the USA should have more background checkss
Debate Rounds (3)
while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks.
there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks.
at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people....
what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally?
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.
besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun:
besides states and countries, i can also cite a study that says that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it.
a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have.
what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent.
i can also cite a study that says that the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident.
and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above.... isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?
In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks.
we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence.
think about common sense points too:
-think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. /// i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks.it's almost even human nature.
-and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one?
-and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone?
-if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience?
the evidence is overwhelming.
- Background checks don't necessarily stop those will ill-intent from purchasing a firearm. If they fail through legal means, there are many black market sources and corrupt FFLs that will sell a gun to a criminal, as shown by the BATFE on page 11 of (1.) Guns are also just as likely to be straw purchased as they are to be gotten from the black market. The positive effect of heightened background checks that only apply to the law-abiding, in regards to gun crime, is questionable at best.
- You claim that having a gun in the home makes you more liable to homicide in the home with that gun. However in 2012, President Obama ordered to CDC to asses existing firearms statistics. In 2012, the CDC found that guns are used in self-defence around 500,000 times a year (2.) while there were only 8,855 homicides with a firearm in 2012(3.). Thus, a gun in the home is roughly 55x more likely to save your life, than kill you.
-You also claim that more guns in a country or state leads to more homicides. Well, look at the Czech Republic and Sweden. They have a homicide rate at 1.0 per 100,000 or less,(4.) and they have lax gun laws (relative to the rest of Europe). I could say this is because of their low percentage of gang population and the MASSIVE gang problem we have here. Gangs are responsible for half the crimes committed in the areas they inhabit in America (5.)
-On a state by state level, well, states with higher gun control have the same amount of firearms homicides as any other state. From the FBI murder statistics of 2012 (6.):
California- 1,304 gun murders.
New York- 407 gun-murders.
Illinois- 439 gun-murders.
In comparison, here are some of the more gun-friendly states.
So according to the FBI, even in same size states, gun-homicides are higher in states with higher gun-control.
- You have shown no solid evidence that owning a gun gives you homicidal tendencies. Everything you say at this point is pure, non-factual opinion. Any more increase in background checks is simply an invasion of privacy.
admittedly, it is an old study, and could have been more comprehensive. but when you consider how pervasive guns are here, and that checks are only required in certain professional sales, it's not too far fetched to conclude it's not that far off.
notice, you say "checks don't necessarily". you basically admit that not everyone will go buy a gun when they can't legally. that would be a ridiculous statement to make, too. when these people, who are often just normal people with a background, don't have guns, they aren't as likely to use them when they'd otherwise commit a crime. this is by common sense, in that from my experience, when some people i know have guns, they tend to talk about using it, and such. this is also by scientific studies.... the more likely an individual is to have gun, the more likley they are to use it, as cited earlier. and, it's not just them finding alternative ways to do crimes other than guns... we see that with more guns, comes not just more gun murder, but overall murder.
also, con didnt respond to the jerry springer hypothetical. those people would more likely get a gun if they had it, than something else, just cause of the psychology involved with guns. even if they were as likely to get a knife or a bat, the odds of sometone dying cause they have a gun, which kills automatically, increases tremendously.
as i argued in past debates, i would not be surprised that guns are used more for defesnse than for murder. but, right now we're talking about checks, which doesn't have to do so much with taking guns from people who should be able to have them, but to do with preventing guns from getting in the wrong hands.
beyond that point. even if it's all true what you says, it's only because we have so many guns to begin with. the idea, if there were two or three times more guns, that would be reasonable to assume that there would be two or three timse as many uses of self defesnse, but also that many more times of murder. if we took it the other way, and reduced guns, there would be a proportional reduction in defense and homicide. the thing that all this highlights is that we are granting rights with the understanding that more murders and violence, and perhaps yes more defense, can come..... it is a clear trade off. if we keep guns off the street in general, tht's good,... if we focus on keeping them out of the wrong hands, then that's even better, way better.
i don't know the specific cultures or economics or gun laws of sweden. i can say first of all, that the studeis i cited were comprehensive, and said that the general point is that the more guns a person, state, or country has, the more murders they have. at best, you have provided a couple outliers. i wouldn't be surprised if those two counties are economically more secure and have a better overall culture.... at least sweden is known for both those points. in the USA a person is not entiteld to anything other than food stamps at least as of federal law.... it's a very economically insecure country.
as to your FBI point, you are looking at raw data that focuses on individual people.... that doesn't keep track of rate of population v rate of gun use etc or specirif laws etc. notice for example that california and new york are huge states, so as would be expected, they have huge murder numbers. and again, these are pure numbers, not rates per capita or anything.
the links i provided were comprehensive, they looked at individual, state, and countries, and concluded that with more guns, came not just more gun murder, but more overall murder. we can extrapalate that the presence of a gun is more likely to cause a crime than any other possible weopons or issues.
also, those studies were conducted by well respected objective insitutions, such as oxford and harvard. so, no, what i'm arguing is not me spouting off opinons, this is good solid scientific information.
No, I didn't admit anything. What I said was, just because they fail a background check (and the only reason they would fail is if they are a criminal) that doesn't mean they won't try to get a gun from a trafficker. Small talk made by a few members of the gun-owning community can in no way be used as fact at all. Just because you claim to have a few friends who own guns and talk about using them, doesn't mean that ALL of them do. If you insist that this is the case, prove it. If you cannot prove that all members of the gun-owning community have homicidal tendencies, I demand you drop this argument and any other argument you can't back up with evidence.
