The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

USA should have more restrictions on 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 2 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 808 times Debate No: 58286
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
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. 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 that 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.
Benshapiro

Con

Thanks pro. I'll make my case.

Basically, when you said "it's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence" and "if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect" is the following logic:

P1: Guns do more harm than good
P2: Less accessibility to guns means less people will have them.
C: More restrictions should be put on guns

I will dispute both premises.

P1: Guns do more harm than good

"Kleck conducted a national survey in 1994 (the National Self-Defense Survey) and, extrapolating from the 5,000 households surveyed, estimated that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use (DGU - the use of guns for self-protection), compared to about 0.5 million gun crimes as estimated by the National Crime Victimization Survey.[12]"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So for every gun owner that has used their weapon, they are 5 times more likely to be using it in self-defense rather than for murder. Using a gun in self-defense is only considered "self-defense" when somebody is in fear for their life. 5 times as many innocent people would've been possibly killed if they didn't have a gun to defend themselves. This shows that guns were being used in a way that causes more good than harm.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that 37% of households had an adult who owned a gun — 24% said they owned a gun, and 13% said someone else in their household did.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Let's see how many households that own a gun there are in the U.S. and how many of them use guns for harm.

(0.37)(308,745,538) =114,235,849 households that own a gun in the U.S.

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011."
http://www.nij.gov...


So, as a portion of households currently owning a gun in the U.S., statistically, 0.409% of gun users will use them to commit any kind of crime but 2.18% of them will use them for self-defense. The other 95%+ majority of gun owners will not even use them.

In fact, guns do more good than harm. You might also be unaware that you are 3.62 times more likely to die by falling down the stairs than by an accidental gun discharge.
http://gizmodo.com...

Given that guns DO more good than harm, premise 2 is refuted on those grounds as well. The vast majority of gun owners are peaceful and 5x more likely to use them in self-defense than for crime. Also, gun restrictions are laws that criminals wouldn't obey in the first place! These restrictions just restrict access to the people who use guns for good, not the ones who use them for crime.

I also want to point out that you didn't reference your statistics and that they weren't applicable because they were in australia, not the U.S.

Back to you pro!
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"So, as a portion of households currently owning a gun in the U.S., statistically, 0.409% of gun users will use them to commit any kind of crime but 2.18% of them will use them for self-defense. The other 95%+ majority of gun owners will not even use them."

you argued that given how pervasive guns are, we should keep restrictions how they are, for self defense. you dutifully showed that more guns are used for self defense than for violence.
it could actually make sense given most people are law abiding citizens. there will be fewer who use guns for wrongful purposes.

the problem. what if we took your logic, and went even further with it. multiple say seven fold the number of guns out there. then instead of 2% using guns for self defense, we'd have 14% using guns for self defense, and 4% for violence.

so, how about we take the logic the opposite direction. we cut gun use in half. (dont necessarily support this, but as a hypotehtical) then we'd have 1% using them in self defense, and .2 percent in violence.

and you didn't really address the fact that the manhattan project worked in australia. that is exactly what that reduction hypothetical entails.

"Also, gun restrictions are laws that criminals wouldn't obey in the first place! "

i already addressed this. most people are not die hards criminals who will stop at nothing to get a gun. in fact, most aret even criminals, they are normal people who turn into criminals. if they didn't have a gun when they'd do their crime, the crime won't be committed. if they were hindered, the crime might not be committed.

"In fact, guns do more good than harm. You might also be unaware that you are 3.62 times more likely to die by falling down the stairs than by an accidental gun discharge."

yes but people encounter stairs on a greater basis than guns, and that includes older people who are more prone to fall down stairs. this argument by con is akin to hte idea that knives are more dangerous than guns. yes, but only because there are many many many times more knives out there. when you actually keep things proportional, you see that guns are more dangerous. i did the math on this once, but dont see the need to get into it again. i think this probably should sufficient, this level of argumetntation. (seems common sensical enough to me.
when the massacre shooting with 22 kids happened here, they all died. a simeltaneouis massacre happened in a gun restricted country and only 22 ish were injured, no deaths. this has been shown to be the case on a couple occassions.

also, you didn't show how restrictions wouldn't help, given the fact that most people won't lose access to guns, just be hindered. and we'd just be hindering mostly those who are pose danger. but even if we hindered regular people, as the logic above showed, it would probably only help.
Benshapiro

Con

There's a few problems I'll point out with your opening rebuttal.

