Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can anyone defeat this guys argument?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 12:50:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

I argued in favor of harsher gun laws, but ended up conceding because I was more convinced by his arguments against harsher gun laws. Can anyone defeat his argument?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 5:34:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is a fear of crime, not actual crime, that has caused the changes. If you ban guns but no one notices then there would rationally be no rise in crime. However, everywhere is the US when gun legislation is looking to be passed people get so up in arms about it that people think that it will now be easier to steal. Moreover, why would violence go up around the time of new laws anyway? Basic cause and effect. If gun crime goes up, or there is a flashy event, purple wanting to be seen as doing something. The gun control restrictions in the short term is an epiphenomenon. It is the long term one ought to look at.

The rest of it could work in a sense against complete gun bans, but not gun control.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 6:02:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 5:34:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is a fear of crime, not actual crime, that has caused the changes. If you ban guns but no one notices then there would rationally be no rise in crime. However, everywhere is the US when gun legislation is looking to be passed people get so up in arms about it that people think that it will now be easier to steal. Moreover, why would violence go up around the time of new laws anyway? Basic cause and effect. If gun crime goes up, or there is a flashy event, purple wanting to be seen as doing something. The gun control restrictions in the short term is an epiphenomenon. It is the long term one ought to look at.

The rest of it could work in a sense against complete gun bans, but not gun control.

Could such an argument be so perfect as to have supporting evidence?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 7:48:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not an evidence argument, but one about the interpretation of evidence. It is a point about interpreting evidence. Let's just quickly construct a two-by-two matrix, where the rows ask "Is it easier to commit crime" and the columns ask "Do people think it is easier to commit crime". If there is a massive furore where people shout loudly and repeatedly about how it is now easier to commit crime (whether right or wrong), criminals are more likely to think they can get away with a criminal act, and will do so.

By contrast, if it is made easier to commit crimes in reality, but it is seen to make it in fact harder to commit crimes, people are deterred to committing crimes. So when there is in fact, for example, a massive furore about how every individual can now defend themselves when in fact it makes no difference without strong training in weapon use, then people are less likely to commit crimes. They are more fearful of the consequences of their actions, even though the danger hasn't changed (or even has been reduced).

The truth is that the major player seems when we analyse the situation to be the fear of getting caught, rather than the actual statistics of getting caught, in the short term. After enough time, truth outs, and fear of crime ought to balance out with the actual danger (all things remaining equal). However, in the short time, if you tell someone that crime is harder to commit, and they believe you, they are unlikely to commit a crime.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 11:58:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 5:34:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is a fear of crime, not actual crime, that has caused the changes. If you ban guns but no one notices then there would rationally be no rise in crime. However, everywhere is the US when gun legislation is looking to be passed people get so up in arms about it that people think that it will now be easier to steal. Moreover, why would violence go up around the time of new laws anyway? Basic cause and effect. If gun crime goes up, or there is a flashy event, purple wanting to be seen as doing something. The gun control restrictions in the short term is an epiphenomenon. It is the long term one ought to look at.

The rest of it could work in a sense against complete gun bans, but not gun control.

Exactly, it's a case of misleading vividness fallacy where people see one or two oversensualized events and automatically think that the items in the event are bad. All guns are bad is the argument even though less than .0001% of gun owners misuse their guns. It's misleading vividness that drives fear of guns and the media loves to play into that.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed, and that further restrictions cause drops in murder rates.
2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 1:31:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed, and that further restrictions cause drops in murder rates.
Empirical studies also show otherwise.

2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.
Non sequitur.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 1:32:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed,

Just to pile in here: my favourite joke in Britain on this (about knives but still): "Yeah, you can threaten me with that knife, but I know you're six times more likely to kill yourself than me!"

Funnier in context, but the point is simple: people who carry guns are more likely to be killed (after taking into account things like geography, age etc.)

http://www.newscientist.com...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 1:35:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 1:31:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.
Non sequitur.

That, interestly, cannot, by definition, be a non-sequitur, because it's only a single claim (followed by a completely independent personal opinion).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 1:39:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 11:58:17 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
People see one or two oversensualized events and automatically think that the items in the event are bad. It's misleading vividness that drives fear of guns and the media loves to play into that.

