Instigator / Con
Points: 49

All guns should be banned

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 7 votes the winner is ...
Alec
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Pro
Points: 18
Description
Rules of the debate:
1: The BoP is shared
2: I waive the 1st round and my opponent waives the last round. Violation is a loss of conduct point.
Round 1
Published:
Round waived because of debate rules.
Published:
Banning all guns sounds like an extreme position but I would postulate that our societies acceptance of guns for personal ownership and warfare is the real extreme position. Banning all guns is the most reasonable solution to gun violence because contrary to many gun-control advocates, it isn't possible for a society to determine which people can be trusted with guns. This argument comes down to a moral decision, is the right to bear arms more important than the right to life? The answer is No.

Round 2
Published:
Arguments:

1) Guns provide protection against criminals and the potential of a tyrannical government.  This is the 21st century, so a lot of arguments can be covered with memes.  Below are 2 memes that I think you should see for yourself:


2) Guns also reduce homicide.  Whenever an area bans guns, law abiding citizens turn in their guns but criminals still hang on to their guns.  Can you imagine what happens if a criminal is armed and a law abiding citizen(LAC) isn't?  The LAC gets robbed or shot or both.  If they try to call the police, they are shot. DC placed huge restrictions on guns in 1976 and their homicide rate stayed constant at best and skyrocketed at worse (1).  This means that gun control does nothing to stop homicide and may even increase homicide rates.  When they repealed their tough gun laws, the homicide rate fell.

Jamaica basically banned all guns and their already high homicide rate skyrocketed.

Jamaica’s homicide rate in 1973, before the gun ban, was 11.5 per 100 000. In 1977, three years after the ban was enacted, murder rates nearly doubled to 19.5. By 1980 the homicide rate had nearly quadrupled to 41.7, and peaked at 59.0 per 100 000 people in 2007. In summary, after having banned civilian ownership of guns, Jamaica experienced a near-fourfold increase in its homicide rate within a period of only 6 years. And the homicide rate has remained exorbitantly high ever since.


3) Guns are also useful in hunting, which can prevent some families from starving.

4) Guns reduce rape.  They not only protect your home from criminals and your freedom from a tyrannical government, they also protect your bodily autonomy by preventing rape.  Another meme below!  The women on the right won't get raped with her pistol to protect her.  The women on the left wishes she could do the same.



Rebuttals:
Banning all guns is the most reasonable solution to gun violence because contrary to many gun-control advocates, it isn't possible for a society to determine which people can be trusted with guns.
If the definition of "getting it right" is the person doesn't murder anyone with the gun, and vice versa, the vast majority of the time, the NRA or whoever sells the gun gets it right because the vast majority of guns will never be used in a mass shooting or with human to human gun violence in general.

This argument comes down to a moral decision, is the right to bear arms more important than the right to life? The answer is No.
The decision at least to the left and to a lesser extent the right, is how best to reduce gun violence?  This is why most people on the American left don't want to ban all guns, they merely want to ban AK 47 guns and similar guns.  Even the liberals in America, even AOC recognizes the usefulness of some guns, otherwise she would want to ban all guns.  Instead, she merely wants to ban AK47s or as she puts it, "Assault weapons".  She is the most left leaning American person that I know, even more left then Bernie Sanders.  Both the right and the left don't want to ban all guns and most societies that I know of that has banned all guns has experienced their homicide rate skyrocketing.  If your going to mention the UK, then the graph below shows that when they placed severe restrictions on them, their homicide rate spiked soon after the ban.  It went down after due to something else, but solely because of the gun ban, the homicide rate spiked.  Here is a graph below:



Back to you Pro.
Published:
There are non-lethal forms of self defense that can be used against criminals and guns are not a required to resist a tyrannical government, especially one without guns. When I say all guns should be banned I am working with the assumption that all guns are confiscated from everyone, including criminals. There are effective ways of confiscating all guns, and wile your sources say it's ineffective in the short term there is no reason to believe that violence from guns won't be eliminated when all guns are removed. Guns are not necessary for hunting so that is not a good reason not to ban them.

Round 3
Published:
There are non-lethal forms of self defense that can be used against criminals and guns are not a required to resist a tyrannical government
Like what?  A taser won't work if you miss and most guns shots in self defense are misses, it barely provides protection.  A whistle won't work and if you try to whistle, the criminal would shoot you anyways so you stop.  Karate doesn't work if your out of arm's reach of a criminal.  A gun works for longer distances.  Besides, most Americans don't know karate so it won't provide adequate protection for them.

When I say all guns should be banned I am working with the assumption that all guns are confiscated from everyone, including criminals.
Criminals will always get guns if they want them, whether by legal or illegal means.  Law abiding citizens will only get guns through legal ways.

There are effective ways of confiscating all guns
When the government has tried to do that, the criminals hide their guns more effectively and then they rape and kill unarmed people who can't defend themselves.

there is no reason to believe that violence from guns won't be eliminated when all guns are removed.
This is a concession.

Guns are not necessary for hunting so that is not a good reason not to ban them.
To the best of my knowledge, a hunting rifle is the most accurate device used for hunting.

I would like to list the arguments my opponent dropped:

Argument 2: Guns reduce homicide.
Argument 4: Guns reduce rape.

Unless he picks them up by the end of the 3rd round, these are dropped points that voters should consider when voting.

