Gun Control in the US
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is for acceptance, the rest for debate
Let the games begin and good luck.
On the topic of "guns don't kill people".
I don't care about that ideology, the simple fact is that a person with a rifle bought over a supermarket counter for $400 is much more likely to kill someone than a guy with his bare fists.
This is all coming from a Canadian, the place with near-impossible gun laws.
Your turn Shreked4Lyfe
If criminals are bound to kill someone, therefore breaking the law, then, implying gun control majorly happens across the US, then the criminals would have no problems simply breaking the law and obtain a gun.
If you shoot someone in the heart of the forehead with either gun, its going to either kill them or leave disabilities that will last a long long time, honestly I'm not sure which is worse.
But the point is, criminals are going to break the law anyways, restricting guns is only going to take guns away from people who use it in self defense against, you guessed it, criminals.
Whether or not you shoot someone in the heart and kill them doesn't matter, the calibre of the rifle does though. Take for example a .22, it's a tiny bullet and will do significantly less damage than a military grade 5.56 round, reducing the likelihood of said injuries happening. Gun control can limit sizes of calibres normally available, thus aiding in the probability of survival from being hit in the same place as a 5.56 round.
The average citizen is also highly untrained using a firearm, so having a gun to defend themselves doesn't really aid them all to much. If a badguy were to walk up to a woman with an AR-15 while the woman was carrying a pocket pistol and open fire, will it really help THAT much in defending her life?
http://i.imgur.com... as it was concealed permits that lowered it, and that was before 1994. Hunting rifles will still, if shot in the head, will still kill some one as well, so it doesn't matter much.
It doesn't matter whether or not 3 or 4 people die, it matters if one person plus another person plus another person dies. If you think about what happened in Paris, if one of the people who were in the line of fire, do you really believe that as many people would have died as the amount that did?
Just to show how bad gun control is, Honduras is the murder capital of the world, and guns are banned there. Yet in Switzerland, one of the lowest gun rates in the world, guns are necessary for citizens.
For the average citizen argument, it doesn't take that much training for anyone to take a pistol or a handgun and shoot someone else in the head, killing them.
Back to the murder capital argument though, if you look at the crime rates compared to the amount of guns: http://i.imgur.com... it is in the favor of anti gun control.
Why would Mexico and Honduras, where guns are flat out banned, would have such high gun rates, yet Switzerland the exact opposite if guns are banned?
2: The point I'm trying to make about hunting rifles is this: Less Ammo = Less Death
3: Paris doesn't really apply to gun control, those rifles and devices were sourced from the middle-east by a terrorist organisation
4: Switzerland, Mexico and Honduras gun politics have very little to do with US gun control laws. The reason the homicide rate in Honduras is because of the extreme poverty, yet illegal trafficking of firearms is also to blame there, so if firearms and their respective favela gangs were disbanded/weeded out then I can bet you that homicide would become significantly harder to commit then. In reality though, their police force is terrible for that stuff, so I bet any laws there would be effective until the government gets their act together. So, all-in-all, the US is in no position to be compared to a place like Honduras, which is much harder to analyse and pick apart than the US. There are simply just too many variables for a reliable conclusion to be made.
5: Average citizens don't prepare for shootings or partake/pay for gun lessons. Most gun discipline in the US is self-taught or rarely practiced. The NRA has proposed to make gun training required, but so far no bill has been passed to make it so. An average citizen, therefore has inferior training and knowledge than a gunman with a larger gun/calibre. Remember, if you take away that gunman's "black rifle", you take away his ability to harm more people in the same position as the hypothetical woman.
In conclusion, Gun laws may do little to actually stop crime, but they have the potential to reduce murder rates and increase the survivability of an encounter with a murderer.
2. Regardless if there is less ammo, that still means that more than one person could die either or, and the criminal could easily just bring more ammo.
3. Which exactly proves my point. The criminals brought the guns illegally into the country to do terror acts, which is what I've been saying this entire time. If one of those hundreds of people had one gun, that would have limited the amounts of death in Paris.
4. Illegal trafficking of firearms would happen in the US if they banned guns as well, making it no better than Mexico or the rest of Central America. It would be a downhill spiral into more poverty and all that rampant problems we see there today. You never addressed the Swiss point though, every citizen there has a gun by law.
5. Once again, it doesn't not take training to pull a trigger on a handgun and killing someone, training for higher up firearms i can understand, but that doesn't make them necessary, I do believe the NRA bill should pass however.
In conclusion, gun control is irrelevant to the issue of stopping crime and does nothing to help or aid the victim, and does more to help the criminal, who is breaking the law regardless, so illegal firearm trafficking would be much more rampant.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.