a little legislation before potentially revisiting these previous proposals?

http://bradycampaign.org...
http://www.theatlantic.com...

Next, several of the proposals and ideas promoted by the Brady Campaign are vague and not based on any legitimate research or science, but can more or less be reworked to push a complete gun ban. One of these is the famous Assault Weapons Ban.

Banning Assault Weapons

Senator Feinstein defined Assault Weapons to be anything they perceive to have certain scary features. For example, the entire assault weapons ban was organized around banning the AR-15 rifle. The Ruger Mini-14 fires the exact same bullet and literally operates in the exact same fashion as the AR-15 insofar as its semi-automatic and can accept large capacity magazines, but because it does not have a pistol grip, barrel shroud, or a muzzle flash it would have been legal to own. In other words, a mass shooter could literally accomplish the exact same task with either an AR-15 or a Ruger Mini-14. The correct approach would have been to scientifically evaluate which weapons were more deadly and assess their practical civilian use, but ultimately they were simply trying to ban a small portion of guns. Perhaps after another mass shooter accomplished the same task with say, a handgun or the Ruger Mini-14, it is not inconceivable that they would demand more and more guns be banned.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...

Saturday Night Specials

A saturday night special was designated to be any cheap handgun which had lower than normal standards. Because they were cheap, the Brady Campaign assumed criminals could have access to more of these guns. As time went on, they've continued to redefine the definitions of saturday night specials to be any gun cheap enough for the poorer Americans to own, although there have been conflicting studies in whether or not these guns were most commonly used by criminals or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.motherjones.com...

Proposed Statistics

If the Brady Campaign truly was solely focused on controlling guns, they would not continue to post the following statistic.

"Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."

This statistic obviously implies that all guns should be banned, or at least guns are a health hazard to anyone who owns one. The problem with this implication is that this statistic is that the methodology for which it was determined was flawed, and thus an inaccurate statistic. If all they wanted was to regulate guns, they would not post a statistic which encourages complete gun bans.

For an account the flawed methodology of this statistic is false, please see video 4. Also It fails to reconsider correlation and cause. People may buy guns specifically to commit suicide with, and people may buy a gun because they are worried of being a victim of a homicide.

http://bradycampaign.org...
emanfman

Con

Well, it seems from a first look that you're being distracted from the argument.
Let's start by countering the videos.

The first one, with Ben Shapiro, very much helps my argument, rather than yours.
Piers makes it clear that a gun ban is a ridiculous proposal. Nowhere does he say he wants to take away all the guns. He says that control is a necessary measure, and that it wouldn't work in America.

The second video, with Colin Noir, also provides insufficient evidence.
It says that control is something that everyone is moving for. Although he points out the slippery slope that could lead to a total ban, he doesn't state that we need to be wary of the government trying to take control. This is because the idea of a total ban would never work.

This is supported by the fourth video. "More guns equals less violence" indeed. The video, if anything, supports my argument, by showing that banning guns is preposterous, and totally defeat the purpose of organizations like the Brady Campaign, which is to prevent gun violence.

The third video, very interestingly, does provide some evidence for that argument. However, what it fails to show is that the ultimate plan is to eliminate guns entirely. True, some people backing the campaign do support a total ban, but ultimately the vast majority of the supporters are simply moving towards some form of control that will lower the amount of gun violence.

In other words, the goal is not to ban guns. That would be nice, but unfeasible. In essence, they work to prevent gun violence, which can be achieved by certain measures of control, but not necessarily a ban.

The article by the Atlantic that you put forth screams of bias, just like the third video. It manipulates you into thinking one thing means the next. The fact that the government wants control does NOT mean that they want a ban. Hell, you Americans made the mistake of introducing the second amendment in the first place. Guns here in Ontario, Canada are not banned, but simply need to be registered. Unregistered guns here are illegal, but people have them anyways. And just like in America, gun violence would skyrocket if they were banned outright. Seeing as that kind of legislation is working for Canadians, it would also work for Americans once people realize that the government isn't going to take away your guns.

Now, in one of the videos (I can't remember which) There is someone claiming that in a personal conversation with Obama that Mr. President himself doesn't believe Americans should own guns. Once again, this does not mean that he will ban them! In fact, in another video he explicitly states in a public speech that he doesn't want to pass the legislation to take them away.

Your Brady Campaign timeline is very good reading, but no where in the ENTIRE HISTORY is there mentioned any push for a total ban. This is because their goal is to reduce the levels of violence, which can be achieved simply through control, not a ban.

"Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."

How does this encourage a complete ban? Once again, it only reinforces that they are only pushing for control. Like you said yourself, it fails to reconsider (sic) correlation and cause. If control measures like effective background checks or registration were introduced, there would be a dramatic reduction of gun-related violence and suicides.

Finally, to address the Assault Weapons Ban and the Saturday Night Specials: they were revoked for a reason! Although they weren't very specific with what type of guns they wanted to be banned, the only point of those bans was to make sure Americans were safer, not because they didn't want them to lose their guns. When people saw that it was only increasing the amounts of gun violence, it was undone. This shows that safety is what the Gun Control Lobby is all about, not banning guns outright.

If they wanted to ban guns, they would not have allowed that kind of thing to happen. And therefore, my argument stands.

_______________________________________________________

Props to you for making a good argument, though. ;)
Debate Round No. 2
ufcryan

Pro

Thank You emanfman, you had some pretty good comments. I would like to remind you however, that we are establishing goals or agendas. Just because someone denies being "anti-gun" does not mean they are not, it could mean that they don't want to be labeled as anti-gun because its unpopular in America.

Next, it is without a doubt that completely eliminating gun ownership is unfeasible, they haven't even managed that in Britain. However recall that a total gun ban refers to making gun ownership ILLEGAL. People can still possess guns after a gun ban and confiscation, they simply can't do it legally.


Also, of course there will be some people in the BradyCampaign who want a strict gun ban and some who want only some gun control. However it is the gun-control lobby's leadership from which I am mainly referencing. The leadership controls the direction of their proposals, and I still argue that the proposals and efforts of the gun-control lobby's leadership is moving toward a complete gun ban and confiscation.

Responses

"The first one, with Ben Shapiro, very much helps my argument, rather than yours.
Piers makes it clear that a gun ban is a ridiculous proposal. Nowhere does he say he wants to take away all the guns. He says that control is a necessary measure, and that it wouldn't work in America."

In the video, around 5:50, Ben Shapiro asks "...your from the UK why don't we just go with a full gun ban," then pierce goes on to talk about how Britain has 40 or 50 gun murders a year, then he says "why don't we try our way."

(Shapiro) "...why don't we just go with a full gun ban." (Piers) "Why don't we try our way."

Britain had a complete ban on guns, Piers's "our way" is a complete gun ban. In 1997 Britain passed the 1997 firearms act which enacted a mandatory confiscation of the few remaining guns in their country. The British way is a complete gun ban, Piers is British, "why don't we try our way" translates into a complete gun ban and mandatory confiscation (with extremely rare and very few exceptions).

In the Colion Noir video, he talks about the slippery slope of the magazine capacity limits. Here's what he didn't tell you that the New York magazine limit was an indirect method of banning most semi-automatic handguns. Currently in New York, your allowed to own 10 round magazines but your only legally allowed to load 7 bullets in the magazine (with some .22 caliber exceptions). The limit is meant to lead to a ban on any magazine with a capacity larger than 7 bullets, which would effectively make it illegal to buy most guns on the market because gun manufacturers don't make 7 round magazines. Then, if given the chance, they'd probably decrease it past 7 and eventually we wind up with a complete gun ban, at least in New York.

Granted, gun companies could eventually make 7 round magazines. There problem here however is that in order for this law to be remotely effective, they would also need to ban magazines that can be converted to hold more than 7 rounds, which would essentially ban all firearms excluding revolvers.

http://legalinsurrection.com...
http://nymag.com...

The fourth video was meant simply to show the disproof of the Kellerman statistic. The original article literally said "gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide in the home." The statistic proposed by the BradyCampaign was, again, "Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."

http://guncite.com...

The term "domestic homicide" refers to guns being a potential risk to the homeowner. This implies that guns are effectively a health risk to anyone who owns them, therefore the underlying implication is that guns are bad for your health and safety. Since they are (supposedly) bad for your health and safety, no one should own them. If the BradyCampaign leadership TRULY was solely about controlling guns, they would remove this statistic, especially since it's been disproven.

By the way, the article from the Atlantic was an article I was referenced to DIRECTLY from the BradyCampaign website. Therefore I'm pretty sure its accurate, and the original agenda of the BradyCampaign was to ban and confiscate all handguns. Has this agenda changed, or was there not enough support so they're shooting for smaller goals?

http://bradycampaign.org...

