Gun Bans are Stupid
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
A friendly but passionate debate about gun bans.
'Since California activated their gun ban, the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation! "
"After its 1989 ban, California's murder rate increased every year for five years, 26% overall. "
1991 30,380,000 3,859
1992 30,867,000 3,921
1993 31,211,000 4,096
1994 31,431,000 3,703
1995 31,589,000 3,531 [6]
1991 30,380,000 12.7
1992 30,867,000 12.7
1993 31,211,000 13.1
1994 31,431,000 11.8
1995 31,589,000 11.2 [6]
"California banned more guns in January 2000 and murder has since averaged 12% higher than the national rate." [4]
1996: 9.1 7.4
2000: 6.1 5.5
2005: 6.5 5.6
2010: 4.8 4.8
2014: 4.4 4.4 [7]
***
PRO argues that guns are only tools but concedes that unlike a screwdriver, a gun is primarily designed to be a weapon. CON counters that many tools are commonly and appropriately banned under many circumstances. A pressure-cooker bomb is only a tool but pressure-cooker bombs are appropriately banned from a wide variety of venues- airplanes, subways, kindergarten classrooms, etc. Tools are banned and ought to be banned in a wide variety of venues. Since a gun is a particularly dangerous type of tool, guns should be subject to at least the same restrictions as other dangerous tools.
- According to Wikipedia:
"Accurate figures for civilian gun ownership are difficult to determine. While the number of guns in civilian hands has been on the increase, the percentage of Americans and American households who claim to own guns has been in long-term decline, according to the General Social Survey. It found that gun ownership by households has declined steadily from about half, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, down to 32% in 2015. The percentage of individual owners declined from 31% in 1985 to 22% in 2014." [8]
"An analysis by the [Washington Post] last year found that the average American gun owner owns about eight firearms, double that in the 1990s. Similarly, a CBS News poll from March found that about 20% of gun owners owned 10 or more guns." [9]
"when people know I have a gun, they're probably less likely to attack me!"
"After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures." [10]
"Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. [Self-defense gun use] was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured." [11]
"Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss." [11]
- most gun crimes happened in "gun free" zones! [Needs documentation, CON finds no evidence to support this claim.]
- the soulless dictators of Afghanistan banned guns to control people. [This claim needs documentation but also link to thesis: Is PRO arguing that the US-backed Afghan govt. ought not to disarm the Taliban & other insurgent peoples?]
- Nazi Germany disarmed the Jews, advancing the Holocaust. [Politifact rates this claim as FALSE] [12]
- PRO and CON agree that we have a right to self-defense, but the evidence shows that guns are an historically, famously, woefully inefficient tool for the purpose of self-defense.
[2]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ban
[3]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/stupid
[4]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BzuczEhl3JgJ:https://s-www.gale.com/resources-for-students/gun-control/ban-on-assault-weapons-would-not-reduce-crime&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0
[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
[6]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
[7]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership
[9]http://money.com/money/4389610/gun-ownership-low/
[10]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
[12]https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/
"any firearm which can fire repeatedly, without manual reloading, "by a single function of the trigger." Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. A non-machine gun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is determined to be "readily convertible", and classed as a machine gun, such as a KG-9 pistol."
"Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual's right to own or possess firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations. A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute. For an individual, the felony fine of $100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to $250,000." [1]
To start I want to say I enjoyed the debate, and I agree with Pro on this issue strongly. I think it was cool to see such a close debate, hope to see more of "Loverof12343."
Pro R1
-Guns Stop tyrannical governments
-As guns have become more powerful, crime has plummeted
-Even if there is gun crime, most of it takes place in Gun free zones
-There are alternative methods to kill somebody
-Horrible determined criminals will just buy guns on the black market
-California gun ban makes resulted in more homicides.
My Note 1-Very solid arguments to prove the benefits of having guns in a society is good, sadly that isn't what the resolution is.
