The Instigator
armoredcat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Our_Boat_is_Right
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,488 times Debate No: 118619
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

armoredcat

Pro

PLEASE ACCEPT IN R1, Our_Boat_is_Right.

Usual rules:

No semantics or kritiks.

Violating is an automatic concession, And by accepting this debate you aknowledge this.

Con can choose BOP.

If there are any errors please do not vote.

Thanks
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

lessgo its finally working
Debate Round No. 1
armoredcat

Pro

In the light of increased gun crime and mass shootings, Many a reasonable human has called for some sort of change to happen with our firearm laws. Although scholars seem to agree that it is the time for change, Some ideologues still stand firmly behind the current legislation? Why? Do they have the facts on their side?

In this debate with Our_Boat_is_Right, Who I admire for his strong ability to debate and dedication to the craft, I will be setting out to prove that the answer is a firm "no. "

--Concealed Carry Laws--

The National Research Council has found that "shall issue laws" (laws that require authorities to issue concealed carry permits) increase crime rates by 3 - 5 % [1]. Another study by Stanford Professor John Donahue also found that conceal carry laws increase crime [2]. There's very little to no studies that anyone can cite that say that concealed carry laws decrease crime. So, I ask Pro, Why does he support concealed carry?

--Gun Laws--

My argument for gun laws is short, Simple and to the point: Places that have more gun laws have less gun crime than places that have less gun laws. We find that countries with more gun laws have less crime, [4] and although it is true that it is impossible to prove that less gun laws are cause of this, We can find that the states in the U. S. With less gun laws pretty consistiently correlate with the states that have the most gun crimes. [5]

-- Assault Weapons --

Automatic and semiautomatic weapons do not save lives, They kill people. There is no reason to keep assault weapons. There is no evidence that they deter crime any more than your average gun. Will someone who may already be mentally unstable or desperate enough to rob a house draw the line at seeing not a regular gun but an assault weapon? There is no evidence that they do anything better than your average gun, Except kill large amounts of people. This is why they are the weapon of choice for mass-shooters. [3]

--Unconstitutional? "

Finally, Some radical defenders of guns posit that gun restrictions, Bans, And the like are wrong simply because they violate the fundamental lawbook of our American society: the Constitution. But is this true? Are gun control advocates really violating the constitution? My answer is no, And this is what will be addressed in this contention.

Here is the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, Being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. "
According to The Supreme Court, Gun law regulation to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is perfectly constitutional, Which is all the handgun control I advocate for. [6] The Supreme Court also dictated that banning sawed-off shotguns also doesn"t violate the Constitution because they saw no way that a sawed-off shotgun could be used lawfully. [6] These similar restrictions would also apply to an automatic and semiautomatic weapon because these rifles were also made for the use of military combat, To kill as many people as possible. So, It is true that it is legal to ban certain guns. [6] Finally, Whether the Constitution prohibits regulation or banning of concealed carry laws is still up in the air. Of course, This could all be seen as an appeal to authority. So here are some of my individual arguments:
It is fairly obvious that the Constitution would not want mentally insane people or criminals possessing guns. So gun control is pretty reasonable.
It is also ridiculous to say that the Constitution would be against allowing assault rifles, Because they are guns that could be used for self defense. By that logic, Could someone have a turret gun on the top of their house, Because they could use that to protect themselves? Could someone have a bazooka gun, Because it could be used to protect themselves? How deep does this rabbit hole go? !
Finally, The Constitution says you can have guns. It doesn"t say anyone can have guns. It doesn"t say you can have any gun you want. It most certainly doesn"t say you can own guns anywhere?
On top of all of this, Bringing up the Constitution, A document written hundreds of years ago to dictate a government that had just escaped tyranny and was radically different from our own in modern times, Is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Just because it"s an important law doesn"t mean it"s subject to scrutiny.

In conclusion, I have proved that concealed carry laws increase crime and thus should be disallowed, Assault weapons increase crime thus should be disallowed, And I have proved that gun regulations decrease gun crime and thus should be implemented, And I have done it all within the framework of the Constitution.

Sources in comments
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

I thank pro for his kind words and civility. Now to the arguments.