I understand the third video was extremely biased, but nonetheless it does contain some videos damning many members of the gun-control lobby. Feinstein's "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," the failed confiscations proposals in New York (granted those were only Assault Weapons, but still), and of course the DC vs. Heller case where right to private firearm ownership was challenged.

"Now, in one of the videos (I can't remember which) There is someone claiming that in a personal conversation with Obama that Mr. President himself doesn't believe Americans should own guns. Once again, this does not mean that he will ban them! In fact, in another video he explicitly states in a public speech that he doesn't want to pass the legislation to take them away."

I would like to remind my opponent that we are discussing ultimate goals or agendas. Obviously Obama will not be able to ban and confiscate all guns during his presidency, but he can still take steps to move toward this goal so others can. And just because politicians publicly say something does not mean they're being truthful. Politicians lie to get elected all the time, and that speech where Obama said he didn't want to take away your guns was during his 2008 presidential run. Was he saying that just so he could get elected or did he sincerely mean it...?

Lastly, the Assault Weapons and Saturday Night Specials. There are obviously some people who (falsely) feel that assault weapons are deadlier than other firearms, however it was abstract enough to ban nearly whatever they wanted. The Saturday Night Specials basically targets any firearm cheap enough for the average person to own. Both of which failed, like you said, for a reason. However once again remember we are arguing what the ultimate goal of the gun-control lobby is. Both the Assault Weapons ban and the Saturday Night Specials Ban were excuses to begin banning some firearms, from which they would no doubt pursue further bans later. They failed, but nonetheless the gun-control leadership tried to use them to subtly ban, and in the case of assault weapons, confiscate guns.
emanfman

Con

emanfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ufcryan

Pro

For anyone reading this debate, my opponent couldn't access his computer so he wrote his rebuttal to round 3 in the comments.

Piers Morgan "try our way"

You mention how Piers goes on to say that he doesn't have an agenda he wants to make America safer. He probably believes that is his ultimate goal, but nonetheless "let's try our way," or "trying the British way," is a complete gun ban. Also, Piers has made it clear many times that he takes this gun control debate extremely seriously, so I doubt he was speaking sarcastically, but I'll play along and assume we have a stalemate.

As a side note, less gun murders does not necessarily dictate less murders or less deaths, but that's a different debate.

As for the high capacity magazine bans, we have to face that it does appear to be moving towards a total ban, as is the case in New York. I don't want to get into a long debate over high capacity magazines, but I will say there are instances where people have needed more than even 15 shots to defend themselves, and how many lives would be saved from needing to reload for 2 seconds is uncertain, as is illustrated by the Virginia Tech shooting. However if the goal is to eliminate mass shootings, then the only way to do that is to ban practically all guns. Therefore if we focus solely on reducing mass shootings, we must acknowledge that the goal is to ban and confiscate all guns.

I would argue that the ultimate agenda of the Brady Campaign is unchanged mainly because of how they still continue to present the disproven Kellerman statistic and the progression of high capacity magazine bans.. They were unsuccessful in achieving their previous goals so they toned down their agenda to meet smaller goals in the meantime.

Lastly for the Saturday Night Specials, the biggest problem with it is the vague definition of them and the inaccuracy of the proposed use of them. if the had been successful in passing the ban on Saturday Night Specials, the definition could've been easily manipulated to encompass any gun cheap enough for regular citizens to afford. Criminals who tend to use guns actually tend to be drug dealers or gangsters who finance their gun use from the drug trade, and they actually prefer to use newer, more expensive guns in crimes. Ultimately the Saturday Night Special ban would've only affected people poorer Americans seeking a gun for protection. However the main thing to remember is that this definition was so vague that it could have encompassed whatever they wanted.
emanfman

Con

Thank you very much for this interesting debate.

You stated that if the goal is to eliminate mass shootings, then the only way to do that is to ban practically all guns. This is not necessarily true. Take examples from other mass murders involving guns. Two notable examples that come to mind are PAL flight 773 and PSA flight 1771. These two incidents involved hijacking the plane with a gun, killing the pilots, and pushing the plane into the ground. The outcome was not to ban guns on airplanes. For PAL 773, it was to lock the cockpit doors. This effectively dealt with the issue, without banning guns. On PSA 1771, guns had been banned at the time, but staff were allowed to bypass security checks. After that incident, all staff were required to be checked. There has not been a gun hijacking on a US flight ever since.
My point in bringing up these examples is to show that other measures can achieve the goal of preventing mass shootings, without banning guns.
I understand that you may think these examples are irrelevant because only 2-4 were actually shot on those flights, but to find more relevant information we must leave the US for a moment. In countries such as Israel, where security must be stringent at all times with NO exception, you may not enter a mall without passing through a metal detector and being searched. Ever since this measure has been implemented, there have been no mass shootings in Israeli malls. (By the way, soldiers in Israel may carry their assault rifle wherever they go, including in a mall. And, in fact, the government recommends carrying a gun with you if you go hiking, in case you need to protect yourself.) This proves that a gun ban is not the only way to stop mass shootings.

