Gun control
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 3/15/2013 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 4 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 998 times | Debate No: | 31350 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)
 Con Here's my argument: The idea is straightfoward and simple, take away guns and violence will decrease. However, research has shown that gun control allows further violence and destruction upon a nation. The fact that more than 99% of all LEGAL US gun owners have not used their registered weapon for crime show that you are in fact disarming law abiding citizens, potentially putting them in danger of criminals and murderers. Gun laws in cities and states show that. For example, Chicago is the most dangerous city in the nation and one of the most violent in the world, while the state of vermont, which has relatively low gun laws, is one the most safe places in the US. Also, if you look at countries, you will also see that countries such as switzerland have very low crime rates, while countries such as Mexico have some of the highest crime rates.  Pro My Argument Gun control has been shown to work. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." -The International Crime Victim Survey [1] It's shown to work in Australia [2] "This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows." Gun death rate Japan 0.07 /100,000 United Kingdom 0.25 /100,000 Germany 1.10 /100,000 Australia 1.05 /100,000 Israel 1.86 /100,000 United States 10.2 /100,000 [3] As you can see, the ones with the most gun control, have the lowest homicide rate Let's examine Con. However, research has shown that gun control allows further violence and destruction upon a nation. Citation please? "The fact that more than 99% of all LEGAL US gun owners have not used their registered weapon for crime show that you are in fact disarming law abiding citizens, potentially putting them in danger of criminals and murderers" Again, citation please? If it was true, could it be because of tighter restrictions such as background checks? We know that 1.9 million purchases were stopped because of background checks [4]. Obama nor any legislation is around to constitutionally disarm citizens. There's no way or motive for him doing so. Joe Biden actually said "I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey," [5]. Gun laws in cities and states show that. For example, Chicago is the most dangerous city in the nation and one of the most violent in the world In the world?! Again, citation please? Last I checked, Chicago didn't even reach the top 10 [6]. Con fails to understand that Chicago isn't an island in the middle of no where. Chicago is a part of Illinois (their gun laws weren't as strict as Chicago's) and 42% of of guns that were seized were obtained in other parts of Illinois [7]. The other 58% were out of state, most from parts like Indiana and distant Mississippi. Neither of those are known for strict gun laws [8][9]. In 2010 the strict gun laws in Chicago were shot down (pun intended) by the Supreme Court, because they were unconstitutional [10]. In 2012, Chicago experienced almost a 20% increase in homicide rate [11] while the state of vermont, which has relatively low gun laws, is one the most safe places in the US Vermont is the 43rd smallest state in the US [12]. It would have to be practically a war zone to get on the charts. switzerland have very low crime rates Switzerland actually has strict gun laws "On June 20, 1997, the Swiss Parliament adopted a federal law on arms, arms accessories and ammunition (Arms Act), which entered into force on January 1, 1999. As a general rule, the Arms Act requires a permit for each transaction involving weapons or relevant parts of weapons purchased from an authorized gun dealer's shop. Permits for purchasing weapons are issued by the competent authorities of the Cantons, which have to ensure that the necessary legal requirements are fully met. The selling party has to verify the absence of any legal obstacle on the buyer's side (18 years of age, absence of an apparent risk to the buyer or third persons, no entry in the Register of Convictions for Violent Crimes and Misdemeanors). Subsequent transfers either by sale or by another transaction among private individuals have to be documented through a written contract between those individuals themselves, which they have to keep for at least ten years. In addition, foreign nationals without a permanent residence permit in Switzerland need an authorization to purchase weapons or relevant parts of weapons from private dealers as well. Foreign nationals must obtain their permit from the competent authority of the Canton in which the purchase will take place. In order to obtain a permit, foreign nationals have to present an official certificate issued in their home country to prove that they are entitled to purchase a weapon or a relevant part of a weapon. In addition to requiring the above-mentioned permit to purchase weapons, the Arms Act also requires a special certificate to bear arms in public. A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks. To obtain a permit to bear arms one also has to pass an examination on the correct handling of weapons as well as a test on legislation on the use of firearms. Permits are normally valid for a specific type of weapon and for the entire territory of Switzerland, but are limited to five years. " [13] while countries such as Mexico have some of the highest crime rates. In the constitution of Mexico, it says private ownership of a firearm is a right [14]. It is regulated, however, this is why the drug cartels go to the US for guns. 70 percent of smuggled firearms are from the US [15]. A paper by Luke Chicoine showed that "In the four years following the expiration of the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), the homicide rate in Mexico increased 45 percent." [16]
[1] http://www.unicri.eu... [2] http://www.factcheck.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.bradycampaign.org... [5] http://abcnews.go.com... [6] http://opishposh.com... [7] http://www.theatlanticcities.com... [8] http://smartgunlaws.org... [9] http://www.suntimes.com... [10] http://www.upi.com... [11] http://theincidentaleconomist.com... [12] http://www.worldatlas.com... [13] http://www.eda.admin.ch... [14] Mexico. 2004. ‘Article 10.’ The Political Constitution of the Mexican United States, p. 13. Mexico City: National Congress of the United Mexican States / Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas. 28 July. [15] http://www.google.com... [16] http://www.econ-jobs.com... |
 |
|
Con harrisondw forfeited this round.
Pro |
 |
|
Con harrisondw forfeited this round.
Pro |
 |
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
| harrisondw | Magic8000 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: full ff
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
| harrisondw | Magic8000 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because of Con's forfeit, More convincing arguments to Pro as all of Con's points were countered and Sources to Pro as he used 16 sources, while Con used none.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
| harrisondw | Magic8000 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: A magically octomillenary triumph
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
| harrisondw | Magic8000 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
hahaha epic nickname!