more guns means more overall homicides
Debate Rounds (3)
Correlation does not mean causation. There may be reverse causality and confounding factors. Some people might think that having a gun in the home causes death from a homicide. Yet, with reverse causality a homicide in the home might cause more guns in the home. Point in case, a criminal kills somebody with his or her bare hands. Then, other family members buy guns in response to the homicide.
Sort of like the chicken and the egg. Did the gun come into the house and then the homicide? Or did the homicide happen and then the gun came into the house?
Now for confounding factors. People who live in crime ridden areas are most likely more likely to carry a gun. In this case the crime came first, and then the gun.
Take a relatively crime free area, less people would feel they would need guns. A study could then be made stating a correlation between low guns and low crime. The same would be true with a high crime area. More people would feel they need guns, and thus more would own guns.
In summary, I'm not convinced that the guns are causing additional crimes. Instead another factor may be confounding the issues and causing both more homicides and more guns. A confounding factor such as higher crime, poverty, tension between political groups, etc.
Thanks for the debate. Con rejects the resolution. There are too many variables to be sure that more guns means more overall homicides. Just as there is a correlation between crime and churches. There is a confounding factor of population density.
Instead, I propose the opposite that more overall homicides means more guns.
all i stated is the correlative. more guns, more homicide. correlation isn't causation but i never said it did. con has argued something i didn't even state. but if i were to argue causation it would make more sense..... because a gun is more a danger than no gun, imagine all the more people with guns. it just exacerbates the issue, so guns are causative. but anyways i didn't need to argue that all i said is the more you have guns the more you have homicide.
Con interpreted the word means as causing.
to bring, cause, or produce as a result: " .
Therefore, Con interpreted the resolution to as, more guns causes more overall homicides.
"but anyways i didn't need to argue that all i said is the more you have guns the more you have homicide. " Pro
The resolution implies more guns causes more homicides. As seen by the definition of the word mean.
Con argues that more overall homicides causes more guns. In the sense that if there is a murder in the area, people get scared and buy more guns.
"means" could indicate correlation too. it doesn't have to mean causation.
but it probably does mean causation for the reasonsa i argued above.
but all i have to say is they are correlated and con doesn't seem to dispute this.
Con knows of no definition of the word means that indicates correlation. Con has proven that the word "means" is a synonym for cause.
"but all i have to say is they are correlated and con doesn't seem to dispute this. " Pro
This would be true if the resolution was guns are correlated with homicides. Yet, this is not the resolution. The resolution is more guns means more overall homicides. There is no way to tell which way the correlation is pointing from the studies listed.
Con will now explain the importance of the scienfic method. If person A saw person B drink water and then person B showed symptoms of sickness. Person A could come to the conclusion that drinking water from that source causes sickness. Yet, this could be a coincidence.
Person A could be correct. The water could be contaminated. Or perhaps person B was already sick and the first symptom was thirst. In that case the sickness causes the drinking of water. Perhaps the two are completely unrelated. This is why jumping to conclusions is often inaccurate.
Just as jumping to the conclusion that just because there is a positive correlation between guns and homicide doesn't mean that guns are the cause. Further evidence is needed. Finally there are confounding factors.
Besides not everyone agrees. "The figures clearly show that gun control does not reduce violent crime, and in fact only emboldens criminals to use guns illegally " safe in the knowledge that their victims have been disarmed courtesy of government legislation." 
Note Con decides to pick reverse causality as the main method to refute Pro. Yet, there can be more than one cause of more guns and crime. Poverty, population density, political tensions, etc. Political tensions for example could cause both more guns and more homicides. At the same time whenever a homicide occurs more guns could be bought.
Next, there could be three or more causes of both. For example poverty, political tensions, and population density could all be important factors in the same area. Increasing both guns and crime. This is called a confounding factor. In other words both Con and Pro could be wrong. That neither guns cause homicide nor homicide causes guns.
Keep at it Pro, you prove the correlation well. Proving causation is no easy undertaking. Con is curious as to which is correct. In summary there are three possibilities. One, Pro is correct that more guns cause more homicides. Two, reverse causality in that more homicides causes more guns. Third, a confounding factor and the two are unrelated.
Since Pro's position is that more guns causes more homicides that's 33.33333333333333333333333333% of cases. Con has the other two options. That's 66.6666666666666666666666666666666666% of cases. The majority of the evidence lays with Con. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Evan_Of_Hearts 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I am very impressed with this debate. It doesn't follow the regular stupidity usually seen in most arguments. Both of you had good conduct and used good sources. However, the spelling and grammar used by Pro had many errors, causing me to award points to Con. Pro used arguments of probability rather than factuality. Good job, both of you.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.