The Instigator
screenjack
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

More gun control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
WrickItRalph
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 831 times Debate No: 120456
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

screenjack

Con

The first round will be for acceptance. Please only make a brief introduction of your position. Just to make things clear on where I stand. I am against new gun control proposals. I believe that the right to own weapons is one of the most Important rights a man can have. Without the right to personal security all other rights are in jeopardy. Please, No foul language.
WrickItRalph

Pro

"No foul Language"

I would never dare talk about birds in public.

I believe that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands and there needs to be a vetting process.

I expect you to attack my points hard and address my criticisms harshly.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 1
screenjack

Con

I'd like to start my debate that small arms are extremely effective and essential to ensure tyranny doesn't overcome the populace. Historically an armed population is a free population. It might seem a little redundant but we could start with the inception of the U. S itself as It overthrew a powerful monarchy. Establishing the 2nd 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. " You will notice the wording "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. " It say's the right of the people. I know I'm being redundant but I really want to emphasize that it is the people who are being given the right to bear arms. Not the militias rights or the state's rights but the peoples right.
The next point I would like to make is the effectiveness of small arms in modern conflict. Many people claim that small arms are outdated or outmatched by the modern military machine. I would like to make the point that the Vietnam war was won by soldiers using primarily small arms against a modern war machine. They did this 3 times by my account. First the Vietnamese kicked out the french, Then the U. S, Then China. Those are 3 modern instances of, Primarily, Small arms defeating large conventional armies and all from the same nation.
lastly I'd like to say that the overwhelming amount of gun deaths don't come from mass shootings or any murder for that matter. Most gun deaths are attributed to suicide. 60% of gun deaths in the U. S are from suicide. (https://www. Theatlantic. Com/health/archive/2018/12/gun-deaths-city-murders-suicides/578812/) obviously people committing suicide cannot be stopped by removing guns.
on an aside I quite liked the foul joke. Obviously I'm not referring to a fowl but it did give me a chuckle.
WrickItRalph

Pro

So first off. What do you qualify as small arms? Pistols? Assault Rifles? I'm cool with pistols.

I hear this argument a lot about protecting ourselves from tyranny. The fact is that the U. S. Military would wipe us off the map even if we had decent weapons. You referenced the Vietnam war as an analogy. Pretty clever, But the technology back then was a little bit different and it's not like the U. S Military forgot about that loss. You think they'll fall for that trick twice? I think not. Look, I like the 2nd amendment too. But the founding fathers had no idea what kind of technology was around the corner. I think from a legal standpoint, The 2nd amendment should only be able to protect guns that the founding fathers could have conceived at their time. So basically pistols and maybe some low end rifles at best. No semi auto or up. Calibers could be liberal though.

The thing about suicide is irrelevant to me. If anything, It makes your argument look worse because if I was to really push it, I could say that guns increase the suicide rate. Some people don't have the nerve to kill themselves without a gun because of survival instinct, But with a hair pin trigger, They could even make a false try and do it by accident.

Your Floor.
Debate Round No. 2
screenjack

Con

I qualify anything up to one inch in caliber a small arm. To be clear my position is no new firearms laws.

You claim that the U. S will have learned from the last guerrilla war and will not make the same mistakes twice. You also claim that new technologies will make guerrilla warfare obsolete. I believe that the wars in the middle east prove you wrong. The Taliban, Al'Qaeda, And Isis are as relevant now as they ever were. We have been warring in the middle east longer than in the Vietnam war. These terrorist organizations have been implementing the same tactics to almost the same affect. Not that I support them. I'm only pointing out the tactics haven't changed.

The founding fathers had access to the most advanced weaponry of the time and used it.

More murders happen with handguns than with any other guns in the U. S. More crimes in general happen with handguns than other guns. (1) So why are you focusing on rifles?

Popping a bunch of pills or jumping off a building take just as much physical effort as pulling a trigger. You can do both by accident as well. I think your last point is just personal preference not something you can prove with logos.

