@orionlt @sharkb8Hey guys, your confirmed judges so far: @ninadabit @lupita @vkate
@gigi oh crap lol, I might be in trouble then. I guess we’ll see.
@sharkb8 hahaha why? You have a request on a judge? name it and I will try to bring :-)
@gigi Oh idk lol, I just thought both of them would vote against me since this is a tough topic on conservative/liberal lines. I won't request any specific judge since I'll leave that up to you, but a balance between right leaning and left leaning judges seems fair to me :).
Also! Just a really quick clarification on the "unique perspective" part of my assessment: I mean that Pro's argument is a bit more elaborate and addresses parts of gun violence that Con does not seem to challenge or take into account.
@lupita Fair enough. I've heard from a few people now that I was being overly hyperbolic with the civil war point. I had tried to tone that down by talking about how even if it wasn't civil war, it would at least be armed insurrection, but I don't know the extent to which that insurrection would happen, so the specific loss wasn't as clear as I should have made it.Also you're right I didn't talk about accidental deaths or suicides much. Realistically I don't think we ban things because they lead to accidental death or suicide, i.e Tide Pods, but I should have said more about that. Obviously I'd have preferred a different conclusion, but I understand how you reached yours and I appreciate the judgment :)
@vkate That may well have been a better summary of Con's case than Con gave, nice anaylasis.
@vkate Thanks so much! That was basically exactly how I saw the round so I'm glad you got where I was going with this :)
@sharkb8 Congrats for making it to the finals!!!!!@orionlt Great job in the Championship, stay tuned for your last debate for a chance to get the 3rd place!
I think Daniel could have won this by simply pointing out the fact that there are 300 million guns in America and that his opponent has no realistic way to substantially reduce that number without initiating some kind of Civil War -- which would defeat the stated purpose of getting rid of guns (to reduce gun deaths). If your "solution" would actually increase gun deaths, it doesn't seem like much of a solution at all. There is not a single policy that anyone can come up with to significantly reduce the number of guns in this country without physically confiscating them. There is no "get rid of 300 million guns" without confiscations. Those confiscations, for cultural reasons, will lead to revolt, and in the end, Civil War. Think about Waco. Think about the Bundy Ranch incident. These things easily could have been lead to Civil War if the government decided to make this a NATIONAL POLICY and actually enforce it as such.
I also think this is kind of unfair because Daniel is more familiar with American cultural attitudes (particularly gun owners) than someone from Australia who might not realize how very unlikely it is that people in America would go along with these kinds of Australian policies. For cultural reasons, that is so unlikely that it becomes absurd. Now, you might say American cultural attitudes are absurd, and you can certainly make that argument, but you couldn't argue that Americans don't have these deeply-ingrained cultural attitudes.
I think this comes down to the Australian misunderstanding American cultural attitudes toward guns. Gun ownership in the United States is viewed as a RIGHT, which makes it substantially different than the view of someone who does not see it as a right. It automatically shuts down certain kinds of arguments because in the end it doesn't matter whether or not it is advisable or good, but rather, whether or not rights are being violated. I would compare this free speech in America vs Europe. Here in America, you're allowed to be a "Nazi." In Europe, you're not. This is due to a significant difference in cultural attitudes on the issue. In Europe, free speech is NOT a right, and therefore is not above reproach or question. It is a privilege that may be taken away if it is practical to do so. American cultural attitudes toward gun ownership make it EXTREMELY unlikely that any "gun buyback" program would significantly reduce the number of guns in the country -- especially among the households which actually own guns who have an average of 8 guns. These aren't the "kinds" of people who sell their weapons to the government below market value. These aren't the "kinds" of people who will respond to requests for voluntary disarmament. These aren't the "kinds" of people who will "take their guns to a gun club and leave them there." All of these things might sound entirely reasonable to an Australian person, but not anyone who has even a cursory understanding of American gun culture and their attitudes toward gun ownership and the governments role in regulating such. Simply put, Daniel is right and confiscation would be the only realistic way to get these guns from these people. What sounds "reasonable" to you (people surrendering their weapons so that they don't become felons) just isn't realistic in America. That's not a good enough incentive. The incentive would have to be "surrender your arms or we will take them from you AND charge you for not surrendering them." But that's simply a confiscation, and for cultural reasons, would also lead to Civil War. It's hard to expect someone who isn't from America to be fully aware of these kinds of nuances in American gun culture. It would be like trying to understand Filipino gun culture. Do you have any idea how many gunsmiths there are in the Phillippines? For cultural reasons (resisting imperialism first Spanish then Japanese then Americans) that is never going to go away. They also have much different attitdes on whether or not it's okay to assassinate politicians -- views most Americans would be shocked to hear. Again, I'm not commenting on whether or not these are good cultural attitudes to have, I'm just saying that people have them, and if you don't understand that then you can't understand why your policy wouldn't work.