Also, if there were 3x as many guns distributed in the same ratio of criminals to civilians as they are now, both categories would increase by a factor of 3. There would be 1,500,000 defensive uses and 27,000 murders. The good still outweighs the bad exponentially. But if you decrease the number of guns in the hands of the law-abiding, you're only putting them at risk. Criminals who want to do harm can get a gun through illicit means as I showed in the pdf from the BATFE in the last round. I don't get your logic. Criminals almost always need guns for the activities they partake in. Can't really do a drug deal if your buyers can just rob you later because they know you're un-armed. You can't car-jack someone because they could fight back with their hands. Given the amount of gun-trafficking that we have in this country, it's ridiculous to assume that a criminal doesn't want to get a gun because they failed a background check that means nothing to them.
As to the Jerry Springer argument, well, it's like I said. Only 9000 gun homicides in 2012. So even if Jerry did go grab a gun and kill his neighbour because he p!ssed him off because of his dog or whatever, legitimate usage still trumps crime by a high margin. Next round, please uses proper capitilazation and numbers or dashes to make your arguments easier to read.
You're making my point for me. Guns aren't the problem. Society that thinks violence is acceptable is the problem. Sweden and The Czech Republic don't have cultural problems, like you say, and they have much less homicide than America. If America had a more peaceful culture, we wouldn't have a homicide problem, even with all the guns we have.
Yes, the F.B.I data is raw, but, when you do the math it turns out to be:
Calirfornia- 3.43 murders x 100,000
Texas- 2.86 murders x 100,000.
Alaska- 1.506 murders x 100,000.
So the numbers are still on my side.
Your "sources" Just repeat the same things you've said have which I have trumped. Oxford claimed that you're more likely to die from a homicide. I've shown that self-defence uses are much more frequent than homicides. You claim they make you more likely to commit suicide. To that I say, people have been committing suicide for Thousands of years. If they want to kill themselves, they have a mental problem, that taking a gun won't solve. It'd be just as easy to jump of a bridge or do "suicide by cop".
you simply claim that with reduced guns the bad outweighs the good cause there are fewer self defense. you ignore that the reason self defense is needed is because we have gun rights to begin with. it's a clear trade off. you also ignore that with background checks the focus would be on people who shouldn't have guns to begin with. so your problem with defense isn't really there to begin with.
you simply argue that all criminals would go get a gun. of course, if you are a professional drug dealer or car robber, you would get it illegal. you ignore that most people who are denied are regular people who have a bit of a background. it is irrational to think all who are denied would go get a gun. if they don't get a gun, then the stat that you are more likely to be involved in gun problems wouldn't apply to them, even more so because they are someoen who is shaddy enough to be denied a gun to begin with.
if someone is intent on killing without a gun, of course they could. but increasing someone's odds of having a gun increases the risk of overall not just gun murders but muders in general, according to my studies.
your points about sweden ignore the main points. that is, those countires are outliers to the comprehensive studies i showed.they are anecdotal. and, if they have a known 'good culture' and economy and such, that means they shouldn't be used to make your point. just because we have a worse conditioned country doesn't mean we should have freely distributed guns.... all the mroe reason we shouldn't, cause people are more prone to use them.
you havent given any context to your points about states, given you didn't show the rate for the gun friendly states. and even if you did, you have only given a few examples. the studies provided were comprehensive. that is....
as i said before, the bottomline is that the more likely a person, state, or country is to have guns, the more likely they are to have not just gun murders but murdes in general.
- Your personal experience means nothing. That would be like saying "I know 4 Mislims that all turned out to be suicide bombers", and then concluding that all other Muslims are suicide bombers. That's ridiculous.
- The reason we need self defence is because crime exist. Rapes and murders have been around since the dawn of time.
- As of 2014, the only people who would fail a 4473 NICS background check are convicted felons, illegal aliens and those with a restraining order on them. So yes, the only people who fail background checks are legitimate criminals. And if they tried to get one legally and fail, you have shown no evidence to prove that those who want a gun will simply give up because they failed a background check. That's also ridiculous.
- I've already shown that gun friendly states had less gun homicide than anti- gun states.
- My point with Sweden and the Czech Republic was to show that guns aren't always the problem. Guns don't make people kill. People kill because of the poor society they grew up in.
- Pro has also failed to provide any evidence to her original argument. She has shown no evidence that 40% of gun sales are unchecked. She also denies that criminals don't want to get guns illegally.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: There's a lot of interesting arguments going around here, but I think most of it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The main questions seem to be focused on what happens when more guns are around and will background checks limit gun sales? The latter question seems to get an answer of partially. I buy that some people aren't going to acquire them, though I'm not given any reason to believe that most criminals won't go through the effort, nor do I have any reason to believe that their delay is a benefit. So now it's a question of whether that reduction is beneficial. I don't get the responses I need on self-defense (there are a number of good ones), so I side with Con due to the increased weight of the point. I think he gets awfully close to admitting defeat in R3 when he says that defense and gun deaths would scale with increased gun ownership, but Pro never capitalizes on that. Hence, I must agree with him and vote Con.
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.