Debate Rounds (3)
Well, "gun control" is such a broad topic, but I'm going to talk about universal background checks mainly. If this is not what you meant by gun control please inform me.Claim one: It doesn't work--According to Columbia University, both universal background checks on gun purchases and background checks for ammunition purchases can dramatically reduce gun violence. Checks on gun purchases could reduce gun violence by 56.6% and ammunition checks could reduce it by 80.6%. (https://www.law.columbia.edu...) over 31,000 Americans die each year from gun injuries, so ammunition background checks could save 25,000 lives each year and gun background checks could save 17,500 American lives each year. So claims that gun control doesn't work are simply false.
Next you mention the Second Amendment. Although gun bans are unconstitutional, the amendment does allow for regulation within reason. That's why you can't own a rocket launcher as a civilian. Same goes for background checks. In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to not allow people with grievous criminal records or mental health issues to purchase firearms.
Finally, you say we need an equalizer, which implies that the more guns a community possesses, the safer it is. So if this were true, the country with the most per capita gun ownership would have the least per capita gun deaths, right? Let's see if this is true.
The United States leads in per-capita gun ownership worldwide. There are 112.6 guns for every 100 citizens; more than enough for everybody to have one gun. This is followed by Serbia, Yemen, Switzerland, and Cyprus.(https://en.wikipedia.org...) Thus, the United States should have the lowest rate of gun deaths among developed countries, right? But it doesn't. It has the most guns and the least gun control among developed countries, yet it leads in gun deaths among the same(https://en.wikipedia.org...). This would imply that more guns means less safety. The United States, contrary to your claim, leads in gun deaths among developed countries. Thus, stricter gun laws and background checks do not make citizens less safe, proving your claim false.
Well, since you didn't define gun control in your opening arguments, I understood that we would be debating the generally accepted definition of gun control.
Gun control:regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Because background checks and the like regulate the selling of guns, they are, by definition, gun control. It is what is commonly referred to when people talk about gun control. No, not all forms of gun control work. But some, such as background checks for gun and ammunition purchases, do work, as shown by my statistics. So when you make broad statements such as "gun control doesn't work", you can't address just one narrow form of gun control. You have to address the whole field and prove that all forms of gun control do not work, not just one. You have made the claim that all forms of gun control do not work, and I have made the claim that some forms of gun control work. Thus, you must prove that all forms, including the ones I mentioned in Round 1, do not work. I simply must prove that some work, as shown in my Round 1 arguments.
Since Con has neglected to respond to any of my arguments from last round, I extend.
Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010, based on red flags raised by the background check system, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Justice. That's just 1 percent of the more than 6 million applications. The most common reasons: nearly half were felony indictment or conviction; 19 percent were fugitives; and 11 percent were those who had violated state laws. The rejection rate has been essentially unchanged over the years. (There is a right to appeal.) The system is weak. And it is obviously not gun control. If it was a form of gun control, then our nation would be considered a nation that has gun control. Easy logic. Maybe not for you. It might be too much information for you to process.
By the way, do you even acknowledge your hypocrisy here? You said that I did not respond to you while you did not respond to any of my basic points about how actual gun control doesn't work and has been ineffective throughout the country's that I have mentioned. As well as my points on how gun control does not work within our country. And cut that "I thought that we would be debating the generally accepted view of gun control." Come on! We all know that gun control is policy that pushes for taking guns away from the public, cutting the manufacturing of guns for the public, and forcing people to get licenses which is intentionally made so it is practically impossible to attain a gun. And as shown by my previous statistics. It saves some lives, but doesn't make it hard at all for criminals to attain a gun. As of the status quo. As Obama even said, someone you are probably a supporter of, "It's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun," Obama said. "If you want to buy a gun " whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller, you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. This is common sense." There you go. So it was probably a bad idea to put forth a brief statement with little to no stats.
I apologize. I cannot post an argument right now. Seeing as Con has again refrained to respond to my arguments, both about Con's effectiveness argument and the "equalizer" argument, I extend.
Thank you for the debate sir. Best of luck to you.
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.