While complete gun control would infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights, it should be acceptable for a higher body to regulate to purchase, sales, and ownership of certain types of weapons. To begin, I would like to define the word gun control as: "the regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns". -Merriam Webster Dictionary
This is my first debate on this website, so please keep your argument sweet and to the point. I have previous knowledge of debate.
Round 1: Opening argument
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Closing argument. No new arguments are to be brought up
Thank you for posting an argument as I love debate. Let me expose a couple of weaknesses in your argument. For 1 you have given no reason as why gun control would be good we can assume that you are trying to stop crime. The government trying to regulate the buying and selling of guns would one- deter a favorable market as people would be discouraged purchasing weapons much like voting, 2. It would be nearly impossible for the government to track all the purchases and users of guns. For gun control to be effective it would have to stop the illegal distribution of guns and that would be close to impossible for the gov because there would be such a large volume of physical and virtual area for it to cover. For these reasons I feel that gun control is obsolete and ineffective.
Thanks for accepting! Id like to begin the second round by stating pecan pie gun control is a positive thing. It would be positive because it would allow for murder and suicide rates to drop. In Australia, a country with strict gun control, found that when they made the switch to strict gun control, homicide fell by over 59%. For suicide, the result was even higher. Suicide dropped 79%. I, and many others would agree that the Australian government has done a very good job of 'tracking all the purchases and users'. You also said that government regulation would deter purchasing weapons, however it would only affect the weapons which are being controlled. The overall sales of weapons which are not regulated by the government would go through the roof. For a nation to prosper and develop, we must abstain from certain freedoms, which is why I believe that the government regulation of firearms in North America would be beneficial.
Hmmm, it seems that you made an argument that didn't fall under the constraints of gun control via your definition which is, "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns". If the government in some way isn't apart of the selling of guns then by definition it is not gun control. This links back into my argument that people would be deterred from buying guns because the registration and other hassles would make it very unattractive. It is interesting that you used Australia as a gun control example for many reasons. First, according to people.duke.edu ," all criminologist studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nations collection of crime data, and their political, racial, ethnic, and economic disparities." So let us expose these differences in which make it impossible to compare. Australia has no direct neighboring countries so regulation of all legal gun distribution is much more feasible. The United States on the other hand has Mexico to the South and Canada to the north. For the government to see an actual effect of gun control in crime and suicide it would have to eliminate the illegal purchase of guns.Most criminals in the United States according to pbs.org get their guns from a person who acquired them legally. Which means they pay some one who, "looks the part" to go get a weapon for them. This shows that even with federal regulation in place today the ATF is virtually powerless to do anything about it.
My previous definition still stands- the government is not to buy and sell these weapons, but to rather oversee the entire process. If you wish, I will forget about my Australian argument, and move on to Canada. Canada also has gun control- however slight it might be. The government has more regulations on firearms, and therefore Canada has a lower firearm-murder rate. And while it is possible people can have other people purchase firearms for them, it is possible to crack down on this as well. As of right now, acquiring a firearm is not that difficult, and as we progress toward a safer tomorrow, we can develop new ways to keep weapons out of criminal hands. My original argument, how murder and suicide rates will drop still stands, regardless of where you go in the world. Gun control does not necessarily mean taking the weapons out of the hands of heard working, decent Americans, but it does mean that sacrifices must be made to provide a safe tomorrow for the next generations. As the government worries less on putting criminals in jails and prisons, and spends less on lethal injections, the federal government will have more money to spend on ATF, and therefore, eventually they will become powerful enough to deal with these issues.
I thought no new arguments but this is ok. I extend my pbs.org claim saying that it is impossible to compare firearm statistics from nation to nation because of economic, racial, ethnic disparities etc. This erases your Canada evidence. You have misunderstood my government claim I have never once said that the government would buy and sell weapons I have just said that the government would be apart of the regulations process, much like it is in the voting process. The only feasible way for the government to track gun distribution is through some sort of licensing system. Extend claim that, that sort of system would deter people, good citizens from buying guns which would negatively affect the gun market. Since you assume that buy cutting jail expenses that the atf would magically become effective, I must extend my claim that it is virtually impossible for the atf no matter how much money we pour into it to be effective. If the government is not buying the weapons then it would be impossible to track the illegal purchase of guns. Since the aff isn't stopping the illegal purchase of guns then we can assume that crime and suicide remain the same. From my standpoint gun control in the aff world is non-effective and would just be a misuse of tax payer money especially if we are taking money away from prisons to do so. For these reasons I ask that you vote neg