Your floor.
WrickItRalph

Pro

On a side note, I appreciate making your points irreducibly complex. I hate having to put out fires that aren't actually burning down my house, Lol.

I accept your definition of small arms and then say I would probably reject some of the guns in that category, But I can't be sure. I'm kind of ignorant to gun models. But functionally I'm against any weapon that would allow a single person to inflict massive casualties within the window of standard police response time. This definition is necessarily broad since I make all of my arguments from the bottom up. Epistemologically speaking.

You bring up a fair points about extremist nations in the middle east. But let's be fair and say that if the united states wasn't attempting to posture for the moral high ground, They would be a little more effective. I say posture because I don't simply assume they're taking the moral high ground. Just presenting that image and maybe sometimes they're right. I would also like to point out that no American militia would ever utilize tactics such as suicide bombings or using children for warfare. If you posit as much, I think it would hurt your argument more than help.

You say the founding fathers had access to the most advanced weaponry of their time and used it. This is a non sequitur because it is not analogous. The best weapons used in the revolutionary war are far surpassed by some of the weakest weapons we have in modern day. I think their best weapon might have been cannons, Correct me if I'm wrong. A cannon could realistically kill maybe a dozen or so people depending on the area it hits. Possibly more, But I would never say more than 100 people unless they toppled a giant building or something. Compare that to a nuclear weapon and you see the glaring difference.

You say murders happen more with handguns, This is also a non sequitur. Pistols and rifles are not analogous in this case because pistols are simply more popular. Also, Who would commit suicide with a rifle? It's just impractical. This naturally drives the death toll up for pistols. I don't buy into statistics unless they're robust because they tend to tell us the wrong things. Pistols can't have a robust enough data set because gun technology has evolved to rapidly which forces us to restart our data point or at least separate them from each other. I judge things functionally and functionally speaking, An assault rifle is more dangerous than a pistol and can kill more people more quickly. These are facts. I don't need conflated statistics to know these things. So I think they're much better indicators of the truth.

To the suicide comment, It is not a matter of preference, Some ways are better than others. So what, You named another effect way to commit suicide. So let's put building gates up and it won't happen. Sweet! No we've stop two ways to commit suicide instead of one. Thanks for strengthening my point. Lol. On a side note, There is nothing I can't prove with logic and if it can't be done than it's probably something irrelevant anyways. I'm being hyperbolic when I say that, But I can definitely prove this one with logic because there are objective more effective ways to end one's life and that's a fact.

Your floor
Debate Round No. 3
screenjack

Con

I'm glad you accept my definition of small arms and that we don't require a dictionary. I see that your claim is based on how much damage can occur before police arrive. I have an article about a killing spree in China. 33 people dead and 130 injured in 2014. All of this damage done with knives. (2) I think this just goes to show that blaming mass murder instances on the gun not the people is a dumb premise.

I understand my reference to the middle east might not be palatable. I think that's just because we've had time to heal from the Vietnam war. The Vietnamese were just as ruthless in some cases. I would agree that Muslim culture is subject to much more scrutiny than others and for obvious reasons. I feel the tactics could be compared to yet another modern army. The IRA used primarily small arms and IED's. Using small arms they defeated the British and gained independence. Using small arms and IED's they gained equal rights in Northern Ireland. Perhaps this example will be more palatable.

Another weapon our founding fathers had access to is the Belton flintlock rifle that could fire 16 rounds in 20 seconds. So not only did they know about repeating rifle's but if you read the article they we're actively funding its development. (3) So this idea that the founding fathers were thinking about guns statically is a false narrative.

