The Instigator
MistyBlue
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
George_Clinton
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Conducting Background Checks with Gun Sales is Reasonable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
George_Clinton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,013 times Debate No: 58808
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

MistyBlue

Pro

I feel like doing a very short, fast, debate. Note that there is a very small character limit, I want this to be short and sweet. 1st round is acceptance ONLY. Cartoon/political poster/ picture is necessary to be attached with each argument. Polite conduct expected at all times.... GO!
George_Clinton

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
MistyBlue

Pro

Background checks are a way that the government keeps guns out of known criminals' hands and people with mental health issues, without infringing upon the rights of normal citizens. By screening people who want to buy a gun, many criminals are prevented from buying guns. Many guns used in crimes are bought legally, and background checks help address that. In approximately 14 years (in the US), 1,024,000 people were prevented from buying guns because of mental health or criminal record. 171,028,000 checks were carried out in this period, which shows that background checks do not limit the 2nd amendment rights of the law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen. Main arguments against background checks include hassle and increased cost, but deaths are a much larger price to pay than hassle and costs. Imagine how many deaths those million guns could've caused.
Sources:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...;
s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" data-src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; data-sz="f" />
George_Clinton

Con



My opponent's argument is essentially as follows:

a. Guns are an issue
b. Background checks reduce the amount of firearms in criminals hands
c. Background checks are reasonable as they reduce crime

A. Guns are an issue

Guns are used in defense far more often then in offence [1. Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns]. In fact, gun control would have little effect on homicide or suicide rates as people merely substitute for other forms of weaponry, and guns may even have a decreasing crime impact [2. Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime].

B. Reduces guns in criminal hands

If anything, it decreases the amount of guns in law abiding hands who would deter criminals. It reduces the amount of gun shows and gun ownership. This has been linked to increases robbery, murder, rape, and robbery [3. Lott, John R. Bias Against Guns]. Most guns stopped are fals positives, meaning background checks only affect law abiding citizens, NOT criminals [4.http:// bit.ly/1mBV4hh]

C. Crime
See Massechusets... and above















Debate Round No. 2
MistyBlue

Pro

Law-abiding citizens are not affected by background checks, they should only be worried if they have something to hide.
About your graphs: They all seem to show what you stated, but that Massachusetts law only affected public, not private gun dealers. About 40% of guns in the US are acquired from private dealers, exempting them from the current background check legislation. Therefore, I consider data where only publicly purchased guns were checked to be a bit useless.

Guns don't protect you. A study at U.P.A. found that gun owners are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than a control (didn't own a gun). Owners are also more likely to go into potentially dangerous situations that they might have avoided without a gun America already has the most guns in the world AND the most homicides commited by firearms. The US has already done what the NRA said: They got more guns. But that hasn't helped.

My sources are in the comments section (URLS are long)

George_Clinton

Con

Law Abiding citizens

This is totally incorrect. Since the Brady Bill was passed, about 94 - 99% (depending on the estimate) of people stopped or slowed by background checks were false positives. In other words, people who are allowed to buy guns--or there is no evidence that they are not allowed to buy guns--were stopped as a result of the brady bill [1. http://nws.mx...]. Therefore, to say that background checks will not affect the average citizen is false, as up to date these laws have been primarily affecting law abiding citizens.

MA

Forcing dealers to do background checks affect who? The public... So I dont see what your point is here. MA passed the most stringent gun control laws in this country, and the effect was increased crime. This refuted my opponents contention.

UPA study

Forbes notes, "The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted" [2. http://onforb.es...].









Debate Round No. 3
MistyBlue

Pro

MistyBlue forfeited this round.
George_Clinton

Con

....
-_-
Vote CON.



















Debate Round No. 4
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Vere_Mendacium 3 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
MistyBlueGeorge_ClintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor defense by Pro
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
MistyBlueGeorge_ClintonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.