Instigator / Pro
Redpilled's avatar
0
Redpilled
1500
rating
11
debates
36.36%
won
Topic
#4844

the government needs to stop interfering with gun ownership

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Tags
Politics
Gun control
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Average_Person's avatar
0
Average_Person
1516
rating
20
debates
87.5%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Redpilled's avatar
Redpilled
Pro
#1
Leading up to the revolution, gun ownership was unrestricted, until 1774, when the British banned the import on powder and firearms. In 1775, they demanded that the colonists (who had broken no laws with their guns) register them to the crown. One year later they had a revolution on their hands. 

The founding fathers built this country around the idea of small government and personal freedom. They had seen first hand how useful guns where in their victory against the British, so they established in the bill of rights, which is really a rule book written by the people restricting what the government can do, that the government doesn't have the power to take away citizens' guns. It really says 'arms' which would including things like large knives and swords, but nobody paid attention when local governments set strict, constitution violating laws regarding blades.

when it comes to crime, why do we think more gun laws will work anyways? The criminals don't follow the laws we already have, that's why their criminals. If you make it illegal to shoot up a mall, does that mean nobody's going to do it? Looking at recent history it would appear not. In LA, it is illegal to carry a firearm in public without a CCW. 9/10 criminals carry their firearms illigaly, without one. If you ban extended magazine's for example, it will just become an underground trade. People will still produce them, trade them, and use them on the streets. Law abiding citizens though, who need their guns to defend themselves from criminals and the government, will no longer have extended magazines, so when it comes time they are up against and bad guy with100 round and they only have 5, they have a huge disadvantage. 

A similar idea with the government. The reason the founding fathers saw gun ownership as so important wasn't for self defense against criminals, but rather to overthrow to government if it became too powerful. The government is simply using public safety as an excuse to take our guns to elevate themselves to a more powerful status.
In addition, it is highly ironic that the politicians who advocate for the blatant violation of the peoples' rights are protected by the guns they so much want to ban. Of course they want to ban guns, because they will still have them, putting themselves in a position of ultimate power that the fathers would be horrified to see.

It isn't debatable whether Americans have the right to unrestricted gun access, it says so in our bill of rights. But when anti gunners take our rights little by little, inch by inch, nobody notices the severe violations. Now what we must do is rally the politicians who truly believe in what this country means, before we have another revolution.
1774 Britain disarms it's colonies... thousands die in the revolution that ensues.
1911... Turkey disarms it's citizens... shortly after 1.5 million Armenians are murdered

1929... Russia disarms it's citizens... over the next 24 years 20 million Russians are murdered.

1935... China disarms it's citizens... Between 1948 and 1952 20 million Chinese are murdered

1938... Germany disarms it's citizens... over the next 7 years, 8 million Jews are murdered.

1956... Cambodia disarms it's citizens... 1975-1977 1 million people are murdered

1964... Guatemala disarms it's citizens... then goes on to murder 100,000 Mayans

1970... Uganda disarms it's citizens... over the next decade 300,000 Christians are murdered

2012... Venezuela disarms it's citizens... we are still seeing the result today.
Average_Person's avatar
Average_Person
Con
#2
BOP

Since CON is arguing a negative of a negative, he must prove that the government should place 0% control over gun ownership. Conversely, I must prove that the government must place some degree of control over gun ownership.

Definitions

By government, I assume CON refers to the US government since he says “The revolution” instead of “American revolution” and tends to focus more on America as a whole and downsizing this debate to one country.

I’ll follow this definition.

Arg

My argument is very simple, because that is all it needs to be.

Without the government interfering in gun control, there would be no laws against gun control (because laws against gun control = interfering with gun control)

This means that anyone, including children, can have guns.

P1: If the government does not interfere in gun control, children can have guns.

If children had guns, then some of them would intentionally or unintentionally shoot themselves or others. 

We already see this in modern society due to 58% of shooting deaths among children and teens being homicides [1]. Guns were not kept away properly, and easy access can lead to homicide without the children even knowing the gun’s true potential. [2] In fact, 900 children 5 and under found a gun and unintentionally shot themselves or a family member[3]

P2: If children have guns, they can intentionally or unintentionally shoot themselves or others.

C1 (P1+P2): If the government does not interfere in gun control, children can intentionally or unintentionally shoot themselves or others.

For obvious reasons, this quantity of unnecessary homicide and injury is of course, is harmful to a country. It is effectively diminishing the population size and morale when countries are meant to grow and thrive in the 21st century. This will be only more escalated if there were no gun laws if the government does not place some degree of control over gun ownership, due to the sheer number of shooting deaths and injuries.

