more gun regulation should exist
more gun regulation should exist.
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, or that they will just run out and get a gun illegally.
background checks are just a step removed from the idea that not everyone will just find a way to kill anyway.
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.
For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls."
This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide")
Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight
In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...)
To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.
My opponent tries to challenge my charts, but my first chart is from the UN, found here (http://www.unodc.org...). The second is from the NRA. Also if you follow my opponent's Oxford link it links you to the main page and doesn't really do anything, so my opponent's arguments don't stand until this is fixed. In the debate she listed, if you follow THAT link you can see that the Doccument she listed was from 2004 while mine is from 2013. Her's is very out dated and mine should be taken over her's concidering that mine is 9 years newer than her's.
I extend all other dropped arguments across.
Next, I would like to argue Inherancy. Inherancy in this debate is key, because it is the need for something to happen. My opponent only offers evidence that it works, but doesn't show that we actually need Gun Control. As Pro she needs to prove that this is needed and she cannot even come close to winning the debate until Inherancy is established on her part.
i dont know what con wants when he talks about inherency. he somewhat acknowledges that i provided evidence gun control is effective. if i've done that, doesn't it follow that i can argue we should have gun control? i dont know what's not inherent about that.
My opponent "claims" that my chart is "missing, but I'll repost it and tell you how it links to the UN and how to get there.
Round 1 link that was provided (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...)
Step 2: Click "Data Avialbe here" link on the above page.
Step 3: It give you the UN page that I provided last round.
Thus I have my chart and we can see that my chart still outdates my opponent's by 9 years and must be taken as better evidence in this debate.
On reguards to inherency. My opponent states that she doesn't understand, but Inherency is key in this debate. The resolution is "more gun regulation should exist," Inherency here is prooving WHY they should exist. My opponent has only provided solvency. Meaning that, in her opinion, that "gun contorl is effective" that is Solvency. Meaning that it solves the problem, but it cannot solve the problem if my opponent hasn't provided a problem to solve. Thus without Inherency her whole debate argument is pointless.
I extend across all dropped arguments.
Thank you and please vote Con!
|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||4|