Instigator / Pro

1597

rating

debates

65.91%

won

Topic

#3422

Gun control is necessary for a functioning society

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 04.29.2022 12:57PM
Last updated date: 05.11.2022 01:26PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Conservallectual

1417

rating

debates

24.07%

won

Description

Gun control will be defined as the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians.

Round 1

Novice

05.01.2022 12:26PM

Pro

FRAMEWORK

Gun Control: as per the description "gun control" will be defined as the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians [1].
Necessary: required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential [oxford languages].
Functioning: work or operate in a proper or particular way [oxford languages].

OVRV1

As Britannica states: “'Gun control' refers to any legal measure intended to prevent or restrict the possession or use of guns, particularly firearms. (In a broader historical sense, the term also refers to legal limits on the possession or use of other arms, including those that predate the invention of gunpowder.) In most developed countries, gun control is strict and uncontroversial. In others it is a fraught political issue, pitting those who regard it as necessary for public safety against those who view it as a dangerous infringement of personal liberty" [2].

First, let's establish what makes a society function. Society needs ORDER to protect people and maintain organization to prevent the rapid spiral of chaos. Society needs laws that ensure the most equitable protection of individuals.
Society needs to have special protections for children, the youth, and the foundation of it. This includes protecting them from themselves and their undeveloped irrational nature.
My argument today is NOT that society needs to regulate every single aspect of guns or even ban them. I simply believe that SOME gun control is necessary for society to function, and I think everyone should agree with this, especially our voters.

AGE RESTRICTIONS

As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives states, under the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 in the United States "shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 21 years of age or older" [3].
I believe age restrictions are a necessary gun control policy for a functioning society. Even if you don't agree with the age of 18, there should be a required age for one to be able to purchase a gun.
The reason for this is children aren't mature and they are rationally underdeveloped [4]. We don't and SHOULD NOT treat them as if they are capable of making proper decisions.
If every child is allowed to purchase and hold guns this would lead to significantly more shootings; shootings of parents, school shootings, etc. This harms society by causing more preventable deaths leading to suffering that can be prevented in an ethical way.

BACKGROUND CHECKS

A 2019 study by Boston University and Harvard University medical researchers found that U.S. states with universal background checks for all gun sales had homicide rates 15% lower than states without such laws over a 26-year period [5].
According to EVERYTOWN: "Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever a person attempts to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer" [6].
Background checks are necessary for a functioning society because they literally prevent criminals; people with histories of violence from acquiring guns that they will potentially use to kill, rob, etc. And as shown above, background checks lead to lower homicide rates.

CONCLUSION

My case is that it is important to keep guns out of the hands of people like children who are underdeveloped and irrational, and criminals who will use them to harm and kill people. This reduces unnecessary suffering placed on society that is ethically preventable. I have given two policies that I believe achieve this. Over to CON.

SOURCES

Conservallectual

05.02.2022 12:02AM

Con

Let me start by saying that a gun is just a metal husk. A gun has no mind, no soul, no emotions, no thoughts, no heart, no sentience, etc. A gun also needs to be loaded with ammunition. Guns also do not tell men who wield them to "kill innocents", a gun is just a tool, and it can shoot projectiles that can be deadly.

So from my first statement, my problem with gun control is that it won't stop criminals from using other weapons to kill. Criminals can also use other weapons such as:

* knives

* poison

* fists

* hammers

* baseball bats

* etc.

In fact, in the UK(where guns are banned) criminals have become so smart that they now use obsolete/antique guns to commit their crimes: https://theconversation.com/criminals-are-using-antique-weapons-due-to-a-loophole-in-uk-law-102666

So the first problem with gun control is that it will certainly not prevent criminals from using other weapons to commit crimes or buy guns illegally.

So what will prevent crime? Well of course, more police force/crime control, giving doctors the ability to detect mental illnesses, etc.

