Challenge Match: GAOTU789 vs Skyfloating: Gun Control

Hello, Everyone! This should be a rather informative and well played match between two veteran fighters.

The title of this Debate is "Given the recent mass shootings there should be tighter gun laws".

This Debate is a test-run of our new 3-response-format.

GAOTU789 will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Skyfloating will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by one alternating reply each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

The ATS character limit will limit the length of debate posts. Multiple posts per round are not permitted.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, host edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the host who posted this debate thread. The host has the responsibility to make a post within a debate explaining such corrections.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging by the host in a separate post within this thread. The host will tally from the beginning of the post, and state which sentences are beyond the debate limits.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging by the host in a separate post that is edited to exclude the excess. The edited post will be considered to be the debater's original post. The host will notify the “fighter” via u2u of any changes before posting publicly.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

There will be no time limit for responding, however if a debater believes he or she will take more than a day or two to respond, it would be courteous to let the opponent know in advance that you still intend to continue when able.

Judging will be done by a panel of three volunteer judges:

The thread host will also accept the responsibility of u2uing the member judges to notify them of a debate's conclusion.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

Best of luck to our two challengers. Let the games begin!

Gun control. It's such a nasty phrase. Say it to most Americans and they cringe and wail "But my second Amendment rights!". Well through out the course of this debate, i am going to show you why gun control isn't a bad thing but needed and when done right, a boon to society.

Now, I am not saying that we need to ban guns, oh no. I like guns. I like guns a lot. But I am also mature enough to realize that gun control, when done right, helps and not hurts a society. And let's be realistic, gun control already exists in most civilized societies. Not the outright ban but responsible gun control.

We also have to think that gun control can also mean better education. By that I mean that we can control the accidents that occur by having a better educated population. A smart, educated population is a safe population. I just want to be clear that I am not arguing for the banning of guns. I believe they do play a part in society but I am saying that he should have a better handle on who gets, when they get them and why they want them.

There is also other means of gun control in place already. Felons in many countries are denied firearm possession. Many countries also have tight gun control laws. Are they affective, I am going to attempt to show you that they are, in the context of controlling gun violence. Will a law ever stamp out gun violence? No absolutely not.
Criminals, by the very definition of the word, don't care about laws. The gun controls I am speaking of are smart, responsible laws that don't take firearms out of law abiding citizens hands but make sure it harder for people that may not have the best intentions of requiring them from getting them and to help with the reduction of gun violence
and accidents, which is possible. I am not talking about the types of gun controls that turn law abiding citizens into criminals for nothing less than owning a gun or that gives the criminals carte blanche.

In my next post, I am going to show you exactly what kind of gun control I mean and how it can be affective. These current mass shootings in the US have set off alarms in some circles and they are calling for the ban of certain types of firearms. That's irresponsible and dangerous, in my opinion. What they should be looking at is the responsible limiting of gun possession. I can't abide with the NRA stance of anything goes, nor can I abide the far left idea of complete ban on guns. An unarmed society is at risk of being put under the tyrannical control of some two bit dictator that without the means to defend and protect themselves, citizens would become easy pickings for these type.
There has been plenty of examples in our recent history to show that unarmed population isn't the answer. there has to be a happy medium between that extreme and the extreme of anything goes. That isn't safe either. Both lead to society to a dangerous place.

Im agnostic on guns. Being a happy-go-lucky type of person I dont own a gun and am not afraid of whatever powers there be. I like emerging technologies in which a gun is linked to a fingerprint containing the holders data. Some countries require a psychological test before a gun can be purchased. Im not averse to that idea either.

Its easy to show that tight gun laws have no effect on reducing crime, quite the contrary. Some of the countries with the highest murder rates also have the strictest gun laws. Jamaica is a prime example. They often TOP the list of "countries with the highest homicide rate", despite their strict gun laws. Norway has strict gun laws and recently had the mass-shooting by Anders Brevik.