I think this is right, and we have to always keep this in account when deciding with most policy, but with security it's slightly different. The misleading vividness, I would venture (especially by the NRA due to its consistent and unwavering vested interest) is a prime cause of rises or falls of crime. It's usually not the intelligent and impartial who commit crime, after all, but the desperate or the ineducated - or the flat out insane.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 1:45:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 1:35:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/19/2013 1:31:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.
Non sequitur.
That, interestly, cannot, by definition, be a non-sequitur, because it's only a single claim (followed by a completely independent personal opinion).
What does the point that "most murders are not meticulously planned" have to do with (A) gun control and (B) his first point? Answer: nothing. Ergo, it does not follow.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 3:09:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 1:45:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2013 1:35:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/19/2013 1:31:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.
Non sequitur.
That, interestly, cannot, by definition, be a non-sequitur, because it's only a single claim (followed by a completely independent personal opinion).
What does the point that "most murders are not meticulously planned" have to do with (A) gun control and (B) his first point? Answer: nothing. Ergo, it does not follow.

Applying some charity, he referred to gun murders (actually, it's not charity, it's just actually understanding context), and all the discussion relies on the assumption that crimes are committed rationally - the lack of planning is about how they are in fact not.

However, all of this doesn't change it not being a non-sequitur. You're assuming he has made a conclusion that this means guns are bad. He can simply be making an observation, which is perfectly fine. You need to stop being such an angry person, and instead calm down, be a bit happier!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 9:49:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 5:34:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is a fear of crime, not actual crime, that has caused the changes. If you ban guns but no one notices then there would rationally be no rise in crime. However, everywhere is the US when gun legislation is looking to be passed people get so up in arms about it that people think that it will now be easier to steal. Moreover, why would violence go up around the time of new laws anyway? Basic cause and effect. If gun crime goes up, or there is a flashy event, purple wanting to be seen as doing something. The gun control restrictions in the short term is an epiphenomenon. It is the long term one ought to look at.

The rest of it could work in a sense against complete gun bans, but not gun control.

What you're talking about is a "perfect law" that our society, no matter how in favor of gun control, will not possibly attain. Why? It is exactly as you say. A right to any type of gun will not go away overnight without a fight. If it isn't the NRA, it's going to be someone else who raises the concern of "arms collection." The proposed bans, such as Feinstein's recent proposal, were horrific in federal reach. Pay an extra tax for something you already own for it to be "grandfather in," and additionally be put on a list for owning it... Damn right the people who own these guns are going to make a big deal of it, they're about to be FINED for exercising their right to the second Amendment.

The problem with gun control in America is that it isn't manageable, as it is in Australia. We have criminal INDUSTRIES that can produce, acquire, and distribute firearms. They are powerful enough to take on the Mexican military. They are advanced enough to construct a U-Boat in the Amazon jungle. They are cable of buying fully automatic weapons from governments, and of making fully armored assault personnel carriers. Weapons manufacturing technology is incredibly simple, and fairly affordable. Making an AK-47 is actually easier and cheaper than making most bolt action rifles because of the care-free mass-production technology involved. If the Mexican Mafia wanted to, they could arm every one of their members with a fully automatic weapon of their own design. For all we know, they may have already done so. Firearm production is not rocket science; most of them are based on 40+ year old technology that we can replicate in our garage. These people will in turn distribute to criminal organizations.

As we can see from statistics by the Australian government:
http://www.aic.gov.au...
Crime WILL go up for a period after a gun ban goes into effect. It will only go down if the number of criminals goes down, or if the theory of arms proliferation works, as you mentioned that it should. In a massive country like the United States where we have the most crimes committed every day, the most gangs in the world, the third largest population, the most organized crime families and factions functional, and the most firearms per capita, as well as the innovation of private interests that will do anything to make a profit, there is no feasible way that a gun ban will reduce crime, unless you kill every single gun-criminal with deadly and public force, and have a police force with absolute control.

Simply banning guns like the AR-15 rifle wouldn't work. Criminals would just use illegally obtained rifles, or pistols (as they always have). The Assault Weapons Ban of '94 didn't exactly work out either. That said, there are many alternatives to the AR-15 that would have worked better for things like the Beltway sniper attacks.

Resorting to where criminals obtain their guns; around 10% actually buy them from a gun store. The rest obtain them through other means. To find a perfectly unbiased and direct source is a task that I, at the moment, have no time to do, as the "facts" reported almost always have political bias regarding this part of the subject. However, it does bring to light another argument revolving around guns-where criminals get them. I know first hand that it's easy to buy them illegally, or to acquire them from a friend. People sold AR-15 rifles for $5,000 a piece during the gun debate. People sell guns on the street, unmarked and unregistered, for around the same price. Often less. If that law were to have passed, the price would have shot up to $10,000, and the government would have had to start telling people that they will be arrested if they continue to sell them, in which case some conservative would end up getting shot for telling them off, then we'd have a SHTF on our hands because of all of the reactionary militias that rise against the tyrrany.