Let’s define that as C2:

C2: If the government does not interfere in gun control, the country will be less safe due to a lack of responsibility in gun ownership.

Effectively this position stands as:

If the government does not interfere in gun control
  • Children can intentionally or unintentionally shoot themselves
  • The country will be less safe due to a lack of responsibility in gun ownership
  • Gun injuries and deaths will only increase due to this lack of responsibility and control=

The government should place some degree of gun control because:
  • The government can prevent unnecessary homicide and injury due to child possession of guns, and other normally disallowed gun control
  • The country will be more safe due to the control over guns, preventing an otherwise 



Cool. Now I will refute every single one of Con’s arguments.

Refutations

Leading up to the revolution, gun ownership was unrestricted
  • Not entirely true. In colonial america, slaves often robbed gun shops and shot slave owners. Therefore, laws were created in 1600s and 1700s America to prevent Black people from having weapons due to the slave revolts. 

The founding fathers built this country around the idea of small government and personal freedom. They had seen first hand how useful guns where in their victory against the British, so they established in the bill of rights, which is really a rule book written by the people restricting what the government can do, that the government doesn't have the power to take away citizens' guns. It really says 'arms' which would including things like large knives and swords, but nobody paid attention when local governments set strict, constitution violating laws regarding blades.
  • I don’t think thats how laws work. You can’t just go like “hmm… anime isn’t useful to society, let’s go ban it.” (what the heck)



when it comes to crime, why do we think more gun laws will work anyways? The criminals don't follow the laws we already have, that's why their criminals. If you make it illegal to shoot up a mall, does that mean nobody's going to do it? Looking at recent history it would appear not. In LA, it is illegal to carry a firearm in public without a CCW. 9/10 criminals carry their firearms illigaly, without one. If you ban extended magazine's for example, it will just become an underground trade. People will still produce them, trade them, and use them on the streets. Law abiding citizens though, who need their guns to defend themselves from criminals and the government, will no longer have extended magazines, so when it comes time they are up against and bad guy with100 round and they only have 5, they have a huge disadvantage. 
  • The fact that you want to make it legal will only increase the number of mall shootings, and other public shootings. You’re essentially putting a strawman fallacy here. You assume that since public shootings still happen now with gun control, they will be at the same level without gun control, failing to acknowledge the potential increase in public shootings since you are making gun ownership legal to LITERALLY ANYONE.
A similar idea with the government. The reason the founding fathers saw gun ownership as so important wasn't for self defense against criminals, but rather to overthrow to government if it became too powerful. The government is simply using public safety as an excuse to take our guns to elevate themselves to a more powerful status.
  • First of all, you have no proof of this.
  • Second of all, it was based on prior laws of specifically self defense of native american attacks. [5]

In addition, it is highly ironic that the politicians who advocate for the blatant violation of the peoples' rights are protected by the guns they so much want to ban. Of course they want to ban guns, because they will still have them, putting themselves in a position of ultimate power that the fathers would be horrified to see.
  • Laws are laws, even politicians can’t avoid them.

It isn't debatable whether Americans have the right to unrestricted gun access, it says so in our bill of rights. But when anti gunners take our rights little by little, inch by inch, nobody notices the severe violations. Now what we must do is rally the politicians who truly believe in what this country means, before we have another revolution.
  • What the heck, and how is this related to your argument?
  • There are laws about who can get guns and who can't (e.g. you can't be a child and buy a gun... all you will get is an Airsoft or a NERF gun.

1774 Britain disarms it's colonies... thousands die in the revolution that ensues.


1911... Turkey disarms it's citizens... shortly after 1.5 million Armenians are murdered


1929... Russia disarms it's citizens... over the next 24 years 20 million Russians are murdered.


1935... China disarms it's citizens... Between 1948 and 1952 20 million Chinese are murdered


1938... Germany disarms it's citizens... over the next 7 years, 8 million Jews are murdered.

1956... Cambodia disarms it's citizens... 1975-1977 1 million people are murdered

1964... Guatemala disarms it's citizens... then goes on to murder 100,000 Mayans

1970... Uganda disarms it's citizens... over the next decade 300,000 Christians are murdered

2012... Venezuela disarms it's citizens... we are still seeing the result today.


All of these just shows that gun control is important, else we will have more genocides like this, only carried out by people rather than the government.

