The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
TheBunnyAssassin
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

USA should have more gun restrictions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheBunnyAssassin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 58803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success.
australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform)
japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low.
it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support gun restrictions, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.
TheBunnyAssassin

Con

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am TheBunnyAssassin.
In this debate, I will be negating the topic "USA should have more restrictions".

Contention 1: Fear
Fear is one factor that supports gun users. In states such as Texas, where citizen are allowed to carry guns in a way known as "concealed carry", there is relatively less crime related to firearms. Why? The reason for this is because no criminal armed with a firearm would be paranoid enough to attempt to kill citizens who have a high chance of owning a firearm. Imagine as a criminal rushes into a mall with a little pistol and assault rifle in Texas. The moment he pulls out his gun, about 10-12 men pull out their pistols, which are pointed at him (or already discharged at the criminal). Here is a poll from prisons all over the United States:

Have you ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No: 66%, Yes: 34%
Was there ever a time in your life when you decided not to do a crime because you knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun? No, never: 61%, Yes: 49%
[H]ave any of the criminals you have known personally ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No, none: 31%, Yes: 69%

As we can see above, there has been a good amount of criminals who abstained from crime or got wounded due to their armed victim. We can conclude that fear caused by these victims may cause criminals to think twice about raiding one home.

Contention 2: Irony
My opponent argues for his affirmative side, therefore, we can conclude that he wishes firearms to be abolished. Let me arrange a situation which would occur immediately once firearms are banned or restricted in the United States.
When guns are prohibited, the government will order every single citizen to turn in their firearm.
I will ask every viewer this question.
Do you think that the criminals in the United States will turn in their firearms? Their illegal guns? The ones obtained from their black markets?
Does everybody believe that when the gun restriction law is passed, the common criminal who has taken countless lives with his gun will walk to the police station, and say, "Here, take my AR-15 and AK-47 which I got from Russia! I will follow the government standards because I am a good citizen!"

Obviously not.
In addition, when the citizen's firearms are taken away, they will be left defenseless against the marauding criminals who now know that citizen's guns have been taken away. This is why there is a quote about how people "don't bring a knife to a gun fight". How does a United States citizen defend his home when he gets shot the moment, he raises his melee weapon against a thug? By the time the police even get halfway to the home, the man who tried to defend his family is dead, shot because he couldn't even intimidate the intruder.
This is one of the greatest ironies of the gun control debate. By taking away firearms from citizens, the government might as well threw them out for slaughter.
Taking away firearms does not reduce death. It increases it.

Thank you for viewing my arguments,
TheBunnyAssassin

The next round is rebuttal.

Source(s):
-[117] Michigan Law Section 28.422: "License to purchase, carry, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications...." Accessed September 2, 2010 at http://law.justia.com...
-Report: "2008 Crime in the United States, Murder." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www2.fbi.gov...
-The calculations that determine this fact were performed by a licensed actuary using two different methodologies, both of which yield the same answer. An Excel file containing these calculations is available upon request.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

argument,,,, guns deter crime.

argument... taking away guns will leave people defenseless given not all guns will be taken away.

both of these can be summed up in response i gave in another debate. i've heard stats that say something like half a percent of guns are used for crimes, and two percent for defense. itmakes sense that guns can deter crime. but at what cost do we allow pervaisve use? if you double the amount of guns, there'd be twice as many crimes, and twice as many defenses, arguably. or triple it, or quadruple it. or we could trade off and have half as many crimes, albeit perhaps fewer defenses. it is not so clear to me that we should have more deaths in order fo people to have more guns. how is this so clear to you?

and, we don't have to take away guns from everyone, it was just one idea. con didn't say anythin about licenses, training, and inventories of guns. at least for criminals, possibly for everyone. and con didn't say anything about more background ghecks. forty percent of sales involve no checks.
some restrictions and checks would have some necessary benefit. less people will have guns that shouldn't have them, and less people will die. again, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun at a time theyd commit a crime, there'd be no crime.

so some restrictins can reduce violence, and only restrict against bad guys. thus the resolution has been affirmed and hasn't even in the first round been contested that there should be more restrictions.
TheBunnyAssassin

Con

TheBunnyAssassin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

background checks

while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks.

there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks.

at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people....

http://www.timesdisp...64e379000a.html...

what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally?

it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect.

besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun:

the idea is, if you don't have a gun, you wn't use it. if you do, you will.

besides states and countries, i can also cite a study that says that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it.

http://aje.oxfordjou...

a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have.

http://www.hsph.harv...
what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent.

i can also cite a study that says that the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident.

https://fbcdn-sphoto...181719589_n.jpg...

and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above.... isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?

In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks.

we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence.

think about common sense points too:

-think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. /// i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks.it's almost even human nature.
-and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one?
-and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone?
-if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience?

the evidence is overwhelming.
TheBunnyAssassin

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, please click on every single one of the links that my opponent posted in the last argument. Does anybody think it is strange that none of them work?
I did not answer round two due to the lack of material to refute against. My opponent provided meager arguments.
Spectators and voters, I would also like to point out that con enjoys saying "i've heard stats". Well I bet these statistics are quite reliable! In addition, again, click on all the links he posted that don't quite work. I believe that they are just for showing off the numerous "sources" that don't even work?

My opponent does not make any sense when he says that "if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect". He is demonstrating irony due to his belief that the slaughter of victims without guns results in a "positive" effect.

In addition, he says that "the idea is, if you don't have a gun you won't use it. if you do, you will."
Not only does this sentence contain strange syntax and grammar, it is also ironic. Taking away guns from citizens will results in a "you won't use it" situation. Criminals who still have the guns will apparently "will".

