All guns should be banned
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 31 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pro FF 2 rounds which is poor conduct
>>In the context of homicide, there is a maximal effectiveness to my way of thinking, known as dead. I figured more effective murder would mean something like being more dead.
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 think religion should be separate from politics.
That is a religious belief, yes. However, I don't argue that from a political standpoint. I think government shouldn't have to do with marriage and it should be done privately or by churches. I could care less if your gay and get married. It doesn't affect my politics.
I can list one stance you have on the basis of religion. Your stance on homosexuality.
I guess he is just so nuanced on these topics that he doesn't have to provide his imaginary facts and statistics. We don't watch CNN so we don't know that #OrangeManBad.
FAX. Omar doesn't need to have facts or sources though, because as long as he says he doesn't want to debate you because conservatives are irrational, he automatically wins. That is his only argumentation skills. And then when he says "everything you do is based off religion", and ask for ONE example, ONE, he responds by saying "I don't need to because you already know". He constantly avoids and pivots because he knows he doesn't have a real answer backed up by facts, but rather childish feelings.
Simmer down. I have provided multiple sources, you provided one that I instantly dispatched. You obviously are overly obsessed with this site. That is why you have no life. You probably posted at fifty comments in a few hours in this thread alone. I did say that you supported mass migration, which you defended. Even if it was a strawman, you defended the position. You then strawmanned me by saying I support no immigration. I did not defend that because I don't believe it. You implicitly admitted you believe in promoting mass migration. You need to start thinking before you post comments, bud. :P If you are capable, that is....
If I argue feelings then you will have an easy win. I will argue only facts, sound like a deal?
All you have to do is name one political belief I have based on religion(arguing morality stems from God or what not doesn't count), just a strict belief I have(ex. abortion, guns, etc.). My beliefs can be found here on my DDO page https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
"Did I say I "think of some murder victims being more dead than others."? This has got to be a straw-man. Why not ask for my position instead of lying about it? "
In the context of homicide, there is a maximal effectiveness to my way of thinking, known as dead. I figured more effective murder would mean something like being more dead.
>>You said this, without giving a direct answer to someone else and I was curious about why cars aren't to be treated as such in your view, being notably "effective at bringing human harm"
Guns are more effective. Tackling a bigger problem is more important than tackling a smaller one first.
>>I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though
Did I say I "think of some murder victims being more dead than others."? This has got to be a straw-man. Why not ask for my position instead of lying about it?
>>I am here every once in a while in my free time.
You would waste your time on something that you implied if someone uses it has no "life"?
>>Your uninformed responses lead me to believe you are likely a bot.
Says the person who can't provide evidence to support their point.
>>487 comments= proving my point that you have no life.
Really why did you spend so many characters on a site where you consider it to be non-life?
>>Definition of life: having something to live for. Debateart.com is not something worth living for.
Why are you here then? Are you for non-life? This definition is awful just like your positions.
>>If you want to further this discussion, you will have to debate me. Since you seem so adamant about this immigration business, I will start compiling information for a future debate if you want.
If someone else does not take the debate then in the last hours of the accepting a challenge phase I will accept. Don't know how you are going to defend being against immigration but if you are going to make a straw-man of me saying I am for "mass immigration" without me actually saying it then I think twice for even accepting the debate in the first place if you can't show me the courtesy of not lying about my position.
"I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm."
You said this, without giving a direct answer to someone else (as far as I noticed) and I was curious about why cars shouldn't be treated as such in your view, being notably "effective at bringing human harm"
"Next time do tell me how I am wrong about guns being more effective than cars when in respect to murder."
I wouldn't typically think of some murder victims being more dead than others. I'm not too interested in that though
I am here every once in a while in my free time. Your uninformed responses lead me to believe you are likely a bot.
487 comments= proving my point that you have no life.
Definition of life: having something to live for. Debateart.com is not something worth living for.
If you want to further this discussion, you will have to debate me. Since you seem so adamant about this immigration business, I will start compiling information for a future debate if you want.
Later, Libtard, Democretin, etc.
:D
>>Dead is Dead
Yes Dead is dead what is your point?
If this is about what you started then it is another non-sequitur. You are the one who brought up the effective argument so don't blame me when I told you how wrong you are.
Dead is Dead
>>I'm not gonna talk about personal preferences for premeditated murder.
