more gun regulation should exist
Debate Rounds (3)
background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here.
the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons.
here are two case studies on reducing guns:
japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate.
australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year.
also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.
Kind Regards for this Debate. I will take the Con side of the topic "more gun regulation should exist" and thus will be against more gun regulations. 1st I would like to define that we are talking about the USA here, as Pro has not stated what country we are talking about. Further I would like to define 'gun' as firearms and 'regulations' as sale regulations.
I would first of all like to point to the topic, "more gun regulation should exist". This topic is quite clear, however Pro has not actually posted a reason why this should happen.
As Pro has not included an actual argument I will dismiss the majority of Pros statement as it has no context.
However, I will still give my arguments, as well as do some rebuttals as to what Pro has stated in their opening statement.
First of all I would like to dismiss the common fallacy that Pro has used, "the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons", as this is simply incorrect.
If we take a look at the number 2 country of firearms per capita (after the USA), Serbia, with 69.7 firearms per 100 residents and looking at Pros thesis, Serbia should have a huge homicide rate. False. In fact, Serbia has about the same homicide rate as Australia, which Pro used as a 'case study' about how well firearm regulation works. In fact, the majority of European countries have about 30 firearms per 100 (except Britain) and have extremely low homicide rates, a fraction of the US rate. And just to make this thesis even more ridiculous, the country with the highest murder rate, Honduras, has a small amount of firearms, only about 6.6 per 100. Brazil, the country with the most murders, 50,108 in 2012, also has a relatively low rate of firearms per capita, about 8 per 100. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) Please note that the image is missing several European countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and more. These all have high firearms per capita yet low homicide rates.
If this does not prove Pros thesis as incorrect then I do not know what will.
However, now to my reason as to why there should not be more regulations.
1st: The US constitution:
The US constitution gives US citizens/residents the right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Furthermore, the actual reason as to this is very important. No, the reason is not hunting or personal self defence. It is for defending the human liberties. The founding fathers were of the opinion that in order to create true democracy the citizens had to be armed. In case the government turned tyrannical, the citizens could regain their liberty as well as their country.
After all, Government is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around!
2nd: Firearms have no relation to violence:
As proven above, there is no relation. This brings me to number 3
3rd: The 'US problem' is because of society, not firearms:
Why are countries that are very similar to the US not affected by the same issue? The answer is simple. It is the US society. The US media bombards the viewer constantly with 'end of the world' and 'you are dying' issues. No surprise people react the way they do. Furthermore, the US prison system is not working, but this is a different issue.
4th: Firearms control does not work:
When I lived in Europe I had several firearms pulled on me, although there are tight laws. And I am sure none of those were legal. In fact, even where I live in Australia there are illegal firearms.
This is actually quite close to my area, and these firearms would even be illegal in many parts of the US. Yet they are home build, seemingly. This means that gun control does not work. In fact the hardest thing to acquire for a firearm are the bullets, not the firearm itself. Anyone could go to their local hardware store and buy the necessary components for a working firearm. And the people who would have firearms if all were taken away would be criminals and not normal citizens.
5th: Protection for the US:
Lets say the US was invaded, not only would its armed forces pull off a hell of a fight, in every bush there would be some guy with a rifle taking shots at the enemy. This improves the US defensive power dramatically.
6th: Prime use of firearms:
The grand majority of firearms never get used on humans. It would be like banning all knives because somebody got stabbed. I am sure that the majority of people use knives every day and do not get stabbed nor stab anyone, it is the same with firearms. Anything can kill you, that doesn't mean everything needs to be 'regulated'
7th: The firearm makes equal:
The modern semi-automatic firearm is the 1st thing in history that has made all people more or less equal. The possibility for a 5ft female to release 10 rounds in a short succession into a 6ft male has made people truly equal, where they are not, body and strength wise. Or is this not a good thing?
I could keep going, but I think that is enough.
Con has displayed 7 reasons as to why firearms should not be more regulated while Pro has not even shown one reason.
What Pro has provided, the out of context 'evidence' was easily negated by statistics and proven to be simply not true.
Thus I, as Con, am still of the opinion that there should not be more firearms regulations.
Kind Regards to Pro for the debate, I am looking forward to your arguments.
background checks or resonable regulateions do not contradict the 2nd amendment. they just add some reason around the edges. and this isn't without precedent. even the 1st amendment has some well known exceptions.
con argues an invasion could occur. this is true, but is a far fetched scenario such that hte only way you could side with con is to engage in radical thought. besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns, at most have more background checks. this would mean more regulation and my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns.
Kind Regards, I will now precede with rebuttals to Pros claims
First of all I would like to note that Pro still has not given an actual argument. Thus Pro has not actually stated why 'more gun regulation should exist'. Furthermore Pro has, from 7 clear arguments Con provided in the previous round, tried to make a rebuttal of only 3 of them. Now, additionally, I will provide evidence as to why all 3 of Pros rebuttals are incorrect. Please note that Pro has not done that, Pro did not provide any evidence.