That said, gun control and for that matter, gun bans, are useless endeavors. I didn't even have to bring up the Constitutionality of gun bans, nor the protection granted by the second amendment to make my argument. It's just a matter of the social dynamic and morality of our country. Gun crime will always exist despite any form of gun control because it is ingrained in our criminal element, and has been for years. In America, the gun is immortal. The man is not.
sleuth
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 9:59:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed, and that further restrictions cause drops in murder rates.

The evidence to the contrary is based on misleading statistics and weak methodology. The best constructed surveys indicate that: (1) Guns are used often in defensive situations, and (2) on balance they are effective weapons.

2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.

Most are not, correct. However some degree of deterence is easily possible. Either way, this is irrelevant. An armed person attacked by unprovoked person[s] is harder to kill than an otherwise unarmed civilian.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:01:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 9:49:49 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/19/2013 5:34:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is a fear of crime, not actual crime, that has caused the changes. If you ban guns but no one notices then there would rationally be no rise in crime. However, everywhere is the US when gun legislation is looking to be passed people get so up in arms about it that people think that it will now be easier to steal. Moreover, why would violence go up around the time of new laws anyway? Basic cause and effect. If gun crime goes up, or there is a flashy event, purple wanting to be seen as doing something. The gun control restrictions in the short term is an epiphenomenon. It is the long term one ought to look at.

The rest of it could work in a sense against complete gun bans, but not gun control.

What you're talking about is a "perfect law" that our society, no matter how in favor of gun control, will not possibly attain. Why? It is exactly as you say. A right to any type of gun will not go away overnight without a fight. If it isn't the NRA, it's going to be someone else who raises the concern of "arms collection." The proposed bans, such as Feinstein's recent proposal, were horrific in federal reach. Pay an extra tax for something you already own for it to be "grandfather in," and additionally be put on a list for owning it... Damn right the people who own these guns are going to make a big deal of it, they're about to be FINED for exercising their right to the second Amendment.

The problem with gun control in America is that it isn't manageable, as it is in Australia. We have criminal INDUSTRIES that can produce, acquire, and distribute firearms. They are powerful enough to take on the Mexican military. They are advanced enough to construct a U-Boat in the Amazon jungle. They are cable of buying fully automatic weapons from governments, and of making fully armored assault personnel carriers. Weapons manufacturing technology is incredibly simple, and fairly affordable. Making an AK-47 is actually easier and cheaper than making most bolt action rifles because of the care-free mass-production technology involved. If the Mexican Mafia wanted to, they could arm every one of their members with a fully automatic weapon of their own design. For all we know, they may have already done so. Firearm production is not rocket science; most of them are based on 40+ year old technology that we can replicate in our garage. These people will in turn distribute to criminal organizations.

As we can see from statistics by the Australian government:
http://www.aic.gov.au...
Crime WILL go up for a period after a gun ban goes into effect. It will only go down if the number of criminals goes down, or if the theory of arms proliferation works, as you mentioned that it should. In a massive country like the United States where we have the most crimes committed every day, the most gangs in the world, the third largest population, the most organized crime families and factions functional, and the most firearms per capita, as well as the innovation of private interests that will do anything to make a profit, there is no feasible way that a gun ban will reduce crime, unless you kill every single gun-criminal with deadly and public force, and have a police force with absolute control.

Simply banning guns like the AR-15 rifle wouldn't work. Criminals would just use illegally obtained rifles, or pistols (as they always have). The Assault Weapons Ban of '94 didn't exactly work out either. That said, there are many alternatives to the AR-15 that would have worked better for things like the Beltway sniper attacks.

Resorting to where criminals obtain their guns; around 10% actually buy them from a gun store. The rest obtain them through other means. To find a perfectly unbiased and direct source is a task that I, at the moment, have no time to do, as the "facts" reported almost always have political bias regarding this part of the subject. However, it does bring to light another argument revolving around guns-where criminals get them. I know first hand that it's easy to buy them illegally, or to acquire them from a friend. People sold AR-15 rifles for $5,000 a piece during the gun debate. People sell guns on the street, unmarked and unregistered, for around the same price. Often less. If that law were to have passed, the price would have shot up to $10,000, and the government would have had to start telling people that they will be arrested if they continue to sell them, in which case some conservative would end up getting shot for telling them off, then we'd have a SHTF on our hands because of all of the reactionary militias that rise against the tyrrany.

That said, gun control and for that matter, gun bans, are useless endeavors. I didn't even have to bring up the Constitutionality of gun bans, nor the protection granted by the second amendment to make my argument. It's just a matter of the social dynamic and morality of our country. Gun crime will always exist despite any form of gun control because it is ingrained in our criminal element, and has been for years. In America, the gun is immortal. The man is not.

