Debate Rounds (3)
Nyx999 forfeited this round.
Okay, now. I don't know where you are getting that Hoover was a fan of gun laws, could you please give me a source? Oh right, this is the last say... Could you please put it in the comment section? Attention voters: Please look in the comment section for my opponent's source. :) And I assume by franklin you mean FDR since you could mean President Franklin Pierce, or Benjamin Franklin. (He was never a president, it's just a lot of people seem to think he is, I have absolutely no idea why.) So where's your source. And actually, Franklin Roosevelt is actually called the father of gun control, http://www.newrepublic.com... there's my source. I believe that you are mistaken. And just because people will be unhappy is no reason not to save lives (by the way, I believe more than several people are already unhappy) And ban doesn't mean no guns at all. For example, what about keeping guns in banks and other places that are targets for stealing. A bank isn't a citizen, it will be kept safe and it won't leave the bank. That's really just a suggestion, I'm sure someone will say, "Well one of the tellers could go bad and use the gun to take control of the bank" and so that wouldn't exactly work that well, but my point is that a gun laws don't necessarily mean no guns at all, and a ban on guns worded correctly doesn't necessarily mean no guns at all. During the prohibition, I'm sure they had rubbing alcohol, and a ban could just mean banning all citizens from having guns.
Also, it's been proven that there is a direct correlation with guns and homicides. More guns=more homicides. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... And higher avilibality to guns= more homicides. Ergo, if we restrict the availability to guns (i.e. gun laws, gun ban) there will be less homicides. And gun ownership in america is the highest in the world. I mean geez, it wouldn't hurt to scale down, even a little.
People say that if everyone had a gun, we could just shoot a mass murderer down before he kills anyone. Wrong. An armed civilian saving everybody has only happened once in the last thirty years. (It only happens in 1.6 percent of all mass shootings since 1980) That's TINY. Everyone having a gun obviously doesn't save anybody, why can't we just limit the amount of guns in circulation (i.e. gun control laws or gun ban) and try it, since a lot of studies are backing us up on this. http://listverse.com... (number 2)
I think I'm done here, fightingrebel (by the way, LOVE the name. :) ) I thank you for this debate, I hope people will vote on it, my last debate I was VERY proud of except nobody voted! I was so annoyed. And remember, could you please give me your source on the Hoover thing?
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.