Instigator / Pro
0
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4118
The Right To Bear Arms vs Gun Control
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
AleutianTexan
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
4
debates
87.5%
won
Description
On-balance debate.
Pro argues everyone should have the right to purchase firearms, Con can argue to either ban all guns or push for tighter gun control. (Con has two positions he can choose between in the first round.)
Both sides must give reasons for their position and attack the opponent's points.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Preamble:
So I am going to be arguing in favor of the Right of Open-Carry. I will be defending the freedom for everyone to have equal access to guns.
BOP:
This is labeled an on-balance debate in the description, which means both me and my opponent will defend our position and build off of them respectively. I win if I show that everyone should have the same privilege to access firearms and my opponent wins if he demonstrates why we should have regulations in place.
l. Guns are necessary for self-defense.
If your home is being burglarized, you have to contact the police without tipping off the intruder and then you have to await the police's arrival. Within that time frame, it is possible for anyone who lives in the property to be 1. Killed 2. Injured
With a firearm prepared and ready, you are able to defend yourself without the need for police intervention.
ll. Guns save lives.
All tighter regulations will do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get access to guns while criminals will still be criminals.
When there is a robbery, who can we expect to be the Good Samaritan if innocent bystanders cannot purchase firearms?
lll. Guns can fight tyranny.
When the citizens still have their firearms, they have a way of protecting themselves. When the government imposes legislation to crack down on firearms, the people are left unarmed and defenseless to any agenda the government wishes to push.
How can the people be expected to fight back against tyranny?
lV. Guns are a deterrent.
Shooters are more likely to target places that are unlikely to fight back, giving them greater means in which to commit chaos. If the shooter knows their intended victims are likely to fight back, then they are more prone to not engaging them in violence.
Con
#2
Opponents Case
Preamble
Sir.Lancelot should be held to what they said in the comments. I asked to clarify “Wait, so is the pro defending the status quo on gun control, or a world with no regulation?”and Pro answered “No regulation.” This means that open carry isn’t enough, but that the fact that there are no regulations on firearms at all. If Sir.Lancelot isn’t held to this standard, then it creates an incentive for people to lie in the comments or descriptions to get people to agree to debates that are radically shifted in the debate. If Sir.Lancelot shifts from this in the round, that is a reason to vote them down because they’ve created bad methodologies of lying in descriptions and comments.
BOP:
Sure, Sir.Lancelot has to prove that a world with no regulations on gun ownership is better than a world with some regulation.
Self defense
1. There were 484,800 gun crimes in 2018 and 70,040 defensive gun uses according to our best comprehensive stories. This is six times more. This means that no access to guns would be better and reduce 484,000 crimes while only stopping 70,040 instances of defensive action.
2. Self-defense is only possible if someone is trained. Having a gun doesn’t guarantee that you can beat a criminal in a gunfight. Only police have the training to truly protect and serve communities.
Guns save lives
The only unique point here is that criminals will still have access to guns.
1. It creates a level of deterrence. Some criminals would still own guns, but the difficulty and lack of pay off when whatever their goal crime is still achievable without a gun makes this number much, much lower.
2. Lack of access means that even those that are willing to risk owning one, despite not needing it, has to pay a lot more, making it less attainable.
Guns can fight tyranny
1. Government good. Sir.Lancelot has no example of a harmful state. States provide security and equality, and armed citizens stand in the way of that.
2. An armed citizenry can not maintain an insurgency forever against a local authoritarian government. Literally no modern examples. Every modern revolution is either a military coup or backed by foreign powers. None of these allow citizens to defend against a tyrannical government.
Guns are a deterrent
1. No evidence for this, so be skeptical.
My Case
The basic thesis is I’m going to list a regulation and why it’s good. Remember, the burden is that if I prove any regulation is good, then I should win. I also reserve the right to drop any of these points if they are unsalvageable. I don’t have to win all of them, just a single regulation.
Ban sales to anyone under 18
1. Children are unable to properly work a firearm or make the mental decisions to determine moral use of the firearm.
2. Currently, where all guns are purchased and stored by parents, 8 children and teens are unintentionally shot a day. This number drastically increases without a ban on children purchasing guns with literally no parent accountability. Unnecessary deaths are bad.