Likewise, you refer to “government” as the american government, yet do not include any examples of genocides that happened in america itself. People die in wars, including the revolution. That’s obvious, and doesn’t realy prove anything.

You only acknowledge what happens in genocides, which essentially are 1-sided civil wars. However, you fail to acknowledge the devastating impacts that happen during domestic times.




Round 2
Redpilled's avatar
Redpilled
Pro
#3
Starting off with "If the government does not interfere in gun control, children can have guns."  

There are instances of up until at least the last 100 years of children being able to buy guns. However, why didn't we have a problem with children accidently shooting themselves until about 50ish years ago? Because one guns were a lot more expensive and a child often couldn't afford one, just as a child can't afford an iPhone now, and secondly because parents taught gun safety, so much so that it became a piece of American culture for fathers to take their young children hunting or to the range. Because young children had so much more of an understanding of guns then as opposed to they do now, there were many less self-deletes.

In the early days of the United States, there were no gun laws regarding age at which one could purchase a firearm. Therefore, it was up to the parents of the children to ensure their guns were safely stowed. There are no historical examples of journals from back then stating "oh my child tragically shot herself with a gun". It didn't happen because the guns were not loaded or if they were loaded, they were kept out of reach of children. So maybe instead of the government restricting access, parents should be more responsible. If we follow this logic with all other dangerous household items, soon enough we'll be required to keep our car keys in a safe.


Next point "If the government does not interfere in gun control, the country will be less safe due to a lack of responsibility in gun ownership."

If you are arguing that gun control makes gun owners safer and more responsible, then Chicago should be one of the safest places in the country, considering how much gun control it has. Criminals are the one's committing gun crimes 100% of the time. That's why they are called CRIMinals.  So if criminals are already breaking the law, why would more laws make them more responsible? It make no sense. It's like saying "ok responsible gun owners who keep their guns locked up and don't shoot people, let's create more laws in order to solve the crime that's happening not caused by you" so say an extended mag ban is passed and now all the law abiding gun owners who never committed a crime turn in their magazines. Meanwhile the criminals who have been breaking laws almost every day for who knows how long, have no intention of following this one, nor are they deterred by the extra charge it could get them. So now we have the responsible people who followed the law and got nothing in return, because the criminals are commiting just are many crimes as before.

As for speaking of mass shooters, most buy their guns legally, so more background checks or a gun registry wouldn't solve that problem. As for those who don't buy them legally, they often steal them from family members. This often times cannot be faulted on the family members, as they wouldn't have any idea what their loved ones are planning to do. And even if they did keep them in a safe, a safe could be broken into in a matter of minutes. Speaking more on safe storage and training laws, these just make guns more inaccessible to those who need them the most, the single mother who works two full time jobs and is just barely scraping by. She lives in a city, and walks home from work or takes the metro, often at night. She can't afford to buy a $3000 safe or have a $2000 training class, she can barely afford a $100 gun. So now you make this at risk person indefensible, and someone is more likely to attack him or her.

I could go on about that one but moving on to "gun laws in colonial America"

I know that we can both agree that the laws targeting blacks in the colonies were wrong. However, in the example you stated of the Stono rebellion, the slaves committed a crime by robbing the store, and another by killing other people. So what makes you think another law making it illegal to hold a gun would help? As for the laws that came after that, they were unfair and should not be applied in today's society, because they were racist, and we no longer have slave, AND we now understand that EVERYONE, not just white men, were created equal and should be treated fairly under the law.



"The fact that you want to make it legal will only increase the number of mall shootings, and other public shootings. You’re essentially putting a strawman fallacy here. You assume that since public shootings still happen now with gun control, they will be at the same level without gun control, failing to acknowledge the potential increase in public shootings since you are making gun ownership legal to LITERALLY ANYONE."

First of all gun ownership would not be eligible for felons, that is a fair law we had in some one the early states. Second, real world experience shows us that the opposite is true. Remember that mall shooting in Indiana where a concealed carrier stopped the gunman in seconds? Police take around 5 minutes to take down a shooter at least. People who are already on the scene can do it in seconds. If people are going to shoot up malls (which they will continue to do until we can change the culture back to what it was 75 years ago when we still had guns but people were reasonable) then it is better to have good guys with guns posted randomly around cities to counter bad guys with guns, who will be there regardless of what laws are set. There will not be an increase in public shootings as we can see, there are no more public shootings per capita in conservative states than there are liberal states, however what will change is the average time a public shooting lasts will go down, and therefor the number of people shot will go down.