Some of the countries with the lowest murder rates have the most lax gun laws. Switzerland for example, where almost everyone owns a gun but the murder rate is extremely low. These examples show us that even if there are tight gun laws, certain people will always find a way to get guns. Such examples perhaps also show that the opposite is true – that outlawing guns makes people defenseless, making the job easier for criminals. Considering these irrefutable facts, tightening gun laws makes no sense at all, because not guns are responsible, people are.

The cause of the recent mass shootings is most likely mental illness, not our gun laws. If those shooters hadn’t used guns they`d have used one of a few million other things one could use as a tool of murder. The weakness of trying to outlaw tools of murder lies in the fact that if you wish to kill, anything can become a tool. On 9/11 we saw how airplanes became a tool of mass-murder. Do the super-strict airport controls do anything to stop mass-murder? Of course not. Mass-murderers will just find another way, as seen in the recent shootings in the Aurora Movie Theater as well as the Wisconsin Sikh Temple. The idea of implementing stricter and stricter laws to eradicate any sort of risk or potential danger is what creates totalitarian police states. Such dystopian tyrannies all began with the ideal of utopian perfectionism. The problem is, that life is not perfect and humans are not perfect and trying to force them to be, makes things even less perfect. This pattern can be seen in all wanna-be utopian nations that eventually collapsed under the weight of trying to be perfect. Nonetheless we can work to reduce instances of homicide through education, counseling, improvement of our overall standard of living. The challenges we face will allow us to grow in the continued evolution of our society.

A few clear rebuttals of what my esteemed debate opponent said:

We also have to think that gun control can also mean better education. By that I mean that we can control the accidents that occur by having a better educated population.

Gun control is one method, better education another. Here my opponent tries to equate the two. Im also for better education on guns...as the better alternative to gun control.

Many countries also have tight gun control laws. Are they affective,

Actually they arent. No correlation between tight gun laws and reduced homicide has been proven. Quite the contrary.

An unarmed society is at risk of being put under the tyrannical control of some two bit dictator that without the means to defend and protect themselves, citizens would become easy pickings for these type.

I fully agree.Thats why there should not be very tight gun control laws.

Stricter gun laws will not stop shootings, will not stop homicide, will not stop bad things from happening. It will only increase the regulative control of the Government even more. The Government would love to make all your choices for you instead of letting you choose and learn from your good and bad choices.

The idea of stricter gun laws being needed has already conclusively been debunked, so I do wonder what will follow in this debate...

To start, I need to apologize to my opponent and the readers of this debate. I have had some real curve balls thrown at me the last few weeks including a serious illness that I am really just getting past. So with that, onwards.

I made some points in my opening post about different forms of Gun control. Education, enforcing of Laws, responsible Laws, limiting the access of guns by known criminals and providing a means to hinder the ability of people with bad intentions of getting guns. Yes, I am very aware that people with bad intentions, if they want it bad enough, can and will get their hands on guns. Again, as I mentioned in my opening post, it is niave and irresponsible to think other otherwise.

So let's start with education.

Now my opponent says this...

Gun control is one method, better education another. Here my opponent tries to equate the two. Im also for better education on guns...as the better alternative to gun control.

as a rebuttal to my point on education. Sorry but I believe you agreed with me. My point was...

We also have to think that gun control can also mean better education. By that I mean that we can control the accidents that occur by having a better educated population.

My point is that teaching people responsible gun ownership is a form of gun control. People who are taught proper safety, proper handling and responsible ownership are going to have less gun accidents. That's the type of gun control=education I am speaking about. They are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what my opponent may want you to believe.

This is that education I am referring to...

RULE I: All guns are always loaded

RULE II: Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy

RULE III: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target

RULE IV: Be sure of your target

thefiringline.com...

Socratic Question: Would may opponent dispute these facts?

Now lets move on to enforcing existing Laws. Not all Laws are bad. On the contrary, certain Laws are required to have a civil society. Some gun control laws are needed in a civil society. Even America has gun control laws. Many states have CCW laws. Many have other prohibited firearms laws.

www.gunpolicy.org...

In the United States, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, sawn-off shotguns and rifles, silencers, and armour-piercing ammunition without appropriate registration

Regulation of Automatic Assault Weapons
In the United States, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited without appropriate registration

The Laws just need to be enforced better.

Now the third point I made earlier.