2. States with more guns and more permissive gun laws tend to have low crime rate. For example:

map for gun ownership: https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/gun-ownership-map-updated.png

map for crime rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate#/media/File:Violent_Crime_Rate_by_U.S._state.svg

1. Utah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Utah

2. Wyoming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wyoming

So why is this the case? Well the answer is just common sense - The good guys who buy guns legally can just shoot up the criminals/bad guys and save the day.

other sources:

https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/ten-powerful-arguments-against-gun-control/

Round 2

Novice

05.04.2022 12:00AM

Pro

FRAMEWORK

CON does not object to or address anything within the framework so it must be concluded that CON accepts my framework.
Therefore the framework is agreed upon. Restating the main definition for the benefit of readers:

Gun Control: as per the description "gun control" will be defined as the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians [1].

OVRV2

CON's entire first round is completely irrelevant to the debate.
The resolution is that gun control is necessary for a functioning society, and I have provided two gun control policies I believe are necessary

AGE RESTRICTIONS

Extend. CON does not object to or even address this argument.

BACKGROUND CHECKS

Extend. CON does not object to or even address this argument.

REBUTTALS

from my first statement, my problem with gun control is that it won't stop criminals from using other weapons to kill.

This is true if someone is determined enough they can kill people through other means but gun control measures such as age restrictions, and background checks instill harm reduction by preventing them from doing INCREASED harm.
A person may get a gun a shoot up a school for example, but if they are prevented from acquiring one they may enter a school with a knife and be easily taken down, or even be deterred from shooting in a school because the means of large scale destruction aren't accessible to them.

In fact, in the UK(where guns are banned) criminals have become so smart that they now use obsolete/antique guns to commit their crimes:

It's much better than giving them free access to murderous weapons freely. You ADMIT yourself that these weapons are OBSOLETE. This shows that law enforcement is BETTER equipped to fight criminals who don't have advanced weapons.

States with more guns and more permissive gun laws tend to have low crime rates.

Your sources don't support this argument. You show a map for "Gun Owndership By State, but just because more people own guns in a state does not mean it has more permissive gun laws.

III

In addition to both age restrictions and background checks, I essentially argue that really anything established by the United States Gun Control Act of 1968 is necessary for a functioning society.

"After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over "destructive devices," including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices" [1].

These policies are necessary for a functioning society because as states society needs order and special protections for children to work in a way that causes the least ethically preventable suffering.
CON argues that "States with more guns and more permissive gun laws tend to have low crime rate" but CON does CON seem to disagree with either age restrictions or any of the policies in the Gun control Act because EVERY STATE in the two maps he presents has these policies in place. They are of course subordinate to these federal acts and mandates.

Ultimately gun control is necessary for every society. Even if guns should not be totally banned there needs to be some policies that regulate their sale and accessibility such as licensing.
It makes an almost completely irrelevant argument CON does not disprove the resolution.

SOURCES

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act

Conservallectual

05.04.2022 01:26PM

Con

you: "from my first statement, my problem with gun control is that it won't stop criminals from using other weapons to kill.

This is true if someone is determined enough they can kill people through other means but gun control measures such as age restrictions, and background checks instill harm reduction by preventing them from doing INCREASED harm. "

I agree that you must be 18 for a shotgun/rifle and 21 for a handgun. However, as I said previously a gun should not be faulted for the mental illness of a person. After all, a gun is not alive or sentient. So how do we prevent irrational children from even happening in the first place? Well here are my solutions:

> promote Judeo-Christian values

> support the traditional/nuclear family structure

> have armed guards to scare off a potential shooter

> promote people who do the right thing

> fund the police

> ban/regulate street drugs

> etc.

you: "A person may get a gun a shoot up a school for example, but if they are prevented from acquiring one they may enter a school with a knife and be easily taken down, or even be deterred from shooting in a school because the means of large scale destruction aren't accessible to them. "

My response: You know that criminals can also craft bombs that they will use to kill people at areas right? The Oklahoma city bombing killed about 168 people.

according to this graph from the fbi: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-link/2018-crime-statistics-released murder only makes up about 1.3% of all the crime that year

You: "It's much better than giving them free access to murderous weapons freely. You ADMIT yourself that these weapons are OBSOLETE. This shows that law enforcement is BETTER equipped to fight criminals who don't have advanced weapons."