If this was supposed to rebut what I said earlier. It is a non-sequitur. Next time do tell me how I am wrong about guns being more effective than cars when in respect to murder.
>>Dude. Get a life.
If you are implying me being here is not a "life" then why are you here?
Another problem with your statement is that I am alive. If I wasn't I wouldn't be able to type this right now would I?
You don't know what you are talking about dude.
>>You have been doing this non stop for like three hours.
Really? I think the longest discussion I had with someone was about 487 comments. Don't know the time frame but 487 is a lot. Note this is was not all by me and the person I was talking to but I think about 20 of it was about something else.
I'm not gonna talk about personal preferences like we are shopping for a premeditated murdering machine.
Dude. Get a life. You have been doing this non stop for like three hours.
>>Nope. Because it's not necessary for me to have a tank, rocket launcher and mortars in order for me to defend myself.
If no-one had guns would you need a gun to protect yourself?
>>I don't view it as a burden. I view it as a freedom. Guns are not a burden. However, lack of education and and lack of morals are.
So are you for not making anything illegal? You said you are for freedom.
>>I am FOR the right to bear arms.
Don't see why you still allow the past to burden you in the present.
>>ABSOLUTELY. A resounding "YES". Why not?
How about Tanks, Rocket Launchers and mortars?
You have already state you are for freedom but that contradicts the very thing I quote from you at the start of this.
What are you for necessary restrictions or freedom?
dave2242 is correct
It was the first thing I quoted from you.
>>Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm.
Yes depends on the standard but to everything that matters whether it be to be the best at murdering people guns win in almost every single category. You would have to stretch to find a car beating a gun by any measurement and even in that case there are better measurements in knowing which one is a better k*ller.
**So you are for tanks, rocket launchers and mortars? **
Nope. Because it's not necessary for me to have a tank, rocket launcher and mortars in order for me to defend myself. HOwever, take away all our guns and if I have nothing, then yes, I will be for tanks, rocket launchers, and mortars.
** Why do you care so much about the past when that is burdening the progression United States as a society can have? **
I don't view it as a burden. I view it as a freedom. Guns are not a burden. However, lack of education and and lack of morals are.
** Good judgement? So basically are you for or against the right to bear arms? **
I am FOR the right to bear arms.
** The vast majority of automatic rifles and automatic rifle owners do not inflict human harm. Do you want to bring that back?**
ABSOLUTELY. A resounding "YES". Why not?
>>sorry but i didn't link you to my previous comment so ill say it for the second time here if you didnt see it
Sorry for not seeing it.
>>not really because one of the largest things of fascism is nationalism
Yeah your right. I had 4 lines written but then realised I would have to like my country in order to like a dictatorship as well.
>>probably, and it doesn't help that steven crowder calls people to the left fascist as well. probably where he got the idea
I do agree with you that Our_Boat_Is_Right is creatively lazy that he resorts to copying me while also on top of copying Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. It is a shame how much he values idols over what his own opinion is. Yeah I think he was talking about me being an authoritarian but since he hasn't really thought about right-wing ideas instead of digesting them understand what he is eating he doesn't realise more specifically he would class me as an authoritarian.
he was referring to the Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm statement
Could you please quote the false statement so that I can understand where you are coming from?
>>How about you 2 have a debate on which party is better, democrats or republicans?
I can't stand him in the comment section. I couldn't stand him when I voted on his debate. I can't imagine debating a topic with him.
>>Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm.
False. A gun can be used from a safer distance. A car requires a collision which can damage and in some cases not make it capable of another collision. A gun can be fired one after the other at optimal performance. A gun is much better weapon and murdering people than cars and if the sound is an issue with a gun. Simply attach a suppressor or if the range is not good enough with a handgun use an AR-15 with a scope for longer distances while also understand bullet drop-off. A car also cost more than a handgun. A handgun requires a background check whereas a car requires a driver licence which requires the person to pass a driving test.
>>Do you happen to have any other approaches to this?
This approach works fine when you gave provided a false statement arguing against mine.
sorry but i didn't link you to my previous comment so ill say it for the second time here if you didnt see it
>> I can still be a fascist but be opposed to nationalism
not really because one of the largest things of fascism is nationalism
>> I can be an authoritarian which I think what he was going at.
probably, and it doesn't help that steven crowder calls people to the left fascist as well. probably where he got the idea
How about you 2 have a debate on which party is better, democrats or republicans?