Back to you Pro.
Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
All big boy arguments extended.
Forfeited
Added:
--> @oromagi
Done.
Added:
--> @bsh1
#$%&@! Yes, and I stated Pro's case dominates when I meant Con's case dominates. You know who doesn't dominate? Me.
Pls. delete & I'll re-submit my vote.
Added:
--> @oromagi
Did you forget to award points again, lol?
Added:
--> @bsh1
Is this debate a partial forfeit?
Instigator
#162
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con provided arguments and statistics to back up his claims, while pro forfeited and when he did debate, he barely responded to con and went on his own tangent, which is not a proper debating technique.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument and sources points are not sufficiently justified. The voter completes none of the three steps to award argument points and none of the three steps to award sources points. Those steps can be located here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Whoops! Thanks. I totally spaced.
Added:
--> @bsh1
“A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited”
While not great - an argument was offered in round1 and round2
Added:
--> @Snoopy
Omar- "You are actually trolling here. I am done speaking to you."
says the troller lmao
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
>>What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
You are actually trolling here.
Is this meant with sincerity?
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Thank you for the sound advice
Added:
--> @Snoopy
>>What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
You are actually trolling here. I am done speaking to you.
Added:
**"What do you mean by "aren't necessarily less effective"?
**What metric are you using to get this conclusion?"
I don't necessarily use a metric in the sense that you do, but if a someone dies from an incident involving a collision with a car or bullet than I would consider both examples to be equally effective, and therefore the car is not necessarily less effective than a bullet in the context of homicide, assuming that both may convey lethal force. Both actually do, hence the initial statement.
**"Why are you not bringing in your own definition of effective instead of the one you use? "
Because you said it was false, and I'm NOT ARGUING. I am curious about how you approach the problem in respect to cars and guns. I'm not using a made up definition. I just don't have a good way of communicating that effective does not mean personal preference with you. If you are actually referring to personal preference, than I might have questions about that, but right now I'm asking about effectiveness.
Added:
--> @Snoopy
>>I said "aren't necessarily less effective". I'm not arguing with you... I'm not "dropping" arguments.
What do you mean by "aren't necessarily less effective"?
What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
Why are you not bringing in your own definition of effective instead of the made up one you use?
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
>>What is your stance on immigration?
A good thing.
>>Less regulations on who could come, keep it the same, or something else?
Don't know would require more knowledge of what the regulation is before I can say I want to improve, remove or add.
>>What do you think of birth right citizenship,
I think it easier that way. Haven't really thought about it when I don't think is the most important issue.
>>merit-based immigration,
I don't see how this is not met already. From my data immigration is a good thing for the economy so don't see why even add the merit part.
>>ways to keep track of immigrants with work visas?
Isn't this already in place? I don't know if it is bad or good since I haven't seen data to say it is.
>>Easier to attain I would disagree. You don't need a criminal background check before buying a car. The 86 dead people gives merit to the idea that cars may be more effective weapons.
It was mainly adding onto the cheap claim. Guns are cheaper and in some states don't require the person to have a license in order to have one. With cars it requires a driving test which is difficult for people who don't know how to drive. A person who is incapable with a gun can still buy it without having a test but do need a background check. Guns are easier to attain for these reasons. I can think of more but I'll leave it at that.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I said "aren't necessarily less effective". I'm not arguing with you... I'm not "dropping" arguments. You are not getting your point across because I am asking about effectiveness, while you continue to answer about personal preference in contrast with "to successfully produce the desired result". Are you pretending not to understand this?
#7
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro offered a few traditional arguments with minimum effort and absolutely zero evidence to support some big claims. Con gave 4 solid supports on offense (hunting, protection, reduced rape and murder) and one well reasoned counter on defense (reduced gun violence). Combined with fair sourcing, Con's case dominates. Conduct to Con for Pro's double forfeit and tepid effort.
#6
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro believe that guns can be peacefully confiscated but as Con points out, criminals aren't going to be totally affected. Most firearms used in crime are unregistered, so it would be impossible to confiscate from criminals.
Cons argument that gun violence and crime overall have risen in places with gun bans is excellent proof that a ban won't work. Here, Con also gets sources.
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to Con for the Forfeit.
Con efficiently explained how guns reduce homicide rates and protect from rape, which pro dropped both of those points. Con also refuted the point that other forms of self-defense than guns are useful. Con also said and refuted the point from pro by pointing out criminals will get guns either way, so if you ban them they will get it illegally. Con is the only one that sourced, and pro did not back up his claims with any sources and skipped over some of pro's arguments which were sourced. Congrats Alec for smashing another liberal.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Pros only argument appears to be that gun control is extreme - his opening round seemed to be an assertion that they should be banned rather than providing reasons. Likewise his own only other argument is that non lethal weapons can be used.
Cons argument is effectively built up of statistics, and arguing that banning weapons is counter productive. He also argues that non lethal alternatives are not sufficient for defense and to mitigate the harms of a ban.
Pro simply does not offer enough in his two generic and overly simplistic rounds to over turn these described harms, and thus arguments must be given to con too.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con used sources to back up a somewhat troll angle of 'cops need guns' and rested on this being the primary way to attack banning guns for civilians. Pro didn't dismiss this or call it debating in bad faith, instead Pro says cops don't need lethal force. Con brought up a few scenarios where tasers won't be enough and also analysed the effect of guns on rape and homicide being lower. Pro never challenges these findings or trends.
Pro forfeited 2 Rounds and was all-around lazy. Therefore conduct goes to Con as well. Pro never used a source.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The instigator did not forfeit whereas the contender did.
The instigator provided sources for his arguments whereas the contender did not.
Neither side explained their point so I don't want to give the most convincing argument to either because one only gave claims while the other gave claims with evidence. Explanation is required in order for the reader to understand clearly what you are trying to say with your claim.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro FF 2 rounds which is poor conduct