1) the ratio between people using guns for self defense or crime is not fixed, it's a dynamic and current snapshot statistic.

2) even by pointing out that if you reduced the amount of guns, hypothetically, those using guns for crime would decrease but those using them for self-defense purposes would decrease 5x as much as well. This doesn't address my refutation of your implied premise which is "guns do more harm than good" when clearly if people are using them 5x more often for self-defense purposes, they do more good than harm no matter what the number is as long as that ratio is kept.

I'm still not sure how you're making a connection with Australia's policies with Americas and why you believe they are analogous. Different economic systems respond differently under different political leadership and what may work in one country might not wok in another.

You are saying that basically, since a gun enables a person to make bad choices, that there is more crime because of it. I could say by giving you money I'm enabling you to be greedy, but it's a false conclusion. Greed is a character flaw, and isn't limited to strictly monetary substance in the same way criminals have characters flaws that don't need guns to enable them to commit crime.

Well 37% of households own a gun so id say they are in contact with a gun quite often. Of course the odds of dying by accidental gun discharge weighs heavily on the personal responsibility of the person that owns the gun in the same way a person acting recklessly on the stairs takes responsibility for his accidental death.

Restrictions wouldn't help because the majority of people losing access because of those restrictions are law abiding citizens. Of those who will use the gun, they are 5x more likely to use it in self defense rather than for a crime. In addition, the people who don't adhere to gun laws/restrictions are most likely to be criminals in the first place. So effectively, restrictions disincentivize law abiding citizens from owning a gun.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"your implied premise which is "guns do more harm than good" when clearly if people are using them 5x more often for self-defense purposes, they do more good than harm no matter what the number is as long as that ratio is kept."

con is trying to step back and look at the bigger picture. kudos for that. but if we step fruther back, we see that while there may be more self defense usage of guns, it's at the expense of lots of nonself defense usage. it could even be speculated tehat th only reason we need self defense of guns, is because guns are so pervasive to begin with. and, more precisely, if we took guns down to a minimal level, the number of murders would be very very small. con must be thinking that it is better to ensue people have access to guns, and is willing to allow more murders.
so while con's bigger picture has some merit to it, my picture is probably even bigger, and shows that guns are not necesssarily more good than bad.

to get out of the australia points, con merely says 'that works for them it won't necessarily work for us'. that's true, but it gives evidence that it could. all con is able to provide that says otherwise, is mere speculation based on the flimsy point that 'they are them and we are us' type thinking. we're actually very similar to them cultually and otherwise.

"You are saying that basically, since a gun enables a person to make bad choices, that there is more crime because of it. I could say by giving you money I'm enabling you to be greedy, but it's a false conclusion. Greed is a character flaw, and isn't limited to strictly monetary substance in the same way criminals have characters flaws that don't need guns to enable them to commit crime."

i don't think i'm saying that. but even if i was, your analogies are not the same. guns faciliate crime much better than other weopons. and guns are not necessarily needed. people in next to gunless societies are doing okay. money, to use your example, is something that we need. it might have bad conseqences but it is part of our economic system. guns are not necessarily integral unless you try to force it to be.

i'm not sure why con digresses into acciental gun discharges and stairs. ive already refuted the point, and he hasn't specifically addressed that. plus we're not focusing on accidents, we're focsing on larger points about how to regulate guns

con didn't address my example that most 'criminals' are not black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if the mother of the sandy hook shooter didn't hve a gun, we have no reason to think she would have went and got one. or that he would have been able to break the law and get one himself. in fact it's likely it wouldn't have been the case. there's a eason why mass shootings in austalia ceased to exist after their regulations. but aside from that different country point, basic logic illustrates that gun estrictions would only provide benefit.