My Note 2-Pro doesn't source anything here, I've got no reason to believe she hasn't fabricated everything she's just stated. As a result, the "Which participant provided the most reliable sources" mark will go to Oromagi. This isn't only because of this round, she fails to source ANY of her claims during the entirety of the debate, making her points impossible to fact check, thus hindering Pro's argumennts. This wouldn't matter if Oromagi also didn't source, but, Oromagi brings fourth sourced claims from reputable sites.
Con R1- Sadly Oromagi miss posted, no arguments to be seen, meaning Pro easily won this round. Seeing it was an honest mistake, this won't hurt his conduct mark.
Pro R2- Pro doesn't state much, just how in certain situations, she personally would like a gun there. Her lack of arguments is largely a result of Her opponent not leaving anything to rebut.
Con R2- Con states how Pro doesn't prove how gun bans are stupid, I agree, but she proved that the removal of guns is nonsensical to some degree, although she should've gone a little deeper to prove this further.
Also, Con kindly sources Pro's California point for her. But, he also refutes it. Con states how the murder rate didn't change significantly in California during the gun ban.
Con continues by pointing out how pro's claim about increased sales of more advanced guns correlates with a decrease in crime. Con points out how gun ownership has actually DECREASED.
Con also points out how pro is incorrect when she stated guns make people safer. He points out how the opposite is true, and you're more likely to be shot if you poses a firearm.
The round ends with Con stating how Pro's claims are unsourced and/or false.
Pro Forfeits, THATS'S POOR CONDUCT.
Con R3-Con states how as a result of a machine gun ban in America, Machine gun caused homicides were so low they were weren't even tracked in some cases. Thus also proving illegal purchasing of firearms doesn't skyrocket as a result of a gun ban, or else we'd be seeing illegaly purchased machine guns killing more people. This also shows how a gun ban can work AND ISN'T STUPID.
Pro doesn't prove gun bans are stupid, while con does convince me gun bans aren't stupid.
I’d like to start off by thanking both participants for the debate. Afterall without you guys I wouldn’t have a debate to vote on.
All formalities aside I’ll now begin my vote.
Sources:
Con has used many sources to strengthen his claims such as by providing a clear statistic that illustrates that increased gun bans in california by FBI statistics have aided in a lower crime rate.
While Pro on the other hand makes up various claims such as
Uncited Claim # 1:
“ If a person wants a gun, they will always be able to get it, especially from illigament sources!”
Uncited Claim # 2: While there are 34,000 firearm-related deaths in the US per year, there are 600,000 abortions.
Not to mention numerous sources Pro Cites in R1 that he doesn’t link but cites such as,
“Since California activated their gun ban, the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation!”
“ Since then, through 2012, it has decreased 49%, to a 42-year low, including a 52% drop in the nation’s murder rate, to a 49-year low--perhaps the lowest point in American history."
Consequently this poor sourcing as made voting on this debate rather cumbersome as I’m unable to verify all of Pro’s sources they used.
While comparatively, Con provided a clear source section with links to each on as they’re used.
Therefore due to Pro’s poor sourcing and Con’s clear and precise sources, I must award the sources point to Con.
Moving right along to Arguments.
Arguments:
As I’ve previously demonstrated, all of the Pro's claims are unable to be verifiable due to them either not linking them in the argument or not citing the source altogether.
Which drastically hurts their argument due to unreliable evidence used by Pro.
Not only this but also Pro’s forfeit on the 3rd round have essentially made Con’s round 2 rebuttals uncontested.
Ultimately Con’s undisputed R2 rebuttal and Pro’s evidence being unverifiable have rendered Pro’s argument as insufficient and Cons as comprehensible due to their verifiable claims and clear rebuttal of all of Pro’s claims.
Due to this, I must award the arguments point to Con.
All other points tied, both had decent conduct and decent spelling and grammar.
Rfd3
Lastly, Reason #3:
Mass shootings on innocent and non-targeted people. Not only is it inhumane but it is undeserving.
