Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 5 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
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. ”
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%. ”
Unlike the carefully correlated full study that I have presented as the second source in my first argument,  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,  and the legalization of abortion,  which have both decreased crime.
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
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. 
I suggest that for greater clarity we throw this section out of the debate.
“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,  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.”
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. 
“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. ”
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.  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).
“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.
Whilst I misunderstood your argument, for home-defense, SAR's are much better than a handgun for its effectiveness and accuracy. My grandma has a rifle next to her bed. You agree with this point in your next paragraph.
"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."
- Con, this round
- Con, last round
But that doesn’t mean it was a failure. The reason gun crime continued to rise was because the definition was too wide-ranging; it included everything and anything, every single report where a victim reported that a gun was used, even if that gun was never fired, even if it was a replica, or a fake, or even a toy. So by 2003, the laws were refined.” 
“I have always been for the restrictions there already are. I have never been against background checks. I do not believe mentally insane people should be able to own a gun. That would be absurd. I apologize if I made it seem like I wanted criminals to get guns, but I thought that was given. I am against banning concealed-carry and banning any gun right now.”
“America would likely know that the government would go tyrannical, and have time to create a plan with locals.
 Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977 – 2006," Journal of the American Institute for Economic Research
 Charles Branas, et al., "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault," American Journal of Public Health,
“For the first quote, I am simply explaining that if you were to take guns away from CC holders, why not take them away from the police?¨Well first of all, because the police are the only peacekeeping force in the U.S. It is quite obvious that we have to have police, as I´m sure my opponent will agree.
Second of all, your source from Gunstocarry.com does not cite any sources on this topic. You could say that this is because it’s independent research, but it still must cite its sources because it has to look at crime rates from each year to confirm its data.
¨For the second quote, I am explaining that correlation does not equal causation in my statistic, because I was trying to prove that a "3-5% increase in aggravated assault" is an example of this. This is very inconclusive with such a minute percentage. Also, notice how the study fails to mention murder, rape, battery, etc.¨But the study does account for all of these things. Does Con really think that they would do studies just on aggravated assault?
Also, can Con explain why exactly minute percentages don´t matter?
A study by John. J Donahue and Alexandria Zhang showed that not only did concealed carry permits increase the murder rate by 2%, but they also had an over 9% increase in aggravated assault, robbery, rape, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. Another study by John J. Donahue, who you may notice is pretty much the John Lott of the opposite side of this debate, gave similar results as my original study. Concealed carry significantly increased aggravated assaults. Donahue also did this one which found a significant 10% correlation between concealed carry and violent crime. For some reason though, I posted this in my first argument, and Con continues to ignore it. This next one, a study by Charles Branas, is interesting because it actually doesn't even work against the opposing side. Even if assault weapons do have a deterrent effect, which I assume they do not, people with concealed carry are much more likely to die during these assaults. 
Con also mentions that concealed carry owners are far more law abiding than non-concealed carry owners. Although there may be research on this, it is far from a consensus. According to the Violence Policy Center, they are, in Texas, 81% (81%!) more likely to kill than the average citizen.  Speaking of them, they did another study that showed that of the 544 concealed carry shootings, only 16 were self-defense. 
“After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below. After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below. Many more stats are expressed in my source.”I’ve done some research on some of the pro-gun study guys, and a lot of them seem like they’re politically motivated frauds. For example, Dave Kopel - who is the co-author of this study that Con cites in his gun graph numbers. He’s practically drowning in NRA money. He used NRA money that he told no one about to try to change state laws.  Needless to say, TIME magazine got rid of the so-called “independent” researcher.  This fraudulence and inconsistency puts into question his entire body of work, and makes it practically untrustable.“Many more stats are expressed in my source.”I don’t understand why Con included this. For the record, I am not going to debunk every study that is in his source, I am going to debunk every study that he cites. Consequently, the voters should only look at the studies he mentions, not the ones that he didn’t mention that happen to be in the source.
We can attribute the “sudden spike” to Harold Shipman, a guy who committed 172 murders in the months immediately after the ban was instituted .
It is true that crime did continue to rise after the gun ban, but according to independant.co.uk, we can also attribute that to other things.
“Perhaps not necessarily at first,” he says. “In fact, for the next four years gun crime continued to increase, by about 105 per cent over that period.”But that doesn’t mean it was a failure. The reason gun crime continued to rise was because the definition was too wide-ranging; it included everything and anything, every single report where a victim reported that a gun was used, even if that gun was never fired, even if it was a replica, or a fake, or even a toy. So by 2003, the laws were refined.” Now that that’s happened, gun homicide rate seems to have gone down  as has the general homicide rate.
“I also don't think we should just look at mass shootings, but the overall murder rate. During the ban, murder rate per capita seemed to drop by 3 people, but after the ban did not get renewed, the rate remained the same, indicating the ban had no real effect on the murder rate.”Con’s statistics here seem to accidentally help my case. It seems to make sense that the murder rates wouldn’t rise after the ban did not get renewed, doesn’t it? Not everyone who had a semi-automatic rifle before the ban would get it after the ban. The immediate effect of the ban seems too coincidental with it’s time.
