The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
texans14
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

the USA should have universal background checks

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 3 votes the winner is...
texans14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 720 times Debate No: 59703
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

linate

Pro

the USA should have universal background checks

while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks, at least in general

there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks.
http://www.nij.gov...

at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people....

http://www.timesdispatch.com...

what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally? or that we're stopping law abiding people?

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. The mother of the sandy hook shooter could have been someone who was rejected for a gun, and we have no reason to think she'd have been a black hoodie and went and got one, and by that the sandy hook shooting might not have occurred... just an example. 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. the more likely a person, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely they are to have not just gun murders, but murders in general:

the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...

a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

also. 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.

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.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net...

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. and even if it was just as likely, they'd be more likely to kill someone with a gun.... guns kill automatically, other weopons don't.
-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.
-true, if you are dead set, pardon the pun, on killing, you can. but not having a gun to begin with, lowers the chances that you would kill.
-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.
texans14

Con

I accept.

I believe that Universal Background Checks aren't necessary in the United States. I think that the reason for most of the shootings in America is not that there is little gun control, but that the law enforcement to catch these criminals is seldom strict enough.

"there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks." You're right that there is potential, but there is plenty of information to support that background checks would be ineffective. Yes, background checks would keep criminals from legally buying guns, but criminals will be able to get guns no matter what. They can go to friends and relatives, or buy assult rifles off the black market. So, background checks would be ineffective.
http://m.mic.com...

"not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun." Call me when you meet a convicted murderer who isn't a diehard. Even most gas station robbers own guns and are prepared
to kill someone.

"the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it." This is true, but the vast majority of people are more likely to use a gun for hunting. Their problems with their guns will most likely be something like gun cleaning problems. I wouldn't refer to a cold blooded murder as a "problem".

"a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have." You said overall deaths, not shootings. Also, countries with very strict gun control also have very high murder rates. Such as Russia.
http://www.gunpolicy.org...

Also, even if there is to be background checks, it should be enforced at the local level of government. People in New York City don't use guns as much as someone in rural Wyoming.

" isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?" Actually, no it isn't. Most people use guns for good purposes like hunting and the shooting range.

I look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

con posits we need stricter enforcement of current laws to reduce violence. well, then let's do that. but there is no reason we can't have more checks and such. in fact, it would be completely arbitrary to just say we are at the magic spot restriction wise, and background check wise. if checks work, why not have more?

con posits that criminals would just go get guns illegally. problem is, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at othing to get a gun. does con posit that one hundred percent of people denied a gun will go get one? no that would be ridiculous. and thus the stats that say the more a person state o nation has of guns increases murders, means there would be less murders. the people who most should not have them, to a large degee won't have them.

con says most guns are used for good purposes. that is true, but it doesn't mean we can't try to regulate when people who have a bad past have access to guns. no one wants to take hunting guns away. his point is here basically pointless.

gun murders increase with more guns a person state or nation has. and overall murders do too. that's what i said, and co is just misinformed. at best con's example of russian is an outlier. my studies were comprehensive

con argues that it isn't more likely for there to be a murder if a person has a gun, as he posits that the guns are used for hunting and such. this first of all defies the studies i showed, that said the more likely person is to have a gun, the more likely they are to have problems with it. and, it defies common sense. like the anaology that says the more likely tehre are to be pools in backgyards, the more likelty there are to be drownings...... and by analogy the more likely there are to be guns, the more likely there is to be gun problems.

con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave.
texans14

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

"if checks work, why not have more?" I see the common sense in that statement, but you're missing the point that background checks aren't effective. You've made the claim that ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. This is a very vague claim, and it appears that it isn't true. A more recent poll of over 1,200 Americans contrasts your statement. Fifty three percent of those asked on the more recent poll said that they didn't support universal background checks. The vast majority of voters on this poll also said that conducting background checks against an incomplete database was ineffective.
http://gunssaveus.com...

"con posits that criminals would just go get guns illegally. problem is, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at othing to get a gun. does con posit that one hundred percent of people denied a gun will go get one? no that would be ridiculous. and thus the stats that say the more a person state o nation has of guns increases murders, means there would be less murders. the people who most should not have them, to a large degee won't have them."
I have several problems with this particular paragraph. First of all, if "black hoodies" is intended to be racial, than vote con on conduct points. Secondly, if a criminal who intends to kill innocent people goes to buy a gun and is denied one, he will go to the black market. That is just common sense. Even if a person with good intentions and a small record is denied a gun, they might even turn to the black market as well. Apparently, "the stats" that my opponent has failed to provide say that the more guns a person, state, or nation has the higher murder rate they will have. For most people, guns either keep people safe and alive, or put food on the table. Also, it appears my opponent thinks that a person would be more likely to commit a murder if they had five guns rather than one. They could just as easily kill someone with a kitchen knife.