"In addition, it is highly ironic that the politicians who advocate for the blatant violation of the peoples' rights are protected by the guns they so much want to ban. Of course they want to ban guns, because they will still have them, putting themselves in a position of ultimate power that the fathers would be horrified to see.
  • Laws are laws, even politicians can’t avoid them."
You are correct, which is why it's odd how politicians can live in a place like DC or visit NY and have 50 guys with guns, sometimes long guns, surrounding them, meanwhile the general public has no guns, because the carry of them has been outlawed. So when you say that, you are saying the correct words but somehow, politicians have been avoiding them and most likely will continue to.

"It isn't debatable whether Americans have the right to unrestricted gun access, it says so in our bill of rights. But when anti gunners take our rights little by little, inch by inch, nobody notices the severe violations. Now what we must do is rally the politicians who truly believe in what this country means, before we have another revolution.
  • What the heck, and how is this related to your argument?
  • There are laws about who can get guns and who can't (e.g. you can't be a child and buy a gun... all you will get is an Airsoft or a NERF gun."
It would appear you are not thinking before you write things. There are laws about who can have guns (obviously) but what I am saying in the first part of the statement about it is "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" especially the shall not be infringed part, is very clear that the government shall not restrict citizens' right to keep arms.



"All of these just shows that gun control is important, else we will have more genocides like this, only carried out by people rather than the government.

Likewise, you refer to “government” as the american government, yet do not include any examples of genocides that happened in america itself. People die in wars, including the revolution. That’s obvious, and doesn’t really prove anything.

You only acknowledge what happens in genocides, which essentially are 1-sided civil wars. However, you fail to acknowledge the devastating impacts that happen during domestic times."


 I haven't included any lists of genocides in America because there have been no genocides in America because the government is scared to attack us because we have guns. FYI according to the international definition of genocide a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide." discrimination toward black Americans does not fit under the definition of genocide, it fits under the definition of discrimination, so don't bring it up saying "white people commited genocide toward blacks in America" because no they didn't

Speaking toward the list of genocides, you could place a list of mass shootings, but totaled up the number dead would only be in the 1000s. The list of genocides totalled up in in the tens of millions. This is because governments are more effective at killing people than citizens. So if guns are necessary to prevent a genocide, then we should have them. Also while geocide is something that can be observed throughout history, mass murder doesn't appear on the map until the 70s. Early guns didn't have the ability to mass murder, but since around the 1890s guns have had that capability. So why don't we see mass murders for that 80 year time span without a bunch of laws? It's because people saw guns differently than they do now. And that is the way to stop shootings, change the way people see guns, like they did way back when, and change the way people look at life itself.












Average_Person's avatar
Average_Person
Con
#4
There are instances of up until at least the last 100 years of children being able to buy guns. However, why didn't we have a problem with children accidently shooting themselves until about 50ish years ago? Because one guns were a lot more expensive and a child often couldn't afford one, just as a child can't afford an iPhone now, and secondly because parents taught gun safety, so much so that it became a piece of American culture for fathers to take their young children hunting or to the range. Because young children had so much more of an understanding of guns then as opposed to they do now, there were many less self-deletes.

In the early days of the United States, there were no gun laws regarding age at which one could purchase a firearm. Therefore, it was up to the parents of the children to ensure their guns were safely stowed. There are no historical examples of journals from back then stating "oh my child tragically shot herself with a gun". It didn't happen because the guns were not loaded or if they were loaded, they were kept out of reach of children. So maybe instead of the government restricting access, parents should be more responsible. If we follow this logic with all other dangerous household items, soon enough we'll be required to keep our car keys in a safe.


  • Notice that this debate is talking about now.
  • Pro has conceded C1 (If the government does not interfere in gun control, children can intentionally or unintentionally shoot themselves or others.)
  • Pro is speculating anything WITHOUT ANY SOURCES.


If you are arguing that gun control makes gun owners safer and more responsible, then Chicago should be one of the safest places in the country, considering how much gun control it has. Criminals are the one's committing gun crimes 100% of the time. That's why they are called CRIMinals.  So if criminals are already breaking the law, why would more laws make them more responsible? It make no sense. It's like saying "ok responsible gun owners who keep their guns locked up and don't shoot people, let's create more laws in order to solve the crime that's happening not caused by you" so say an extended mag ban is passed and now all the law abiding gun owners who never committed a crime turn in their magazines. Meanwhile the criminals who have been breaking laws almost every day for who knows how long, have no intention of following this one, nor are they deterred by the extra charge it could get them. So now we have the responsible people who followed the law and got nothing in return, because the criminals are commiting just are many crimes as before.

