Instigator
Points: 32

Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
armoredcat
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 31
Description
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
Round 1
Published:

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 Con, 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 not 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
 



Published:
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 invalid 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 400 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.  Now the torch is passed back to you, my friend ;).

Sources:

(scroll about two thirds down the page, And you will see the statistic)

(go to the graph, You will find it on the top of the page)






Round 2
Published:
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.
 
SOURCES
 
[1] https://www.vox.com/cards/crime-rate-drop/age-crime
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom
[4] https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Do_Handguns_Make_Us_Safer_John_edits_6_9_2017_stamped.pdf
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.77161c5bd4cf
[6] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/











Published:
Thanks to my opponent for the arguments.  Now to the rebuttals.


Concealed-carry:

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?  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.

According to my same source as the violent crime graph in round 1, gun homicides were 10% higher in states with restrictive CCW laws, according to a study spanning 1980-2009.  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.[1]


Gun Laws:

Pro claims I said something in the section of gun laws, when in fact I said it in the "Constitution" section.  He did not rebuttal to anything I said in the "gun laws" section, although he did JUST MENTION that "The U. K. Does not have a ban on semiautomatic rifles, Although they do have some restrictions."

I read your source, and semi-auto's are very hard to get, and it said they have very similar restrictions to fully-auto rifles, witch require special permission from the government, etc.  Pro's source even says "Generally, such permits are not available to private citizens." U.S. citizens can also get automatic weapons, but under very rare circumstances. For the purpose of the debate and confusion, let's say that in England, semi-auto rifles are basically banned.  I would appreciate if you could reply to the rest of my rebuttals as well.

Assault Weapons:

I got confused on my opponent's vague term.  Semi-Automatic rifles are pro's definition of "assault weapon."  I will abbreviate this term for the purpose of typing to be "SAR," for Semi-automatic rifle.

Pro states "there is no evidence_____that the owners of these guns would have been any better off with an assault weapon than a pistol."
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.

"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 is completely false, and any gun owner would know this.  Semi-automatic simply means that when you pull the trigger, one bullet comes out.  Pull it again, another bullet comes out. This all depends on how fast someone call pull the trigger.  The sustainable rate of fire, where you can be most accurate on your shots, is typically 12-15 r/pm. It can go up to 45 at the most if you have a legendary finger pull, but even then, it would be extremely inaccurate, and that's what is called "spray and pray."  This Technique is not effective at all. The same goes for handguns. One trigger pull, a bullet comes out.

"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."

Ah, here is where many people get tricked.  The study states its evidence based on where "6 or more people are killed."  It is important to note the "6" part of this. Mass shootings, defined as according to U.S. government research, F.B.I, and most mass shooting researchers, are incidences in which the offender kills 4 or more people.  This study nitpicks data which is not widely recognized to be the definition of mass shooting. Mass shootings went up after the gun ban, but SAR's were still used in some of the massacres, like Columbine.

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.[2]

"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."

Pro is wrong on this one. The mother jones data shows 71 handguns and 28 rifles were used up to 2012, which contradicts his point that rifles are the main weapon.  Also, my source shows up to September of 2018, so it shows the most recent shootings. Statista is also a very reliable source for data like this.

"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."

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.[3]

"Rifle killings do contribute to crime and banning them would decrease crime, Which is what we are arguing about."

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?


Second Amendment:

When I said I agree with background checks, con responded by saying "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."

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.

Con is confused where concealed-carry is protected in the second amendment.  Americans are inclined to self-defense, which would extend to public, because if concealed-carry is taken away, you can not protect yourself in public.  They were just fighting off a tyranny, where the militia was every American, and they were defending themselves.

I agree with con on what he has said about gun restrictions by the Supreme Court, accept for this-
"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 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.

The Constitution was made because the founders knew how crucial self-defense is.  Is the first amendment's validity no questioned because it was written 200 years ago?  Is free speech not a valid argument anymore?

"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!"America having guns is a deterrent already to a tyrannical thought.  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.

"We have gone back on Constitutional amendments before, Like with the 18th amendment, Which was Prohibition. 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."

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.

I appreciate my opponent's kind words.  Thanks for the civility. Now back to you.