3. Even if the pro is completely right about their entire case, that is still possible without children having access to purchasing guns.
Ban sales to anyone unable to pass a psychological check
1. In 2019, 23,941 people died of suicide. Psychological checks could evaluate and screen for some of these.
2. Guns are especially hazard in this situation because suicide is often an impulsive act, so for every second you can delay by having to set a more elaborate setup, a suicide is more likely to be prevented.
3. Even if the pro is completely right about their entire case, that is still possible with psychological background checks.
Ban handguns.
1. Handguns are the most common weapons for suicide, so all of my warrants from above can be cross applied, especially since handguns are the most accessible.
2. Petty crime is most common with handguns because of how concealable they are. This means that banning (cross apply how they are more expensive and unachievable, as well as the risk analysis makes them less desirable, so even if not perfectly gone, heavily reduced, even in criminal elements) handguns leads to a a lower rate/less effective rate of petty crime.
3. Even if the pro is completely right about their entire case, that is still possible without handguns.
Ban fully automatic weapons.
1. The amount of bullets that can come out of a fully automatic weapon can drastically increase the amount of deaths that happen in a shooting event.
2. Even if the pro is completely right about their entire case, that is still possible without fully automatic weapons.
Require licensing and training to own guns.
1. This makes gun owners accountable to their actions and forces criminal background checks, highly lowering the risk of guns being used for criminal activity.
2. 535 people died in 2020 from preventable/accidental gun deaths. Training makes this number get drastically reduced as people are a much less likely to make accidents if forced to go through a mandatory training.
3. Even if the pro is completely right about their entire case, that is still possible with licensing and training.
Create a firearm registry
1. The registry would require every gun that is sold to be tied to the owners identification. Resales would have to be categorized, much like a cars title has to be transferred. This makes every gun,including it’s serial number, accountable to an owner, as well as, makes the private sale loophole a lot less likely as people are more cognizant since the gun is in their name.
2. 19,383 homicide deaths in 2020. This number would be drastically reduced.
3. Even if the pro is completely right about their entire case, that is still possible with a registry.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Voters can’t use comments outside the rounds.
The resolution also calls for tight gun control and since gun control means multiple regulations, proving one doesn’t win the argument. Especially as it’s “on-balance.”
Furthermore, nothing in the resolution requires me to object to ALL regulations.
I could support a law banning all AR15’s and it wouldn’t contradict my position because I didn’t call to ban all firearms and this law would apply to everyone equally.
The resolution also calls for tight gun control and since gun control means multiple regulations, proving one doesn’t win the argument. Especially as it’s “on-balance.”
Furthermore, nothing in the resolution requires me to object to ALL regulations.
I could support a law banning all AR15’s and it wouldn’t contradict my position because I didn’t call to ban all firearms and this law would apply to everyone equally.
Con
#4
Preamble
1. This is the only thing Pro answered at all, so even if you buy their model of the debate, I’m still winning all the individual points. This means I’m winning multiple regulations, including new ones that would mean “tighter” regulations, such as a handgun ban.
2. “Gun control” as defined by Oxford Languages shown through Google when you Google “gun control definition” (I would link it,but I am unaware if a link to a search shows anything) is “the regulation of the sale and use of firearms”. This definition does not say there needs to be multiple regulations as my opponent said, but the existence of any regulation OR regulation son the sale or use of firearms. This means that I need to only win one. A definition that is searchable is better than just one created because it is a stable locus from an external source, instead of one debater creating one to shift the debate to be easier for the their side.
3. On balance means that the world of “no regulation” needs to be better than a world of regulation. Even if you disagree with this, I’ve shown new and multiple regulations such as psychological checks, handgun bans, licensing and training, and a firearm registry are good and better than a world without.
