The Instigator
TBR
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control

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 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,405 times Debate No: 70111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

TBR

Pro

This debate is for user @lannan13. Thank-you for suggesting the debate, and patience waiting for me to pose it.

First round is for acceptance, and I will allow con to set definition, or add specificity to the question.

Thanks for waiting lannan13.
lannan13

Con

I accept and bellow are a list of definitions that we are to use throughout the debate.

United States Federal Government- The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)

Should- Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

Increase- Become or make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

Gun Control- Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate the sale, purchase, or possession of firearms through licensing, registration, or identification requirements. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
TBR

Pro

The debate, the question of why more gun control is trite. The debaters know the why - deaths by gun per 100,000 population: 10.6, just squeaking under motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7 [1]. Over seventy thousand hospital emergency room visits for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010 [2], and another dozen commonly cited statists. Endless known point vs. counter points, but as I say in all gun debates, statists don’t move the needle on the debate one degree because it is an emotion based argument. Emotional on both sides - driven by primordial fears of man.

So why then. Why should “The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control”. Because it can, and the people want it. It’s really just that simple, not all I have to do is prove it.

We want it.
Gallup polling has tracked the issue for more than two decades. They show the difference between support for expanded gun control over lessening gun control never being lower than 33 points [3]. In 2014, they have 47% supporting additional gun control, 38% saying its good as it is, and 14% wanting less strict gun control. The line for more control and stay the same have crossed only once in the history of the poll. That’s 24 years of Americans asking for more gun control, and getting little of what they ask for.

The NRA prides itself on being the epicenter of protecting gun rights. It boasts having 5 million members [4]. Everytown, a gun control group currently has 2 million members [4]. However, a funny thing happens when you start asking the 5 million members of the NRA what they want [5][6]. Yup, they want MORE gun control. “A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales.” [6]. “"Not only are gun owners and non-gun-owners very much aligned in their support for proposals to strengthen U.S. gun laws, but the majority of NRA members are also in favor of many of these policies," [6]

Can we.
Let’s start where it all starts. The constitution of the United States of America.

Section. 2. - The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;…

Section 8. - …To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Hold on. That’s not what we all thing about when we are talking guns and the constitution. Okay, let get that Bill of Rights in there.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s better. That’s the part we know and love or loath.

Up until very recently we relied on several supreme court rulings . In the 1876 United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution [7]. In the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

Then along came a very conservative supreme court, some, like myself, might call it “activist”. They brought us two cases. The 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller and in 2010 McDonald v. Chicago. These two cases changed a lot. They inexplicit removed the very obvious connection between guns and a militia in the constitution. But what about “gun control” or ristrictions? Well it’s nowhere in there. [11]. Scalia said the decisions did not interfere with restrictions including background checks, limiting types, or disallowing firearms to the mentally ill.

There is NO constitutional problem with expanding gun control (check). There is no SCOTUS precident issue with expanding gun control (check). Yup, were clear to go there.


So, there you have it. We want it. We can do it. We should do it. It is counter to the will of the American people. Our will subverted by the loudest voice in the room, or in this case it might be better to say, our will is subverted by the guy with the gun.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...

[2] http://smartgunlaws.org...

[3] http://www.gallup.com...

[4] http://www.usatoday.com...

[5] http://www.cnn.com...

[6] http://www.usnews.com...

[7] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

[8] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[9] http://www.supremecourt.gov...

[10] http://www.supremecourt.gov...

[11] http://www.nytimes.com...

lannan13

Con

Contention 1: What the studies show.

For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls."

This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide")

Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight

In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...)


To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2
TBR

Pro

Rebuttal


That the source is poor (it is – it’s a person’s blog) and the author known for basis (he is [1]) I am inclined to listen to my own advice, and not bicker about the statics. It is incumbent on me to provide a rebuttal, so I must give it due attrition.


1) The stats referenced only discuss criminal activity, not touching on any other problem associated with guns. Societal problems with guns run deeper than simple criminality.


2) The study cited attempts to connect more gun ownership with crime. As someone has come before me has done to the work to eviscerate the poor work of Lott, I will quote from Tim Lambert’s rebuttal. “Even if we decide that there were more guns and less crime it is wrong to conclude that ‘more guns caused less crime’. The mechanism for causation proposed by Lott is not consistent with the empirical evidence on how often criminals encounter armed permit holders. The observed changes in crime rates are consistent with past changes in crime rates caused by factors other than concealed weapons…” [1] “No matter how you interpret the phrase “more guns”, it remains true that there were not a significant number of “more guns”. This fact alone is sufficient to destroy Lott’s case” [1].


[1] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au...



Conclusion and summary.


All the gun statists aside. All the bickering over validity of one data set or another. All the disagreements over interpretation of data. All of it can and should be ignored for the answer to the question of this debate.