Source #3:
2 mass shootings in less than a day leave at least 29 dead and 53 injured
The mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, happened only 13 hours apart, highlighting America's ongoing struggle with gun violence.
Website source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-mass-shootings-u-s-leave-least-29-dead-53-n1039066
......
All in all, many people die for reasons that sometimes make no absolute sense what-so-ever. If gun bans where effective , these people would live to see another beautiful day and future and get to wake up to see their loved ones and friends. Not only don't they get a chance at life, there families don't get another chance to see them.
Thank you for your time , Rai-Elle.
Rfd2
But the reward money will expire Sunday, city officials said.
"The message to the shooters is now there will be a significant incentive for anyone with information that could lead to your arrest," Mayor Lyda Krewson told reporters at a news conference, according to CNN affiliate KPLR.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said it is investigating nine of juveniles' deaths as homicides, while two others are classified as suspicious sudden deaths," spokeswoman Evita Caldwell
"We have nothing further to provide," she said in an email.
Here is what we know of each of the young victims:
Kayden Johnson, 2
Kristina Curry, 16
Jashon Johnson, 16
Kennedi Powell, 3( 6-year-old girl, was shot in the same incident, a police report said.
Charnija Keys, 11
Myiesha Cannon, 16
Derrel Williams, 15
Eddie Hill IV, 10
Xavier Usanga, 7
Jason Eberhart, 16
Jurnee Thompson, 8
Sentonio Cox, 15
and so many more. [source:https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/us/st-louis-shooting-children-victims/index.html]
Solution:
When gun bans are enforced, the rates for child deaths by guns will go increasingly down. Not only will this better the child community, but these adorable and bright kids will get a chance to go into the future and make big changes in life.
Reason #2:
Many Women and Men who are parents ( PARENTS!!) are being killed. Wow, just imagine how their child(ren) would feel because of their father and/or mother was dead.
Source #:
2 Chicago mothers who worked to stop violence killed in drive-by shooting
Chantel Grant, 26, and Andrea Stoudemire, 36, were shot Friday night in Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood. They both volunteered with Mothers/Men Against Senseless Killings.
although the police are unsure if the mothers were the targets, that is not enough to bring these mothers back to their family.
RfD 1
I'd like to begin by showing gratitude to both participants for this debate topic. I have been searching around for this type of serious and real-life problem type of debate. so, thank you.
Let us begin.
I strongly believe that gun bans are one of America's first smart move ever since President Donald Trump has been elected. I'd like to list a few reasons and sources on why I highly believe this is a great move.
Reason #1;
Many child deaths are by shootings and drive by shootings.
Source #1 :
https://fox8.com/tag/3-year-old-killed-in-drive-by-shooting/
A 3 year old was killed in a Drive By shooting .
The fatal shootings of two children, 8 and 15, over the weekend in St. Louis were the latest casualties in what has been a deadly summer for young people, police said.
At least a dozen children 16 years old or younger have been fatally shot since April, police said.
Local reports indicate a 10-year-old girl was among the victims in a triple homicide over the weekend, but it wasn't immediately clear if she was shot or stabbed. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department did not include her in a list of young gunshot victims.
On Saturday, officials announced its grim formula for calculating rewards leading to the children's killers: $25,000 for each child younger than 10, for a total of $100,000.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: RaielleBrainster22 [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, S&G and sources.
>Reason for Decision: See above.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Moreover; the voter appears not to reference the debate at all, and instead makes their own argument: this is not the intent of voting.
Please review the code of conduct.
*******************************************************************
Great debate, good to see Oro lose a round for ounce, despite him winning the debate in my eyes. And, I hope to see more of loverof12343 in the future.
Below is the text of CON R1 argument missing due to a mispost by CON. PRO is free to ignore this argument but CON includes it here by way of ammends and demonstration of full faith effort. Thanks to readers for their indulgence.
Thanks Lover12343!
