The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

you cant find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

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: 7/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 93996
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




you can't find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide

more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions. you have to compare developed nations against each other, and control for variables such as poverty v violence v guns.

Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates."

states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies.


First off, id like to note that many of your sources are openly Liberal organizations. But thats beside the point...Academia is littered with people who think they know whats best for everyone else. People who have spent their entire lives within the highly LIBERAL education system of America, within closed groups of snobbish individuals bouncing their arguments off of each other, only disagreeing about how much they agree with each other. Especially when it comes to the topic of gun control, most wouldnt know a Red Rider from an AK-47, and this much is made obvious every time theres a mass shooting.

Point 2: Its the old, classic, overused yet seemingly still ignored argument: Drugs are illegal, but i guarantee i can go out and find anything your heart desires, within a few days...and i live in a COUNTY with a population under 12,000. In short, its not responsible gun owners with registered firearms out there killing each other, its hoodlums and criminals with black market, no serial number "Gats" blowing each others heads off because they were born on the opposite side of the Ghetto.

But the HuffingtonfreakingPost isnt going to say that! That would be insensitive, politically incorrect, RACIST!

Also, its the Second Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment wasnt put there for "hunting" or "sport". this amendment to the Constitution was made as a guarantee that the Power can stay with the People, that we have the ability to defend ourselves and our families from Domestic AND Foreign threats, (which, in this day and age, seems more and more likely to be needed) AND from the threat of a Rogue, Tyrannical Government, such as the one that would Strive to take that ability away.

Now im not a "Radical" or a "Nut", but its important to know WHY this amendment is in place, and to know EACH SIDE of the "Gun Problem" in America, which are usually not included in the story the Liberal Media and Academia present.
Debate Round No. 1


so is con conceding the debate? i contended that he couldn't find the academic support bording on consensus like i can, and he doesn't try to say otherwise. he just says researchers are liberals run amok. if ninety nine percent of engineers thought a bridge was unsafe would you argue otherwise? would you use that bridge?

his other points are beside the point of my thesis. but to respond. the world is not split into criminals who stop at nothing to get guns and good guys. good guys become bad guys. if a good guy doesnt have a gun, then have a temper tantrum, they aren't as likely to kill if they dont have a gun. but we're not trying to take guns away from good guys, not htat it doesn't have any effect. and bad guys sometimes follow the law. if joe isn't allowed to have a gun, doesn't get one, has a sudden temper tantrum, he isn't as likely to kill someone if he doesn't have a gun. as to the second amendment it's not as clear as gun nuts would have you believe. the phrase "bear arms" almost always meant to participate in the militia. to get around that, you hae to point out that the clause says "keep" and bear arms. so it is possible to think you have a right to a gun, not so much because of your right to bear arms so much as your right to keep arms, but it's open to interpretation. the first time i read the amendment with "bear arms" properly in perspective, along with the first clause that says "well regulated militia" it seems "keep" goes with bear arms not so much separate that your right to keep arms is only up to the point that you participate in a militia. that has been the conservative position of even the supreme court for decades. only recently do they try to change it. even some modern day hard core libertarians think the second amendment doesn't protect guns from states, cause the bill of rights is an indictmet against hte federal government, not states. they dont like trying to make it all apply to states.

but anyway that was a long digression. it looks ike con has effectively conceded the debate for reasons stated.


I just merely wanted to kick off the debate by bringing to light the lack of diversity AND (in some cases), lack of reliability of your sources cited. Vox? Seriously? Besides, your thesis is flawed, as i believe i pointed out in my initial argument. Of course theres no Academic consensus against you, and i explained why in the previous argument. Listen, i'm more or less debating the second half of your thesis. More gun control, less homicide? i think not, and here is why -

According to THESE statistics:
IN 2014...