Congress, and in specific “the peoples house” has a responsibility. Written by our founding fathers “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” The congress enacts laws that the governed request. The limit to the laws they wright is the constitution. Provided there is will, and the proposed law fits within the constraints of the constitution, it is the responsibility of the legislative making body to reflect the will of the governed. State by state, support for additional gun control is supported, with few exceptions. It is subversive for our representatives to ignore our will. It is un-American.



My thanks to my opponent for this debate is more than just opponent perfunctory. The passions run high on both sides of the debate. I acknowledge and respect his thoughtful debate.


lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent for a debate on this topic as I really haven't debated much on this topic, so without further delay let's get back to the debate.

Last round my opponent tries nothing but only quotes Tim Lambert trying to smear my Lott source, though I do have multiple others, but I'll get to those when I'm done at this point. Lambert is incorrect when he states that we cannot draw this corrilation because we don't have evidence of more guns equalling less crime, but we actually do. Thanks to the National Rifle's Association as they have provided a graph bellow showing a time period of 20 years from 1991 to 2011 showing that as crime went down guns.


Further to added to what my opponent had stated not only does Lott draw the corrilation to crime in general, which is what Lambert is refutting, but he also draws the connection to homocides and gun related deaths. That graph is also down bellow.


In the above graph you can see that Lott points out that the Gun Control still increases with Violent Homocides. This above graph shows it for all developed nations and the graph last round was all nations. You can concider my opponent's point here refuted.

My opponent has dropped key arguments from my last round showing that the existing Gun Control laws do nothing to change the crime rate and have no effect. He has also dropped the argument last round ban on fire arms also dramatically increased violence in Great Brittian. He also dropped my Harvard study and my Kates and Masuer study which also enforced everything that Lott stated so even if Lott is concidered disproven then you can see that the argument would still stand as these highly valued sources also proved the same thing, but were dropped.

In conclusion, we can see that my opponent has not given a reason this entire debate as to why we should increase gun control other than we can do it, and it's popular. While I on the other hand have proven that it is inefficent and counterproductive and my opponent has dropped a large portion of my arguments which stiill stand here at the end of the debate. Thus the resolution is negated.

Thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
You did a good job.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Fair enough
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
@lannan13 - The should part was covered. Should as the will of the people. You did address it by completely dismissing it. Very little different than my statement "I am inclined to listen to my own advice, and not bicker about the statics."
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TBR- I didn't refute your points, because the fact that we could and it's wanted doesn't mean that we should. The debate was that the Federal Government SHOULD increase Gun control. Not that it was unconstitutional or whatnot.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Curious on this voting that all cite points that I did not rebut. Does anyone see where Con rebutted any of my points? Its one sentence.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
Squirrelnuts57's vote deleted. [Reasons for voting decision: "Guns are hard enough to get already. We are fine."] [3 points] This RFD only states Squirrel's personal opinion and says nothing about the arguments made in the debate.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I suppose Kates and Mauser 2010 is a study, but it was written for a law review.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Lannan you didn't cite studies, only blogs. You could have cited studies, but to say that the studies show that is untrue (well, it is true, but the way you argued it should be titled 'what the data says').
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Dont worry, theres tons of data you can use for both sides. Look over my previous gun debates where i took both sides. Both are pretty helpful. Although, one side many have stronger sources
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
TBR, you should make your argument on facts and data and not polls or what people want. Just because people want it does not make it true. Really, it becomes irrelevant to the topic because you need the best decision.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
TBRlannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. This was a good debate, but Pro made a pretty big error in dropping multiple points/sources raised by Con. Additionally, Pro only showed that 47% want stricter gun control, which, to my knowledge, is not the majority although Pro argues that the government has a duty to carry out the will of the majority. Both issues tipped the scale in favor of Con. With that said, I strongly agreed with Pro's case, and believe that if he had the actual majority on his side that his case would have overcome Con's. Sources - Tie. This was tricky, because Pro used far more sources, and good ones at that. However, Con was able to show the fault in Con's rebuttals towards his own sources. In regards to failing to rebut each source, both sides did so, thus balancing out in that regard. Ultimately, this debate goes to Con, but I am excited to see Pro's arguments in the future.
Vote Placed by maydaykiller 2 years ago
maydaykiller
TBRlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides have valid arguments, but ultimately, the government works for the people and thus must enact laws that have popular support, such as Gun control. Overall, interesting debate. Very good arguments from both sides.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
TBRlannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped several of Con's arguments (Great Britain and Harvard study), so arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
TBRlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments for this "My opponent has dropped key arguments from my last round showing that the existing Gun Control laws do nothing to change the crime rate and have no effect. He has also dropped the argument last round ban on fire arms also dramatically increased violence in Great Brittian. He also dropped my Harvard study and my Kates and Masuer study which also enforced everything that Lott stated so even if Lott is concidered disproven then you can see that the argument would still stand as these highly valued sources also proved the same thing, but were dropped." Pro dropped to many points... lannan13 had much better grammar and communicated his points perfectly. both had good conduct and sources.