Instigator / Pro
14
1456
rating
28
debates
58.93%
won
Topic
#5524
We need better gun control
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Owen_T
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
8
1453
rating
43
debates
56.98%
won
Description
Specifically, the con must argue that we need less/no change to gun control laws as they are currently.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thousands of men, woman, and children die from guns.
We live in a country where 69% of parents say they moderately to extremely fear mass shootings at their child's school.
In 2023, 6,192 children were shot by a gun.
Think about that for a moment. That final number alone stands as enough reason that something needs to change. I'm not saying that we should go crazy. I'm saying that what we are doing now is obviously not enough.
For the simplicity and focus of this argument, I will not go into detail regarding what exact measures could be used to mitigate these numbers, unless so requested by Con.
I will, however, provide a common example. New Zealand. New Zealand has far more regulations on guns than the U.S has. In 2023. The numbers below are both including suicides:
New Zealand has 2.4 gun deaths per a million people.
The U.S. has 57.3 gun deaths per a million people.
Safe to say that maybe we should manage our gun control a little more like New Zealand.
Just to be very clear, citizens of New Zealand are allowed to own guns, there is no law against it. The only difference is the extra layer of precautions and gun control. You have to go through background checks, no matter where you buy the gun. The background checks are to date and more in depth. None of these things stop good gun owners from getting guns.
We need to be doing more to make sure that good gun owners are the only gun owners in the U.S.
Here are the sources I used for the numbers:
Con
#2
Pro is using a statistical argument to say that gun control needs to be increased. However, when we get into the statistics, gun-related deaths do not affect even 1% of the population.
The state with the highest number of gun-related deaths is Mississippi, and that is only 29.6 per 100,000 people. That is only 0.0296 percent. In contrast, the lowest number of gun-related deaths is in the state of Massachusetts, which only has 3.3 deaths per 100,000 people. That is only 0.0033 percent. So, I ask both the audience and my opponent this question: What is the point of increasing restrictions on guns when not even 1% of Americans are dying from it a year? Even Pro's own math establishes this as a fact. States With the Highest Gun Death Rates | Best States | U.S. News (usnews.com) States With the Highest Gun Death Rates | Best States | U.S. News (usnews.com)
While mass shootings are scary, parents are naturally in their right to be afraid of them; how can that justify the use of gun restrictions? The US has over 130,930 schools. Out of that number, only 348 schools were subject to mass shootings in 2023. Schoolshootings in the United States - statistics and facts | Statista That is latterly only 0.00027 percent. You literally have a higher chance of getting a heart attack from a bad diet than getting shot in the US, much less a mass shooting at a school.
It is great that New Zealand is doing well within its own country on the issue of laws. However, America is a different society with its unique problems. They cannot be solved by imported double talk. Furthermore, gun violence is not even an issue that is affecting most Americans as it stands. Are we really going to risk violating the 2nd Amendment, causing civil unrest, and wasting government time and resources on something that isn’t a statistical problem? I believe alternative solutions, such as buffing up security in schools, are far better investments than the failed experiment known as “gun control,” which has not stopped any mass shooing up to date.
Round 2
Pro
#3
The bulk of your argument is that, in proportion to the rest of the population, the victims of gun violence seem like such a small number that their lives don't matter enough to enact new gun restrictions. You make that clear in your question:
So, I ask both the audience and my opponent this question: What is the point of increasing restrictions on guns when not even 1% of Americans are dying from it a year?
That "1%" number is a mask for 18,874 lives! 18,874 thousand! Excluding all those who lost their lives from suicide! The constitution clearly states that each person has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is the government's duty to protect them.
Also, that number is just those who were shot. It disregards the family and friends who knew that person, who would be torn apart by grief, and the ripple effect that has. So, saying that 18,874 lives aren't important enough to take action on couldn't be less true. On top of that, your numbers only talked about the people who died, and they excluded the injuries, and trauma guns are also a result of guns.
My counter argument also applies to your point about school's shootings. No matter how small the percentage is, I think that an attempted massacre in 348 schools, and some, tragically, aren't only attempted, in fact, justifies action.
It is great that New Zealand is doing well within its own country on the issue of laws. However, America is a different society with its unique problems. They cannot be solved by imported double talk.
I disagree. The logic of the regulations is exactly the same, the situation and the regulations aren't different. New Zealand was just the example. We have also seen more (and more well thought out) gun regulations lower gun violence in a multitude of countries.
