Should there be stricter gun laws?
Debate Rounds (3)
Pre-case analysis- The topic is in question format... Thus, there is a shared BoP for this topic.
As my opponent did I will keep my opening case short...
Internationally, an increase in the strictness in gun laws has been shown not to reduce crime, but to increase violent crime. On top of this, a more rigorous background check process would not be effective because a person who's background check is "clean" can purchase a gun and go commit a crime and that background check would have done nothing.
Plus, an increase in the strictness of laws just creates a larger demand for a black market. Which is an unregulated exchange of weapons that in essence contradicts the whole point in stricter gun laws.
But there is one role model country that we can all look at, Switzerland... Almost all adult males (excluding felons) are legally required to own a firearm and receive training. Gun crime is non-existent and the total crime rate is .1%.
And my opponent is over exaggerating the amount of gun deaths...
In fact, Guns are not a major cause of death in the United States, if we look at 2013 we can see this...
There were 2,596,993 deaths in 2013… the top 10 causes of death; none of which were homicide; were 73.5% of those deaths. 11,208 gun deaths occurred that year… So less than 1% of all deaths in 2013 were that of gun violence.
Actually, Venezuela is the second in total gun deaths in the world... "Venezuela " Gun Facts, Figures and the Law". Gunpolicy.org. University of Sydney School of Public Health. Retrieved 2014-01-27
"Only one mass shooting in Australia since they removed guns in 1996"
The lack of mass shootings in Australia can be explained by total happiness... Australia ranked 10th in total happiness.
But total crime since the gun ban has been disastrous... Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent
guns and gun homicides are not correlated... Look at Germany: Guns 25 million: 30 guns per 100 people: gun homicide 158... Washington Post
"As for the black market, drug gangs and mobsters; they buy guns in mass numbers. The guns they buy are either lost guns or purchased via the Internet. Easily you could resolve this issue by placing stricter laws on the selling and distribution of guns, while keeping track of where all guns sold end up going."
This statement is ignorant... The definition of a black market is "an illegal traffic or trade in officially controlled or scarce commodities" Thus, because it is illegal, it cannot be controlled... Thus, laws would have no effect and by limiting guns the black market would grow. Thus, making it completely useless to limit guns because the black market would then control an unregulated supply of guns.
"It has been very clearly shown that guns are very much apart of crime and murder through numerous mass shootings and statistics to back it up even further."
I've already shown that guns are not a major cause of death in the United States
It has been statistically proven that there is very much a correlation that, simply put, more guns will likely lead to more gun violence. In nearly every category of gun violence, America reigns supreme amongst the First world and it's no comparison. Even a state-by-state level, the states with the most gun laws see the fewest instances of gun violence.
Back to black market, I pointed out the indirect affect on the results on preventing this to happen. The laws wouldn't stop them directly, but would make it absolutely more difficult to place guns in there hands considering the guns they possess are either lost or obtained via the Internet. You could easily prevent this by keeping a tighter leash on when and where guns go by following up on the sales of the guns.
Lastly, I never said guns were a major cause of death in the United States. Compared to the rest of the world it is, but my argument lies with gun violence and crime, which is not disputable. America has around 400 mass shootings last year alone, and you believe that gun violence isn't an issue in America? I'm all for individuals wanting to keep their guns, which I'm assuming you have guns, but eventually selfish wants isn't a good enough reason to allow gun violence to continue
I guess you are not familiar with DDO rules, the last round is not for new arguments/rebuttals/evidence as I would not have time to refute it and get my voters round in, and you would not have time to refute my rebuttal... It's for fairness sake
IGNORE EVERYTHING MY OPPONENT JUST SAID
So on to voters:
Pro Arguments- mass shootings in the US (evidence (CNN says 90 in US, 292 in the world not 400)not supported by source provided...), violence in the US, stricter gun laws would reduce crime, guns are a major cause of death, Australia, gangs and mobsters buy guns in mass numbers (claimed to be resolvable by increasing strictness)
Con Arguments- strictness creates demand for a black market, increasing strictness increases crime, Switzerland
Points refuted or left unsupported PRO- Guns are a major cause of death (refuted), Australia (refuted), gangs + mobsters(refuted), stricter gun laws reduce crime (unsupported)
Points refuted or left unsupported CON- increasing strictness increases crime (unsupported)
Final points (dropped by opponent)- Mass Shootings in the US (not supported by source provided)
Final points (dropped by opponent)- Black Market, Switzerland
So, if you are judging this debate look at the Final points, The Con has 2 unrefuted points, stricter gun laws will increase the Black Market and the example of Switzerland. The Pro has the fact of Mass shootings in the US (which is different than the source provided by a large margin) and stricter laws will reduce mass shootings, in theory.
So judges, The Con ought to win based on the fact that side has more unrefuted points.
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.