DEFINITIONS
A gun is a "weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise." [1]
A ban is "an official or legal prohibition." [2]
Stupid is "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense." [3]
RESOLUTION: Gun Bans are Stupid
PRO's resolution lacks any kind of specifics- no nations or law-making bodies are specified. No specific laws or restrictions are identified. CON is forced to conclude that PRO opposes all and every prohibition on firearms no matter the place or context or situation.
As instigator, the Burden of Proof is on PRO to show that any and all gun bans demonstrate poor intelligence no matter the situation.
CON's CASE:
If Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the principal architect of 9/11 were to request that a shipment of 50 AK-47s be delivered to his cell in Guantanamo, PRO must either demonstrate how it would be unintelligent for camp commander US Navy Capt. John Fisher to deny Mohammed's request (since such denial would be an official prohibition and therefore, a ban) or admit at least some gun bans are sensible in some contexts and situations.
PRO has cast the resolution far too wide and must now defend, retract, or limit the argument.
PRO's CASE:
PRO claims gun bans increase violent crimes and uses. PRO cites one piece of evidence and that evidence is false.
'Since California activated their gun ban, the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation! "
PRO is citing an opinion piece written by the NRA. PRO does not specify which weapons ban but the article indicates 1989: [4]
"After its 1989 ban, California's murder rate increased every year for five years, 26% overall. "
The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 came into effect on Jan 1, 1990. [5]
The FBI Uniform Crime Records show:
Year Population Murder
1990 29,760,021 3,553
1991 30,380,000 3,859
1992 30,867,000 3,921
1993 31,211,000 4,096
1994 31,431,000 3,703
1995 31,589,000 3,531 [6]
the overall homicide numbers went up until 1994 but the murder rate actually held steady as early as 1992:
Year Population Murder
1990 29,760,021 11.9
1991 30,380,000 12.7
1992 30,867,000 12.7
1993 31,211,000 13.1
1994 31,431,000 11.8
1995 31,589,000 11.2 [6]
The NRA and PRO claim that CA murder rate increased 26% in the 5 years after passing assault weapons legislation. But FBI records show the murder rate per 100,000 actually declined by 1% in 1994 from the 1990 rate. The NRA is forced to stop reporting after 5 years because CA homicide rates declined significantly over the next couple of decades, down by more than half. Then the NRA claims:
"California banned more guns in January 2000 and murder has since averaged 12% higher than the national rate." [4]
But the FBI reports say that the murder rate per 100,000 has continued to decline and is now down around the national average. [7]
Year CA US
1996: 9.1 7.4
2000: 6.1 5.5
2005: 6.5 5.6
2010: 4.8 4.8
2014: 4.4 4.4 [7]
By 2010, CA's murder rate and the US murder rate were the same according to the FBI. By 2014, when the NRA made this claim, CA & US murder rates were still the same. Both of the NRA's claims deliberately distort the State of California's successes. Since California banned assault rifles 30 years ago, the murder rate has dropped by almost two-thirds.
Let's note that the NRA as source of crime data has been shown to be deliberately misleading in pursuit of self-interest. CON requests that we disregard the NRA as a reliable source of information.
According to the FBI, PRO's claim:
"the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation!"
is the opposite of the truth. PRO's claim that guns reduce crime stands unsupported.
PRO argues that guns are only tools. The point seems to be that many tools are potentially dangerous but aren't banned.
CON counters that screwdrivers and hammers are tools with much utility beyond their potential for violence. What utility does a gun offer except for violence?
CON counters that screwdrivers and hammers are designed to maximize constructive functions. An AK-47's primary advantage over other guns is that it goes a long time without jamming:
"The AK-47 was designed to be a simple, reliable fully automatic rifle that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply, using mass production methods that were state of the art in the Soviet Union during the late 1940s. The AK-47 uses a long stroke gas system that is generally associated with great reliability in adverse conditions. The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle." [8]
AK-47's are designed to fire many times without needing to be cleaned- which ought not to be significant for hunting or self-defense but could be a decisive factor in a longer running fire-fight- a military engagement, for example, or mass murdering while police try to stop you.