4. Pro didn’t answer any of my analysis that
a. Holding debaters to what they say in the comments is crucial to creating a fair place for debate, otherwise, those who create the debate will always shift to make debates impossible for anyone who engages.
b. If he shifts to trying to say that all six of my regulations are part of the Pro, he should be voted down because the debate is terminally unfair because I could never win if he steals all Con ground in the debate, making it impossible from the get go.
c. When Pro does say that “voters can’t use comments outside of rounds”, he doesn’t warrant this. I specifically say that the fairness and the ability for this website to facilitate fair, educational, and fun discussion is only possible if the comments can be used to help determine what a debate will be. He is trying to hide this, but he can’t even give you a good reason, especially since it is a key question to what the debate is about andthe true parameters of the debate.
5. All of this is to say that if you think Pro is winning that all six of my regulations are the point of Pro ground, but Pro was misleading in the comments/construction of the debate, you should vote them down to preserve DebateArt’s ability to have fair and equitable debates.Especially on a website that has ratings and rankings, there is an incentive to try and skew people who agree to debates, so we as a community have to check back against this.
6. As a final note, regardless of your personal thoughts about the use of comments on debates on the website, as the judge, you should evaluate if the comments should be used for this debate based on the argumentation made, not personal preference. Make Pro win that they should be able to deceive people, don’t spot them that position.
Opponent’s Case
Self Defense
I hate if this is repetitive for experienced judges, but there is offense and defense.Offense are reasons you should vote for someone, and defense is just a way to say that’s not true. The reason I bring this up is because Pro dropped my offense that banning guns would end 484,800 crimes a year. This is a direct,uncontested, and easy place to weigh Con.
Guns save lives
Pro dropped my offense that guns become much harder to access for criminals,therefore, you weigh we have less criminal gun use here as well.
Guns can fight tyranny
Pro dropped my offense that governments provide security and equality and citizenry stops this, meaning you justify that human rights violations comes from armed citizenry, not the state.
Guns are a deterrent
Even if there is no offense here, I’ve proven that this point is untrue, so you don’t weigh it for pro.
My Case
I’ve proven all six regulations, four of which don’t exist in the status quo,meaning you buy I have satisfied both the burden Pro has tried to establish about multiple and tighter gun control, as well as my own burden of any regulation.
Ban sales to anyone under 18
Pro dropped my offense that 8 unintentional shootings of minors a day happen with no sales to children, but this number will explode to hundreds, if not thousands of deaths a day.
Ban sales to anyone unable to pass a psychological check
Pro dropped my offense of 23,941 suicides a year and that guns are a huge factor in this due to their immediacy and easy access.
Ban handguns
Pro dropped my offense about both suicides and petty crime heavily relying on handguns.
Ban fully automatic weapons
Pro dropped my offense about how the amount of deaths would drastically increase if automatic weapons were allowed to be sold and got in the hands of mass shooters.
Require licensing and training to own guns
Pro dropped my offense that criminal background checks end criminal use of guns or at least lower it drastically. Pro also dropped that it would end or drastically lower 535 accidental deaths a year.
Create a firearm registry
1. I realize that the source of homicide deaths wasn’t linked, and I deeply apologize.It was the same source that was linked to “535 people died in 2020 from preventable/accidental gun deaths.” or the last source of my speech round 1.
2. Pro dropped my offense that 19,383 homicide deaths would go drastically farther down,as well as we could solve homicides much easier.
As a final note, I'm very sorry if there is any spacing issues. Whenever I go from my typed speech to preview argument, it erases some of my spaces between words. I go back and fix it, but if I miss some spots, please be a bit lenient. Also, if anyone knows how to make it stop doing that, feel free to message me, I would love the help.
Round 3
Con
#6
Preface
I’m going to extend the case piece by piece, however if you don’t want/need to have it extended like that, then just take this as an extend. Also, don’t give me a conduct point. I don’t know what Pro has going on in their life and only want to win argumentation.
Preamble
1. Extend that, regardless the model of the debate, I’m winning multiple regulations that don’t exist in the status quo, so you can vote Con no matter what.
2. Extend that the only cited definition doesn’t talk about multiple definitions, so I only need one. Also extend that a searchable definition is always better than one constructed by a debater because it creates a stable locus for us to debate from.
3. Extend that
A. The debates here can only be fair if we can hold debaters accountable to the rules set in the comments.
B. If they try to say that all six regulations defined by Con should be included in the world of Pro, this is proven unfairness in the round that would make it terminally impossible for Con to win this round.