My opponent continuously repeats that if you have a gun etc. you are more likely to use it. Well the crime will increase since criminals KNOW that the citizens do not have ACCESS to their guns. Therefore, the casualty rate will INCREASE.

Your Harvard source is not reliable (nor is any of your sources) due to the fact that it doesn't work.

My opponent does not directly refute against my statements and utilizes ironic and fallacious reasoning over and over in his arguments. Why? All of his counterarguments zone down to the subject of LESS GUNS = LESS CRIME. But I have said over and over.

When you take guns away from citizens, the criminals will not return them. The criminals will use their saved up firearms against the citizens.

In his "common sense" points, allow me to answer them:
think of someone on jerry springer": I do not understand of someone on jerry springer (whoever he is) having their arguments in the front yard? Who is having arguments? What does "they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun" mean? Um, get a gun where?

and, are you willing to admit that one hundred": What does "that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one"? Your sentence makes no sense at all. If you are denied a firearm then you won't get one. You are not specifying who these "people" are, therefore, I can't make an argument against this.

and, are you wiling to admit that having a gun doesn't cause any at all more prone"
Can you please rephrase this? I wholly do not understand at all the sentences meaning. Allow me to rephrase it:
Are you wiling to admit that having a gun causes people to want to use it to kill someone?
Of course! If a robber breaks into your house, are you going to hide upstairs with a knife? No. You grab the gun and kill him! Please utilize the "common sense" you speak so highly of!

His last statement, "the evidence is overwhelming". Evidence of what! Your "common sense"? Your links that don't work? So much evidence!

Overall, I would like to conclude that my opponent has little to no knowledge of true information regarding firearms/guns.
While I provided links that do work in my first and second contention, he provided none. While I used real statistics and realistic situations, he utilized "jerry springer", "front yard", and some other strange "common sense" statements.

I hope the spectators will read my opponent's contentions and attempt to make sense of his/her's arguments, grammar, syntax, "evidence", "common sense", etc.

Thank you and have a nice day,
TheBunnyAssassin
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by T_parkour 2 years ago
T_parkour
Swiss males between the ages of 20 and 30 are issued guns and trained in their use. Switzerland also has incredibly low gun-related crime rates.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

I'm not really sure I can give this debate to either side. Both of you make a lot of unwarranted assertions, many of which Pro says are just "common sense" (they're not), and many of which Con applies to another case that doesn't exist.

Pro, as far as I can tell, isn't arguing for a gun ban or even a gun buyback program, so that's irrelevant. All I'm left with for Con is an argument for deterrence, but one with no link to the actual case. I could sort of give you that link by saying that background checks could feasibly prevent some people who should have them from getting access, but that argument never appears in the debate.

Meanwhile, Pro's case is supported by non-functional links (I can tell she just copy-pasted from the other debate she had on this subject, which abbreviates the link names in the process, so be careful of that) and a lot of assertions that, while they have some truth to them, are not sufficiently warranted. Some warrants come out in R3, but they're brand spanking new in the final round, which is simply too late. The idea of acquisition and the importance of its reduction really have to be spelled out better and explained in detail, and I don't see any of that.

So I'm not giving arguments to anyone. I'm giving conduct to Pro due to the forfeit. I'm giving S&G to Con because Pro's writing was often pretty awful here. And, lastly, I'm giving sources to Con. Not because he have better sources (he did, but they weren't all that useful), but because Pro's source issues are worthy of note.
Posted by TheBunnyAssassin 2 years ago
TheBunnyAssassin
Indiana, instead of going through all the trouble of making an unreliable zip gun, why don't you just vote for my side? This is not a question of who is too young or too old to understand this "zip gun". By the way, thank you for supporting my side in this debate. Due to con's belief that firearms should be restricted, he would prefer guns to be made illegal. Then, all the citizens should create illegal zip guns and protect our communities. How ironic. No matter what con does, the citizens of America will always end up one gun or another. This ultimately summarizes my stance that I believe we shouldn't take away guns, since it would only force more people to create them.
Posted by IndianaFrank 2 years ago
IndianaFrank
Well Bunny Assassin as I said most on here are too young to have ever heard of a zip gun and that apparently includes you. Nobody suggested they are legal, I simply pointed out that if I cant get a firearm then I can make a zip gun in the garage that will fire a bullet. However to say that most haven't heard of a zip gun is a misstatement because of the number of people in my age group. If they are 60 or over then they know what one is.
Posted by TheBunnyAssassin 2 years ago
TheBunnyAssassin
Dairy Girl, instead of making multiple unsupported and fallacious remarks, check out this website:
http://americangunfacts.com...
Posted by TheBunnyAssassin 2 years ago
TheBunnyAssassin
Indiana, I have never heard of a zip gun, and I doubt most people in the United States have heard of them too.
In addition, this sounds like something illegal and may be deemed as a "firearm" by the government.
Thank you for your ideas.
Posted by IndianaFrank 2 years ago
IndianaFrank
Governments are notorious for getting the proverbial foot in the door and then shoving the entire body in. I do support some additional controls especially on Gin Show sales. However the news isn't as quick to report when people are not mugged or killed in a robbery attempt because the victim had a legal firearm. I can always tell that the pro gun control people are young. How you may ask ?

Simple, when I was a kid in the 50's and 60's good firearms were not as easy of criminals to come by because they couldn't produce them as fast as they do now because of technology. There solution ? Go to the garage and make a zip gun. I can make one in about 2 hours at most. Yes they are crude but they will kill you just as dead. The true solution is to strengthen the penalty's and start putting more people to death for murder. They can not and will not be rehabilitated...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cTheBunnyAssassinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: although con has a bunch of ff's, con's broken links, and her horrid spelling ultimately lead to her demise.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
dairygirl4u2cTheBunnyAssassinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.