In any case, many tools are commonly and appropriately banned under many circumstances. A pressure-cooker bomb is only a tool but pressure-cooker bombs are appropriately banned from a wide variety of venues- airplanes, subways, kindergarten classrooms, etc.
Since pressure-cooker bombs and AK-47's are designed for the same utility (maximum human carnage) what logic bans pressure-cookers but not AK-47's in the same venues and circumstances?
PRO argues that increases in gun ownership have reduced crime rate since 1991.
"As the numbers of “assault weapons” and “large” magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half."
PRO is giving us more data from the NRA here but I think we all agree that violent crime is way down but can PRO establish that gun ownership is way up? According to Wikipedia:
"Accurate figures for civilian gun ownership are difficult to determine. While the number of guns in civilian hands has been on the increase, the percentage of Americans and American households who claim to own guns has been in long-term decline, according to the General Social Survey. It found that gun ownership by households has declined steadily from about half, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, down to 32% in 2015. The percentage of individual owners declined from 31% in 1985 to 22% in 2014." [9]
In 2016, newspapers reported that while guns sales were up, the number of households with at least one gun was at a 40 year low.
"An analysis by the [Washington Post] last year found that the average American gun owner owns about eight firearms, double that in the 1990s. Similarly, a CBS News poll from March found that about 20% of gun owners owned 10 or more guns." [10]
PRO argues that
"when people know I have a gun, they're probably less likely to attack me!"
but, in fact, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded:
"After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures." [11]
So, whether more people are dissuaded is not established but it is clear that if people do attack you when they know you have a gun, they are far more likely to shoot you than if you didn't.
PRO finishes with a series of unsupported claims:
most gun crimes happened in "gun free" zones! [Need stats on this but this seems like baloney.]
the soulless dictators of Afghanistan banned guns to control people. [This claim needs documentation but also link to thesis: Is PRO arguing that the US-backed Afghan govt. ought not to disarm the Taliban & other insurgent peoples?]
Nazi Germany disarmed the Jews, advancing the Holocaust. [Politifact rates this claim as FALSE] [12]
PRO has yet to prove gun bans are stupid.
[1]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/gun
[2]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ban
[3]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/stupid
[4]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BzuczEhl3JgJ:https://s-www.gale.com/resources-for-students/gun-control/ban-on-assault-weapons-would-not-reduce-crime&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0
[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
[6]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
[7]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership
[10]http://money.com/money/4389610/gun-ownership-low/
[11]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
[12]https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/
I see you have already replied. I will read and reply shortly. Here is my actual R1 argument which you may feel free to respond to, ignore, or treat as forfeit. I appreciate your indulgence of my silly misstep.
LOL
I was starting to contemplate if off topic poems were his strategy to win debates...
ikr im like wth is this poem lmao
Hey- Apologies, but I misposted a James Dickey poem here which was meant for an animal cloning debate. My argument for this debate is not yet ready but I will offer it here in Comments when it is. I will not object if you choose to treat this round as forfeit. Again, sorry for the mess-up.
ooops, wrong argument! you posted it on a forum topic
Yes for oromagi, no for RM, he isn’t that good upon review though I am guilty of this is my gambling debate
lol next time i'll put in the description that orogami and RM can't accept lol
Welcome to the site! Just so you know, your opening argument is a little dense, it could be improved by separating your paragraphs, and stating quotes using the "quote tool". Click these links to learn more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346/about-dart-resources-for-new-members, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/356/welcome-to-dart-introduce-yourself
And.......I was right
A sweatbag will accept and massacre you, be warned
we're on the same wavelength here lol
How do you define gun bans? Is it banning any type of gun, or specific types of guns? Would you support any type of gun to be available to the populace?
Good topic. What sort of policies are you speaking of specifically? Would you advocate for ANY type of gun to be free-to-own?