>>Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm. If you take the position not blaming the tool. Are you for legalising tanks, rocket launchers and mortars and going with doing something about mental illness since you are not for banning guns?
Cars are not necessarily less effective than guns at bringing harm. They can impart massive amounts of energy, and they're generally more difficult to operate.
Do you happen to have any other approaches to this problem?
>>It pays to be prudent AND have good judgement.
So you are for tanks, rocket launchers and mortars?
>> I seriously doubt tanks, rocket launchers and mortars are what our forefathers hand in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Why do you care so much about the past when that is burdening the progression United States as a society can have?
>>Of course, one could argue "the right to bear arms" should include tanks and the like (not me), but again Good judgement is in order.
Good judgement? So basically are you for or against the right to bear arms?
>>The vast majority of guns and gun owners do not inflict human harm.
The vast majority of automatic rifles and automatic rifle owners do not inflict human harm. Do you want to bring that back?
>>And what I'm saying is that you say that towards conservatives, I simply just replaced it with liberals. You admitting that was a bad debationg tactic is u admitting your bad at debating.
I don't really view a conservative opinion highly. I didn't admit I was bad at debating you did and there is evidence of it to be the case.
>>Will you accept my debate I challenged you too,
I am afraid that you are going to respond with feelings to my facts.
It pays to be prudent AND have good judgement. I seriously doubt tanks, rocket launchers and mortars are what our forefathers hand in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Of course, one could argue "the right to bear arms" should include tanks and the like (not me), but again Good judgement is in order. The vast majority of guns and gun owners do not inflict human harm.
You said >>maybe this explains y u r bad at debating(in response to me saying "Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.")
And what I'm saying is that you say that towards conservatives, I simply just replaced it with liberals. You admitting that was a bad debationg tactic is u admitting your bad at debating.
Will you accept my debate I challenged you too, or are you afraid all you have is feelings and insults, not facts?
>> I can still be a fascist but be opposed to nationalism
not really because one of the largest things of fascism is nationalism
>> I can be an authoritarian which I think what he was going at.
probably, and it doesn't help that steven crowder calls people to the left fascist as well. probably where he got the idea
>>Yea, and without cars, drunk driving accidents wouldn't occur either.
Without alcohol he wouldn't be able to drink drive. Should have provided a better example.
>>Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
I blame the tool because of how effective it is at bringing human harm. If you take the position not blaming the tool. Are you for legalising tanks, rocket launchers and mortars and going with doing something about mental illness since you are not for banning guns?
>>well excuse me then. it just appears that way because of the way you write
I asked questions from the post you said I was an anti-nationalist.
>>my first comment was towards out_boat_is_right because he called you fascist and i was stating that you are not because you are against nationalism
Oh okay. Now I understand. I can still be a fascist but be opposed to nationalism. I can be an authoritarian which I think what he was going at.
Yea, and without cars, drunk driving accidents wouldn't occur either. Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
>>No I don't and it does depend on the system I use to get to that. I take the position we can't truly know anything objective since we are using our brains which is subjective. Since that thinking leads to absurdity I don't use that in debates or in comments but I still think about it.
well excuse me then. it just appears that way because of the way you write
>>Yes I am against nationalism but didn't specifically say it in that comment. Is that what you wanted to know?
i was just stating the fact that you where against nationalism. my first comment was towards out_boat_is_right because he called you fascist and i was stateing that you are not because you are against nationalism
>>Nope, that is not what I meant. I mean you can't blame the instrument/tool for the result (unless it was defective).
Why not? Without the gun mass shootings won't take place.
>>Regardless of whether the person is drunk or not, it's still the person,
It does matter. If he is drunk he is unaware what he is doing. This distinction makes your comparison between drunk driving and gun violence bad. One is aware of what he/she is doing and the other isn't.
>>this sort of helped but it also confirmed another thing i didn't like about you in that you believe that some of your opinions are 100% fact
No I don't and it does depend on the system I use to get to that. I take the position we can't truly know anything objective since we are using our brains which is subjective. Since that thinking leads to absurdity I don't use that in debates or in comments but I still think about it.
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
more specifically the insults people
My trash debater comment I made to him I think that is what you are asking about. Yes it was caused by this because he did lie about my position so I insulted him.
>>anti-nationalist was a bad sort of words but you are not for nationalism example here
Yes I am against nationalism but didn't specifically say it in that comment. Is that what you wanted to know?