And as I say all of this without having saw the beginning of the debate I see that this was exactly the argument he made.
Cheers @sharkb8 for the debate
@orionlt damn solid debate man. Great semi!
Also I was challenged on some statistics saying that the US homicide rate is not higher than countries with gun control, specifically UK and Aus. Wikipedia gives the US a 4.88 rating, which is I assume where the statistic was drawn from, with the UK and Aus ranking in at .9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
@orionlt I was responding to you saying the US had the highest rate of homicide in the world. I do agree with you we have a higher rate of homicide than Australia, although there are other reasons for that.
@sharkb8 the US is nowhere near the highest rate of homicide. It's actually on the low end despite have nearly double the next country's guns per capita. It's also vastly safer and lower in homicides than almost any gun free country, the exceptions being China and Japan. The MOST Dangerous places in the world are places where guns are illegal whether within the US or any other country. The reason is simple: The Gun is the Great Equalizer.
@orionlt gives a great mix of high gun ownership (no country even approaches us in the US) and low murder rates. We have ~1 gun per person but only ~0.000025 murders per gun. So odd that all those guns and yet VA governors idiotic claim of "93 million gun murders per day" doesnt ring true. https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE
Pro starts by perpetuating the LIE that the US had 30 "mass shootings." First, there is no definition for 'mass shootong' but more the claim is based in taking All shootings including those where nobody was killed and more so these shootings happened in GUN FREE ZONES where guns are mostly illegal. Well said to point out that homicides in GUN FREE Australia actually Went UP, Just like in the UK where the gun ban shot violent crime way up (home invasions are aboit 3 times higher) while the US has had it drop as guns Increased. Guns are used Over 1.5 MILLION Times in Self Defense Every Year. Well said, Con, that govt violently attacking gun owners, which is exactly what would happen, to take their guns away would mean mass revolution and enormous numbers of gun deaths. Pro continually reports dishonest stats that have no basis in reality but are ridiculous talking points of the anti-gun lobby.
Guns are used at Least 1.5 MILLION times in self defense every year and more likely 2 million as reported by GunOwners.org by a 3rd party researcher.
@nellyj_misesian There are no really good statistics on that. Though clearly there is no disputing people do often use them in self-defense. Estimates are all over the map on it. Which doesn't mean 1.5 million is wrong, just that any specific number is a pretty broad guess.I support the right for people to defend themselves. I sometimes question whether a gun is all that more effective than other means, but none the less, I think they make sense as a self-defense weapon.
