Instigator / Pro
36
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
15
12
Sources points
10
10
Spelling and grammar points
7
7
Conduct points
4
7

With 7 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Contender / Con
36
1450
rating
10
debates
30.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Go ahead.
Con
These are the facts about guns;

There is a positive correlation between the number of guns in a given country and the number of gun crimes. Countries with fewer guns have fewer incidences of gun crimes.

Having more guns does not reduce crime:

The United States is the country with the highest number of mass shootings. America has an incredibly high violent gun crime rate in comparison to other Western countries, and this is the result of a culture that glorifies guns (what you would call "Pro Gun").

Gun control has been proven to be an effective policy in other countries:


The fact is, America being a "Pro Gun" country has resulted in more death and suffering.
Round 2
Pro
I thank my opponent for accepting this argument.  Now on to the rebuttals.


Con first states "There is a positive correlation between the number of guns in a given country and the number of gun crimes. Countries with fewer guns have fewer incidences of gun crimes."

This is true in most cases.  However, I think it is inefficient to look at just gun crime.  We should look at overall homicide rate, because people can get guns illegally, or use other weapons such as knives, and people don't have a gun to protect themselves.  In places where guns were banned, murder did not decrease after the ban, but rather, in some cases, spiked up, like what happened in Britain.

"Having more guns does not reduce crime."

I imagine this revolves around the lives saved by guns.  The NCVS surveys are invalid because the NCVS only asks if people have been victims of a violent crime, as opposed to other surveys that asks victims if they've been threatened with a violent crime.

"The United States is the country with the highest number of mass shootings. America has an incredibly high violent gun crime rate in comparison to other Western countries, and this is the result of a culture that glorifies guns"

As I stated before, we should look at crime before and after gun bans, because every country is different.  Mass shootings can be stopped if schools aren't advertised as gun-free zones, where 98% of mass shootings happen.  I aslo think arming teachers with guns would be a good idea if they are concealed-carry holders or going to become a concealed-carry holder, as this group commits crimes 16% less than police officers(scroll 2/3 down the page and you will see the stat).

"Gun control has been proven to be an effective policy in other countries:"

My opponent then sites a left-wing source in Vox.  Again, I am not questioning it results in fewer gun homicides, but I look at overall homicide.  I cited this in an earlier paragraph.  This source seems to revolve around Australia's crime rates.  I have a couple rebuttals for this.  First, the homicide and crime rates where already declining before the gun ban, so it is inconclusive to say the gun ban made it go down.  Secondly, this model would not be good anyway for America, because while Australia had a couple hundred thousand guns, America has over 3.5 million, so many would go into the black market.

I thank my opponent for participating in this debate.  Back to you.




Con
It is not inefficient to look at just gun crimes, I am specifically talking about the negative consequences of too many guns in society, which is best measured by the number of crimes committed involving guns. Fluctuations in the overall homicide rate in various countries are a result of many factors unrelated to guns, so it's disingenuous when people handpick data from one country to support their theory. Basically, there is no reason to believe that the rise in the homicide rate in the UK is directly related to the ban on guns, so your conclusion cannot be drawn.
 
It's just a fact that an increase in guns has not been shown to reduce crime. A definitive study from Stanford that analyzed 37 years of data concluded that states that enacted right-to-carry laws experienced upticks in violent crime. This should put to rest any idea that more guns equals less crime.
 
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
 
I don't think removing a gun-free zone sign would deter psychopathic murderers who are most likely on a suicide mission anyway.
 
Wait, didn't you just cite Daily Wire? You know that's not neutral right.

Round 3
Pro
"Fluctuations in the overall homicide rate in various countries are a result of many factors unrelated to guns, so it's disingenuous when people handpick data from one country to support their theory. Basically, there is no reason to believe that the rise in the homicide rate in the UK is directly related to the ban on guns, so your conclusion cannot be drawn."

This is false.  The graph I show has a tremendous spike in murder rate right after the gun ban was enacted.  This spike, as the murder rate was constant before the ban, is way more than likely to be because of the ban.  It eventually subsided to the same rate before the ban, showing one example where it didn't decrease murder rate.



2.  This is one college study out of many.  13% rise over 10 years is an example of correlation that does not mean causation.  This is about 1.4% each year.  A constant rise like this could be contributed to many other factors.  Another problem is that you have to pay $5 to see the study, so I do not know how valid this is.

3.  "I don't think removing a gun-free zone sign would deter psychopathic murderers who are most likely on a suicide mission anyway. "
Really?  Because 98% of shootings occur in gun-free zone.  If the shooter wants to kill as many people as possible, he will probably go to where there are no guns, not where he could get stopped short because of a concealed-carry holder stopping him.
Con
Gun violence in the United States is skyrocketing and you don't think that's related to the massive number of firearms. What's so wrong about common sense regulations like removing the Gun Show Loophole, which exempts transactions at guns shows from all of the other federal laws. It's currently way too easy for anyone to purchase a gun. Each time someone tries implementing some form of regulations on guns, conservatives cry out that guns are being confiscated despite there not being a single example of that ever happening.

Round 4
Pro
"Gun violence in the United States is skyrocketing and you don't think that's related to the massive number of firearms."
Source please?

There is no such thing as the gun show loophole.  Every gun-show you are required to do background checks.  Any others would be highly illegal.  Again no source.

Like I said, I agree on mental health/background checks.  I also think teachers should be armed.  What do you suggest we do?  Conservatives think that because if you ban a certain type of gun, they'll keep banning guns until there is none left, and you know it.

My opponent did not rebuttal to any of my points.  This is poor conduct.
Con
First off, do you consider writing "Source please?" a rebuttal? I don't. And then you try to rebut me with no sources either, why are you exempt? This is poor conduct.
 
Per the CDC, gun homicides are on the rise this year;
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/health/common-methods-of-homicide-cdc/index.html
 
I know it's "fake news", spare me.

You agree with mental health/background checks?, that sounds like you support gun-control. I agree with that.


Round 5
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Forfeited