USA gun laws
Debate Rounds (3)
I would like to mention I am Canadian. I will most likely use comparisons with our countries as Canada has gun laws.
Why do you believe there should be such free access to guns? how does having guns help defense or prevent murders? how do you react to all the school shootings?
And I did not know Canada had gun laws that strict.
Our country, USA, was founded with the freedom of owning guns. And these guns were rifles, pistils, calibers, not assault weapons. I know you probably do not agree with assault weapons. When I say assault weapons, I mean machine guns that fire 40 bullets per second. IF some one robs your house, surly you would not shoot them 50 times?
I am more in between when it comes to gun laws. I do not think they should all be banned, but that people should be required to be put through EXTENSIVE background checks, all across the USA. That includes private dealers too.
I sometimes wish America would follow the UK's laws on gun or Canada's. They seem to have no or not many mass shootings. Am I right?
I believe installing these laws into the USA would help with all the murders and gory suicides.
Many people believe that banning guns will leave citizens unprotected. How do you react to this? I believe at first it will be hard to get it under control, but after the initial showdown people will find they are much more at ease knowing the person behind you doesn't have a gun.
Using statistics lets compare homicides USA with Canada, and see how many deaths where in defense.: I will use the rate of gun death per 100000 people.
- The total in USA is 3.6 (about 11000 people per year) die from gun Homicides. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...).
- In Canada that number shrinks to 0.5 (173 people)Homicides. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...)
-Suicides are 6.3 Vs. 1.79 Respectively
- Only .2 / 10.3 of all gun deaths in the USA are Justifiable.
How do you react to these numbers?
That is probably true about Canada having significantly less mass shootings and homicides than USA because Canada has a tighter gun law.
I cannot argue with that. But just because of that, I will never feel I should move to Canada because our country is still safe. At least where I live I feel safe. I live in Maine: a state that touches Canada up in the North Eastern Coast of the USA.
Also, banning guns in our country is going against the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. I am saying I am a "lover" of the 2nd Amendment like many gun owners, but that our 2nd Amend. protects this freedom of ours: the right to bear arms which was granted by our fore fathers. GOSH. NOW I SOUND LIKE A CONSERVATIVE, TEA PARTY, GUN OWNER......I usually don't speak like this.
Let me ask you this question.
What would you do OR how would you react if Canada loosened its Gun Laws and let every citizen own any type of gun, similar to America's?
There are plenty of non lethal defensive weapons available such as low voltage tasers and mace. these could be considered "arms" and yet they wouldn't create a lethal situation. Most guns are not used defensively but as a murder device with Suicides and murders accounting for 99% of all gun deaths. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...)
If Canada loosens up its gun laws I would be a small part in the what I would believe is a huge number of people rallying against the laws revocation. If they didn't put the laws back then I might move to a country that respects its people. Gun laws and a safe community are part of the reason why Canada is so great to live in. I can walk down the street and not be scared that the person behind me is going to shoot me.
I hope that America sees that guns do kill people when people want to kill people. The "right to bare arms" should be about t-shirts and not about a weapon of destruction that a child could shoot without any prior knowledge. That criminals shouldn't be able to get out of jail and go pick up their next murder weapon. I hope one day people realize that they can protect their family's without owning something that's more likely to be used as a teenage suicide method (61% gun deaths then a defensive device (less then 2% gun deaths) (http://www.gunpolicy.org... ).
CoolPeppers12 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|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|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. Except for arguments, the rest of the categories were equal enough. As to arguments: this was less a debate than a conversation. Con failed to really rebut Pro's case, and didn't dig into any of the problems of a total ban (most agree it's unlikely that the US could put that proverbial genie back in the bottle, since there are ALREADY so many guns). Since Con himself says that "I would not bother me. [sic]" to not have guns, and never presents a strong case in favor of guns remaining present, arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.