Essentially, the Brady Campaign is not fighting for banning guns, only to control them in order to reduce violence. Like I just proved, a ban is not the only way to achieve the goal of reduced violence. Heck, I'm sure that if the gun violence rates were as low as the UK, the Brady Campaign wouldn't even exist! Surprisingly enough, the rate of gun deaths per capita is 5x higher in the US than in Israel. This shows that countries like the US need better regulation and control of guns. This is the goal of the Brady Campaign. There is no reason that they'd want guns to be banned. Because their main goal is to reduce gun violence, and that can obtained through other measures, they will do what it takes to lower violence. If that's to ban guns, so be it, but it can be achieved through other methods, and therefore a total ban is NOT the agenda of the Brady Campaign.

Although it's true that definitions for Saturday Night Specials were very vague, the goal was obviously not to ban whatever they want. Their point was to try to keep gun ownership down, because there is a clear direct correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, intentional or not.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.gunpolicy.org...
http://bradycampaign.org...

_____________________________

Thank you very much! VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ufcryan 4 years ago
ufcryan
On an unimportant note I'm sure even if we banned all citizens owning guns groups like the BradyCampaign would probably still exist, they would just want to ban guns in the military and worldwide. But thanks emanfman for an interesting debate, I'm still inclined to disagree with you based on the history of the Brady Campaign and the progression of the high capacity magazine bans, but nonetheless this was still a constructive and interesting debate. I hope the voters find this informative.
Posted by emanfman 4 years ago
emanfman
Well... that's annoying.

While I'm in a new comment, I might as well:

To finish that last paragraph: Who would buy them other than criminals? Remember that Walmart will still sell guns, readily available to the general public. But selling them dirt-cheap attracts anyone who wants to shoot somebody for a very low price. Banning these guns is one step closer to preventing gun violence, and not to banning ALL guns.

_________________________

The last sentence was supposed to say: Thanks so much for allowing me to post my argument here.
Posted by emanfman 4 years ago
emanfman
I don't like this character limit. I'll try to keep it short.

The main point of your rebuttal seems to be that although the Gun Control Lobby doesn't state it, their ultimate goal is to ban guns outright. People who are only banning certain types of guns are clearing the way for a total gun ban in the future.

Now, I'm fairly sure that when Ben Shapiro had suggested "why don't we try your way" I interpreted it as sarcasm. If you don't, that's fine. When Piers responds saying the same thing, Shapiro accuses him of having the ultimate agenda to ban guns. Piers responds by saying "I don't have an agenda, I just want to make America safe and save lives, that's my agenda." Like he said earlier in the video, there are many more gun murders in the US than Britain. And why don't we try Britain's way?

But, as I said, each to his own on how one can interpret that dialogue. I see it as sarcasm, but you don't, so I guess it comes to a standstill there.

The slippery slope of magazine size may look like a steep towards a total ban, but remember that the law is not to ban guns, it's to prevent mass shootings. I'm sure you'd agree that 7 bullets is more than enough to protect yourself. Any more becomes a potential weapon of mass murder. That is the basis for the law.

"Has this agenda changed, or was there not enough support so they're shooting for smaller goals?"
Yes. The Brady Campaign would obviously never be backed if they wanted to fully ban guns. As you said yourself, it's unfeasible.

With regards to Obama's convictions about banning guns, remember that one's own opinions are not necessarily representative of a group's. Being the president, Obama has the power to eventually convince people to turn in their guns.

I have already dealt with assault weapons, but the Saturday Night Specials are different. It's true that these should not be available to the general public - who would buy them other than criminals?

_______

Thanks so much for allowing me to
Posted by ufcryan 4 years ago
ufcryan
sure
Posted by emanfman 4 years ago
emanfman
I'm sorry I wasn't able to reach the deadline. Last-minute stuff. Mind if I post my argument here in the comments?
No votes have been placed for this debate.