C. Extend that fair, education, and fun debate only happens if we can use comments to clarify things before the debate starts.
4.Extend that this website collapses if people are not held to a fair threshold of how to interact in this space and only by voting them down so their rank/image suffers can we check back against this as a community.
5.Extend that you should determine if the comments can be used based on the arguments made in round and not any preconception. Pro should have to win that they can be unfair, don’t spot them that.
Opponent’s Case
Self Defense
Extend we end 484,000 crimes a year.
Guns save lives
Extend that harder gun access means less crime.
Guns can fight tyrann y
Extend that armed citizens cause human rights violations.
Guns are a deterrent
Extendthat this is untrue and can’t be weighed for Pro.
My case
Ban sales to anyone under 18
Extend that we stop thousands of preventable deaths.
Ban sales to anyone unable to pass a psychological check
Extend we stop a large chunk of the number of suicides.
Ban handguns
Extend we stop tons of crime and suicide.
Ban fully automatic weapons
Extend that mass shootings we would be exponentially more deadly.
Require licensing and training to own guns
Extend that we stop 535 accidental deaths a year and a ton of crime.
Create a firearm registry
Extend we prevent tons of crime.
Round 4
Con
#8
This is a copy and paste from my last speech as it's extensions of the preamble, case turns on Pro, and Con's case.
Preface
I’m going to extend the case piece by piece, however if you don’t want/need to have it extended like that, then just take this as an extend. Also, don’t give me a conduct point. I don’t know what Pro has going on in their life and only want to win argumentation. Every other factor should be tied.
Preamble
1. Extend that, regardless the model of the debate, I’m winning multiple regulations that don’t exist in the status quo, so you can vote Con no matter what.
2. Extend that the only cited definition doesn’t talk about multiple definitions, so I only need one. Also extend that a searchable definition is always better than one constructed by a debater because it creates a stable locus for us to debate from.
3. Extend that
A. The debates here can only be fair if we can hold debaters accountable to the rules set in the comments.
B. If they try to say that all six regulations defined by Con should be included in the world of Pro, this is proven unfairness in the round that would make it terminally impossible for Con to win this round.
C. Extend that fair, education, and fun debate only happens if we can use comments to clarify things before the debate starts.
4.Extend that this website collapses if people are not held to a fair threshold of how to interact in this space and only by voting them down so their rank/image suffers can we check back against this as a community.
5.Extend that you should determine if the comments can be used based on the arguments made in round and not any preconception. Pro should have to win that they can be unfair, don’t spot them that.
Opponent’s Case
Self Defense
Extend we end 484,000 crimes a year.
Guns save lives
Extend that harder gun access means less crime.
Guns can fight tyrann y
Extend that armed citizens cause human rights violations.
Guns are a deterrent
Extendthat this is untrue and can’t be weighed for Pro.
My case
Ban sales to anyone under 18
Extend that we stop thousands of preventable deaths.
Ban sales to anyone unable to pass a psychological check
Extend we stop a large chunk of the number of suicides.
Ban handguns
Extend we stop tons of crime and suicide.
Ban fully automatic weapons
Extend that mass shootings we would be exponentially more deadly.
Require licensing and training to own guns
Extend that we stop 535 accidental deaths a year and a ton of crime.
Create a firearm registry
Extend we prevent tons of crime.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
The description says Con is allowed to advocate for tighter gun control than the status quo. So Pro’s claim in R2 seems disingenuous to me, as if Con proves gun control should be tighter than it is right now, Con wins -- and I’m not sure why the words “on balance” in the resolution change that. That said, I don’t see why Con’s shell works; I don’t buy Con’s claim that my remedy should be to give Pro the loss because they broke the rules. My remedy is just to force Pro to abide by the rules; I’m generally hesitant to vote on theory arguments of this sort, and I don’t think Con explains why the only or best way to deter future violations is to vote Con.