Strawman. No one is suggesting that any gun ban or gun restriction will prevent and stop ALL gun crimes. And failing to prevent all crimes is not a failure of any measures.

It was also a gross hyperbole to say that we would have to kill EVERY criminal for it to work. 1) if we killed every criminal, there would be no need for any restrictions. 2) As stated previous, not all crime is planned. Many (I did not see a source for "most" so I won't repeat it) are crimes of the moments, in which if people are not armed with deadly weapons, they might not escalate to deadly levels, you might have two drunks assaulting each other, rather than one committing murder.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:25:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rhett, I wont respond to your entire post, but I will just respond to the claim of utopianism that the case rests on. You say that gun rights don't go away without a fight ever, but in fact it is the other way around: America is the exception in that it makes a lot of noise about it. When the UK essentially made gun ownership illegal a little over a decade ago, there was not a massive riot or shouting, but a whimper.

My case is heavily empirical on this rebuttal, so you'd need to provide some empirical reason why this is a universal problem. In America you have a unique problem with the second amendment, which causes the gun problems you have (who knew that government documents have problems?) Agreed. However, this doesn't justify the universal freedom of guns; at best they justify the regulated trade off guns in the united states.

As ele has pointed out, and I and others before him though not in response to you, the gun control debate is about strong regulation, not outright banning of all weapons.

Though whoever wants to own a flamethrower shouldn't be able to own it for self defence, the fact of the matter is that they ought to go through checks, like anyone owing a potentially lethal and highly dangerous tool.

Oh and also it's ten percent of crimes in the u.s use illegal guns, not ten percent use legal guns.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:59:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:25:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Rhett, I wont respond to your entire post, but I will just respond to the claim of utopianism that the case rests on. You say that gun rights don't go away without a fight ever, but in fact it is the other way around: America is the exception in that it makes a lot of noise about it. When the UK essentially made gun ownership illegal a little over a decade ago, there was not a massive riot or shouting, but a whimper.

My case is heavily empirical on this rebuttal, so you'd need to provide some empirical reason why this is a universal problem. In America you have a unique problem with the second amendment, which causes the gun problems you have (who knew that government documents have problems?) Agreed. However, this doesn't justify the universal freedom of guns; at best they justify the regulated trade off guns in the united states.

As ele has pointed out, and I and others before him though not in response to you, the gun control debate is about strong regulation, not outright banning of all weapons.

Though whoever wants to own a flamethrower shouldn't be able to own it for self defence, the fact of the matter is that they ought to go through checks, like anyone owing a potentially lethal and highly dangerous tool.

Oh and also it's ten percent of crimes in the u.s use illegal guns, not ten percent use legal guns.

I was referring to how gun rights don't go away without quarrel specifically in America. My apologies for not making it clear. With that said, our country is basically founded in part upon the principle of the right to bear arms, so it is highly reasonable that people complain as they do.

As to being a universal problem, I believed that I did mention elements specific to America in my argument, and cited issues that had arisen in Australia after the gun ban of specific firearms had began. My case does not involve Europe. Among the evidence, the fact that we have the third largest population in the world to police, countless gangs, innovative criminal industries, and a criminal market that can acquire directly from government officials to nullify the positive effects of extensive gun control, such as the Assault Weapons Ban and more radical legislation.

Additionally, I don't know how much you know about the American background check system, but we have a system in place already that is enforced in every state in the union. As such, the lack of background checks for private sales and for the "gunshow loophole" are issues that can be completely separate amendments passed in legislature. The problem with the universal background check law was that the Assault Weapons Ban and Magazine ban could be added in at a separate point because it was designed to be so broad and easily amended. This is the heart of the "Gun Regulation" issue in the United States, because our politicians show us that they want to be able to take legislation a step further than they are allowed to by the public. Therefore, it is only reasonable that a no-compromise position be taken, unless a bulk of the American population and representation can push the law through completely.

"Oh and also it's ten percent of crimes in the u.s use illegal guns, not ten percent use legal guns."
I stated that it was only around ten percent who acquire them from a gun store.
This article backs my position. http://www.pbs.org...
Firearms are most often acquired from illegal street dealers or through a friend (i.e. Straw purchase or on loan).

Additionally, I'd like you to see official government view on gun crime:
http://www.nij.gov...
"Surveys of offenders have found that they prefer newer, high-quality guns and may steal or borrow them; most, however, acquire guns "off the street" through the illicit gun market. "

All of this accounted for; it's safe to say that if Gun regulation, as extensive as the American Democratic party wants, were to pass through congress... America would have her period.
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 7:00:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:01:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/21/2013 9:49:49 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/19/2013 5:34:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It ... is ingrained in our criminal element, and has been for years. In America, the gun is immortal. The man is not.