"con says most guns are used for good purposes. that is true, but it doesn't mean we can't try to regulate when people who have a bad past have access to guns." Why regulate it if it would be ineffective and wasting the time of good people?

"gun murders increase with more guns a person state or nation has. and overall murders do too. that's what i said, and co is just misinformed. at best con's example of russian is an outlier. my studies were comprehensive" I have recently addressed this, but I don't see how your studies were comprehensive.

"con argues that it isn't more likely for there to be a murder if a person has a gun" What factors into a murderer is what kind of situation the murderer is in. Not if the person owns a firearm or not.

" like the anaology that says the more likely tehre are to be pools in backgyards, the more likelty there are to be drownings...... and by analogy the more likely there are to be guns, the more likely there is to be gun problems." Relating to the pool, a killer could just as easily drown someone in a bathtub or a kitchen sink. It's the same with guns. A killer could just as easily stab someone than shoot someone.

"con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave." You didn't provide studies. You provided un-backed arguments. I didn't duck and run from common sense points, but if you think I did, I hope these new arguments will be sufficient.

I look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

i never said anything racial in regards to my use of the phrase 'black hoodie'. if voters want to dock con for using racist remarks, and injecting race where it wasn't before, feel free.

most people like the idea of background checks. when it gets into specifics, the polls start varying. but there is general support for checks up to the ninety percent mark. getting into anything specifc, people will start disagreeing, sure.

it's like hitting your head against a wall. it's common sense that not all people will stop at nothing to get a gun, does con posit that one hundred perscent of people who are denied a gun will go get one? it would be ridiculous to suggest. and, so, we see that if a person is more liekly to get into gun trouble with a gun, they are more likely to not without a gun. there is no way around this argument. the case is closed.
most guns might be used for hunting or self defense, but we're only trying to stop people ith a record,,,, these other people are mostly irrelvant.
a knife doesn't kill automaticsally like gun does. there was two recent shootings on the same day at schools. one involved a gun one involved a knive, both invloved over twenty kids injured or killed. one schoolhad all murders, the other had all injuries... guess which was which? plus the psychology isn't there to run and get your knife as it is to run and get a gun,,,, there's added psychological pressure to use a gun, and it kills automatically to boot.
the reason why con is ranting about the same things as he is in the past debate is beause he has nothing relevant to say in response. the case is closed.

con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave.

and con added as a last jab that i gave no studies and gave unbacked arguments. i gave ironclad common sense and the studies i gave were rightthere in the first post.... harvard, oxford, covering individuals states and nationas... it doesn't get much more comprehensie and acadamic study that that.
texans14

Con

"i never said anything racial in regards to my use of the phrase 'black hoodie'. if voters want to dock con for using racist remarks, and injecting race where it wasn't before, feel free."

Ok, let's be fair here. I meant nothing negative when I questioned the phrase my opponent used. I also don't think I would've been the only one who assumed that. If I offended any voters, I apologize. However, I was simply asking my opponent if it was intended to be racial. So, I don't think it's necessary to dock conduct points from me.

"it's common sense that not all people will stop at nothing to get a gun, does con posit that one hundred perscent of people who are denied a gun will go get one?"

No, I don't think that one hundred percent of people that are denied guns will get one, but when you think about it, it's much closer to one hundred than zero. Even if a law abiding citizen was denied a gun, he or she would be outraged. Now make that proportional to a criminal. The criminal will clearly go to the black market. I don't know why my opponent is denying this. It's common sense.

"and, so, we see that if a person is more liekly to get into gun trouble with a gun, they are more likely to not without a gun."

This is true, but it isn't directly related to what my opponent was talking about in that particular paragraph. Also, if someone without a gun gets into trouble, they will most likely lose to the person with a gun.

"most guns might be used for hunting or self defense, but we're only trying to stop people ith a record"

My opponent clearly has good intentions, but he's missing the point that you can't use the law to stop criminals. Rather, it doesn't work. Criminals that intend people will do it unless they are stopped by citizens or law enforcement. This is why we should have armed police officers in every school. After the Aurora movie theatre shooting, a law passed in a Colorado to have armed police officers in every movie theatre in the state. Also, regarding my opponent's argument above, background checks would be a major inconvenience to law abiding citizens.
http://www.cnn.com...

"there was two recent shootings on the same day at schools. one involved a gun one involved a knive, both invloved over twenty kids injured or killed."

I doubt it's very recent. School has been out for about two months in most states. Secondly, please provide a source for this because I never saw this on the news.

"the reason why con is ranting about the same things as he is in the past debate is beause he has nothing relevant to say in response. the case is closed."

The case is hardly closed. I have one or two arguments that I have made continuously throughout the debate. The reason for this is that my opponent doesn't seem to understand my logic. Pro has used the same arguments excessively as well.