As for speaking of mass shooters, most buy their guns legally, so more background checks or a gun registry wouldn't solve that problem. As for those who don't buy them legally, they often steal them from family members. This often times cannot be faulted on the family members, as they wouldn't have any idea what their loved ones are planning to do. And even if they did keep them in a safe, a safe could be broken into in a matter of minutes. Speaking more on safe storage and training laws, these just make guns more inaccessible to those who need them the most, the single mother who works two full time jobs and is just barely scraping by. She lives in a city, and walks home from work or takes the metro, often at night. She can't afford to buy a $3000 safe or have a $2000 training class, she can barely afford a $100 gun. So now you make this at risk person indefensible, and someone is more likely to attack him or her.

  • Allow me to explain some logic here.
  • Pro’s entire argument is effectively invalid due to the Denying the antecedent fallacy because when I say “P implies Q”, he instantly says “not P implies not Q is false”. This effectively is not appropriate and does not mean anything here.
  • (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)
  • Pro HAS NO SOURCES HERE


most buy their guns legally


Essentially all of Pro’s rebuttals up till this point are wasted because he not only commits fallacies and conceded C1, but also refuses to provide sources for the most arbitrary claims.



I know that we can both agree that the laws targeting blacks in the colonies were wrong. However, in the example you stated of the Stono rebellion, the slaves committed a crime by robbing the store, and another by killing other people. So what makes you think another law making it illegal to hold a gun would help? As for the laws that came after that, they were unfair and should not be applied in today's society, because they were racist, and we no longer have slave, AND we now understand that EVERYONE, not just white men, were created equal and should be treated fairly under the law.
  • You do realize that the entire rebellion was revenge due to inhumane slavery.
  • Slavery isn’t even legal now, so we do need gun control obviously.
  • There is no slavery so there is no need to fear slaves “committed a crime by robbing the store and another by killing other people '' in modern society.
  • Your arguments effectively have no support, as once again, YOU USE NO SOUCES AND BASE EVERYTHING ON OPINION.


not just white men, were created equal and should be treated fairly under the law.
  • Funny how racism still exists.

Remember that mall shooting in Indiana where a concealed carrier stopped the gunman in seconds? Police take around 5 minutes to take down a shooter at least. 
  • No I don’t and you provide zero sources so how the actual heck would I know.
  • Also, this is in modern times WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE GUN CONTROL
  • Pro is generalizing claims about not having gun control with examples of gun control.
  • That’s another fallacy, mate.

There will not be an increase in public shootings as we can see, there are no more public shootings per capita in conservative states than there are liberal states, however what will change is the average time a public shooting lasts will go down, and therefor the number of people shot will go down.
  • Where is the evidence for this lol


You are correct
  • Pro concedes that everybody must obey the law, even for gun control.


which is why it's odd how politicians can live in a place like DC or visit NY and have 50 guys with guns, sometimes long guns, surrounding them, meanwhile the general public has no guns, because the carry of them has been outlawed. So when you say that, you are saying the correct words but somehow, politicians have been avoiding them and most likely will continue to.
  • Bodyguards are essentially police for politicians. For example, Biden has his own national police, obviously.

It would appear you are not thinking before you write things. There are laws about who can have guns (obviously) but what I am saying in the first part of the statement about it is "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" especially the shall not be infringed part, is very clear that the government shall not restrict citizens' right to keep arms.

  • If I’m not thinking before I am writing things, I don’t even know what to say about your arguments
  • There are additional laws past the second amendment further restricting gun control. The only citation you provide is the 2nd amendment which is historic compared to many gun laws
  • Many improvements to gun control occurred in the 1900s with mass shootings (https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/)



a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide." 
  • No citation
  • What do you think ethnic means (aspect of culture)
  • What do you think national means (aspect of politics)
  • Effectively another useless rebuttal from PRO.




In conclusion:
  • Pro has failed or provide valid reasoning
  • Pro generalizes claims about not having gun control, and uses examples where there already is sufficient gun control
  • Due to this, Pro has effectively not presented valid reasoning
  • Pro has ZERO SOURCES EFFECTIVELY USED (you can’t just put links at the bottom and expect us to know what they are used for… that’s not how sources work)
  • I have sufficiently proved through syllogism and examples why gun control is necessary
  • VOTE CON.