Sources:

1.  http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/#note-91-1

2.  https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Murder-Rate-Chart.png

3.  https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-guns-in-the-US-are-semiautomatics

Round 3
Published:
Sorry for the late response.  Thank you to Con for his arguments and clarifications.

Concealed Carry

“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?  

Also, if Con believes that is the only study that supports my conclusions, he is sorely mistaken.

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 assualt, robbery, rape, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. [1]

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. [2]

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. [3]

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. [4]

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. [5] Speaking of them, they did another study that showed that of the 544 concealed carry shootings, only 16 were self-defense. [7]

“According to my same source as the violent crime graph in round 1, gun homicides were 10% higher in states with restrictive CCW laws, according to a study spanning 1980-2009”

Let’s zoom in a little closer:

gun homicides”

  • Con, this round
However, when I used “gun homicides last round, Con said:
“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”

  • Con, last round
---

“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.[1]”

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. [6] Needless to say, TIME magazine got rid of the so-called “independent” researcher. [8] 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.

Gun Laws

“Pro claims I said something in the section of gun laws, when in fact I said it in the "Constitution" section.”

Nitpicking. This is irrelevant, Con still said it.

“I would appreciate if you could reply to the rest of my rebuttals as well.”

Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s do it: Did England’s gun ban work?

We can attribute the “sudden spike” to Harold Shipman, a guy who committed 172 murders in the months immediately after the ban was instituted [11].

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.” [12]

Now that that’s happened, gun homicide rate seems to have gone down [12] as has the general homicide rate.

Assault Weapons

“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.”

The semi-automatic rifle is in no way superior to your pistol or shotgun. Even the NRA understands this [13]. They are all radically different guns more dependant on the owner or the home than the gun itself [13].

Other studies show a similar conclusion about the effect of the ban in the U.S, even if you take issue with the Klarevas Study. This study shows that it would generally work [14], and this study shows the same rough amounts as the Klarevas study [15].

“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.[2]”

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.[3]”

Yes, an amateur Quora source from a user with questionable credentials. These really don’t have any intellectual validity whatsoever.

Unconstitutional?
“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.”

Thank you for clarifying.

“Con is confused where concealed-carry is protected in the second amendment.  Americans are inclined to self-defense, which would extend to public, because if concealed-carry is taken away, you can not protect yourself in public.They were just fighting off a tyranny, where the militia was every American, and they were defending themselves.”

But they’re not anymore? Con has not clarified why the Constitution has such supreme authority that when we can prove that concealed carry increases crime rates like I did in my first contention, if still cannot be done just because it’s the Constitution. If laws are proven to be ineffective, we change those laws, and judging by the removal of the 18th amendment, the Constitutionalists agree!

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!

The Constitution was made because the founders knew how crucial self-defense is.  Is the first amendment's validity no questioned because it was written 200 years ago?  Is free speech not a valid argument anymore?”

No, because that is a valid rule on it’s own terms. If the Constitution said that you have to kill one person in your lifetime to prove yourself worthy as a man, would you agree with it? After all, it’s written in the Constitution!

“America having guns is a deterrent already to a tyrannical thought.

Not really. Most tyrannical dictators, like Hitler or Stalin, wouldn’t be phased by knowing that the citizens have guns. Most are extremely ideological and misguided.
“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.

“I appreciate my opponent's kind words.  Thanks for the civility. Now back to you.”

Thanks. You have presented a very strong argument. Back to you.

SOURCES

[1] Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang, "The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy," nber.org
[2] 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
[3] https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Do_Handguns_Make_Us_Safer_John_edits_6_9_2017_stamped.pdf
[4] Charles Branas, et al., "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault," American Journal of Public Health,
[5] https://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/license-to-kill.pdf
[6] https://kdvr.com/2013/05/29/nra-money-behind-lawsuit-challenging-new-colo-gun-control-laws/
[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html
[8] https://progressive.org/dispatches/times-finally-quietly-outed-nra-funded-independent-scholar/
[9] http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html
[10] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16412910/automatic-guns-las-vegas-shooting
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman#Early_life_and_career
[12] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/firearms-act-twenty-years-on-has-it-made-a-difference-dunblane-port-arthur-a8110911.html
[13] https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/10/16/choosing-a-home-defense-gun/
[14] https://aneconomicsense.org/2018/03/17/impact-of-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-on-mass-shootings-an-update-plus-what-to-do-for-a-meaningful-reform/
[15] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2017.1319555


Published:
Concealed-Carry:

“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.
Concealed-carry holders commit crimes less than police, so they should be able to keep the peace and defend themselves or others in public.  