Con argues that you disempower criminals, by denying them access to guns. I don’t think Con quite proves that there are ~485,000 fewer violent crimes in their world (as people could just use black market guns, or use alternatives to guns), but I buy that gun-related crimes are more common than the self-defense cases Pro names, thus outweighing self-defense. Guns being less attainable to stop crimes is also a better-explained mechanism than Pro’s claim about deterrence, which is largely a bare assertion, especially as Con points out that, without proper training, good samaritans and people engaging in self-defense might not be able to fight off a criminal. Finally, I don’t buy Pro’s tyranny claim, both due to Con’s impact turn (that sometimes, encouraging people to fight governments is bad), and because Pro doesn’t show that guns are sufficient to successfully fight tyrannical states. In general, Con advocates a series of regulations, and is fairly clear about how they’d work to attain these impacts -- the simplest ballot is that banning handguns would probably heavily mitigate the harms Con identifies, without suffering much of the disadvantages Pro names (given Con’s answers).
My main piece of feedback would be to warrant arguments better. A dropped argument is a concession if, and only if, the argument was warranted properly in the first place -- and at many points in this debate, there was either a brief mention of a claim without justification or explanation, a statistic without an analytical explanation, or an analytic without real-world evidence, and all of those could substantially weaken an argument.
Why did you tag me?
I only gave the debate some sort of half assed read and just saw one thing that sparked my attention when reading it. I am in no place to judge and the topic is not that interesting to me
Does the preamble stuff in my Round 2 speech make sense? I know Sir forfeited, so I'm not worried, just curious for other rounds.
I think I get your strategy now
I was hoping I'd at least get one answer from you.
I don't have to prove that no bad governments exist. I said that as a reason that we shouldn't arm citizens. If Sir.Lancelot puts our Nazi Germany, then I answer the warrant, but only in the context of the resolution. Also, for better or worse, there is an incentive in debate to put out the most ambitious version of an argument first. If it's dropped, you get that version. If it's not, you have the rest of the debate to clarify and nuance it. Also, I have two points, the one you said I should start with, and then the other one. You should have one piece of offense and defense on each argument at least. That's my offense.
I think your argument was zero bad governments exist but both your points are incorrect.
The Nazis got most of their weapons in the beer hall putsch through armories.
They disarmed 6 million Jews and killed them. Maybe it would have been 3 million if they could offer armed resistance, but that also misses the point that a lot of armed citizens could simply move to the country and unless you are going to send a war time military after them it would be pretty easy for them to live in peace.
Your other point about their enemy nations is beside the point as well. It only mitigates the effectiveness of an armed population not eliminates is and in America for example if 10% of citizens picked up arms against the government any allies of the rebels would have 30 million additional guns on their side.
None of that matters though, because your premises isn't that armed citizenry can't be effective against a tyrannical government. Your premises was that zero bad governments so or ever will exist.
I was curious about how you would handle it. Me personally if I through our a point like that it would be to just make my opponent waste space, now it looks like you are claiming you would waste space as well by instead of supporting your premise that bad governments don't exist you will throw out red herrings.
Those red herrings may be arguments against the 2nd amendment, but they don't support the premise and of "no bad governments exist" . It seems like you would be better off just immediately arguing that point you made in the last post, instead of waiting for them to disprove your premise.
Characters willing, I would argue these points
1. The fact that the Nazis were defeated by the Allies and not their own citizenry proves that citizens can't fight against tyranny. Winning bad governments exist isn't enough, Pro has to win that they can be defeated by armed citizens without foreign aid.
2. The Nazis took power through armed action that bullied themselves into the polls, bringing and end to the Weimar Republic. A society with no guns wouldn't have been bullied as such, so the offense still stands that armed citizens cause human rights violations.
So if he brought up Nazi Germany as a harmful state would you drop the argument or defend your stance?
Lol,
I was wondering if that was what you were doing. I have used something similar
I forgot about this debate and received a notif that I was running out of time while I was working on a response for a separate one.
It forces him to give examples, and I can then beat him in the examples. My argument doesn't have to be true, just has to be won.
Why didn't you give some rebuttals that round 2?
"Government good. Sir.Lancelot has no example of a harmful state. States provide security and equality, and armed citizens stand in the way of that."
Correct zero examples of a bad government or a good government turning bad exist. Chack mate.
Dude normally I would not comment but why even after that argument LOL.
No regulation.
Wait, so is the pro defending the status quo on gun control, or a world with no regulation?