Concealed-Carry Laws:

I don't think a very minute difference like that would be conclusive evidence, Because correlation does not exactly mean causation. In the research I've done, Concealed-carry holders commit crimes 16% less than police officers. That is how law-abiding they are. [1] In addition, As concealed-carry goes up by the thousands, In the past 20 years, Violent crime in America has decreased by 50%. [2]

Gun Laws:

Of course they will not have more GUN crime, But people use other things like knives. For this reason, I think you should compare OVERALL murder rates BEFORE and AFTER gun bans, Because each country is different in its level of crime and murder. In this case, Gun bans have proven not to be effective in decreasing murder rates, And sometimes murder spikes after they are banned, Like what happened in England. [3]

"Assault Weapons":

Before I start, There is no official term "assault weapon. " That is a made up term. What guns are in the "assault weapon" category? Automatic guns have actually been banned since the 1930's, So this is an ivalid argument. In addition, Semi-automatic weapons are basically any gun, Like handguns, Pistols, Shotguns, AK-47, AR-15, Etc. So your "assault weapons" are my average gun, Because semi-automatic weapons which you constitute into this category is almost every gun. Therefore, You basically want to ban all guns. There actually is evidence that guns deter crime. According to an unpublished CDC study, [4] there are almost 2. 5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year(DGU's). As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15. 7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, Another 14. 6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, Let"s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. Since they surveyed 222 participants, The margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4. 8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270, 000 lives are saved by guns, Up to over 500, 000 just counting the "almost certainly people. " If all the "probably" people are right, Then that number goes beyond 800, 000. Moreover, For every firearm homicide, At least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, Then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].

Most mass shootings, And gun homicides overall, For that fact, Are done with handguns. There are over 2. 5x as much handguns used in mass shootings than any rifle. If we are talking about the number of incidents, Handguns are used 2x as much as rifles. [6] Rifles of ANY TYPE make up less than 300 gun murders per year. Hand guns are the main cause of gun death.

The Second Amendment:

I agree on background checks and restrictions on guns, Only law-abiding people should get them, Yes, But here is what you later say-
"These similar restrictions would also apply to an automatic and semiautomatic weapon because these rifles were also made for the use of military combat, To kill as many people as possible. "

Automatic guns are already banned, Which I have explained previously, And semi-automatics are DEFINITELY NOT MADE for MILITARY COMBAT. You would be a fool walking into the military with a handgun or AR-15. An "assault rifle" is defined as a fully automatic machine gun, Which military would use. An AR-15 could be confused with a military M-16, But they are completely different and military rifles are not sold to the public. [7]

I would argue concealed-carry is protected by the second amendment, Because the right to protect yourself doesn't just extend to home-defense, But wherever you go in public. Again, Assault rifles are not legal and a very vague term, So that argument is invalid.

Finally, My opponent states "A document written hundreds of years ago to dictate a government that had just escaped tyranny and was radically different from our own in modern times, Is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Just because it"s an important law doesn't mean it"s subject to scrutiny. "

The Constitution is still in tact and just because it was written 200 years ago does not question its validity. They wrote it knowing that they themselves could go tyrannical. They believed in the basic right to self-defense, And their is a lot of validity to that claim. Just because freedom of speech was made 200 years ago does not mean we should not consider it because the Constitution is too old. Without the second, Their is no first amendment. We have to protect the freedom expressed in the first amendment.

I do not think banning guns is a necessary answer to gun violence, But rather mental-illness screening, Promoting gun safety, And making sure the police do their job efficiently.

I thank my opponent for making good arguments that I could think about and research more. This is probably the hardest argument I have gotten, So props to my opponent for that as well. Thank you for your patience and civility, And if the sources do not go through, I will provide them through a google doc in the comment section, Like armoredcat, My opponent, Did in round one. Now the torch is passed back to you, My friend.

Sources:

1. Https://www. Gunstocarry. Com/concealed-carry-statistics/
(scroll about two thirds down the page, And you will see the statistic)

2. Http://www. Gunfacts. Info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
(go to the graph, You will find it on the top of the page)

3. Https://crimeresearch. Org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

4. Https://www. Lawenforcementtoday. Com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/

5. Http://www. Thetruthaboutguns. Com/2017/05/bruce-krafft/more-lives-are-saved-by-defensive-gun-uses-than-taken-in-criminal-gun-uses/

6. Https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

7. Https://www. Nssf. Org/msr/
Debate Round No. 2
armoredcat

Pro

Round 2!

Thank you for this debate Con, This may be the best one I"ve ever done.