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?
Um, well yes, because that is quite literally what the study says...

Also, can Con explain why exactly minute percentages don´t matter?  
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.

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. [1]

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. [2]

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. [3]

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. [4]
OK, these seem like legit arguments, so let's take a deeper look.  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.  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.

For your 4th study, I did quite a bit of research into it.  This article explains statistical flaws in the evidence, and one part of this article that stood out to me that I thought about is that their data-set is only comprised of shooting incidents.  In the 2.5M DGU stat I previously cited, it accounts for incidences in which the defender brandished a gun as a deterrent for the offender, and other non-fatal incidences.

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. [5] Speaking of them, they did another study that showed that of the 544 concealed carry shootings, only 16 were self-defense. [7]
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?  According to my source, they commit crimes 16% less than police officers, so that is not very often.

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.

“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.[1]”

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. [6] Needless to say, TIME magazine got rid of the so-called “independent” researcher. [8] 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.
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.


Gun Laws:

We can attribute the “sudden spike” to Harold Shipman, a guy who committed 172 murders in the months immediately after the ban was instituted [11].
The spike occurred for 6 years though.

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.
This spike can be contributed to other things?  Over a 50% increase, from 12 deaths per M to 18 deaths?  Yet you think a 3-5% increase in aggravated assault or a 2% increase in murder rate are sustainable studies?  Surely a 50% increase mainly has to do with the gun ban.

“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.” [12]

Now that that’s happened, gun homicide rate seems to have gone down [12] as has the general homicide rate.
Again, gun homicides don't matter.  My graph shows the overall 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.[2]”

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.
But the murder rate has been the same since, which is 14 years.  That is a long-time period, and I don't think the ban would still have an affect on the murder rate today.

“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.
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?

“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.[3]”

Yes, an amateur Quora source from a user with questionable credentials. These really don’t have any intellectual validity whatsoever.
At least I have some type of source.  You are just guessing.  He does actually show the statistics and math, though.  Can you provide a better source?  


Constitutional?:

I will keep this brief since it is sort of of topic from the debate matters.

I do not think gun control is the answer, but rather mental health screening, armed guards, or armed teachers.  This is a matter of mental-health and gun safety, not the gun itself.  Guns don't kill, people kill.

I am not denying that you can repeal amendments, if you want to do that you can certainly do that.  I simply don't think there is much conclusive evidence that concealed-carry or guns increase crime.  We have the right to protect ourselves, without that right people can still get illegal guns or other objects like knives, and citizens will not be able to defend themselves.  Criminals always find a way to murder.  With over 300 million guns in America, many would flow into the black market.


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!
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.

“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 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.

“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?
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.


This has been a great debate so far, and this took me hours to do.  Thanks for presenting your arguments, many which were valid, sincere points, and keeping the discourse civil and to the point.  Now, I send this debate back to you.  





Round 4
Published:
Thanks to Con for this great debate. In this round I will be posting my final responses to arguments and my concluding statements.

Concealed Carry

I complain that Con’s source doesn’t cite it’s own source. Con responds…with another source that doesn’t cite its sources.

"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.”

Con contradicts himself here. Before we get to that, I am not aware of where I conceded that these 3 studies contradicted themselves.

Okay, onto the contradiction. Con implies that my first study showing an increase in aggravated assaults is only accounting for aggravated assaults and not general murder rate. When it comes to another study that has the same results, Con says it is incompatible with my other study. In order for 2 statistics to be even considered incompatible, they have to be in studies which have separate conclusions, which would imply that these 2 studies account for murder rates/gun rates.  

Moreover, even if the studies do have different results, if many credible studies point towards the same general claim that these weapons increase crime rates, it’s important to at least address or rebut the studies as Con. He does not, dropping these 2 studies, and conceding them as true.

"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.”

Con’s numbers are wrong. In 2016 alone, there were 803,007 aggravated assaults. [1] 3% of that is 24,090. Are all of those just coincidences as well? This number inflates if you take into account all the years when concealed carry was legal. If we accounted for all of these, the results would be absolutely massive.