Are we really going to risk violating the 2nd Amendment...
Where in the second amendment does it state that reasonable regulation is illegal.
... causing civil unrest, and wasting government time and resources on something that isn’t a statistical problem?
This debate is not about the process of establishing such laws, it is only about whether or not they're a good idea or not.
I believe alternative solutions, such as buffing up security in schools, are far better investments than the failed experiment known as “gun control,” which has not stopped any mass shooing up to date.
It would certainly be cheaper to implement regulations than effectively modify every school; besides, school shootings are only a small part of the problem.
"which (gun control) has not stopped any mass shooing up to date."
That is exactly one of my points. Current gun control is obviously ineffective and needs expanded upon and improved.
Con
#4
My esteemed opponent is making an emotional-based argument, not a logical or factual one.
That "1%" number is a mask for 18,874 lives! 18,874 thousand! Excluding all those who lost their lives from suicide! The constitution clearly states that each person has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is the government's duty to protect them.
The US Constitution does not say people have aright to life. That is not a proper representation of the law. Secondly, have you never heard the term death and taxes? Yes, people dying is sad, but people die every day. No law or regulation can prevent that. Trying to enforce more legislation that has already failed us just because people die is not practical.
Where in the second amendment does it state that reasonable regulation is illegal.
Pro does not seem to understand that the term “reasonable "is a subjective term that can easily go against the 2nd Amendment. Some states think it is reasonable to allow people to open curry; others do not. Regulation based on the subjective term “reasonable” is a disaster of a plan.
It would certainly be cheaper to implement regulations than effectively modify every school; besides, school shootings are only a small part of the problem.
No, the cheapest option would be to do nothing at all since the death rate is incredibly low. But that would not be practical, so creating better security measures is the fastest and next best thing.
That is exactly one of my points. Current gun control is obviously ineffective and needs expanded upon and improved.
So, if current gun-control is indeed a failure, why should we expand on an idea that hasn't worked?
I have three main problems with the Pro’s argument.
1. It lacks practical planning: The most Pro seems to want is to make “reasonable "regulations with no consideration of subjective terminology that can be used.
2. The argument is emotionally driven Pro seems more focused on the simple fact of an incredibly low number of people trying to implement national change that
Americans may not want with no grantee that it will work.
3. It assumes criminals care about the law: Above all, gun laws do not work in America because criminals do not care what the law says. they will have guns and people will be all the more defenseless.
Lastly, I believe it is important to note that there are more guns than people in the United States. That makes regulating all guns or preventing them from being used in the manner that they already are to commit crimes impossible. The nations Pro uses as an example do not have the same problem to be good comparisons.
Round 3
Pro
#5
First, you made a valid point that my argument had too much emotion in it, though the argument itself was still based off of numbers. No matter how you put it, 18,874 lives a year (Not counting suicides, which could also be stopped with gun control) is a lot of people. Three times more American lives than Dday and hurricane Katrina combined. Your numbers also don't include non-fatal casualties and the people around said person who may also be deeply affected by it.
1. It lacks practical planning: The most Pro seems to want is to make “reasonable "regulations with no consideration of subjective terminology that can be used.
I wanted to keep the discussion on the merits of gun control, but since you want specifics, I will provide them. There are several options here. Gun licensing is a big one. Universal background checks and making those background checks more thorough and relevant. We could require basic gun training. Those are just a few examples. Again, this debate is not about the best way to implement it, this debate is only about whether or not we should improve it.
2. The argument is emotionally driven Pro seems more focused on the simple fact of an incredibly low number of people trying to implement national change that Americans may not want with no grantee that it will work.
I already addressed the first part. "an incredibly low number of people trying to implement national change that Americans may not want" six of every ten of Americans say it's too easy to get a gun, and they favor sticker gun laws, and only 1.5 out of ten want looser gun restrictions, where the middle is either unsure or has neither opinion or is unsure. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-a
"no grantee that it will work."
All of the examples we have seen around the world beg to differ.
3. It assumes criminals care about the law: Above all, gun laws do not work in America because criminals do not care what the law says. they will have guns and people will be all the more defenseless.
Stricter gun laws would greatly reduce the number of guns on the Steets and make it much harder for the criminals to get the guns. The vast majority of mass shootings aren't planned. Because of the state of gun laws, an insane man can walk into a store and pass a background check in only a few minutes.