So what is an assault rifle? AR stands for armalight not assault rifle. So an AR-15 is armalight model 15 not assault rifle number 15. What about it is it that makes this type of rifle one that assaults? Aren't all guns capable of assault? Why the frankly new wordage over a gun? What about one semi-auto rifle makes it an assault rifle while others semi-auto's are for hunting? Is an M1A1 grand an assault rifle? It uses revolver technology in the form of a stripper clip. Is a gun from ww2 going to be banned because it's a semi-auto rifle? Where you draw the line is incredibly important to a debate about gun control and I think it's something you should have well thought out before you just start harping randomly on guns.

I'm pretty sure the length of the barrel isn't going to create a different affect on someones own brain. If you're wondering how someone would do it I guess just watch full metal jacket. Your solution for people wanting to commit suicide is building gates? Are you the same person who suggested suicide nets at apple? You are only looking at the symptom not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is sad people not guns or buildings. You have to address the people who commit suicide not just how they decide to go. Now before you say oh well then that's why we need a vetting process for gun ownership. 1in5 Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness. (4) That's 43. 8 million people you'd disarm. Most of whom haven't committed a crime. How do you think people are going to react to the disarmament of 43. 8million people? I'll tell you right now I wouldn't be having any of it. Also think of the precedent you'd be setting. You're essentially saying that a group of people is going to be in charge of who can and cannot own guns. Not based on someones criminal history just based on an hour session. Also, Logic would dictate that you prove your reasoning with quantifiable facts. Since I'm contradicting you hyperbole with real numbers I expect a real answer not an exaggeration.

Your floor.
WrickItRalph

Pro

Your stats about people with knives are underwhelming. I don't know how many people were involved nor do I know the details of the incident by which to judge the variables that led to that type of spree. I don't know the average police response time. I don't know how big the knives were or if they would pass American standards for a legal knife. I don't know what kind of community it was or if the population was dense or If the victims were resisting. It's simply an anecdote if you can't provide these details, So it's dismissed.

I thought I approached the middle east common pretty calmly. Don't know why you thought I found it unpalatable. The IRA is not a fair shake because the forces they took out wouldn't compare to modern standards. You also left out the part where IRA soldier were some of the best trained, Most brutal and precise killers in all of history. You also left out the part where they had exclusive access to a type of assault rifle that was superior to their opponents do to the fact that they could hide in water and deliver extremely fast no reflex kill blows from long range do to their intensive training. Just saying The IRA was a whole different monster.

I never said that the founding fathers thought statically about guns, That's a straw man. I said that the founding fathers had no idea what would come and we can only judge their decisions based on what technology they had in the time. We could push it forward a little bit, Because we can say they had SOME imagination of what could be. But nothing close to what we have. So what I actually said was that we should think about what they said statically. That's very different.

I don't presume to know the optimal standards for gun control. I would have to turn that over to someone smarter than myself, I can only measure them by killing power, So my standard would be to reduce the amount of people it can kill within a certain agreed upon time period.

I was simply pointing out that it is more convenient to kill oneself with a pistol. I never said it as impossible to do it with a Rifle, Just impractical unless it's your only choice of guns at that moment. I loved full metal jacket btw. Poor pile :(
I was using the building gate thing as an example of gun control. There is no rule saying we have to only stop suicide in one way. We can help them psychologically while still taking their sharp objects away, You strawman me again and say I want to strip a bunch of people of their guns. No I don't, I want to limit guns. That's completely different. If you're really hell bent on protecting yourself from tyranny, Then we should have state funded militias that are separate from the federal government and only design to help the people. That way we can have our big weapons and at the same time keep them out the hands of the dangerous or mentally ill people. It's funny you say I'm being hyperbolic when your the one who exaggerates statistics. That's why I don't use statistics. All of my arguments are epistemological so I can give practical and detailed answers without having to appeal to an authority.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
Like I said my voting criteria is 'loosely' based off the BPS system. Obviously I am not applying the level of strictness that it is applied in real life, Merely the structure of how arguments should be presented.

Not sure what you're trying to get at by differentiating the US from the BPS system. This 'precedent' style of debate that you're talking about has a role in the BPS system. It comes under the category of 'Principle' level argumentation which pretty much talks about everything you just talked about with the U. S constitution.