“OK, these seem like legit arguments”

aye thanks bruh

“For the first one, 2% is not conclusive.”

It totally is. You’ve provided no evidence that it’s not. Per your own trust Statista, there are around 20,000+ murders each year. 0.02 x 20,000 is 400. Concealed Carry essentially swept the country in 1989 [3]. Assuming the murder rate was roughly the same each year, from 1989 to 2017, 11,200 lives could have been saved if we never implemented this ridiculous policy in the first place.

“I am also not going to go through 100 pages of a study to find the root source.”

So you concede the argument. You’re not going to skim the study for it’s research because you don’t feel like it. Just say it, then.

“I tried to go to the study on the NYT article, but it says page not found.”

Weird. Huh, I genuinely don’t know what’s going on with that. Sorry.

“You also say "kill,' not murder.  There is a big difference between the two.  Can you clarify this?”

Not more likely to kill. I got it confused. More likely to commit gun related crimes.

“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.

Thank you for clarifying on both of these things.

Gun Laws

I’ve improved my data. Let’s go over this again.

England already has a low homicide rate in general, with under 1,000 murders a year.  [4] This means that individual events can cause seemingly massive upticks in crime rate. So what events can we attribute to the years in which this crime rate rose? Could it really be due to these laws?

We can attribute the 2003 uptick to Harold Shipman, once again, and account for some other events here.  The edited chart looks like this:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/EJjeJ.png

One thing you can notice from this chart is that England’s homicide rate has been rising forever. So whether the ban actually raised that rate is very questionable.

Also, the correspondence of ban years and crime rate is not consistent. The gun ban was implemented in 1997-1998 [5]. As we can see from the chart, there was no uptick there, but there was uptick in later years, further greatening our suspicion that the homicide rate did not rise due to the gun ban but rather due to other factors. This isn’t really great evidence on it’s own, but coupled with the other stuff it seems to make more sense.

In fact, we can see from a murdermap.co.uk that the homicide rate, since 2003, has been going down considerably [6], also suggesting that this ban had positive long term effects.

So it seems that the U.K. gun ban has actually worked, not the other way around.

Assault Weapons

Con not only drops my argument about the effectiveness of semi-auto rifles relative to pistols being tiny, he also drops my studies that provide support for the Klarevas study. Since Con has dropped these studies originally, I’d consider it immoral for him to respond in the next argument because I could not rebut.  I’d also add some supporting evidence to this that he can rebut which is that since Australia enacted it’s gun control legislation, putting incredibly strict regulations on semi-automatic firearms, there have been no mass shootings. [7]

"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?"

Well first of all, all of these objects are necessary. Judging by you dropping my argument about the effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles and my studies showing they increase mass shootings, you seemingly concede that assault weapons are not.

Just because something accounts for a low percentage of the crime rate doesn’t mean that banning it wouldn’t help. I’m sure if we legalized flamethrowers, their expensiveness and negative side effects would make them a non-priority for criminals and murderers. So do we legalize flamethrowers? No.

Unconstitutional?

“I do not think gun control is the answer, but rather mental health screening, armed guards, or armed teachers.”

Mental health screening is a type of background check and is gun control.

“Um, you have shown nothing of value when it comes to SAR's. “

So little value, in fact, that you chose to drop my arguments about them.

“Any gun increases mass shootings.  Anything can increase murder. Should fists be banned?  After all, they account for more murders than rifles.”

I’ve already addressed this.

"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.”

First of all, pure assertion, entirely speculative. Second of all, I strongly doubt that they banned guns to prevent an uprising. It seems more likely that it was out of convenience, so that it was easier to capture Jews. In fact, the Nazis did not begin rifle legislation until 5 years after they took power. What did the German populace do? Nothing. [8] Third of all, the restrictions were actually relaxed for German citizens relative to the Weimar Republic. [9] They were only tightened for Jews. [9]

It is true that we did see civilian uprising in Warsaw, complete with rifles and all, during the reign of Hitler. But this is more of an argument against gun rights than for them: The Warsaw Uprising, although incredibly honorable and good, was quickly stomped out by the professional militants of the German government. I wish the uprising would have worked, but the sad truth is, that it didn’t, and it shows us now the ineffectiveness of a civilian armed resistance.