“What I do not understand about these arguments, is that, in America, there are less than 400 rifle murders of ANY KIND per year. There are over 4x knife murders than there are rifle murders. My question to pro would be, if you are looking to decrease crime, why wouldn't you be in favor of banning handguns or knives, because they account for far more murder than rifles?”This claim has no source whatsoever. Can pro provide one so I can look at it? I think a handgun ban would be too extreme, and people would generally not comply. Although they may account for more mass shootings, I doubt that banning them would decrease mass shootings.
“The data is very unsure of the percentage of guns in America, there is no definitive answer. However, this source shows AR-15 type rifles and handguns are about a 50-50 split of all gun sales.”Yes, an amateur Quora source from a user with questionable credentials. These really don’t have any intellectual validity whatsoever.
“Automatic weapons have been banned since 1930. Con automatically(no pun intended) concedes this point. Semi-automatic guns are not made for military combat, and I have already explained this in my last argument. This is simply left-wing false propaganda.”Yes, but the Supreme Court has ruled that if a gun can be shown to be of no use for self defense, like a sawed-off shotgun, it’s Constitutional to ban it, which you concede. I have shown that semi-automatic rifles are not at all better than pistols/shotguns, and that they increase mass shootings. Thus, they are of no use for self defense!
“America would likely know that the government would go tyrannical, and have time to create a plan with locals. They could definitely put up a fight and kill many soldiers, and it's not like a thousand soldiers would go at one person. The U.S. population outweighs military population.”Yes but the military is trained and organized. Can Con give me an instance where a military dictatorship failed because the citizens had guns? They seem to have a very high success rate, like with Brazil and Chile, and Germany.Also, even if something improbable like this were to have a semblance of success, you’d have to consider that many, many Americans would die. It wouldn’t just be a net benefit.
“Of course you can try to legally change the document, but what I am saying is that it is still an extremely valid argument. It is one of the most important, if not THE MOST IMPORTANT freedom in America, which is what separates us from other countries.”Yes, because it has certain fundamental values that are important. But just like all important documents, some parts of them eventually become outdated because of the times. Does Con not acknowledge this?
"Um, well yes, because that is quite literally what the study says…”“ For the next 2, and the the 1st one, actually, I don't think we are going to get anywhere, because like you said, the two are opposites and have conflicting data, while also trying to debunk each other's faults in the studies.”
"I'm not saying that they always don't matter, but 3%? This is an example of correlation does not equal causation. If there were 100 aggravated assaults, and concealed-carry laws were implemented after, and the rate of it went up 3% to 103-105 people, I do not think we can conclusively say concealed-carry causes this.”
“OK, these seem like legit arguments”
“For the first one, 2% is not conclusive.”
“I am also not going to go through 100 pages of a study to find the root source.”
“I tried to go to the study on the NYT article, but it says page not found.”
“You also say "kill,' not murder. There is a big difference between the two. Can you clarify this?”
“For your next point, I was showing a study that adheres to many's perception of how to measure whether concealed-carry is effective, which is often GUN murders. I still think we should look at overall murder rate, though.”Fair enough for that study, also, I was directing viewers to look at more stats at their pleasure, you didn't have to rebuttal them, of course. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
"This is the source. The FBI also has statistics on this up to 2014, where there were less than 300 rifle murders. There are also more blunt object murders than rifle murders, and more personal weapon(body parts) murders than rifle murders. Why would an SAR ban be the slightest effective when it is an extremely minor cause of gun murders?"
“I do not think gun control is the answer, but rather mental health screening, armed guards, or armed teachers.”
“Um, you have shown nothing of value when it comes to SAR's. “
“Any gun increases mass shootings. Anything can increase murder. Should fists be banned? After all, they account for more murders than rifles.”
"Hitler or Stalin, in my opinion, would have approached the situation differently if guns were legal. However, guns were illegal, and I'm sure they would make guns illegal if they wanted to kill Jews, because armed Jews could interrupt the process of the gather up. Guns in the hands of civilians would cause more problems for the Hitler administration.”
“Of course some would die, but maybe the government would get the memo that civilians are fighting back and also killing soldiers. Germany was successful with their tyranny because citizens did not have guns. They were banned. This point from pro is false.”
“Citizens have successfully fought back against tyranny In America 1776. In Russia 1916. Multiple times in England’s history. Israel 1948. Russia 1989. France 1793.”
“ With over 300,000,000 guns in America scattered across cities, the military isn't able to go tyrannical against a mass people.”
“Also, many people would not comply with a ban because military would have to go door by door and get them, and you can't bomb people because some people don't have guns.”
“The problem is, with liberals, once you get started with a certain ban, they'll say "no we're not taking your guns," but in reality they will just keep banning guns until all of them are banned. The left will never be satisfied with the results until it completes their true agenda(most people[progressives], probably not you), which is to get rid of all guns. With more government power, the more government will rule your life and become corrupt. The constitution is designed for god-given personal guaranteed rights and freedoms.”