USA should have more gun restrictions
Debate Rounds (3)
australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform)
japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low.
it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.
Alright. First off, I would like to thank my opponent for creating an interesting debate.
1. "Nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions."
Now I dislike this sentence. It has many flaws in it.
 Obama is actually planning to do more background checks AND banning military style weapons from the public. He actually gave a speech about gun control this year! Also, there are background checks required for certain jobs. (Say a terrorist wants to work as a flight attendant) They check his/her background information. This helps make sure that no terrorists do something again, (like 9/11)
2. "Australia had a Manhattan pro to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results."
 That may be the story for Australia, but in Britain it was way worse. Britain has always tried to enforce gun control, but have always failed. In 1987, due to their strict gun control laws, the Hunger ford Massacre happened, killing many people. Not to mention that about 10 years later, Dunblane school massacre of 1996 happened. Both of these killed around 20 to 30 people EACH.
3. "It's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more backgorund checks."
I just said Obama plans to.
4. "It's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence."
 No it's not common knowledge, actually having a gun in your home can protect your from burgulars, terrorists,(a little extreme, but it can happen) and other things as well. (such as intruders)
5. "Not all criminals are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun."
Not all, but most are. Criminals are thieves or murderers who will do anything to achieve their goal. (rob a bank, murder a person/revenge, rob a home, etc.)
6. "If we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect."
It will have SOME positive, but mostly negative effect. What will we do if a criminal breaks in? Also, if guns go illegal for civilians, it will just be like marijuana, people will be smuggling them everywhere.
I'm done, Pro, you are up.
england. no need to get into the specifics of your studies, though i'm sure i could. just look at the bigger picture. "In the United Kingdom, firearms are tightly controlled by law," "The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.04 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010."
at best, con has shown how maybe the USA is unique and we won't improve with reduced guns all across the board. that doesn't mean we can't improve with more background checks, or restrictions in general.
perhaps that common knownledge of guns causing more violence is not common knowledge to con, but it is common knowledge. see end of post for stat information.
evn without stats, one can argue what seems to be the case. is anyone willing to say..... 'it seems to me that 100% of people who are denied or hindered a gun because of a check, will simply go get another one? that's absurd. obviously checks will cause some necessary benefit.
if the mom of the sandy hook shooter didnt have a gun, theres no reason to beleive shed have been a black hoodie and went and got one. then hed have not had a gun at a time hed have done a crime. are we to think hed necessarily have went to get one illegally, and that 100% of people in these cases would?
December 14th 2012, two deadly attacks at two different schools.
One guy had a knife the other a gun.
At one school 26 people were killed at the other school 23 people were wounded.
Take a guess which school had the knife attack and which had the gun attack?
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the
risk of a violent death in the home and whether
risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater
risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in
the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence
interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a
firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the
person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying
from a suicide in the home was greater for males in
homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by
using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of
storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk
of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death " and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn"t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your
non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related
accident, suicide or homicide.
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.
What he found was sobering, to say the least.
Dang. I'm going on vacation. I'm going to have to forfeit. Everyone vote for PRO. I have to forfeit. (Sorry Pro, I forgot that I was going on vacation tomorrow. I'll give this one to you.)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
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.