“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.”

As I have said and sourced, gun regulations were relaxed for Germans, and when gun uprisings did start, they were quickly defeated.

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.”

I am aware of these events, and most of these are generally armed militaries with outside-government sponsors. Since you didn’t explain how citizens defended themselves or source your claim, I don’t feel it necessary to source mine. Calling them “civilian uprisings resisting tyrannical governments” is far from accurate.

“ With over 300,000,000 guns in America scattered across cities, the military isn't able to go tyrannical against a mass people.”

AR-15s and Pistols vs. Drone Strikes, Tanks, Bombs, and trained militants. Who would win? This is also assuming that all citizens with guns would fight and not surrender or join the other side.

“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.”

Because these tyrannical governments are mean enough to take over the government, but nice enough to not bomb citizens.

Seriously though. Even generally benign governments bomb places in war all the time accepting civilian deaths. It’s the nature of bombs.

“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.”

I’m genuinely disappointed with Con’s argument here. Instead of rebutting my points, he makes an unsourced generalization about liberals. Generally, these attacks on an entire group of people, especially when they are unsourced, are classified as ad hominem reactions, and are poor conduct. Con should lose the conduct point in this debate due to these remarks.

Closing Statement

In a bit of a change of format, considering that this is my last round, I’d like to include a closing statement. It’s basically once again a restatement of all of my points, just a little longer. Con is free to do one as well.

In closing, I have proved that Concealed Carry bans would increase crime rates, and I have proved that the statistics used by Con concerning England are misleading and a more in-depth analysis seems to yield the opposite results. Con has dropped my arguments on the effectiveness of semi-autos and my arguments supporting the Klarevas study. I have successfully proved my burdens with respect to the constitution, and Con has costed himself the conduct point via an ad hominem reaction against a group of people, in place of providing a substantive argument.

Vote Pro.

---

Besides that though, awesome, awesome, awesome! I know we’ve been doing roughly as much complimenting of each other as we have been debating, but I’d just want to emphasize again how fun this debate was for me, and how strong of a debater you are. I’d strongly encourage you to pursue this interest later in life. It’s been a lot of fun.

SOURCES:

[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/aggravated-assault
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/191134/reported-murder-and-nonnegligent-manslaughter-cases-in-the-us-since-1990/
[3] http://txcha.org/texas-ltc-information/a-history-of-concealed-carry/
[4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/283093/homicide-in-england-and-wales-uk-y-on-y/
[5] https://web.archive.org/web/20060623104106/http://www.firearmsafetyseminar.org.nz/_documents/Greenwood_Paper.pdf
[6] http://www.blog.murdermap.co.uk/statistics/homicide-in-england-and-wales-1898-to-2012/
[7] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/australia-enacted-strict-gun-control-laws-after-a-horrific-mass-shooting-in-1996-it-worked.html
[8]  https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/ben-carson-is-wrong-on-guns-and-the-holocaust.html?_r=0


















Published:
I apologize as I have not had time to post a substantial rebuttal.  I ask the voters to not judge based off my rebuttals this round, but stop after my opponents last posting.

In conclusion, I have proved that there are multiple studies on both sides about how concealed-carry effect murder rate.  A couple sudies stating a 3% change are not substantial to change laws.  Correlation does not equal causation.

My opponent has made valid arguments against the increase of England's murder rates.  While he has effectively refuted my point on this, the overall homicide did not go down.  In addition, a gun ban would not be effective because there are over 300,000,000 guns in America, and many would be obtained illegally from the black market and used for harm, while normal civilians will not be able to defend themselves.

My opponent contradicts himself on this point- "The semi-automatic rifle is in no way superior to your pistol or shotgun."
He admits that SAR's are not better than your average gun.  They are all semi-auto, meaning one trigger pull, a bullet comes out.  It is not faster than a handgun, it depends on how fast your trigger pull is.  My opponent has also avoided explaining why he wouldn't want a handgun ban, when I showed him evidence that there are way more murders with handguns.  He has only called for SAR ban, despite the fact handguns account for far more murders.  Guns are necessary for self-defense.

" It seems more likely that it was out of convenience, so that it was easier to capture Jews."
My opponent proves my point.  They banned them so they wouldn't have to fight with Jews.  He concedes this point.