There were 1,697 murders in the State of California, 1,169 of which were committed with a firearm.
California is also one of the States with the most strict gun laws, with....292,877 registered firearms in the state

There were 1,141 murders in Texas, 765 of which were committed with a firearm
Texas happens to be one of the states with LEAST restrictive gun laws. They don't even HAVE to register their firearms, but they tally in at around 337,309. Now, once again, that's just those who registered, with background checks and all. So the number is probably higher.

So lets do some math: In 2014, according to Table 8, there were 8,124 Firearm homicides in 2014.(according to table 20) 1,169 of those murders were committed in California (the state with very strict gun laws). That means that about 9.7% of all murders in 2014 were committed IN CALIFORNIA, WITH a firearm. That adds up to about (WOW)...14.9% (ALMOST FIFTEEN PERCENT!) of all murders committed with a firearm in 2014 were committed in CALIFORNIA.

Texas figures in taking credit for 9.4% (765 out of 8124) of Firearm murders in 2014.


TEXAS: lower population + more registred firearms + less restrictive laws = 9.4% of total firearm homicides
CALIFORNIA: Higher population + less registered firearms + Highly Restrictive Laws = 14.9% of total firearm homicides

Explain that.
Debate Round No. 2


so con is basically conceding the debate cause he can't negate the resolution and find the support asked for.

when con engages in the substance anyway, he relies on anecdotcal evidence, two states. why not look at the states with the most gun control versus the states with teh least? you're twice as likely to die in the states with the least gun control. con doesn't even try to negate the consensus i drew regarding gun control, he just goes off on some tangent about a couple examples he found. even if your examples are most favorable to your position, they do not represent larger rules. if your position was true, you'd be able to find scientific support for your position, which you cant


Listen. You sound like you're probably a freshman/sophomore level college student, and therefore think you are "super cultured and smart" what with all your classroom level, Debate 101-esque language. But you are now chasing your own tail! You did NOT refute MY argument in your last point, you called my evidence "anecdotal" even though, with the tables i presented (from the FBI, URLs and all) you can clearly map the trend through all 50 states. Besides, California IS arguably the state with the strictest gun control laws, and Texas IS, without a shadow of a doubt, the state with the least restrictive.

I'm just going to give you a nice list of all my arguments again, to wrap this "debate" up.

1.) You WILL NOT find "Broad Academic Consensus" against gun control - your thesis is a non-sequitur. Academia is KNOWN for being overwhelmingly liberal, it's a pointless argument.

2.) You claim the evidence you found reveals More Gun Control = Less Homicide, and THIS is the argument i have addressed with my evidence presented.

3.) You claim my evidence to be "anecdotal" because i "am comparing only two states". But the evidence is anything but. Texas and California were the states with the most homicides in 2014 and also 2 states with POLAR OPPOSITE positions on gun control. Together with the ATF figures on registered firearms, it paints a CLEAR PICTURE. Not to mention this data came DIRECTLY from the FBI database and you can check out the trend through all 50 states, while...

4.) YOUR evidence is cited from KNOWN liberal, anti-gun, anti-republican, anti-violence, anti-war media outlets. Mother Jones, Think Progressive, HuffPost, Vox, Politfact; random op-eds by "Who Cares, Phd". THIS is the definition of "cherry-picking" evidence. Even your NCBI stats are 20 years old! YOU, not I, have gone out specifically to find sources that bolster your argument. I cited a Federal Database kept by the FBI. If ANYONES evidence here is anecdotal, it yours - in the sense that you have presented the very definition of BIAS with your sources cited. They all come from people and organizations who share the same opinions and agendas. My evidence is far more "scientific" than your Mother Jones Graph, which for all anyone could tell could've been drawn up by some "journalism" intern.

"You cant find BROAD ACADEMIC CONSENSUS against me..."
That would be like if i started a debate with -

"You cant find a broad Republican consensus against me - Abortion is murder"
"You cant find a broad consensus of Stoners against me - Weed is awesome and should be legalized, man"

Good luck with that!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.