Instigator / Con
49
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#758
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 7 votes and with 31 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
18
1450
rating
10
debates
30.0%
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
Round waived because of debate rules.
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
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 When they repealed their tough gun laws, the homicide rate fell.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:
Sources:
Back to you Pro.
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
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
All big boy arguments extended.
Forfeited
Done.
#$%&@! 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.
Did you forget to award points again, lol?
Is this debate a partial forfeit?
*******************************************************************
>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
************************************************************************
Whoops! Thanks. I totally spaced.
“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
Omar- "You are actually trolling here. I am done speaking to you."
says the troller lmao
>>What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
You are actually trolling here.
Is this meant with sincerity?
Thank you for the sound advice
>>What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
You are actually trolling here. I am done speaking to you.
**"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.
>>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?
>>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.
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?
>>Effective, the actual effect, ex breaking every bone and dying
successful in producing a desired or intended result.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/effective
A gun can provide a desired result at a much further range by doing it quieter while also being the cheaper option. Where did you get your definition from?
>>No, I am out of ways to communicate with you, and you don't seem to have any idea what I have been asking repeatedly, nor any semblance of contextual awareness
Okay so I am meant to understand a person who is incompetent at getting his point across?
In this comment you basically said you don't understand what I am asking of you nor do you show any sign of improving that.
See how easier it is to make your point simple in order for it to have a higher chance of the reader not being confused? I am getting the impression you are doing this on purpose in order for me to not understand and you have some sort of point when you don't.
Why did you drop the value argument?
Why didn't you define effective?
Why did you say aren't less effective than guns without stating how you got to that position?
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.
Also, just curious. What is your stance on immigration? Less regulations on who could come, keep it the same, or something else? What do you think of birth right citizenship, merit-based immigration, ways to keep track of immigrants with work visas?
>>You were making statements about the effectiveness of guns and cars as weapons.
My argument still stands. Guns can be used at a further range, can be quieter, is easier to attain and is cheaper. Please actually understand what I am saying before you try to rebut it.
You were making statements about the effectiveness of guns and cars as weapons. I was giving examples of cars being used for that purpose.
>>No, it does not mean the "best" way to murder someone.
Say what you said in the simplest way you can.
Effective, the actual effect, ex breaking every bone and dying, not how you prefer to do so
>>This may be impossible
So you are making this up?
No, I am out of ways to communicate with you, and perceive no expression of having any idea what I have been asking, nor any semblance of contextual awareness
>>No, it does not mean the "best" way to murder someone.
Say what you said in the simplest way you can.
>>This may be impossible
So you are making this up?
>>I would consider Dead to be maximally effective in the context of homicide.
Does this mean the best way to murder someone?
No, it does not mean the "best" way to murder someone.
>>I am really curious about what you are referring to though.
What comment?
This may be impossible
>>I would consider Dead to be maximally effective in the context of homicide.
Does this mean the best way to murder someone?
>>I am really curious about what you are referring to though.
What comment?
Typically, I would consider Dead to be maximally effective in the context of homicide. I am really curious about how you are considering a metric though.
>> I'm asking about effectiveness.
What metric are you comparing effectiveness?
I'm not countering. I'm asking about effectiveness. If you mean something else I might have questions about that too.
>>https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nyc-terrorist-attack/least-one-person-dead-incident-lower-manhattan-n816166
8 are dead because of 1 person. What is your claim here?
>>https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/2016-nice-terrorist-attacks
From the source:"when a white truck barreled through a pedestrian-filled closed street. In the end, 86 were dead, including 10 children, and 304 spectators were left injured."
What is your claim?
>>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/europe/barcelona-catalunya-van.html
From the source:"killing at least 13 people and leaving 80 bloodied on the pavement."
What is your claim?
I don't know what you are trying to say with data if I don't know what you claiming with it.
>>You just happen to value murdering someone from range
How is this a counter to what I said?
A gun is more effective at longer ranges, is quieter with the right attachments, easier to attain and cheaper.
So if this is about values why are you arguing against my values with yours? We value different things. That is the extent of your thought.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nyc-terrorist-attack/least-one-person-dead-incident-lower-manhattan-n816166
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/2016-nice-terrorist-attacks
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/europe/barcelona-catalunya-van.html
" A car requires a collision whereas a gun requires a collision with the bullet which is fired using a gun from a range that suits the person. "
You just happen to value murdering someone from range
>>I'm not sure how to simplify this. Are you really unable to understand that you think a bullet suits your subjective values/tastes in murdering people better than an automobile? That is personal preference
Tell me how I am wrong about a gun being able to k*ll a person at longer ranges?
It is not subjective since it can be measured. A car requires a collision whereas a gun requires a collision with the bullet which is fired using a gun from a range that suits the person.
Don't waste your time with this crack-head omar. He can't comprehend even the simplest of arguments, doesn't make arguments himself, then insults your arguments without giving a reason why he thinks you are wrong.
I'm not sure how to simplify this. Are you really unable to understand that you think a bullet suits your subjective values/tastes in murdering people better than an automobile? That is personal preference
>>I'm not asking about your personal convenience
Tell me how that is personal convenience.