--Concealed Carry Laws --

" In the research I've done, Concealed-carry holders commit crimes 16% less than police officers. That is how law-abiding they are. [1]"

This is completely irrelevant to the debate. We are not arguing over how safe concealed-carry holders are, We are arguing over whether concealed carry increases crime, Which it does. Let"s say you put 10 groups of 2 people in rooms, And give them all knives. Let"s say in 9/10 rooms, Nothing happens, But in one room, Someone gets stabbed. In retrospect, It would still be better to not give these people knives, Even if most of the people are safe, Peaceful, And not accident-prone.

"As concealed-carry goes up by the thousands, In the past 20 years, Violent crime in America has decreased by 50%. [2]"

Unlike the carefully correlated full study that I have presented as the second source in my first argument, [4] Con simply shows a set of 2 statistics. This is the definition of correlation does not equal causation. We can find tons of other reasons for this change, Such as the aging U. S. Population, [1] and the legalization of abortion, [2] which have both decreased crime.

--Gun Laws--

You said this:

"I agree on background checks and restrictions on guns, Only law-abiding people should get them, Yes, "

And yet you are arguing with me on gun control. Con is contradicting himself here, By arguing against gun restrictions but agreeing with them at the same time. Is he afraid that if he says that he agrees with me that background checks and mental health checks are necessary he will be conceding this point? Because I can assure him that he is not, And I will object to any vote that is given on that basis.

For the record, The two things we disagree on are these:

1)I am against concealed carry, He is for it

And

2)I am for a ban on semiautomatic rifles, He is not.

For the record, The U. K. Does not have a ban on semiautomatic rifles, Although they do have some restrictions. [3]

I suggest that for greater clarity we throw this section out of the debate.

--Assault Weapons --

"Before I start, There is no official term "assault weapon. " That is a made up term. What guns are in the "assault weapon" category? Automatic guns have actually been banned since the 1930's, So this is an ivalid argument. In addition, Semi-automatic weapons are basically any gun, Like handguns, Pistols, Shotguns, AK-47, AR-15, Etc. So your "assault weapons" are my average gun, Because semi-automatic weapons which you constitute into this category is almost every gun. Therefore, You basically want to ban all guns. "

Although it is true that I misphrased, This is nothing short of an incredible leap of logic. Allow me to explain:

By "assault weapon", I mean semiautomatic rifle. I apologize for the disparity, But I thought that it was a given. Apparently, I was wrong. However, Saying that I want to ban all guns even though I have explicitly clarified to you in this debate and through private messages that I do not want to ban all guns is just a ridiculous statement taking advantage of a technicality.

"There actually is evidence that guns deter crime. According to an unpublished CDC study, [4] there are almost 2. 5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year(DGU's). As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15. 7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, Another 14. 6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, Let"s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. Since they surveyed 222 participants, The margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4. 8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270, 000 lives are saved by guns, Up to over 500, 000 just counting the "almost certainly people. " If all the "probably" people are right, Then that number goes beyond 800, 000. Moreover, For every firearm homicide, At least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, Then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5]. "

This argument is now irrelevant because there is no evidence from this data that implies that assault weapons account largely for these lives saved by guns, Or that the owners of these guns would have been any better off with an assault weapon than a pistol. Since we agree that all guns should not be banned, These statistics are useless. I once again apologize for the disparity in my language.

Here are some arguments against semiautomatic rifles:

Pragmatically, Due to their faster firing speed, Semiautomatic rifles are much better able to take down a large number of people in a short period of time. This advantage outweighs any advantage (for which I cannot think of any) for which it could be used in home defense over a pistol.

Studies confirm this. Louis Klarevas in his book "Rampage Nation" has studied the effects of the 1994 U. S. Ban on semiautomatics. He found that mass killings where 6 or more people were killed decreased by 37% when the ban was instituted, And the number of fatalities decreased by 43%. The ban expired in 2004. When this happened, The mass killing rate skyrocketed to 183% and fatalities also skyrocketed by 239%. Con cannot argue that this could"ve been replaced by another weapon because for one, These were mass killings, Not mass shootings, And secondly, I doubt that doing this with a pistol or a knife would"ve had nearly as much effectiveness. [5]

"Most mass shootings, And gun homicides overall, For that fact, Are done with handguns. There are over 2. 5x as much handguns used in mass shootings than any rifle. If we are talking about the number of incidents, Handguns are used 2x as much as rifles. [6]"