Good debate Gents! Substantive (given the time frame) and had some nice clash at various points.Both debaters... excellent arguments. There were perhaps a point or two that went unaddressed, but again, time constraints make it so that is almost inevitable. Pro missed the clock on his last statement, about the only actual mistake I saw here performance wise.Formal Case structure was not strong here, but I didn't need it to flow the arguments so that's not a problem.Pro's best points1. I was convinced that a comprehensive set of laws could achieve reductions in guns, and that those reductions could lead to fewer suicides and accidents. (Probably less domestic murders as well, but that was not in the debate) Good back and forth, but I found Pro's reasoning compelling.2. Better policing was not responded to.3. Austrailia has less of a gun violence problem than the US does.Con's best points1. Con cast serious doubt on crime reduction through gun control by use of statistics related to crime rates in various situations. This limits Pro's advantages somewhat.2. The "Civil War" argument, based on American culture is a good turn. I thought it could have a more sophisticated and less hyperbolic delivery (due to the citations used) but it's a good poin't and valid to enough of a degree to be significant. There would absolutely be violence if we repealed the second ammendment.Washouts1. Self-defense (effectiveness) wasn't clear. Con shows they get used a lot for this, Pro points out this leads to deadlier encounters and is not truly safer in net. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, sometimes its good self-defense, sometimes it escalates a property crime into a killing. Good debate here, but no clear winner on the subject.So where does that leave me for RFD?I think the Civil War disad (I'd call it significant rebellion more than war) is a real thing, and outweighs the gains we could make when murder rates are already falling. While I do think that I'd rather live in a low gun country than a high gun country, I feel like America is not ready for that yet. We need to take some steps to change culture before we can do this. That may be happening but we aren't there yet. Even many hardened liberals still support the 2nd ammendment here and it is a lynch pin of adopting the Australian system.Had this debate been about what is a better set of laws, I'd vote pro, but it's about what the US should do, and I don't think this path would be the best one to follow due to the incredibly stiff resistance, and likely serious violence that would result.So, I'm voting Con, with the caveat that I'd rather live in a country like Australia when it comes to Gun culture and I think both debaters gave equally great debate here. This is more about my take on the issues and arguments presented than either debater's skills or tactics. Both gave me ample reason to favor their views.
if you think aus gun policy is good there is no reason to even waste time. only idiots would waste time on this one.
@onemannation2012 Considering Australia's rate of homicide, rate of gun homicide, total homicide, total gun deaths, rate/total of accidental death/suicides are all lower than the United States, and are all lower than when they instated their gun restrictions in the 1990's, only an idiot would choose to ignore that data and refuse to hear a case from an Australian in support of such a law.
@sharkb8 considering aus doesn't believe in rights only a idiot would agree that their policy is good. Only idiots believe in gun control, also most also agree that abortion is ok as well. Second i rather have freedom than security. Like i said dont straw-man man the facts here. aus other crimes have triple since the banning of guns. Like i said only fools and idiots love gun control.
@onemannation2012 You're right, don't straw man the facts, like you are blatantly doing yourself. - https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp- https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateAnd just because you believe in something another country doesn't believe in doesn't mean we just call the other country idiots and refuse to engage with them in arguments and data.
@sharkb8 2 problems here one you are using a very biased liberal facts checkers that are been proven wrong. then using wiki? like i said only idiots engage with idiots that think personal rights dont exist. Guns are never the problem. i coundnt even listen to the liberal talk on and on about muh rights and banning of the 2nd. you could have destroy the whole debatein 1 sentence. Third since you are con. why did you even reply? Aus is a socialist country. of course gun deaths are going to be down. that doesnt prove that guns are bad because they kill. i vote for you since the other fool is completely hurting my brain. Like i said freedom over security. Aus is crap anyways. would cares what they do.
@onemannation2012 I'm glad you voted for me. And obviously as you've noticed, I'm Con so I do support the American system. What I'm responding to is you saying there is no reason to even waste time with the debate in the first place.There absolutely is reason to look at this issue, since Australia has had major success with their gun control policy. We can question whether or not that would be a legitimate policy in the United States (I say it wouldn't), but it would be intellectually dishonest to try to pretend that Australia didn't have the reduction in crime they have clearly experienced.Also, if you had read the links I posted, you would see that they were compiling where you got your (inaccurate) information, and then showing what the real evidence says. The sources of data Snopes and Factcheck.org utilized were: The American Law and Economics Review, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, The Library of Congress, The Australian Institute for Criminology, The University of Sydney, And the publicly available data on Australia's Crime Record.The wiki article was actually from the United Nations Office on Development and Crime, as you would have seen if you had actually read it.
@sharkb8 i said even if they did still doesnt prove that we should even care. you know prison is safe. my whole point here is that you either believe the state rules or the individual does. I glad you won, but dont waste time on nonsense like this. a better debate would why do we care about aus policys since they dont have a Constitution