Strawman. No one is suggesting that any gun ban or gun restriction will prevent and stop ALL gun crimes. And failing to prevent all crimes is not a failure of any measures.

It was also a gross hyperbole to say that we would have to kill EVERY criminal for it to work. 1) if we killed every criminal, there would be no need for any restrictions. 2) As stated previous, not all crime is planned. Many (I did not see a source for "most" so I won't repeat it) are crimes of the moments, in which if people are not armed with deadly weapons, they might not escalate to deadly levels, you might have two drunks assaulting each other, rather than one committing murder.

"Strawman. No one is suggesting that any gun ban or gun restriction will prevent and stop ALL gun crimes. And failing to prevent all crimes is not a failure of any measures."
This isn't a straw man argument for the following three reasons:
1. "A right to any type of gun will not go away overnight without a fight." The topics at hand involve the implementation of gun regulation and the possibility of an assault weapons ban. As such, it is believed that a ban will massively reduce gun crime, otherwise it would not be on the table in the first place. I noticed you threw in the safety net of ALL, but because of the severity of the issue at hand, if any gun ban or gun restriction will not prevent and stop gun crimes, then why are they even on the table?
It is because it is believed that they will reduce some gun crime, in specific, crime caused by drug cartels and by mass murderers who utilize that which will would banned such as the "assault weapon." The problem arises when both points that I mentioned are one: mass murderers would have alternative means, and two: Drug cartels and gangs can acquire banned firearms anyway. Additionally, the problem exclusive to the United States is central to the Second Amendment. If we ban the AR-15 style rifle, for example, that is considered an infringement upon the second Amendment. So, it had better be worth it. Limiting crime by 20 homicides isn't a difference when you have effectively made it illegal for 300,000,000 to own a certain type of weapon.

2. The name of the debate which this thread is centered around is "banning guns" The link is already supplied by the original poster. This is the theme at hand, this is the theme that I am following. My argument was in concurrence with points that Stephen made, but also highlighted several additional topics and issues. As far as I'm concerned, banning guns is a very relevant issue, and Gun Control involves just that: controlling which firearms are available on the market. When your own position is in favor of limiting which types of firearms are available to criminals, you should know first hand that a ban is in order to limit the scope of firearms the populace can possess.

3. You are straw manning my argument; I made the case that gun control in America is something that is unmanageable in part because of the reasons that Stephen asserted, but also because of various unaccounted factors. It's becoming clearer to me day by day that much of the debate strength on this website is in discrediting your opponent, which is what you are trying to do by dismissing my argument as nothing more than a straw man. I did not throw a flaming scarecrow out onto the floor, I presented an effective argument as to why effective gun control in the United States of America is really nothing more than wishful thinking. It was in line with the topic. It was not misunderstanding Stephen, as my argument highlighted the aspects of what we know as "Gun Control." If you limit a few homicides at the expense of the entire American population's freedom to own guns, it isn't "effective gun control." The topic isn't about universal background checks.

"It was also a gross hyperbole to say that we would have to kill EVERY criminal for it to work."
1) if we killed every criminal, there would be no need for any restrictions."

Are you assuming that crime is genetic? I don't see your point here- criminals replace other criminals, and restrictions would be required in order to prevent them from obtaining guns to kill one another since if they are shooting one another they would be creating more gun-criminals that we'd need to kill...

"2) As stated previous, not all crime is planned. Many (I did not see a source for "most" so I won't repeat it) are crimes of the moments, in which if people are not armed with deadly weapons, they might not escalate to deadly levels, you might have two drunks assaulting each other, rather than one committing murder."
I believe that what I stated was that "every single gun-criminal" would need to be killed, as I did not make the point that every single criminal would need to be killed.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 12:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 7:00:52 AM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/21/2013 11:01:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/21/2013 9:49:49 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/19/2013 5:34:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It ... is ingrained in our criminal element, and has been for years. In America, the gun is immortal. The man is not.

Strawman. No one is suggesting that any gun ban or gun restriction will prevent and stop ALL gun crimes. And failing to prevent all crimes is not a failure of any measures.

It was also a gross hyperbole to say that we would have to kill EVERY criminal for it to work. 1) if we killed every criminal, there would be no need for any restrictions. 2) As stated previous, not all crime is planned. Many (I did not see a source for "most" so I won't repeat it) are crimes of the moments, in which if people are not armed with deadly weapons, they might not escalate to deadly levels, you might have two drunks assaulting each other, rather than one committing murder.