Nope, that is not what I meant. I mean you can't blame the instrument/tool for the result (unless it was defective).
Regardless of whether the person is drunk or not, it's still the person, not the car that is responsible. We don't hear people yelling "WE MUST BAN CARS!" because are there are a lot of traffic deaths....
>>maybe this is why u r bad at debating
That is not what I said.
>>THx for admitting ur bad at debating.
I never did such a thing but you did.
"If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving, pencils are responsible for misspelled words, and spooks and forks make people fat."
This isn't just a talking point. It actually dehumanizes us to inappropriately blame the instrument
>>If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving
Depends on the context. Do you mean both are aware of what they are doing? If so then no because the person who is driving is drunk and the person killing people isn't drunk because you would have made that apparent if it was the case.
>>In what way and what sources I are you basing your position about me on. I would like to know what other people think of me. Certainly from people who I hardly talk to so I understand how other people perceive me without directly speaking to me.
what i try to do with people is the same as most people in Wikipedia of i always try to assume good faith. i cant find the page where it says it on wikipedia for the life of me but its there somewhere
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1659?page=2&post_number=29 post 29
this sort of helped but it also confirmed another thing i didn't like about you in that you believe that some of your opinions are 100% fact
>>It is based on seeing his debate about Fake News. Do see my vote in order to understand why I said that or read the debate and see for yourself.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/638
what i meant by that is if you did it because of what he said here
>>He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion.
more specifically the insults people
>>I don't know what you mean here. Who is an anti-nationalist?
anti-nationalist was a bad sort of words but you are not for nationalism example here
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1613?page=3 post 58
>>maybe this is why u r bad at debating
i said what i said because i was making the point you do that. THx for admitting ur bad at debating. U gonna accept my debate?
Hey folks. Back from the dead...well, not the dead, just work :)
If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving, pencils are responsible for misspelled words, and spooks and forks make people fat.
>>If doctors know best, why do they disagree with each other?
Where are you getting this from? I think an abortion has to be cleared by two doctors so in order for it to take place it would require both of their approval. If what you say was true why are there so many abortions taking place if doctors don't agree with one another?
>>Rape isn't sex.
Am I talking to a buffoon?
sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
No where does it state it has to be consensual. Rape can be sex since sex does not have to be legal to be sex.
>>All abortions aren't justified by marginal cases.
Like you said. Mother do it based on convenience. How is that not a justification?
>>Or, do you think killing babies at will is something we should keep? If you were aborted, you couldn't make this argument right now.
Appealing to emotion is not a good argument. I wasn't aborted and I thank my mother for that. The problem is it is still mother's choice whether or not she wants to carry something for 6 months and then for 18 years raise it. This choice if not given will mean they are force to carry a baby they do not want which will carry on their frustration to the child. Only making their lives miserable.
>>Soviet Union
When I don't have evidence about Venezuela. I am going to talk about the Soviet Union is what you are doing.
>>BTW we still have thousands of tariffs like the sugar tariff and are still the largest economy in the world
Any evidence this helps the US economy?
>>If a country puts a tariff on our cars, we should put tariffs of equal value of theirs. Don't let them take advantage of us.
You do realise if both parties don't back down there will be a loss for both countries? You are basically hoping for other countries to step down. The problem is they won't.
>>Research the VA.....https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/16/477814218/attempted-fix-for-va-health-delays-creates-new-bureaucracy
https://www.military.com/militaryadvantage/2017/12/03/va-health-leaders-failed-protect-patients-inept-doctors.html
Are you giving a point to my side? The free market is not helping veterans and the measly 10 billion doesn't help them either. Your point if public healthcare is bad because Veterans are still not being treat is laughable. It is fault of the government in charge this is the case not public healthcare like you can call it that. Public healthcare would mean these veterans would be going into medical centres and getting treated not waiting to be called in to be treated. Did you not read this: "Although the idea sounds simple enough, the fix hasn't worked out as planned. Wait times have gotten worse — not better. Compared with this time last year, there are 70,000 more appointments that took vets at least a month to be seen." Which means private companies are screwing over VA's not the government as of right now.
>>I think it should be merit based. Only allow skilled laborers. My family immigrated at one point, and they helped build this country. Don't let people in who will go on welfare and won't contribute.
Do tell me about theses immigrants that don't contribute.
Continues...