My response: The police in the UK don't even use guns. An antique, obsolete gun can still kill people(especially when the police have no guns). According to this map https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559 crime rates were already falling in the UK before they introduced a gun ban in 1997. After 1995, crime rates fell at a rapid rate but after the gun ban was introduced the crime rate fell at a much-much slower rate and even rose up at some moments.

I agree that there should be some background checks but there are some problems with them:

* Background checks are expensive

* Criminals can get guns in a black market(90% of all gun crimes are done with illegal guns)

* If a mental illness is not reported in any medical tests then background checks will not help

sources: https://www.philadelphiacriminalattorney.com/pros-and-cons-of-eliminating-background-checks-for-guns/

You: "Ultimately gun control is necessary for every society. Even if guns should not be totally banned there needs to be some policies that regulate their sale and accessibility such as licensing."

My response: Crime control is more necessary than gun control. If we can catch and stop criminals more easily, we can stop crime without gun control.

whiteflame

05.05.2022 01:24PM

-->

@Conservallectual

Yeah, and in a debate with more than two rounds, it's not unusual to deal in rebuttals after the first round. I generally don't like two-round debates for the reason that it doesn't give the space for arguments to develop and since it gives the last word to counter-rebuttals, there's not much room for synthesis or weighing points.

Conservallectual

05.05.2022 02:45AM

-->

@whiteflame

Thanks for feedback. But It was my plan to deal with age restrictions for 2nd( Though I think that plan sucked.) anyway thanks for feedback.

Novice

05.04.2022 04:35PM

-->

@whiteflame

Thank you very much for voting!

Novice

05.04.2022 02:44PM

CON literally agreed to the resolution...

Novice

05.04.2022 02:43PM

-->

@RationalMadman

@whiteflame

@Intelligence_06

@Nyxified

@Bones

VERY SHORT DEBATE, that would be good for any of you to kindly VOTE for!

Conservallectual

05.04.2022 01:26PM

voting time has started

Novice

05.02.2022 12:27AM

LMAO

Intelligence_06

05.01.2022 02:17AM

-->

@Novice

You have to justify that a functioning society must have guns. Without guns, there wouldn’t be gun control.

Conservallectual

04.29.2022 01:24PM

I would like your first argument to clarify:

* what is gun control in your terms?
* Which guns do you want to control?

whiteflame

05.04.2022 04:33PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

While Pro only aims for the extremely low-hanging fruit in this debate, giving himself the most no-brainer form of gun control to defend (age restrictions) and the second-most obvious choice (background checks), that case sets up what must be debated here and I'm not seeing Con addressing the former at all until R2, where it comes up as new material in the final round. Even if I buy Con's entire argument from R1 wholesale and dismiss background checks as unnecessary due to other measures (e.g. good guys with guns stopping the bad ones), Con just straight drops the age restrictions point. At best, you could cross-apply some of the arguments you made about criminals to that point, though a) in doing so, you're asking me to do work for you as a voter, since you didn't cross-apply them yourself until R2, b) the cross-application doesn't quite work given elements like gun-free zones, and c) doing so doesn't fully address the reasons Pro gave for having this form of gun control in place, meaning it's mitigation at best. Note that this is if I gave Con as much leeway with his arguments as possible without just accepting the slew of new points about family structure, Judeo-Christian values, promoting "people who do the right thing," and addressing drugs that all appear in R2 and largely just function as a non-sequitur list of other possible ways to potentially address this or other problems without any support.

In general, Con's lack of rebuttal to Pro's case really hurts him in this debate. In a 2-round debate, you've got to put more effort into your R1 and make all your points there, including rebuttals. It also doesn't help that almost all of Con's case is built on the "there are better ways to do this" kind of argument, which might work better if you addressed the definitions and burdens analysis your opponent gave (this might tell me that gun control is unnecessary because other measures solve for the same problem), but absent that, it just looks like a bunch of half-baked counterplans that go nowhere. Even on background checks, all I'm seeing is reasons why other things could address the criminal element, which isn't enough to dismiss the argument by itself without couching it in the resolution.

Hence, I vote Pro.