The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

more gun control should occur

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 33271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc.

studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps.

japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.

40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented.

if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution?

there's no question control would be helpful, and at least given a shot
Ameliamk1

Con

I agree with background checks, but not any other type of gun control.

Gun control reduces crime: Guns do reduce crime, and here I will set out to prove it in two parts.
A. In Theory
B. In practice

A. In Theory

Deterrence: Deterrence is when the threat of force, rather than the force itself, is used to stop something from even starting. For example, if you wanted to rob someone, and you saw small, weak person and a big muscular person, who would you attack? The small one obviously. But what if you thought there was a good chance both of them had a gun? Would you still try to rob either one? The sensible answer is no. The reason all mass shootings happen in gun free zone is that criminals are afraid of the mere possibility that they will face a gun.

Self-defense: Pretty self-explanatory, if a person bent on killing you comes into your house, and you have a gun, you shoot them. Simple. It is your natural right to arm yourself, and protect yourself, and taking away that right is a moral travesty.

B. In practice

Gun control and crime in other countries: Violent crime has been dropping all around the world in recent decades. Better advancements in police and safety technology has dropped crime rates considerably. Picking out the specific effects of gun control is difficult, but the results are pretty clear.

England: England is the shining pinnacle for gun-control advocates. After a ban in 1997, very few guns are now owned by civilians in the country, with only about 7 guns per 100 people. The results? Homicides rose from 892 in 1997 to 1045 in 2003. The homicide rate is now dropping at a much slower rate then other developed countries.

http://www.gunpolicy.org...

Australia: Australia also did a nationwide ban on guns. What Happened?
Gun murder increased 19%.
Gun assaults rose 28%
Armed robbery rose 69%
Here's my source, where's yours?

http://godfatherpolitics.com...

Guns work: So how about places with high gun ownership rates like the US?

Norway: 31 guns per 100 people, 2 gun homicides in last recorded year.
Finland: 46 guns per 100 people, 14 gun homicides in last recorded year.
Sweden: 32 guns per 100 people, 16 gun homicides last recorded year
Cyprus: 36 guns per 100 people, 2 gun homicides last reported year

I will start with this. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Ameliamk1

Con

Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

reiterate
Ameliamk1

Con

Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
but at the end of the day, at least back ground checs shold exist
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i will argue.
my australia study is cited by CNN, and lots of other reputable sources. you have a bad source for your info.

at the end of the day, im flexible about the type of control, just not back ground checks. so that you are for that means we aren't going to disagree about a lot.
maybe some countries or states have more guns and less violence, maybe others are more.
No votes have been placed for this debate.