Responsible Laws.

My opponent said this...

Its easy to show that tight gun laws have no effect on reducing crime, quite the contrary. Some of the countries with the highest murder rates also have the strictest gun laws. Some of the countries with the lowest murder rates have the most lax gun laws.

Ok let's dissect those claims some shall we.
www.guardian.co.uk...

Murder rates around the world

Country Homicides per 100,000 pop
▴
Period
Luxembourg 0.4 2004
Japan 0.5 2005
Morocco 0.5 2004
Singapore 0.5 2004
Hong Kong (Spec Admin Reg China) 0.6 2004
Austria 0.7 2004
Egypt 0.7 2005
Fiji 0.7 2004
United Arab Emirates 0.7 2004
Norway 0.8 2004

Luxembourg- Tight gun laws
Japan- tight gun laws
Morocco- Decent gun laws but small ownership, 5.0 per 100 people
Singapore- fairly tight gun laws and low gun ownership
Hong Kong- In the year listed, there were NO recorded gun homicides
Austria-decent gun laws and decent amount of firearms in private hands, although out of about 8.5 million people, only about 330,000 are registered gun owners( that's only about 4% of the population )
Egypt- fairly strict gun laws
Fiji- Strict gun laws
UAE- fairly lax laws
Norway( one of those places my opponent mentioned by the way as having strict gun control laws remember? )- Loose gun control laws.

Here's a few numbers for you from Norway, just to show my opponents claim of strict gun laws false. In Norway, automatic, semi automatic and handguns are permitted with a license. Number of registered guns in civilian hands, 1.22 million. Out of 179 countries, Norway placed 11 for rate of private gun ownership.

* all summary of numbers and summary of description of gun laws come from...

www.gunpolicy.org...

Now, I am sure you're saying that, wait, doesn't this help Sky's argument? yes it does, sort of but what it really shows is that my opponent is willing to be dishonest with you when he is presenting his "facts". Keep that in mind while you are reading his next posts folks.

I will finish my argument in my closing post.

Back to you Sky.

My opponents last post descends into cherry-picking statistics that match his debate side. Statistics that conclusively prove that there is no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates were left out. For instance:



From: NY Times, Gun Laws and Crime

That proves: The more guns, the less crime!

Odd, isnt it?

In the last 15 years New York Cities murder rate has dropped by more than 70%. Was ist because of gun laws? No, it was because of better enforcement of already existing laws.

According to the article above, Washington D.Cs crime rate has increased since the ban on handguns in 1976.

We know that Vermont has the most lax gun laws in the U.S., yet their crime rate is one of the lowest.

The following article says that gun crimes are decreasing since 2006 although gun sales are increasing:

FBI Report

Need I say any more? The facts clearly speak for themselves.

My opponent:

My point is that teaching people responsible gun ownership is a form of gun control. People who are taught proper safety, proper handling and responsible ownership are going to have less gun accidents. That's the type of gun control=education I am speaking about. They are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what my opponent may want you to believe.

Socratic Question: Would may opponent dispute these facts?

No, I would not dispute these facts. There is no doubt that education about guns is important, but that is not the debate topic. The topic is "Given the recent mass shootings there should be tighter gun laws" and not "there should be more education". I agree that there should be more education, but my opponent went into this debate to prove that there should be tighter laws.

The Laws just need to be enforced better.

This I agree with as it is proven by time - as in the case of NYC where already existing laws were merely more properly enforced rather than tightened.

Next my opponent cites countries such as Luxembourg, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Saudi Arabia as having tight gun laws. He concludes that this is why they have low homocide rates, thereby constructing a false correlation. These countries have low crime rates because they are among the richest in the world.. Where everyone is wealthy and well-fed there is no necessity of crime. Poor countries with tight gun laws still have high crime rates (see example of Jamaica below and rich Switzerland in the first post).

My opponent:

Norway( one of those places my opponent mentioned by the way as having strict gun control laws remember? )- Loose gun control laws.

Norway has a low crime rate because the people there are oil rich, not because of their gun laws.

Gun politics in Norway

According to the article gun ownership is fully regulated, most guns are used for hunting, which is very popular in Norway and laws for firearm storage are very strict.