"Strawman. No one is suggesting that any gun ban or gun restriction will prevent and stop ALL gun crimes. And failing to prevent all crimes is not a failure of any measures."
This isn't a straw man argument for the following three reasons:
1. "A right to any type of gun will not go away overnight without a fight." The topics at hand involve the implementation of gun regulation and the possibility of an assault weapons ban. As such, it is believed that a ban will massively reduce gun crime, otherwise it would not be on the table in the first place. I noticed you threw in the safety net of ALL, but because of the severity of the issue at hand, if any gun ban or gun restriction will not prevent and stop gun crimes, then why are they even on the table?
It is because it is believed that they will reduce some gun crime, in specific, crime caused by drug cartels and by mass murderers who utilize that which will would banned such as the "assault weapon." The problem arises when both points that I mentioned are one: mass murderers would have alternative means, and two: Drug cartels and gangs can acquire banned firearms anyway. Additionally, the problem exclusive to the United States is central to the Second Amendment. If we ban the AR-15 style rifle, for example, that is considered an infringement upon the second Amendment. So, it had better be worth it. Limiting crime by 20 homicides isn't a difference when you have effectively made it illegal for 300,000,000 to own a certain type of weapon.

2. The name of the debate which this thread is centered around is "banning guns" The link is already supplied by the original poster. This is the theme at hand, this is the theme that I am following. My argument was in concurrence with points that Stephen made, but also highlighted several additional topics and issues. As far as I'm concerned, banning guns is a very relevant issue, and Gun Control involves just that: controlling which firearms are available on the market. When your own position is in favor of limiting which types of firearms are available to criminals, you should know first hand that a ban is in order to limit the scope of firearms the populace can possess.

3. You are straw manning my argument; I made the case that gun control in America is something that is unmanageable in part because of the reasons that Stephen asserted, but also because of various unaccounted factors. It's becoming clearer to me day by day that much of the debate strength on this website is in discrediting your opponent, which is what you are trying to do by dismissing my argument as nothing more than a straw man. I did not throw a flaming scarecrow out onto the floor, I presented an effective argument as to why effective gun control in the United States of America is really nothing more than wishful thinking. It was in line with the topic. It was not misunderstanding Stephen, as my argument highlighted the aspects of what we know as "Gun Control." If you limit a few homicides at the expense of the entire American population's freedom to own guns, it isn't "effective gun control." The topic isn't about universal background checks.


"It was also a gross hyperbole to say that we would have to kill EVERY criminal for it to work."
1) if we killed every criminal, there would be no need for any restrictions."

Are you assuming that crime is genetic? I don't see your point here- criminals replace other criminals, and restrictions would be required in order to prevent them from obtaining guns to kill one another since if they are shooting one another they would be creating more gun-criminals that we'd need to kill...

"2) As stated previous, not all crime is planned. Many (I did not see a source for "most" so I won't repeat it) are crimes of the moments, in which if people are not armed with deadly weapons, they might not escalate to deadly levels, you might have two drunks assaulting each other, rather than one committing murder."
I believe that what I stated was that "every single gun-criminal" would need to be killed, as I did not make the point that every single criminal would need to be killed.

That is not entirely accurate.

1) SH ended his post with "The rest of it could work in a sense against complete gun bans, but not gun control." Indicating that gun control =/= gun bans.

2) Your own post ended with, "That said, gun control and for that matter, gun bans, are useless endeavors." Which is also indicating that you are saying gun control =/= gun bans.

So while the original debate was about banning guns, the post which you responded to, and your own post had expanded beyond that.

Now, going on to your points.

1) It only needs to prevent or limit some crime. If law X can prevent 10% of gun deaths in the US, then it is likely worth it (it obviously depends on other factors of costs and effects). Numerous studies show that there are a number of statistically significant factors that effect gun crime, but that regulations are one of them (but not the sole one).

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu...
http://www.jstor.org...

3) While it has failed to be properly managed, that does not mean that is in defacto unmanageable. Just like a company that has not been profitable in the past does not mean that it will never be profitable. While it is true that the gun is strongly rooted in American culture in many areas, it is slowly slipping away (there are fewer gun owners in the US each year) and so with time, can be removed so that legislation will be more effective. I would also disagree with the notion that limiting millions of people's freedoms is not worth saving lives.

http://www.google.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 1:13:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can say your argument extended to gun regulation all you want, but it was entirely relevant only to gun bans. "Simply banning guns", "Crime WILL go up for a period after a gun ban goes into effect", "no feasible way that a gun ban will reduce crime", "The Assault Weapons Ban of '94", "The proposed bans", "Constitutionality of gun bans" etc. appeared regarding gun bans explicitly. The references to gun control in the first instance was regarding banning some guns, the other uses are interchangeable with "ban" and seemed to be used as such. However, I'm all ears for any of your arguments that respond specifically to regulation. After all, the original debate was whether we should have gun regulation or not. Although I hate using the word, it is strawmanning to move it into gun ban.

