Instigator / Con
21
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#514
All guns should be banned
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
Alec
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
9
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
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
Because of the rules, I waive this round.
Thank you, Alec, for this debate. This is an issue that I am quite passionate about. I look forward to debating you once again. I wish to begin my speech by defining a few key terms.
Firearm: (3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Banned: to prohibit especially by legal means
I. The Plan
My plan is to ban all guns and institute a mandatory gun buyback program. The program would pay 1.5% of the market value rate. When it comes to hunting there should be strict control over guns for hunting. I would put guns in a government-run armory that allows guns to be used for hunting and then require the hunters to return the guns when they are finished.
II. Value Premise: Protection of the innocent
The value that I wish to present today is the government's duty to protect the innocent. This is a basic duty of government. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution states gives the government power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The criterion that I wish to uphold this value is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that determines if an action is right if they are beneficial of the majority. Utilitarianism is the framework that is used in almost all major forms of public policy discussions. Weapons of war in the hands of private citizens have no place in such a society.
C1: Gun violence is out of control
The CDC estimates that over 40,000 people were killed by firearms in the United States in 2017. This is, on average, 109 gun deaths every single day. Since Sandy Hook mass shooting there have been over 1900 mass shootings. This is unacceptable and the government has a moral duty to stop this by any means necessary.
C2: Gun bans work
Everywhere where there have been effective gun bans, gun deaths and violence plummeted significantly. More than 130 studies have been done that all come to the same conclusion. "Across countries, instead of seeing an increase in the homicide rate, we saw a reduction."
Conclusion
The government has a moral duty to protect its citizens and protect the innocent. Gun bans work and will save lives.
Thank you, Alec. I turn this debate back over to you.
Round 2
I thank Virtuoso for engaging with the debate. He has provided definitions and although I would have preferred it if he asked if the definitions were okay beforehand, I nonetheless accept the big boy definitions.
Arguments:
1: Protection:
Guns provide protection against criminals and the potential of a tyrannical government. Whenever an area bans guns, law abiding citizens tend to turn in their guns but criminals still hang on to their guns, because criminals don't care about the law. Can you imagine what happens if a criminal is armed and a law abiding citizen(LAC for potential future reference) isn't? The LAC might gets robbed, raped, shot, or multiple of these things.
You might point out a site that states that guns increase rape, however non partisan reports confirm the opposite. Chicago repealed their handgun ban in 2010 and their rape rate fell by about 10% in that time(5).
2: Guns in the hands of LACs reduce homicide as stats confirm:
DC banned 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. Chicago's gun ban fails to prevent murders according to NPR, a center left source:
Guns are also useful in hunting, which can prevent some families from starving to death which saves lives from dying a very painful starvation based death.
Rebuttals:
The program would pay 1.5% of the market value rate.
1.5% of the market value rate would not be enough compensation for their means of individual protection. This would mean that if the gun was worth $250, then the gun owning citizen would get merely $3.75 back for the gun. This would not be good restitution for losing a gun. How did you come up with 1.5% for the gun anyway?
Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution states gives the government power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
This is a reference to the fact that we should have a strong military. It states, "Common Defence". If it meant to take away our guns, then not only would the 2nd amendment not exist as we know it, but this part of the constitution would say, "provide for the common and individual defence" or just "provide for the defence". It states that the government would provide for common defence but individual defence is up to the individual. This defence is provided by guns.
This is, on average, 109 gun deaths every single day.
As tragic as the loss of life is, it is also extremely rare and would be more common if guns were banned. Vox stated that an increase in guns leads to an increase in homicide, however, on that chart that they posted, none of these countries banned all guns for all uses. Even the UK allows shotguns with a strict permit(4). Also, this easily could be due to other factors, such as Americans tend to be more culturally violent, aggressive, and ambitious then Europeans and this results in higher homicide rates. A better comparison would be to compare an area before they abolish guns and after they abolish them or vice versa to see how the homicide rate changed. As I stated earlier, when D.C. and Chicago repealed their gun bans, their homicide rate plummeted.
The claim that "gun bans work"
I read the site you stated and it merely advocated for gun restrictions, not a gun ban. It stated that:
that these overhauls generally included:
- Banning "weapons that are actually very powerful", for example, automatic weapons.
- Implementing background checks.
- "They all required permits and licenses for purchasing guns," Santaella-Tenorio told Vox.
So the site doesn't advocate for gun bans, but merely advocates for restrictions on guns. This debate isn't "Do we ban semi automatic weapons" or, "Should we have more background checks" but it's "All guns should be banned" including a rifle that can only shoot one bullet at a time. This even includes banning guns for the government. You stated:
When it comes to hunting there should be strict control over guns for hunting. I would put guns in a government-run armory that allows guns to be used for hunting and then require the hunters to return the guns when they are finished.
This means that even you support some parties owning some guns in some situations, which is contradictory to the position that you took in this debate.
Sources:
I’m gonna have to skip this round. I didn’t realize that this was a 2 day argument rather than a 3 day argument. I apologize to Alec
Round 3
I’m gonna have to skip this round. I didn’t realize that this was a 2 day argument rather than a 3 day argument. I apologize to Alec
I'm assuming your busy with something and I have been in these situations before, so I know what it's like. Mikal, the best debater in DDO, also had a situation like this once. Hope you get done what you need to get done.
I plan on waiting until you say an argument to make this a fair debate.
Forfeited
Round 4
I don't mean to be rude, but I am waiting. My opponent won't have to do much; he simply has to waive the last round. Maybe we can have a debate on this when both of us have enough time. Does this sound good Virtuoso?
The end. Sorry I got busy
Good game.
Should I respond to the debate?
Big Boy argument posted. Should I say Big boy in excess?
Posted!
I love short text debates with less than 5000 characters!
"I'll accept and you can see". I sense a trap
I'll accept and you can see, ok?
What are the definitions?
If I accept, will you allow me to provide the definitions?
Yeah, I'm aware of the semantics, guess who SportsGuru is.
Think about it.
The level of semantics CON employs is the point!
That's an old debate!
It's not like I can edit the debate to change this.
Check out this debate!
https://www.debate.org/debates/Wikipedia-should-be-a-valid-source-for-projects-in-schools/1/
=)
Nothing about this debate indicates that.
You don't have to defend those guns being banned. If you were to accept this, you would just have to defend firearms being banned.
If I were to accept this, I would have to defend that glue guns and nail guns should be banned
What do you mean?
Not gonna put definitions?