A car can never run you over without a collision. A handgun shoots a bullet to cover the distance. This is not my opinion.
I'm not asking about your personal convenience, though might have more questions on that if that is how you actually approach the problem. For now I'm asking about effectiveness.
>>I'm asking why
Guns are more effective than cars k*lling people because of range, a suppressor, takes a shorter amount of time to get a handgun and is cheaper.
I'll put this another way
"Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
^^As I recall in addition to writing about your examples, you said something to the effect that the statement above is false. I'm asking why
>>Okay, say someone dies from a driving incident. What are you actually saying is effected more greatly than that?
I was giving a clear examples in ways a gun is more effective than a car. It is more effective with range, being quiet, take a shorter amount of time to get a handgun and is cheaper.
"">>I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is.
I never said that. What are you quoting?
Guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
You made the claim which started this with this comment "Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
>>"I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
Who said I was?
My claim has been guns are more effective at murder compared to cars. ""
Okay, say someone dies from a driving incident. What are you actually saying is effected more greatly than that?
Post your argument.
The statements on DDO are short statements stating what you believe, not an essay with statistics.
The only one that actually applies to this discussion(also u didn't respond to my last comment)
>>Oh so your Religion does not impact your political views? Who offers this "right" God? That debate would be so easy for me to win but I don't really want to ruin your already poor win ratio. I feel sorry for you.
lmao illegal immigration has nothing to do with God. It is a matter of knowing who comes in and out of the country, which people would contribute, and not knowing what violent criminals or drug smugglers are coming in.
I'll save my comments for the debate.
>>Yes it does. If you weren't Religious you would be okay with legalizing gay marriage instead of creating cop out like the government shouldn't be in the business of it. Did you also steal that from the conservatives? Are you opposed to the law that made gay marriage legal?
This is a complete feelings argument. As a conservative, I believe in very limited government, so I don't believe government should be able to tell you which people you are allowed to marry and who you aren't. If I wasn't religious I would still be Conservative and believe government shouldn't tell you what to do. I am not opposed to the law that made it legal. If government wasn't in it, you wouldn't have legal problems with it. You are the one arguing feelings with straw-mans towards me saying "well if then you would be this".
>>And I effectively explained how my religious position on gay marriage has nothing to do with my political belief.
Yes it does. If you weren't Religious you would be okay with legalising gay marriage instead of creating cop out like the government shouldn't be in the business of it. Did you also steal that from the conservatives? Are you opposed to the law that made gay marriage legal?
>>and I even have my stance on gay marriage on my profile-
Do you dislike gay people?
>>https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
Shame about that win ratio. Really goes to show how bad you actually you are when this site is actually moderated and people vote fairly.
>>I am arguing this and proving it with facts
What fact?
I said "if I do" of course I won't, because I'm not stupid.
>>Alec already did. Shame you can't admit to it. It would be me stating your positions and showing you how this is Religiously motivated but then your argument will amount that no.
And I effectively explained how my religious position on gay marriage has nothing to do with my political belief. Admit to what? I already explained my political belief. Shame on you for arguing feelings in that comment and for not being able to read my response.
We all know you have no argument against me and you can't even name one belief yourself because you know there are none, which is why you won't accept the debate. Pretty classic for liberals to do. Look at my big issues, I wrote them over half a year ago, and I even have my stance on gay marriage on my profile- https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
I am arguing this and proving it with facts, but you are assuming I just "won't admit to it" with no facts to back it up.
>>I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is.
I never said that. What are you quoting?
Guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
You made the claim which started this with this comment "Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm."
>>"I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
Who said I was?
My claim has been guns are more effective at murder compared to cars.
"I made the case guns are more effective at murder. Murder as in killing someone alive not already dead. This has got to be arguing in bad faith. You clearly understand no-one in their right mind talks about how to kill dead people because they are already dead but for you to say that gives me the impression you are arguing in bad faith."
I don't really want to argue at all. Its just that an implement would only have to be used by someone to be effective up to a certain threshold in my view. I don't really know what "more effective than dead" is. That's why I said "I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though".
>>If I argue feelings then you will have an easy win. I will argue only facts, sound like a deal?
So your argument is that I should waste my time with someone who values feelings over facts?
>>All you have to do is name one political belief I have based on religion
Alec already did. Shame you can't admit to it. It would be me stating your positions and showing you how this is Religiously motivated but then your argument will amount that no.
>> I have provided multiple sources
None of them had proper citations. Wonders how you even know what evidence is.
>>You obviously are overly obsessed with this site. That is why you have no life.
How many definitions you have for "no life"? I know you can't defend your position but stop trying to confuse me with your definitions of "no life".
>>I did say that you supported mass migration, which you defended
Evidence? Did I even mention the word mass or are you deluded? Please do find where I said it and since I have already checked I didn't even mention your straw-man of mass migration since you assumed my position without even telling you.
>>You then strawmanned me by saying I support no immigration.
You implied that you want protectionism. What better way to do that with stopping immigration?
>>You implicitly admitted you believe in promoting mass migration.
Where?