Speaking of regulation. If we enforced regulation, then we'd have a much more effective system. "Straw Purchases" may be technically illegal, but, in the cultural sense, it is perfectly acceptable. It's like abortion for any reason in the first 20 weeks or so of pregnancy in the UK is not legal for any reason, but in practice, it is. In practice, the majority of guns in the US are attained with ease. The fact that they even flaunt the small regulation in place implies not that regulation fails, but that the regulation to lower gun crime isn't enforced, but the mania about guns being legal has made gun crime go up. After all, would you not agree that being able to attain a gun illegally should not be as easy as it is? People have illegally bought guns in NRA conventions, for example. I am sure you'd agree the law needs to enforce the regulation people have put in place.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 1:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 9:59:10 PM, sleuth wrote:
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed, and that further restrictions cause drops in murder rates.

The evidence to the contrary is based on misleading statistics and weak methodology. The best constructed surveys indicate that: (1) Guns are used often in defensive situations, and (2) on balance they are effective weapons.

Such as what surveys? Lott was rife with methodological problems (http://www.saf.org...). Could you find the methodological flaws in the following studies, or find people who have?

Gun control saves 42 a year in DC: http://www.nejm.org...
More people are threatened with guns than defend themselves with guns: http://www.bjs.gov...
Keeping a gun in the home nearly triples your chance of getting killed: http://www.nejm.org...
Keeping a gun in the home increases your risk of suicide: http://www.nejm.org...

2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.

Most are not, correct. However some degree of deterence is easily possible. Either way, this is irrelevant. An armed person attacked by unprovoked person[s] is harder to kill than an otherwise unarmed civilian.

Except usually that's not how it happens. Rather than an armed person attacked by an unprovoked person[s], it's, say, two people who live in the same house, they own a gun, an argument escalates, and one of the two winds up dead.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 1:31:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 1:29:53 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 6/21/2013 9:59:10 PM, sleuth wrote:
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed, and that further restrictions cause drops in murder rates.

The evidence to the contrary is based on misleading statistics and weak methodology. The best constructed surveys indicate that: (1) Guns are used often in defensive situations, and (2) on balance they are effective weapons.

Such as what surveys? Lott was rife with methodological problems (http://www.saf.org...). Could you find the methodological flaws in the following studies, or find people who have?

Gun control saves 42 a year in DC: http://www.nejm.org...
More people are threatened with guns than defend themselves with guns: http://www.bjs.gov...
Keeping a gun in the home nearly triples your chance of getting killed: http://www.nejm.org...
Keeping a gun in the home increases your risk of suicide: http://www.nejm.org...

2. Most murders are not meticulously planned. I don't know why so many people think they are.

Most are not, correct. However some degree of deterence is easily possible. Either way, this is irrelevant. An armed person attacked by unprovoked person[s] is harder to kill than an otherwise unarmed civilian.

Except usually that's not how it happens. Rather than an armed person attacked by an unprovoked person[s], it's, say, two people who live in the same house, they own a gun, an argument escalates, and one of the two winds up dead.

Also, that's one of the reasons that gun bans on assault weapons can work. Most lunatics who go around shooting as many people as possible are not criminal masterminds who meticulously plan their crimes weeks if not months in advance and carefully make black-market purchases in dark alleyways.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:38:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 1:32:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed,

Just to pile in here: my favourite joke in Britain on this (about knives but still): "Yeah, you can threaten me with that knife, but I know you're six times more likely to kill yourself than me!"

Funnier in context, but the point is simple: people who carry guns are more likely to be killed (after taking into account things like geography, age etc.)

http://www.newscientist.com...

My criminologist friend would like to disagree with you.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 11:04:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:38:27 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 6/19/2013 1:32:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/19/2013 12:20:21 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
1. Empirical studies have shown that guns do not improve personal protection to a significant degree, can actually cause one to be more likely to get killed,

Just to pile in here: my favourite joke in Britain on this (about knives but still): "Yeah, you can threaten me with that knife, but I know you're six times more likely to kill yourself than me!"

Funnier in context, but the point is simple: people who carry guns are more likely to be killed (after taking into account things like geography, age etc.)

http://www.newscientist.com...


My criminologist friend would like to disagree with you.