1.) Pro states that I have given 'anecdotal' evidence. Not at all! This information comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, (https://www.unodc.org...), I believe this evidence more than all the sources provided by Pro.
Also we need to look at what focus Pros sources have. Lets start systematically.
2.) I will dismiss the you tube video, as it is John Oliver, he is a comedian. His 'facts' always represent what he wants the audience to see and never the bigger picture.
3.) http://thinkprogress.org... This is an article about the US. The US is the only country with this 'problem' and I provided the evidence for that last round and Pro dismissed it as 'anecdotal'. I quote from the 'source', "The largest study of gun violence in the United States". Unrelated to Pros claim as to incorrect evidence.
4.) http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... Once again, same as above. "Data from a US mortality follow-back survey". Same thing as above, unrelated to Pros claim.
5.) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... . This one is interesting, as it kind of relates. But only one piece of evidence. Not that Pro would have known that, most likely. But I looked at it nevertheless. 'Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide'. Lets look at the source of this 'source'. http://jonathanstray.com... here, so anyone who wants to read it.
Their research seems quite bad. I mean look, the number 2 on the homicide rate in 1994 is Northern Ireland. This is a bad joke. Finland unsurprisingly has a high firearm suicide rate, as because of its location. But in fact, the countries that have a high percentage of firearms, Germany, France, Norway and such have extremely low homicide rates. Suicide rates are another thing. If there is access to a firearm and a person wants to commit suicide, the firearm is the easiest way. But this is about firearm homicide. And seemingly it is unrelated. So once again, Pros 'thesis' about my 'anecdotal' evidence refuted.
This all means that Pros statement that "but the studies I showed illustrate that the norm is as I stated" is incorrect, as already shown in my previous round. In fact the US is not the norm, nor is Pros theory that "the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur". In fact the countries with the highest homicide rates all have very low firearms per capita. Please Pro, provide evidence that this is wrong.
Lets provide a graph.
Pro, refute this. With evidence, please. Just if you want to check yourself, I will, though I normally do not use that, simply provide Wikipedia links and you can check yourself. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) international homicide rate, just click the 'rate' and get it to sort descending. Here is the link for the count of firearms per capita (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Now simply check how many firearms there are in the countries with the highest homicide rates. Not many. The US may have a high homicide rate if you look at '1st world countries', but if you look at the entire picture the number is very slim. Honduras, the country with the highest homicide rate, the number per 100.000 population has a rate of 90. 'Only' 18 times higher than the US. The second country, Venezuela, 'only' nearly 11 times higher than the us with a rate of 54. The US has a rate of 4.7. Yet, this number is constantly played up to be enormous. It is not. Look at the graph above.
As for Pros claim that background checks and 'regulateions' do not contradict the 2nd amendment, yes they do. The 2nd amendment is so that citizens can be as armed as the military infantry, in case of tyranny and they need to fight to regain the country. Is this the case right now? No, certain weapons are prohibited and as such the right to bear arms is infringed.
As for the war scenario, yes, this was far fetched, but possible. And Pro has not said that it is not possible. Switzerland is extremely armed, as every male who completes military training gets to keep his rifle. These are military rifles to mention. And once again, Swiss firearms per capita is high but their homicide rate extremely low.
"besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns". Really? Regulation is the first step. In my home country, Germany, I can walk into a weapons store when I am 18 and buy an air rifle. In Australia where I live now, air rifles are considered firearms in exactly the same way regular rifles are. You in fact need the same license for an air rifle as you need for a 'real' firearm. A Australian friend of mine wanted to license his .22 when he was younger when he moved state and was laughed at because 'we don't license those'. Look at Australia now. Farmers, who would need a semi automatic firearm cannot possess one because they are illegal. Is this in a sense not just infringing peoples lives and liberty? Once something is regulated, it will just continue from there. So I can well understand why people in the USA do not want any regulations. And as I have proofed above, firearms control does not work in Australia. Criminals have them. People who abide the law do not. So why would you want to start this chain?
"my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns". Oh, so weapons would be 'taken away'. Does this not mean that the 2nd amendment is not followed? The 2nd amendment is there for a very good reason and everybody who does not understand that should keep out of politics.
Pro still has not provided an argument. Con has refuted all of Pros claims and the half hearted rebuttal by Pro in this round. I still note that Pro has made rebuttals for 3 out of 7 arguments provided by Con. This is less than 50%. Con has negated all of Pros 'evidence' that was used to 'support' a non existing argument. Overall Con still stands to their opinion that Firearms should not be more regulated.
Kind regards, I am looking forward to your final arguments and conclusion.
but back to teh resolution. background checks for all, would be more regulation. do 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market? checks would have zero percent effect, not stopping one person? this by common sense standards is absurd. those kinds of all or nothign statements are usually bunk. it's like saying crime laws have no effect, and 100% of would be criminals will just commit crimes anyway. at least if he admitted that some would be swayed, it'd have a better sensibility to it, but then that might make him need to concede the debate. but even if he admitted it stopped some, this would be like saying we shouldn't have crime law because some people will commit crime.
please address these crime analogies. and state for the record, if you think it, that 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market. id think actually making the statement would give one pause.