plus this doesn't even get into the fact tha twith at least ground checks and such, that we're not focusing on the average joe. just the average criminal.
and it oesn't negate the possiblity of treating guns like cars, and having training and licenses and inventories. not that we should do this necessarily.
the only point in this debate is that we should have more regulation, that it is a good thing. when we're just focusing on bad guys as a minimum point, there's no way to get around that we'd be better off for it. con hasn't adequately addressed that.
Benshapiro

Con

Notice that I disputed the premise: "guns do more harm than good"

Pro doesn't rebut this point. Pro makes an argument saying that while there may be more self-defense incidences following gun use, there is also crime increase. However this does NOT refute my point that guns are 5x as likely to be used in self-defense rather than for crime on average as pointed out in the previous round. Thus, guns do NOT cause more harm than good on average. Guns do more good than harm on average.

My whole point on accidental gun discharge is that the odds of this happening are one in half a million. It's nonsensical to point to guns as a destructive tool (on average) for most people.

Furthermore, it is *pro's burden of proof to prove WHY the USA should have more restrictions of guns* and provided NO statistics or sources to back of the claim of why this should be so. If anything, if this debate is a stalemate, the win should go to me for pro's failure to uphold his/her burden of proof.

I have successfully proven that guns are used 5x as much in self-defense rather than crime on average, and thus guns do more good than harm. Therefore any restrictions on guns act as a disincentive for law-abiding citizens to own guns and more harm than good will arise because of this because criminals don't obey laws in the first place. In addition, it is not my burden of proof to show why the USA should have more restrictions on guns, but rather, why they shouldn't, and even if I didn't prove my case, pro is responsible for upholding his/her burden of proof to win this debate on why the USA should have more restrictions on guns and has not done so in any quantitative or reliable measure.

Therefore, vote con. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Police in Australia recently raided motorcycle gang haunts and found numerous illegal weapons, that would not be illegal in the US. These were turned into metal blocks as they should be.
I worked on a farm for most of my early life and we were allowed to have unregistered guns for vermin control and to put down dying animals, which we had to do often in the drought and when disease struck our cattle.
It's hard having to put down your pets and best performing cows.

Yet it is very hard to access high powered weapons in Australia, so their numbers are low and these are popular tools for massacres.
The Statistics cited by Con as Pro pointed out contain errors in critical analysis.
They don't stand up to critical scrutiny and the fact that a lot of people had used guns for defense of property that was taken from an insignificant sample does little to prove Con's point.
It did not give us how many were injured or killed in such encounters, how many accidental home shootings, such as recently a child finding a loaded gun in the house and shooting his own brother in a game.
It does not cover the fact that if criminals know that there is a gun in the house, it is the gun that they will look for firstly, often finding them before the owner and if in a gun safe, the burglar is more likely to gain control of the house or exit before the owner can access the weapon.
I know, because I hung out with a house full of petty criminals, who would often do just that, look for a gun first, often finding it before the owner and removing it, so the owner cannot use it. Or making sure that the owner cannot get to it if they spot a gun safe.
This was before they instituted the gun legislation in Australia.
criminals will always get guns, but in Australia, it is extremely difficult for normal criminals to access any decent high power weapons.
Even gangs and syndicates find it very difficult to get such weapons through customs, while the number of existing weapons is dropping.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
482217_632818526743662_181719589_n.jpg482217_632818526743662_181719589_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cBenshapiroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: con was the only one to provide sources
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
dairygirl4u2cBenshapiroTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is sound and backed up by evidence which Pro did not show sources of. Con's argument is backed up by a poor survey and bad statistics that did not demonstrate his arguments are correct, and yes Pro did rebut Con's attack on Guns do more harm than good when he rebutted Cons fallacious analogy of stairs being more harmful than guns statistically, which is obvious to any rational person. Con was the only debater to supply sources, but Pro's arguments were better. Statistics are deceptive, as were Con's. But Pro rebutted them successfully as deceptive.