A fifteen minute video? Just pick out a quote and a time in the video. Then I'll address you.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 11:49:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Ore_Ele
It seems as though that our problem here is that we view the Constitutionality of firearms in an entirely different light. You have stated that you find it worth giving up liberty in exchange for safety if it can prevent "10% of gun deaths." As we all know, we aren't going to know if a law is going to prevent 10% of gun deaths unless we pass it, but considering the fact that criminal intent plays a far larger part, I highly doubt that you'd prevent half of that. Disarming the population is unrealistic. What is realistic is increasing the penalty for gun crimes, and pressuring individuals to abide by the law rather than breaking it.

Despite that, nothing that I say or do will change your mind on that matter. With that said, I did not intent to "fight a war on two fronts" as I feel pressured to now, as I began my debate with Stephen. If that were my intention, I'd have named my account Wilhelm_Keitel, and would gladly have set aside time to debate it. I have deadlines to meet, and I have no time to play Germany v. England and Russia.

With that said, I noticed that you again tried to discredit me by stating that I imply that gun control =/= gun bans. If you want to believe that is of no concern of mine. I have already defined why gun bans equate to gun control, I'm not here to play semantics with you. I don't have time for it. This is a web forum. I'm not paid to be here, I'm here to learn other viewpoints while supporting my own. Every minute here is a call that I could make, or a scene or chapter that I could create. When I cease to learn, I'm out.
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 11:55:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 1:13:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You can say your argument extended to gun regulation all you want, but it was entirely relevant only to gun bans. "Simply banning guns", "Crime WILL go up for a period after a gun ban goes into effect", "no feasible way that a gun ban will reduce crime", "The Assault Weapons Ban of '94", "The proposed bans", "Constitutionality of gun bans" etc. appeared regarding gun bans explicitly. The references to gun control in the first instance was regarding banning some guns, the other uses are interchangeable with "ban" and seemed to be used as such. However, I'm all ears for any of your arguments that respond specifically to regulation. After all, the original debate was whether we should have gun regulation or not. Although I hate using the word, it is strawmanning to move it into gun ban.


Speaking of regulation. If we enforced regulation, then we'd have a much more effective system. "Straw Purchases" may be technically illegal, but, in the cultural sense, it is perfectly acceptable. It's like abortion for any reason in the first 20 weeks or so of pregnancy in the UK is not legal for any reason, but in practice, it is. In practice, the majority of guns in the US are attained with ease. The fact that they even flaunt the small regulation in place implies not that regulation fails, but that the regulation to lower gun crime isn't enforced, but the mania about guns being legal has made gun crime go up. After all, would you not agree that being able to attain a gun illegally should not be as easy as it is? People have illegally bought guns in NRA conventions, for example. I am sure you'd agree the law needs to enforce the regulation people have put in place.

The current legislation in the United States needs to be enforced. I do not deny that, and you are on the mark regarding the lack of enforcement. What I deny is the idea of creating new gun laws when the old ones are not being enforced. What congress has been pushing for is new gun control measures rather than enforcement of existing ones.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 12:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 11:55:39 AM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/22/2013 1:13:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You can say your argument extended to gun regulation all you want, but it was entirely relevant only to gun bans. "Simply banning guns", "Crime WILL go up for a period after a gun ban goes into effect", "no feasible way that a gun ban will reduce crime", "The Assault Weapons Ban of '94", "The proposed bans", "Constitutionality of gun bans" etc. appeared regarding gun bans explicitly. The references to gun control in the first instance was regarding banning some guns, the other uses are interchangeable with "ban" and seemed to be used as such. However, I'm all ears for any of your arguments that respond specifically to regulation. After all, the original debate was whether we should have gun regulation or not. Although I hate using the word, it is strawmanning to move it into gun ban.


Speaking of regulation. If we enforced regulation, then we'd have a much more effective system. "Straw Purchases" may be technically illegal, but, in the cultural sense, it is perfectly acceptable. It's like abortion for any reason in the first 20 weeks or so of pregnancy in the UK is not legal for any reason, but in practice, it is. In practice, the majority of guns in the US are attained with ease. The fact that they even flaunt the small regulation in place implies not that regulation fails, but that the regulation to lower gun crime isn't enforced, but the mania about guns being legal has made gun crime go up. After all, would you not agree that being able to attain a gun illegally should not be as easy as it is? People have illegally bought guns in NRA conventions, for example. I am sure you'd agree the law needs to enforce the regulation people have put in place.

The current legislation in the United States needs to be enforced. I do not deny that, and you are on the mark regarding the lack of enforcement. What I deny is the idea of creating new gun laws when the old ones are not being enforced. What congress has been pushing for is new gun control measures rather than enforcement of existing ones.

Then you don't disagree with gun control, you just disagree with the lack of it. Or, you disagree with resolving the issue of enforcement being solved by more unenforced legislation. Which no rational person would dispute.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...