I apologize I couldn't rebuttal more.  Thanks to armoredcat for participating.  This has been a great debate.

Vote CON!
Added:
To conquer a nation,first disarm its citizens
-Adolf Hitler
#44
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
I'll try and vote on it if I can. I may not be able to get to it in time :(
#43
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: I like trains
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
#42
Added:
--> @bsh1
2 hours to remove it
Contender
#41
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Can you plz vote on this pllzzz
Contender
#40
Added:
--> @oromagi
Can you vote on this?
Contender
#39
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Can you vote on this?
Contender
#38
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
#37
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @Alec
I meant vote. And alec, oooooof
Contender
#36
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
1) It is against the COC to ask someone to vote for you.
2) I lost my voting privileges over something. I don't know if it's permanent or temporary.
#35
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
So if he votes for you now, is it because you asked him to? Or because he thinks you won?
#34
Added:
--> @Alec
Can you vote for me on this?
Contender
#33
Added:
--> @armoredcat
dang now u winning, i'll have to get raltar to vote again more thoroughly lol
Contender
#32
Added:
--> @Raltar
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Raltar // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
RFD:
Wow, this was a very professional, fierce and well executed debate on both sides. Both sides made excellent use of sources and formatted their arguments in a very professional way. Ultimately, I can only agree with Con because his closing statement highlights the key flaw in Pro's argument. When Pro claims that semi-automatic rifles aren't superior to handguns or shotguns, he ignores the obvious tactical differences between these weapons, as well as the fact pointed out by Con that more crimes are committed with handguns than rifles.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
#31
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Can someone please remove or at least look at Raltar's vote please? It addresses a fraction of a fraction of the arguments
Instigator
#30
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
meh I don't know
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Kiss my goddamn ass.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
On the Fence
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Sources, spelling, and conduct were all on par for both sides where each side conducted themselves professionally, each cited a wealth of information, and each had spelling good enough to understand the arguments being made. Awarding argument points, as always, was the biggest challenge, the fact that there were a multitude of different arguments being made only made this that much harder.... The debate is actually a collage of four different debates all being argued at the same time: Concealed Carry, Gun laws in general, Assault weapons, and constitutionality.
For concealed carry: Con goes off on a tangent with the police officers comparison, then tries to poke holes in Pro's sources, then tries to downplay the overall effect that concealed carry has on increased crime rates. Both sides also use the argument that correlation =/= causation, which can be applied to every argument made in the debate. Because Con spends his time on the defensive rather than use arguments in support of conceal-carry or really indicate why conceal-carry is beneficial for society overall, Pro wins this argument overall. Score is Pro 1-0 in arguments.
For Gun laws in general: Con cites England as his only example of crime going up after a gun law was put into effect, showing that crime did go up by a hefty amount after being implemented. Pro uses the correlation =/= causation argument and stresses murder rate over crime rate, but by the time Pro finally tries to tweak his arguments in the final round when Con cant respond, Con's main argument has made its point: That gun laws impact on crime had little if not the opposite effect on crime overall. Had Pro used gun laws in other countries to support his argument, that would have helped, but by focusing just on England, Con's argument triumphs. Score is tied at 1-1 for arguments.
Next is Assault Weapons, where Pro argues there is no positive use to them and that they should be banned, including info showing they are the weapon of choice for mass-shooters. Con counter argues that handguns inflict far more damage and can fit under the description of 'assault weapon' depending on how it is defined. Pro clarifies he is arguing about rifles and not handguns, and cites pretty good evidence about the effects it had on crime before and after implementation. Con responds with data showing mass shooter rates going down, but overall murder rates being largely unaffected, before making a semantical argument about knives. While the effect on murder rate for assault-weapons-bans is almost non-existent, Pro's argument about its effect on mass shootings still stands, and so he wins this argument. Score 2-1 for Pro.