"con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave."

See what I mean? Pro used this in rounds two and three. I have already argued against this exact argument in round two.

"and con added as a last jab that i gave no studies and gave unbacked arguments. i gave ironclad common sense and the studies i gave were rightthere in the first post.... harvard, oxford, covering individuals states and nationas... it doesn't get much more comprehensie and acadamic study that that."

I apologize to my opponent. For he did give certain studies. What I meant to say is that these studies are very generalized.

I thank my opponent for the debate and look forward to the voting period.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Rightwing15 2 years ago
Rightwing15
Common sense is an opinion, its not a set in stone phrase
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

OK, just to start, both sides need to stop using the term "common sense." None of the points that either side made and then warranted as "common sense" was actually common sense. If it's a logical, rational point, leave it at that. If you're making an argument that requires warrants to be logical and rational, saying it's common sense doesn't make it so. Both sides also need to stop repeating their arguments over and over in response to each other, since neither of you is expanding upon the debate by doing so.

Moving on, there appears to be only one piece of offense per side, and both sides do little to impact out their analysis and, worse yet, warrant their statements so little that I'm not sure whether they will even happen. Before I get to those, I'll go through the other arguments.

Pro argues that people really like the concept of universal background checks. I don't see how the desire to have one creates a benefit, so I move on.

He says there's plenty of gun sales that would be affected. Again, I don't know why it matters that there's a theoretically large number involved unless most of those sales are to criminals. I don't see those numbers.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Pro makes a lot of "common sense" points that are anything but and simply leave me uncertain with regards to their meaning and their purpose in the debate.

Most of the remainder of Pro's analysis is just mitigation of Con's eventual arguments, save his one piece of offense that matters, which I'll get to shortly.

Con's arguments are almost all mitigation. He argues that criminals will go around background checks, but shows no unique harms that result from that process, simply stating that there's less benefit since not every criminal is going to be prevented completely from getting a gun.

He argues that background checks aren't as useful in some places as others, which is just an assertion and seems to lack any meaningful analysis.

The remainder of his response relates to the major points made by both sides, so I'll get into that now.

Pro's main argument is that homicides will decrease. He provides evidence stating that there is a strong correlation in some nations between homicide rates and gun ownership. Most of Con's rebuttal to this contends that that's not the case in every country, and therefore that other factors may be causative. He also says that other weapons will just be used. While Pro's response is admittedly light on logic and facts, Con's argument lacks those things as well. I don't agree with a lot of Pro's analysis on knife usage, but it is pretty simple to see that gun is a more effective killing implement, if not for any of the reasons Pro provides. Since there will almost certainly be some criminals who don't decide to acquire a gun by black market means (though this number appears small due to a lack of analysis by Pro), there will apparently be some reduction in gun deaths. Will this lead to lower homicide rates? Marginally. It's hard to say just how much of a reduction this will be, but there is some here.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Con's main argument is similarly found wanting. His point is that most people use guns for legal purposes. He never warrants nor does he provide evidence to support this statement, but it's there, and Pro never disputes it. All Pro does in response is say that these people won't be denied by a universal background check system, but I think this is overly optimistic. The trouble is that Con never says why this matters. It inconveniences some people, but I don't see a harm in there. It makes people mad, but I don't see why that's something that can be weighed against any level of death, even a small one. I could see arguments stemming from this about people turning to criminal behaviors to acquire a gun, or what it means for self defense, but I don't get any of those arguments. Instead, I get a lot of claims of inconvenience with little or no analysis of the impacts of that inconvenience. Even if I'm buying that 100,000 people will be inconvenienced substantially by this, and only 1 life will be saved, how do I weigh that inconvenience against a life lost? There could have been a discussion of rights and why they matter or an analysis of what inconvenience pushes people to do, but I don't see that.

So while I find both debaters' arguments lacking, I think only Pro's links to some level of impact that I can evaluate as important. Without that from Con, I can only vote Pro.
Posted by Martley 2 years ago
Martley
there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks.
http://www.nij.gov......

I would love to debate this, but unfortunately don;t have the time right now... but I throw a little bit (and I stress LITTLE bit at the 40% myth that is Pro's first position stated. Good luck!

http://www.factcheck.org...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nationalreview.com...

http://www.politifact.com...

http://www.politifact.com...-/
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
linatetexans14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had horrible capitalization so grammar goes to Con. Con also had just a touch more sources so that point as well goes to Con. It also didn't seem that Pro really refute much of Con's arguments so that will give Con the debate.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
linatetexans14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The "racist" comment wasn't really a big deal. Good argumentation on both sides. I felt like Pro was dancing around the bush a lot and wasn't really addressing Con. The same was also true of Con, but I felt he did less of it.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
linatetexans14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.