Kind regards for you post.
I will now proceed to deliver my final Rebuttals, as well as my final conclusions.
I would first of all like to point to the great issue here.
Pro has not posted a single argument as to why there should be more gun regulations!
In every single round I have commented on this, 3 rounds long, yet Pro was still not able to provide an argument supporting the topic, other than 'sources', that, without an argument, have no context to this debate.
Now I would like to comment to Pros statement about 'finding a conflicting study than my links'. Incorrect. I did not use any study, I simply used factual evidence as to firearms per country and homicide rate. Pros sources were exclusively US related, one excluded which factually did not show a link between firearms and homicide rate, which is what Pro seemingly is trying to provide. It does not matter by whom these studies are made, they are not related to what I was talking about, which is that there is no link between firearm availability and homicide rate. Maybe there is a small link on an US level, but the US homicide rate is not as high as people like to make it out to be. This however is not a valid reason for more firearms regulations.
As for Pro calling my diagram 'biased' because of the website I have it from, this is absolutely ridiculous. If Pro would have taken one second longer and looked at the diagram and what it says on the lower left side, Pro would have seen why this statement is ridicule. The source for the data is given there. And, surprise surprise, it is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Please tell me again how the UN is biased and Pro guns. I am sorry, but factual, statistical evidence cannot be biased, it is simply true. Statistics can be incorrect as to mistakes in numbers, but statistics cannot be biased.
Pros second paragraph is mostly incomprehensible. Thus I will make general assumptions as to what Pro was trying to state.
Seemingly Pro is trying to state that it would be absurd to think that regulations would have no effect. I agree. Indeed it would have an effect. The effect that I tried to demonstrate in the first round already with this video..
First of all, possession of this firearm is illegal, thus the owner is a criminal. Second of all, no normal resident would need this kind of firearm nor would have such a firearm, other than a person that was trying or wanting to commit crime.
This means that criminals will have firearms, while people who abide the law will be regulated. Sure, there will be the odd one who will be stopped, but if you want a firearm you can get one. And that will be whether it is a handgun, sub-machine or machine-gun. Or any other firearm. In fact, as I was mentioning Australia again, a lot of 'shootings' here are committed with bolt action rifles, as these are the most common kind of firearm, but criminals do possess things like military machine guns, as seen sub-machine-guns or handguns. Your standard person who works 8-4 does not possess these kind of things, it is only people with criminal intent. So why would you regulate people who wont break the law? And reward people who do?
Criminals do not abide by the law. Otherwise they would not be criminals. The law does not stop them , police does.
Pro also seems to think that all criminals have or want firearms. No, that is most definitely incorrect. Only a small number of criminals possess firearms, as only a small number of criminal commit violent crimes or crimes with firearms. The majority of 'crime' committed has nothing to do with firearms. So no, not 100% of all 'would be criminals' would acquire firearms, as not 100% of all 'would be criminals' even need firearms (for their crime). These are criminals such as fraudsters, robbers (non firearm), assault, drugs, vehicle offences and so on. Criminals, such as individuals in gangs, 'big' drug dealers, basically all the individuals who already possess illegal firearms would be the people that would still have access to firearms. And you are making it easier for those people. Now, if they threaten somebody who, unknowingly to them, has a firearm, which is likely, they can be shot. If there are regulations, they can threaten somebody with a firearm and feel really safe, knowing that that person most likely does not have a firearm.
Also, as I have already stated, background checks are the first step to taking all weapons. Statistically nearly everyone in the US possesses a firearm. Do you think it would be good if the government would check nearly everybody? Would that not be exactly what Edward Snowden was trying to warn people about?
As a final point, yes, gun control may decrease the homicide rate, but the real question is if it is beneficial for the US in so many other factors. I would say no. Simply consult all of Cons arguments that Pro did not (try) to rebut. That should be reason enough.
Pro, until the end, did not provide an argument as to why there should be more 'gun' regulation. Not a single reason.
Pro only 'tried' to rebut 3 of the 7 arguments provided by Con, leaving 4 arguments unchallenged.
The 'sources' that were supplied were easily negated through statistical evidence and if connected to Pros argument(s) (that did not exist) out of context.
All of Pros 'rebuttals' were negated by Con.
Furthermore Pros conduct is more than questionable. First of all, as already stated above, in fact in every single one of my rounds, Pro did not provide any arguments. Second, Pro did not provide any sources to the majority of their theories. Pro called Cons statistical evidence 'anecdotal' and 'biased'. Statistical evidence, here provided by the UN (United Nations) can be neither. Pros last paragraph is not comprehensible and I conceive it as a bad joke that Pro would think that, after no argument from Pros side, Con would "need to concede the debate" if a statistical probability was admitted.
Con stated several times that Pro had not provided any arguments, thus easily enabling Pro to state an argument, but Pro seemingly ignored this.
Kind regards to Pro, all readers and all voters. Have a good day!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
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.