I admit that gun laws in Norway are not quite as strict as I thought they were (I was going by memory, which can sometimes err), but now see that this actually helps my case because murder rates are certainly very low in Norway. So I thank my opponent for supporting my case while trying to debunk it and paint me as "dishonest".


Socratic Question: Is it correct to say that rich countries low crime rates have more to do with their standard of living than with gun laws?

Consider this before answering:

Gun control in Jamaica

By the time we have finished with them, Jamaican gunmen will be sorry they ever heard of a thing called a gun."[2] In order to win this war, Manley believed it necessary to disarm the whole public: "There is no place in this society for the gun, now or ever."[3]

Although these draconian measures were started in the 1970s, Jamaica has topped the list of "most murders in the world" many times, even up to our decade.

I think I have now conclusively shown that there is no correlation between crime rate and gun laws but that there is certainly a correlation between standard of living and crime. The solution to crime is therefore to elevate the standard of living and the general education in a country, not implement more nanny-state laws that rob citizens their freedom of choice.

In this second post I have buffered my original claims with hard facts that I dont think my opponent can deny.

The Winner of this debate is

SKYFLOATING!

Congratulations Skyfloating!

Judges rullings:

Ok, in that case, here's my ruling:
-------------------------------------------
This was a very difficult debate to judge, both because of the subject matter and the incompleteness. Both opponents have made many good points, and I personally would have liked to read it to conclusion, but as such, I must point out several errors made in the debate:

"Now, I am sure you're saying that, wait, doesn't this help Sky's argument?" ---GAOTU789

"I fully agree...." ---Skyfloating.

"Sorry but I believe you agreed with me." ---GAOTU789

While as slight an error as agreeing with your opponent, in a debate this close to call, it factors in immensely.

I liked GAO's presentation, backed up by solid facts, and given the opportunity to finish the debate, he may have been the winner.

However, since Skyfloating was able to substantially de-rail his opponent, and since the topic was "Given the recent mass shootings there should be tighter gun laws", Sky effectively stayed on-topic with his position, and therefore is the winner of the debate.
----------------------------------------

Opening statements:

- Gautu789 (gun control) - Started argument in favor of guns with a very passive approach, coming from the center instead of the left. Though not very strong, his reasoning is sound and without any glaring mistakes.

- SkyFloating (anti-control) - Strong argument and philosophy makes sense but the examples used work against his point. He says he'd like fingerprint and psychological pre-screening which is very in-line with gun control ideas. He mentions Anders Brevik as an example of how gun control does not work in Norway yet it has one of the absolute lowest crime rates in the world. Also, Anders is very right-wing and conservative. Probably not the best example he should have used. He uses the post 9/11 airport security increase as an example of failure yet there has been no successful terrorist attacks since then. Again, not a good example.

Rebuttal (and closing statements?) -

- Gautu789 (gun control) - The argument here again very compromising. In fact, he seems to be conceding and simply redefining what gun control is. He is saying that "gun control is bad but education is good yet education is a form of control therefore gun control is good." That is the gist of what I'm getting from his side. There were some good things said, however that supports gun control. He tore apart SkyFloating's claim that gun control laws backfire (hah) around the world in regards to crime rates. Gautu789 brought out the stats and disproved those myths.

- SkyFloating (anti-control) - Points out the same thing I did above about Gautu789 not actually talking about stricter gun contol laws. In trying to point out that low crime rates are due to wealth and not strict gun laws, he shot himself in the foot (hah) by also exposing that poor countries have higher crime, regardless of gun laws being lax or strict. This was sort of a kamikaze way for him to just scrap the whole topic of national statistic since he realized it worked against his argument. Smart move.

- CONCLUSION - Tough call. Gautu789 didn't even seem to be arguing for more gun laws but made some good points in favor of more gun education. SkyFloating had a lot of bad arguments but was at least arguing what he was assigned to debate. After reading this, my opinion on gun control hasn't swayed in either direction.

- Winner - SkyFloating - Simply by being the only one addressing his side with commitment (regardless of the performance), he sort of wins by default.