Furthermore, It isn't inappropriate at all. The BPS system is still a system at the end of the day and it's merely there to make my voting criteria clearer to the debaters. BPS debates aren't merely based in the UK at all, In fact there's a lot of schools and colleges in the U. S that have employed the BPS system as it is one of the main systems of debate.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
fair enough
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
You are talking about changing them. So we're talking about what we would like to have exercised. I'd like to further point out that my claim was a legal one.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
yes, Talking about them, Not exercising them.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
. . . Extreme? We are literally talking about U. S laws and so I am arguing using U. S legal precedents. The fact that there is a government with laws and I believe we should debate those laws using the standards of that legal system is extreme in you eyes? I suppose that might make sense to you if you were an outsider looking in but I am from the U. S and would theoretically have to debate based on these precedents.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@screenjack. I disagree and that just sounds like extreme nationalism. Any topic can be debated under any debate parameters.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
In British parliamentary style of debating is between teams with different speakers debating each round. Furthermore, The U. S Legal system is based more on precedent. Meaning that the laws are based off of the previous laws on the subject. For instance the civil rights moment was fighting the legal precedent of separate but equal. Essentially bringing the debate all the way back to the Supreme law of the land (the constitution stating all men are created equal) and proving then that separate is not equal. So while It is interesting to see the debate through that lens it also seems inappropriate to judge a U. S constitutional debate using British parliamentary as the standard.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
As I said, I did not find your response satisfactory because it did not draw a proper link to the modern narrative. Yes, You did essentially repeat your point on the founding fathers. But the important thing about debates is that you need to build up your arguments with layers of analysis. Remember at the end of the day we're advocating for more gun control in the modern day, Which is 2019. We're not advocating it for 50 years ago, 80 years ago, Or a 100 years ago. That's why I said you need to draw a link as to why the second amendment still has the same level of application in the modern day as it did back then.

Your point about suicide was as you said something you both barely scratched the surface on. As I mentioned in my RFD, I did not see substantial argumentation to award that point to either side. As I also said it felt like it was going off-topic because to me it seemed more like an argument about the situation surrounding the circumstances with mental health and suicide rather than gun ownership. As Pro did point out you just brought up another way to commit suicide. You are right about there being more suicides via guns rather than gun violence, But like I said it went off-topic from both sides and at the end of the day you did not crystallize your argument by linking in adequately that because there were more suicides gun ownership should not be revoked.

I assure you that I am an impartial voter. I do not vote based on personal bias whatsoever. I vote strictly based on my criteria which is loosely linked to British Parliamentary Style. I understand you may disagree with me but I vote based on being as constructive as possible to both sides. Every debate has a learning curve and I always mention that there's something both debaters can improve upon.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
@Everlastingmoment I told him exactly what kind of guns were available to the founding fathers and how they support the use development of semi auto rifles. Semiautomatic rifles that WrickItRalph advocated banning. I also provided a source to my determination. What reasoning did WrickIt give? He made a false narrative about the battle efficiency of revolutionary rifles. I corrected him and he just said "I said that the founding fathers had no idea what would come and we can only judge their decisions based on what technology they had in the time. " basically repeating a point I had already proven wrong by providing sources to the founding fathers intentions to develop such rifles. He provided no additional data or sources. How exactly did I not satisfy my burden of responsibility?
How is pointing out that most deaths by handgun have literally nothing to do with gun violence and a whole lot more to do with mental health? Something we barely scratched the surface of honestly. It's open voting so I guess you can do whatever you want but I'm fully convinced you agreed with WrickIt before the debate.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
I see what you mean about getting off topic. We were on tangents about knives and suicides, Lol. I never know when I should or shouldn't go down a rabbit hole. On the one hand, I want to respond to their points and not dodge them. On the other hand, I don't want to exhaust points that are not germane. Tricky.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
screenjackWrickItRalphTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

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