Do you think liberal gun laws are promoting increasing crime rates in US
Debate Rounds (3)
State level laws vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction. Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. In New York, however, the statutory civil rights laws contain a provision virtually identical to the Second Amendment. As well, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the protections of the Second Amendment apply against state governments and their political subdivisions (see: McDonald v. Chicago).
Firearm owners are subject to the firearm laws of the state they are in, and not exclusively their state of residence. Reciprocity between states exists in certain situations, such as with regard to concealed carry permits. These are recognized on a state-by-state basis. For example, Idaho recognizes an Oregon permit, but Oregon does not recognize an Idaho permit. Florida issues a license to carry both concealed weapons and firearms, but others license only the concealed carry of firearms. Some states do not recognize out-of-state permits to carry a firearm at all, so it is important to understand the laws of each state when traveling with a handgun.
In many cases, state firearms laws can be considerably less restrictive than federal firearms laws. This does not confer any de jure immunity against prosecution for violations of the federal laws. However, state and local police departments are not legally obligated to enforce federal gun law as per the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Printz v. United States.
Most nations hold the power to protect themselves, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be lost under certain circumstances: some countries have been forced to disarm by other countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may find themselves with a range of penalties or sanctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations.
National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States' International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) program "to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to organized crime and narcotics-related activities.
Worldwide politics and legislation
There are many areas of debate into what kinds of firearms, if any, should be allowed to be privately owned, and how, where and when they may be used.
Main article: Gun politics in Australia
Firearm laws in Australia are enforced at a Federal and State level. Gun ownership is accessible to the civilian population, and those persons must comply with 'genuine reasons' to obtain a 'Permit to Acquire' from their State government. 'Genuine Reasons' focus on either hunting and/or sport/target shooting (for Rifles), and do not include 'personal protection.'Handgun licences are also available, and applied for separately. In New South Wales (and similar in other States), firearm ownership is widely prohibited for convicted offenders or those with a history of mental illness. Gun licences must be renewed either annually or every 5 years, and expire automatically (if not renewed prior).
Firearm controls have been in place following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Gun ownership in Australia is not a wide social issue, and major political parties are generally supportive of pro-control legislation (Although parties such as the New South Wales Shooters Party, which represent pro-deregulation, have a small number of seats in State Parliaments).
The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States. The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States.
Main article: Gun politics in Brazil
All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25 and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence. The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be between 14 million and 17 million with 9 million of those being unregistered. Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide. In 2004, the number was 36,000. Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths; other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States. Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere. Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil. Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."
In 2005, a referendum was held in Brazil on the sale of firearms and ammunition to attempt to lower the number of deaths due to guns. Material focused on gun rights in opposition to the gun ban was translated from information from the National Rifle Association, much of which focused on US Constitutional discussions focused around the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although the Brazilian Government, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations, among others, fought for the gun ban, the referendum failed at the polls, with 64% of the voters voting no.
Main article: Gun politics in Canada
The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws is to control firearms so as to improve public safety. Canadians have a somewhat limited access to firearms, but are still able to purchase them with relative ease. Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage.
Users must possess a licence, called a "possession and acquisition licence (PAL)". A firearms safety course must be passed prior to applying for a PAL. A non-resident (i.e., non-Canadian) can have a "non-resident firearms declaration" confirmed by a customs officer, which provides for a temporary 60-day authorization to have a firearm in Canada. There are three categories of firearms for purposes of Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Restricted and prohibited weapons may actually be owned and used in limited circumstances.
In Canada firearms fall into one of three categories:
1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer. These can be possessed with an ordinary PAL, and are the only class of firearms which can be used for hunting, due to the ATT (Authorization to Transport) requirement for Restricted and Prohibited weapons, as well as provincial regulations. This class includes most popular sporting rifles and shotguns.
2. Restricted: This includes handguns wit
Before I address any of your arguments, I want to make one very important point: guns themselves do not commit crimes; guns are merely tools which are used to commit crimes. If someone wants someone else dead, and guns are not readily available, he or she will simply look for an alternative way to kill that person. This is because people kill others not because guns are available, but because of other reasons.
Comparably, the United States of America has far more liberal gun control laws than some of the other countries you have mentioned (Australia, Brazil and Canada). While these are interesting to read, there is a lot of irrelevant information when you consider your resolution (i.e. Merely stating the gun control laws of other countries does not make an argument). However, you did compare Australia"s gun laws with America"s, and then provided these statistics: "The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States" The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States." Although you have failed to cite these with the place you got these from, I"ll assume that you simply forgot and that these statistics are legitimate. Just because there are more gun related deaths in a country with liberal gun control laws (when compared with a more restricted one), this does not mean that the crime rate would lower if restricted gun laws were implemented. You have to view each case to see why the gun crime happened " simply restricting the ability to own a gun will probably mean that the crimes will be committed with other tools.
Stricter gun laws will encourage a black market, especially in a country that is so accustomed to having guns. Think about it: weed is illegal in most parts of the U.S.A, do people still do it? J-Walking is also illegal, do people still do it? People are still going to want to own guns, and because stricter gun regulations would lower the number of people legally allowed to own a gun, this would increase the crime rate as more people are owning a gun illegally.
neeraj12 forfeited this round.
Extend my arguments.
neeraj12 forfeited this round.
My counter-argument was never address, thus the resolution is negated. Vote con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by joshuaXlawyer 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: He gave up? lol good enough reason debate.org? Ok yeah I gotcha.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.