For one, There seems to be a disparity in our evidence, Because the Mother Jones Analysis points to rifles as the main weapon. My analysis may be better because it accounts for the most recent shootings as well. [6] Secondly, Okay sure, Handguns account for more homicides but I"m sure my opponent can agree that there are many more handguns than rifles in America. I"ve already addressed in the paragraph before this that although there are more pistol killings than rifle killings in America, Rifle killings do contribute to crime and banning them would decrease crime, Which is what we are arguing about. Con seems to consistiently confuse what percentage of crime is done by certain things (which we are not debating about) with would my bans on concealed carry and assault weapons decrease crime (which we are arguing about).

--The Second Amendment --

"I would argue concealed-carry is protected by the second amendment, Because the right to protect yourself doesn't just extend to home-defense, But wherever you go in public. "

Uh". Source? Explain your reasoning? Where does it say that?

Con drops literally all my arguments about Supreme Court rulings and decisions with regards to these subjects and my arguments supporting them. Literally every. Single. One.

"The Constitution is still in tact and just because it was written 200 years ago does not question its validity. "

But it does! It absolutely does! Rules are up for questioning, That"s why we have rules! Moreover, The constitution was written in a radically different time where a tyrannical government (Britain) did post a threat to American democracy! It was written at a time when the government wasn"t powerful enough to resist a people"s militia, Which it now is! We can"t just blindly follow rules. I have explained that trusting the constitution for it"s own sake is a ridiculous argument in the previous round.

"They wrote it knowing that they themselves could go tyrannical. "

I ask my opponent: If they were to go tyrannical now, How would a disorganized mass of Americans across the country with guns stand up to the U. S. Military? It"s like saying we need wooden sticks to break metal walls. We don"t!

"Just because freedom of speech was made 200 years ago does not mean we should not consider it because the Constitution is too old. Without the second, Their is no first amendment. We have to protect the freedom expressed in the first amendment. "

We have gone back on Constitutional amendments before, Like with the 18th amendment, Which was Prohobition. Did we violate free speech then? Why not revise the document? For the record, I am not opposed to the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. I think, In fact, That our current provisions for the Second Amendment permit my suggestions for legislation. But if it was ruled that it wasn"t, I would like to revise the amendment.

--

"I thank my opponent for making good arguments that I could think about and research more. This is probably the hardest argument I have gotten, So props to my opponent for that as well. Thank you for your patience and civility, And if the sources do not go through, I will provide them through a google doc in the comment section, Like armoredcat, My opponent, Did in round one. Now the torch is passed back to you, My friend. "

Same to you. You truly are a very impressive debater, And I was blown away by your argument. This is the hardest debate I believe I have done, And I look forward to continuing it. Also, And I do not want to expose your privacy, But per our online discussions previous to this debate, You are a very kind person who has put up with my technical difficulties.

---

In conclusion, I have proved that allowing concealed carry is detrimental, And the allowing of semiautomatic rifles is detrimental. Con has dropped my arguments on the Constitution and I have proven that it is not only allowed by the Constitution, But bringing the Constitution is revisable.

Back to you.

I have added my sources to the original google doc.
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

just tryna see if this works
Debate Round No. 3
armoredcat

Pro

www. Debateart. Com/debates/206

heres the link

sorry for this mess of a debate but its really good i promise
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

get over there guys
Debate Round No. 4
armoredcat

Pro

thats right bois

youll see my argument by tonight i hope boat
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

ddo sucks
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
we can just scratch this debate, No voting please. If you would like to see this debate go to DebateArt. Com, Where we copied and pasted our arguments.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
hmm it won't lemme post it in the comments lol
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
lol so it works but now i gotta post it in the comments for voters
Posted by armoredcat 3 years ago
armoredcat
ok post it in the comments
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
it literally won't take my argument. After I finish my current debates, I am retiring and moving to debateart. Com.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
I did take them out.
Posted by armoredcat 3 years ago
armoredcat
Send them to me on our PMS.
Posted by armoredcat 3 years ago
armoredcat
Take your sources out.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
Every time I try to post an argument, The clock resets. I am sorry but DDO SUCKS BUTT
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
Ugh, DDO isn't letting me post my argument. If It won't let me post and I forfeit, I will post my round 3 argument in the comment section. Voters please don't take this against me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.