Gun laws would also reduce accidental deaths, and greatly reduce the around 30,000 people who commit suicide using firearms, as they need to wait, and hopefully get things sorted out.
"People will be all the more defenseless."
That is ridiculous. No where have I proposed that we take away guns from good people.
Other Sources:
Con
#6
First, you made a valid point that my argument had too much emotion in it, though the argument itself was still based off of numbers. No matter how you put it, 18,874 lives a year (Not counting suicides, which could also be stopped with gun control) is a lot of people. Three times more American lives than Dday and hurricane Katrina combined. Your numbers also don't include non-fatal casualties and the people around said person who may also be deeply affected by it.
I appreciate you recognizing my argument about emotions.Also, 18,874 people are not a large number when you compare it to the highestcause of death in America, which is heart-related and ranges from 280,000 to325,000 a year. Moreover, heart disease is worse, as it is not only the topreason for death in America but also resulted in 931,578 deaths in 2021 alone. Annual DeathsAttributable to Obesity in the United States | Obesity | JAMA | JAMA Network 2024-Statistics-At-A-Glance-final_2024.pdf(heart.org)
I already addressed the first part. "an incredibly low number of people trying to implement national change that Americans may not want" six of every ten of Americans say it's too easy to get a gun, and they favor sticker gun laws, and only 1.5 out of ten want looser gun restrictions, where the middle is either unsure or has neither opinion or is unsure. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-a
I acknowledge that guns are very easy to get in the US. However,that is one of my points. There are more firearms than people in this country,which makes it impossible for the government to control all of them. No matterwhat laws are enacted, there will always be an illegal market for guns.
All of the examples we have seen around the world beg to differ
We should focus on finding solutions within our own countryfor the issues we face. This is why I called this argument imported doubletalk.
Ultimately, the 18,874 people you say is such a big numberis only around 1.84 percent compared to obesity and heart diseases together. Hence,we should not waste time on a problem that is inherently unsolvable and thataffects less than 1 percent of the people. We should prioritize life-savingmedical procedures and lower obesity before gun violence, which the statisticsshow is hardly a concern.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Your argument is almost entirely about how heart disease kills far more people than guns, and therefore the people who die from gun violence are irrelevant. However, there are some important differences between heart disease and gun violence. One reason is that dying of heart disease is often out of human control. Perfectly healthy people die of heart disease, and in a lot of cases, it can't be fixed. Another key difference is that heart disease overwhelmingly occurs to seniors. Not to say that is doesn't happen to younger, people, it just tends to be far less often and less serious. Heart disease mostly affects people who have already lived full lives an left their mark. Though it's still sad, it's completely different than someone massacring young children.
While heart disease is obviously still bad, it is also something that on the most part is out of our control and is better to die to than gun violence.
Your second argument is that gun control measures would be ineffective. One reason you state for this is that solutions from other countries won't solve America's problem. You call it imported double talk. This seems logical but isn't true. Before New Zealand passed its strict gun laws, it was facing a problem much the same to the U.S. Mass shootings and too many guns on the streets to make those shootings possible. The problems are the same, and the logic for fixing them is also the same. While the solution may be from another country, we can still use that solution to learn from and create a plan that is right four our country.
Not only should the government take action to save thousands of lives, but they should also take action because the American public views it to be a problem. 83% of Americans say that gun violence is a moderately to very big problem. It's a problem to those who aren't directly affected as well. Many people are also indirectly affected. Majority of Americans say they or a family member has faced gun violence, survey finds | PBS NewsHour
So, I urge you to vote for pro. Gun control is shown to work in the examples of situations similar to ours, would save thousands of lives, and it's addressing something that the people say needs to be addressed. Once you look at all of the arguments in play here, it becomes clear we should implement better gun control.
I would also like to re-elaborate that point of this debate is whether or not more gun laws would be either good for the country. I can confidently state I have done a good job of proving that. This debate is not, however, about whether or not gun violence is the biggest problem in the U.S.
All sources I used will be in the comments.
Con
#8
Pro's arguments are persuasive and well-meaning, but they are unrealistic. Pro admits that our gun control efforts fail. I also showed that gun violence is not a “big issue,” as they claim, according to the data that I have presented. Moreover, Pro does not have a realistic plan besides “copying” other countries' methods, which has no assurance of success and might even violate the 2nd Amendment if not done carefully.
