Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Taj V. famousdebater - Gun Ban - RFD

Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 6:10:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Con's arguments"

C1 - Gun Culture

So to start off Con tells us that guns are a huge part of American cultures, and a gun ban would affect those who depend on guns for their daily activities. He gives some stats about how many hunters there are, and that banning guns would have a huge impact on them. Pro has a pretty simple rebuttal to this, he states that culture doesn't mean anything when compared to gun related deaths. Con revives this argument by stating the resolution didn't specify that they would only be talking about saving lives in this debate. This is true. And Con wins this argument because Pro's rebuttal didn't really address it.

C2 - Little Effect in Certain States

Here Con gives an example of a state with very little gun control, Vermont, and shows that it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the US. Con states that a gun ban here would have a negative impact on a state populated by law abiding gun owners. For his rebuttal, Pro states that one example isn't enough to prove anything, and he states that there are other factors involved when looking at crime rates. Such as jobs and housing quality, as well as education. Con refutes this by stating that the entire point of the argument was that there's no reason for states with low crime rates should have their guns taken away when the guns are used for legitimate purposes. He also reminds of the defensive gun use stats. Con wins this argument, because Pro never really addressed the actual argument, that while guns would have little effect on the homicide rates in some states, they would still be taken away from law abiding citizens.

C3 - Guns are used for self-defence

Here Con cites studies that show very large amounts of gun uses have been used for self defense, numbers ranging from 200k to 2 million. Then Con compares these numbers to the amount of murders that occurred in 2013, and showed that guns were used for self defense almost 100 more than for murders. Pro's rebuttal to this was pretty weak, he doesn't actually refute any of Con's numbers, but instead gives some examples of little children being killed by guns. First off, this is an appeal to emotion, because Pro only gives some examples meant to make voters feel sad, and forget about the actual stats. Con's stats so far are winning over Pro's few examples. Con wins this argument, due to their concrete states winning out of Pro's appeals to emotion.

C4 - Illegal guns/ Pro's of CCW

Here Con states that the US has issues with illegal guns. And he gives a number of 250 to 280 million guns. Con states that 93% of gun crimes are committed by illegal guns. He then states that this number wouldn't change if all law abiding citizens had to give up their guns. Next Con states that CCW serves as a deterrent to crime. Pro's rebuttal is reasonable, he states that it would be much harder for people to gain guns in the first place if they weren't sold legally, therefore ensuring that less people who shouldn't have guns would have them. He then gives numbers of guns that were lost or stolen last year. And implies that there would be less illegal guns if guns weren't sold at all. Con refutes this by pointing out that there are millions of guns circulating the market right now, and that a ban on guns wouldn't make these guns go away. He also states that banning guns would leave law abiding citizens defenseless. This argument goes to Con, because they showed a gun ban would affect legally owned guns, and wouldn't have much of an effect on the illegal guns, which are the causes of most gun crimes.

Pro's arguments"

C1 - Accidents
Here Pro gives stats that show that firearms kill upwards of 30k people every year, and that they will soon pass car deaths. He also states that Americans under the age of 25 are at more risk of dying from gun related causes than a car crash. He also states that a quarter of teenagers who die of injuries are killed in gun related incidents. Con refutes this by showing that Pro's argument doesn't really support a gun ban, and that he needs to show that a gun ban would have a positive effect on homicide rates and gun accidents, instead of just giving tallies of people killed by guns. This is true. Con states next that Pro's stats are misleading, because it's not specifically showing gun related accidents, but instead all gun related deaths. He also ties back to his other argument of 93% of gun crimes committed by illegal guns, and states that a gun ban would only affect the 7% of crimes committed by legal firearms. For his rebuttals Pro states that their source did show that these deaths are solely related to accidents. He also restates that a ban on guns would reduce the robbery of legally obtained guns by the wrong people. He also states that the 93% of illegal guns also includes stolen guns, and a gun ban would reduce that number, because it would reduce the amount of guns available for stealing. This argument goes to Pro, because these accidents were just that, accidents, and a gun ban would've ensured that there wouldn't have been any guns that caused these accidents.

C2 - Risk of Mass Shooting
Here Pro gives examples of school shootings, and states that the US has numbers much higher than other western countries. In my opinion, Pro could've tried to give more practicality to this argument instead of merely citing examples, and then stating that anyone who is against a gun ban chooses guns over children. This argument only consists of a few examples, and it doesn't affect many people on a large scale. Con states this as well, showing that the argument doesn't really have any real substance, because it's only a few examples. Next Con shows how the comparison between the US and the UK isn't accurate, because it is much easier for the UK to regulate their estimated 2 million guns, than America's estimated 300 million guns. Pro, for his defense, states that a gun ban would reduce the number of guns in general, therefore reducing the number of illegal guns. However this is completely hypothetical, as Pro cannot show how many of the 93% of illegal guns were stolen guns, and also that those guns won't go away due to a gun ban, they would still be in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, the only difference would be that people who could use guns for self defense won't have them. Pro proves some stats that show guns aren't used for self defense as much as some people would like to think. This source actually gives the same number that Con gave in the first round, 200k to 2 million, except this source plays on the 0.8%, and not the fairly large amount of self defense uses that 0.8% represent. This argument eventually reverts back to the 93% figure, which I already stated Con had won.

C3 - Effect on homicide rates
Here Pro states that guns inside your home are more likely to kill a member of your family or your friend than an actual intruder. He cites and article written by a criminology expert from US Berkeley, that states that more than two-thirds of killings are caused by spouses, friends, and neighbours. It also showed that the use of a firearm instead of a knife increased the chance of death by a factor of 5. Pro also cites another analysis which debunks the arguments that if there weren't any guns, people would kill each other through other means. It points out that if that were the case, knife attacks in cities where guns weren't as prevalent would have a higher fatality rate, but notes that no trend exists. Pro also gives a study that shows that people are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than in a home without one. For his rebuttal Con states that even if you ban guns, there would still be the amount of illegally owned guns, which would still be available to the wrong people after a gun ban is put in place. Con also notes that Pro hasn't shown a source that shows more guns correlates to more crime, while Con had a source which showed the o
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 6:11:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Continued...

...which showed the opposite. Pro again states that he's refuted the 93% figure, which isn't entirely true, as Pro is playing with hypotheticals, and can't concretely show that a gun ban would reduce that figure by much. This is also another argument that reverts back to the 93% figure, which as I explained above, Con wins.

In the end, if you tally up the arguments, Con wins 4-1.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation