there should be more gun regulation
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.
you say they will just find another way to kill. but you didn't respond to the study that says the more guns there are, the more overall homicide there is. that means people don't just find alternative ways.
you say they will sneak around to do it. this couldn't be true either, cause if they did there would be just as much homicide with fewer guns. plus it's common sense not everyone will be a black hoodie and go get a gun when denied one. con is arguing like we should get rid of crime laws, cause some crime will occur. you didn't respond to this, you just restated what i responded to.
also, im not necessarily saying we take guns way, we should at least have background checks. this doesn't infringe on the second amendment. just like we have certain types of speech that can't be done per the first amendment.... there are just reasonable restrictions.
con says people will just get guns illegally. if more guns means more homicide, doesn't that mean some would be criminals are not getting guns illegally? cause homicide would be the same if what con said was true.
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.
samanthan9 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro, because Con forfeited the last round. Arguments to Pro, because Con never refuted any of Pro's arguments, and later dropped all of them by simply stating "I don't care what you say, it will happen." Responding with "I don't care what you say" in a debate is a totally useless response, as it doesn't not actually refute any arguments. Since Pro made arguments that Con never refuted, arguments to Pro. Sources were only used by Pro.
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.