The final argument is about Constitutionality, which was the worst arguments made in the debate. The vagueness of the 2nd Amendment and its application 250 years in society later makes the legality of gun control more tied to how US Courts interpret the Constitution and its scope, rather than how the two individuals in the debate interpret the Constitution, so sources cited for legality based on court rulings hold the most weight of all in this argument. Con concedes many of the supreme court arguments cited by Pro in the opening round, and instead focuses on a whirlwind of general ideas about what would happen with or without the second amendment based on the other bad arguments Pro makes about the age of the Constitution. If anything, Con seemed to concede the Constitutionality of some gun control measures and in response focused counter arguments on the overall importance of the 2nd Amendment, which wasn't the argument in the first place. The argument was whether or not the 2nd Amendment allows for gun control measures Pro argues for, not whether or not the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.
Pro wins the fourth argument in addition to the first and third, making the final count 3-1 for Pro. Therefore, Pro gets full argument points.
This was a bit of a convoluted debate, It was interesting, but would be much better if the overall scope of the debate was narrowed down to one or at most two different aspects of gun control, rather than 4
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro: cons opening argument was an argument based on semantics: while there is no hard and fast description of “assault weapons”, I felt it was clear what pro meant, and con used the specifics of the words pro used to argue he was in favour of something else: and that it applied to all guns l. Semantics are always a bad argument, but this is sufficient for a conduct mark down as it was expressly forbidden in the debate terms. While this was a borderline call, I feel it balances it with arguments, which I was also borderline and came down the other way.
Arguments: Concealed Carry laws: pro cites that where there is CCLs homicide rates increase. Con initially attacks this by saying CCW holders are safer (which wasn’t necessarily the contention) - pro attacked this position, but con the cited contrary data. Pro then tries to have it both ways by saying that cons examples where homicide rates go down are “correlation is not causation” but where they go up is not. There was a lot of stat haggling, but imo con did more than enough to negate pros point by citing other data. 1-0 Con.
Gun laws: this sections source of contention is similar to the first. Con contends that gun laws don’t work, pro suggesting they do. Firstly con appears to concede that pros contention is true, but doesn’t matter as the overall homicide rate should be considered. For me, con not put enough explanation into the relevance of that, and pro made a reasonable case as to why cons single source should not be used as an indicator. Now tied 1-1.
Assault weapons. Pros point is that there is no real useful purpose of assault weapons (I use my common understanding of the phrase), con made a series of points as to how assault weapons are not used in as many crimes or kill as many people - I found this open very weak - assault weapons here are being considered on their own merits, not in relation to hand guns viewed as a whole - I find cons comparison here fails. Cons use of DGU in this context is not relevant for this same reason. Pro points this out. Con also erodes his own point by later stating how accurate and deadly “assault weapons” can be, which tends to undermine this. Pros response basically provides an argument that while handguns kill more, assault weapons are more deadly, and supports this with data. Cons rebuttal now becomes weaker, and somewhat contradicts his other points - arguing the effectiveness of handguns and ccw makes it feel like con argues handguns are better, then rifles are better and changes which depending on the point he’s making. The crux of this, is that for me pros argument about how deadly rifles are, is the knockout point, and con doesn’t really counter it. 2:1 to pro.
Second Ammendment. Pro preempts arguments about legality by constraining the gun control he is talking about, and by pointing out various types of control that already exists. There were many points thrown around so was difficult to follow. I found that pro shot himself in the foot - by raising the argument that the Supreme Court ruled for self defence, lending credence to cons position that it should be allowed. I was less convinced about assault weapons. As I had difficulty tying back what was being contended with the debate itself, and as both pro and con made good points. I can’t fully claim to show a winner on this point. 2-1 pro.
So, as this is a mixed result, I want to further weight the result out of 5 points
So, the first ccw was a primary argument, and cons argument was excellent to muddy the waters and erode pros point. I weight this pro +5.
The second (gun laws), was not as important, and not a resounding victory. I weight this as pro +1.
The final non-draw was assault weapons. I felt pro landed the only true knockout argument in this debate here, but I don’t think the assault weapon portion was as worth as much as the arguments surrounding the effects of generalized weapon bans. I award this pro +3
While this is very hard to call, I think Con JUST gets the edge, and should be awarded arguments. I think with the Conduct points awarded, the overall scoring of giving +2 overall is a fair reflection on the debate.
Sources were excellent on both sides: and most of the really good arguments landed on both sides were supported with data.
I couldn’t find much to separate either on spelling and grammar.
I really want to say that this was one of the better debates to vote on and critique, so well done to both sides.