We also have to question the value of Pro's suggestion. Would stricter gun laws get rid of the illegal trade of guns? No. Would there still be too many guns for the government to control? Yes, therefore, tighter gun laws would not make any difference since Criminals do not follow any law society creates.
I want to ask you voters which approach makes more sense. Should we concentrate on improving gun laws that have not worked so far? And spend time and energy on this task, knowing that guns kill not even one percent of the population and that crime with guns will go on. Or should we avoid spending our time and energy on changing gun laws? Pay attention to the main causes of death, such as obesity or heart disease, create better treatment, and then deal with gun laws when they matter.
You should favor Con because an argument that deals with social change and law should not be decided based on who can appeal more to emotions. We must have facts and evidence of the effectiveness of the arguments we make. Pro has not shown why stricter gun laws are necessary, except for an emotional appeal that they admit was too emotional. The data reveals that gun violence and the demand for gun-regulations are much less urgent than other issues that have more severe consequences. Focus on evidence. Not feelings. Thank you.
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:
I will treat "We" as "The citizens of the United States of America" since the debaters seem to do so.
This argument is about the merits of stronger gun control. I view arguments that aren't about the merits to be outside the scope. Pro opens strongly by talking about the high number of people killed by gun violence every year in the US, and mentions that gun control legislation in other countries, specifically New Zealand, has been very effective. Con's main counter argument is that gun deaths make up only a very small percentage of American deaths and pale in comparison to other leading causes of mortality such as heart disease. Pro responds by pointing out that even if approximately 18.9 thousand lives is a small percentage of the American population, it's still a very large number of people, and over three times the amount lost to D-Day and Hurricane Katrina combined. While this argument is largely an appeal to pathos, it does have some weight and clear impacts. I would want to prevent an amount of deaths comparable to one of those events and wouldn't consider it trivial or meaningless.
Pro also points out that heart disease is not comparable to gun violence because we as a society can't completely cure heart disease, but we can do a lot to curb gun deaths. This makes sense to me, as it seems ludicrous to suggest that humans could somehow cure all diseases, but guns are completely man-made and it's reasonable to conclude that we could do a lot to control gun violence. Con tries to argue that just because gun control legislation has worked in other countries, doesn't mean that it will work in the US. However, this argument fails on two fronts. For one, Con doesn't really deny that it has worked in other places like New Zealand. For another, no clear argument is given as to why it likely would not work in the US. A mere possibility of failure is not enough to demonstrate a lack of merit in even trying to institute stronger gun control in the US in my eyes, and this debate is really about merits in the end.
All in all, Pro demonstrated clear impacts and persuasive reasoning, while Con's arguments were very defensive, while also falling short of being very convincing. Pro wins this one.
I'll have my vote up by the end of this weekend, promise.
If you advocate changing our gun laws in any way, then be more specific. Yes, the NAW countries (Non-American West) tend to have lower homicide rates and stricter gun laws, but their homicide rate was very low even BEFORE their gun control laws were passed. If NZ's homicide rate is .5 deaths per 100K (8% that of the American homicide rate) after a gun control bill and their homicide rate is .5 per 100K before the gun control bill, then it's not fair to claim that NZ's gun laws made their nation safer.
Yeah you should vote now.
It is next week
Remind me to vote on this one if I haven't done so by next week.
Thanks for the debate, that was definitely a good one!
My sources used:
19% of K-12 parents extremely worried a shooting may happen at school | Pew Research Center
Gun Violence by the Numbers in 2023 (thetrace.org)
Proactively released information | Firearms Safety Authority New Zealand
School shootings in the United States - statistics and facts | Statista
More than 40,000 people killed in gun violence so far in 2023 - ABC News (go.com)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-a
How Many Were Killed on D-Day? | HISTORY
Hurricane Katrina | Deaths, Damage, & Facts | Britannica
Gun Violence Widely Viewed as a Major – and Growing – National Problem | Pew Research Center
Fast Facts: Firearm Injury and Death | Firearm Injury and Death Prevention | CDC
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/majority-of-americans-say-they-or-a-family-member-has-faced-gun-violence-survey-finds
Yes, I mentioned that in the description
Be specific when you advocate this claim. There are some gun control measures I support (red flag laws). There are others that I oppose (AR 15 bans, I think background checks should be easier, I support nationwide constitutional carry).
Does this count as more or less gun control?
People need guns to be able to kill themselves more easily.