Gun control should not be implemented because it violates the second amendment that was adopted into the bill of rights that gives us Americans the right to bear arms.
Thank you for accepting and good luck
As pro stated, guns are violent weapons that wreak havoc on the people of America, whether they be at home, at a movie, in church, or at school, these weapons bring death wherever they go. However, would putting a restriction on this weapon that makes it to where only a specific group of people could obtain it benefit America or harm America? I would like to take you over seas to the United Kingdom where they put a ban on all firearms in 1997. In 1996, one year prior to the ban, the murder rate was 1.12 per 100,000 people. In 1997, the year that the ban was implemented, the murder rate rose to 1.24, and in 1998 it rose even further to 1.43 per 100,000 before finally reaching its peak in 2002 with a homicide rate of 2.1 per 100,000 people.
People will always find a way to kill others without guns whether it be stabbing, hanging, drugging, choking, etc. people will find a way to kill someone without a gun. A study that was conducted by Harvard University in August, 2013 says "Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownerships often had LOWER murder rates." This quote shows that people can and will find a way to murder someone even if a gun law is enforced. The Harvard Study goes further into the subject by bringing up a country that has the most strict gun law in effect, Russia. "Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the "gun-ridden" United States." The following study further increases evidence that banning guns will result in America's crime rate going up instead of it going down.
I would like to stay in Europe for right now and I would like to talk about countries that don't have this law in effect. According to the same study conducted by Harvard University, some of the lowest crime rates were found in countries that do not have gun restrictions present such as Germany, France, Norway, and Finland compared to some of the highest crime rates that were found in countries with a gun law present such as the United Kingdom, Russia, and Luxembourg where, according to the study, the crime rate is nine times higher than Germany in 2002. The following study shows that keeping guns available to the public will keep our crime rate lower while putting a gun ban will make our crime rate go higher. According to an article posted on guncite.com by David B. Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli, "Switzerland virtually has no gun crime. Therefore, argue the pro-gunners, America doesn't need gun control." This quote shows that a small country like Switzerland that legally requires every male adult to own a gun so that he can protect his family from a threat to their lives or the lives of those around them.
With this data, it is undeniable that gun control will lower homicide and suicide rates. You bring up many countries that have high murder rates, but one country you didn't talk about is Australia. In 1996 a mass-shooting killed 35 people in Port Arthor. Two weeks later the Prime Minister at the time passed pretty much the most strict gun restrictions in history. Around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were destroyed. During the course of a decade there was a 59% drop in gun related homicides (non-gun related stayed level) and during the course of the same ten years there were no mass shootings.
High murder-rates are common is mid-income countries such as Russia, Mexico, Brazil, etc. Different countries have different reasons for high murder rates, for example Mexico and Brazil have some of the highest drug rates in the world. That is most likely the reason for their high crime rates. With Russia they have many poverty, inequality, and social problems.
Next I would like to talk about robberies, most specifically armed robberies. In 2012, 354,520 robberies were committed in the USA. This resulted in a whopping $414 million in losses. Unless you are some kind of ninja you probably aren't going to rob a modern store (security systems, alarms, cameras, etc.) without a weapon. Bottom line you won't get your money unless you have some kind of weapon and again in America the handgun is the most popular one!
"On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least." (Source is at the bottom)
"In some of the recent mass shootings " for instance those in Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek, Virginia Tech " it has been suggested that the killer was mentally ill and that lack of treatment was a bigger issue than gun ownership. With this in mind, the New York-based doctors looked in their study not only at the relationship of gun ownership to firearms deaths but also mental illness.
They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.
More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.
"There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."
High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths."(Source at the bottom)
Pro, according to your statement "In some of the recent mass shootings " for instance those in Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek, Virginia Tech " it has been suggested that the killer was mentally ill and that lack of treatment was a bigger issue than gun ownership.” according to Listverse, rampage shooters, such as Seung-Hui Cho and James Holmes, like to target softer targets such as schools, movie theaters, etc. that they know they can attack with little resistance given by the target.
Allow me to repeat that comment again, “it has been suggested that the killer was mentally ill and that lack of treatment was a bigger issue than gun ownership.” The key part of that sentence is that “the killer was mentally ill” and it has been scientifically proven that people who suffer from mental illnesses are not themselves when they commit this crime and if they had been dealt with accordingly or reported by friends or family, they wouldn't’t have gotten the opportunity to do these awful crimes.
Like our friend in the comment section of this debate said, “we have two large countries attached by border and an entire continent below us can reach us without leaving a landmass. Australia is an island nation, so if they destroy tons of weapons, it will be much more difficult to bring that number of weapons into the country through illegal means.” He is not wrong about Australia simply because they can check what is being shipped in and out of Australia while America is prone to having guns illegally brought into the country unannounced and unnoticed.
I’m sure all of you that are reading are aware of the bill of rights, most presumably the 2nd amendment that was signed into the Bill of rights that says “"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment is saying that we as Americans have the right to own a gun if we want to. I would like to repeat the last part of the amendment saying “shall not be infringed.” This says that no matter what, congress can not pass a law that restricts Americans from owning a gun since the Bill of Rights was signed.
According to theclause, “The second amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship.” The quote here is basically implying that all throughout history, guns have been used by the people of America to protect either the country or the people of this country.
Guns have been used throughout American history to help protect the country or its people, the Revolutionary war and the Charles Whitman (The Texas Tower Sniper) incident are a few cases that come to mind. Now I want you to just imagine what it would’ve been like if guns were banned during these two times, the British would’ve won the war and there's no telling how many people Charles Whitman would’ve gone on to kill if guns were banned.
According to gun owners of America (GOA), guns have been proven to save more lives than they take. “Guns used in 2.5 million times a year in self-defence. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.” By banning guns, America is opening the door for even more crimes to occur such as robbery. “As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.” If America was to ban guns, these women would suffer even more crimes such as rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.
American’s will suffer even more crimes that are sex related or robbery related if we were to put a ban on guns.
I will now hand it over to pro to argue for this round.
pyevchik forfeited this round.
Well seeing as though pro forfeited the last round, there is nothing I can argue against in round three.
I want to paint a little image in your head for right now. Imagine you're sitting in your house watching television and you hear someone kick your door in and they begin to walk around your house. You're positioned in your bedroom and you know that you have a gun in your nightstand but you have a phone on your nightstand. Which do you choose a gun or a phone? I want you to remember this example for later as it will become clear as to why I stated this question.
In 1982, a little suburd located in Kennesaw, GA passed a law that required the heads of every household to keep at least one firearm in their house at all times. According to the statistics taken up that same year, the residential burglary rate was dropped by 89% and was compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. Fast forward ten years to 1991 in the same suburb, the burglary rate was still 72% lower than it had been in 1982.
As you can see, letting that suburb keep a gun in all households helped that suburb prevent crimes in their suburb. Now imagine what it would be like if that law applied to everyone that had a house in the United States. Our crime rate would be lower than it has ever been because everyone would be able to protect themselves against thieves.
According to the GOA, "Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms." This shows that thieves are less likely to enter a household that contains a gun because they know they would get shot by the home owner and could potentially die or go to jail.
Let me go back to the GOA for this next part, "Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)." These statistics show that civilians trust guns to save them from thieves and burglars who break into their home. "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." This quote shows that even though some times the suspected intruder is not an intruder, the police still fire a whole lot more than the civilian during these types of situations.
I would also like to bring up another topic that comes up as controversial to people and that is sexual assault. Its no lie that sexual assault is a horrific crime that no one wants to go through and no one wants to be affiliated with it. However, have you ever thought about how many of these incidents are prevented by the victims? Going back to the GOA, "As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse." This statistic shows that women use guns to protect themselves from sexual assault and if America were to take guns away, this large amount of women would suffer from sexual assault.
Let me take you back to the beginning when I asked you all whether or not you would pick a phone to dial 911 or would you pick a gun and shoot the burglar? I would shoot the burglar because I don't know if hes armed and dangerous or if he poses a threat to me and my family.
In conclusion, if congress were to put a restriction on guns, our crime rate would reach its peak, congress would violate our freedom by breaking the second amendment, our burglary rates would peak, and their would be more women in the U.S that go through sexual assault.
Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people. Saying guns kill people is like saying a car drives drunk or a knife stabs someone.
pyevchik forfeited this round.
|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:||4||0|