there should be universal background checks on gun sales
Debate Rounds (3)
about forty percent of gun sales currently do not involve background checks. that means there's plenty of head way to be made here.
true, some will just get guns illegally. but not ALL of them will. this is common sense. to say otherwise is like saying we shouldn't have crime laws cause some crime will occur. not everyone who is denied is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun.
The difference between a law against crime and a universal background gun law is that the former prevents a crime, while another prevents gun ownership, even though you can not legally use a gun for crimes in the first place, since there are already crime laws. If someone follows the crime law, no one gets hurt; if someone follows a background check law, and they are denied a gun, they have no chance if someone threatens their life with a gun, even if it is by a convicted felon, who broke the law to get the gun.
Gun control does not save lives from criminals, who get the guns illegally, it only makes it extremely difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, which is why there is more murder (per GDP, per population, whatever) in places with gun control, and less in places where the criminal knows people are free to defend themselves with a gun if the criminal attacks them. Why make it less risky to attack someone and punish law abiding citizens? A convicted felon should not be forever punished with the risk of being helpless to a person threatening his life when they have already been punished for their crimes.
so someone who continues to use guns to kill and do violence should get access to a gun? where do you draw the line if any? shouldn't a line be drawn? they've killed and abused the right before. it's like exceptions to the first amendment that are well estabslihed, there can be some reasonable exceptions to the right to bear arms.
so con insists that one hunred percent of people who are denied a gun will go out and get one? that is quite a claim. it's an all or nothing argument, which at least usually are known to be fallicious. can you clearly state that for the record?
I never stated that everyone denied a gun will get one; I stated that all those who would use a gun for criminal purposes would get one illegally when denied one for their previous criminal acts, since, logically, criminals break laws by definition. One petty law is nothing compared to those they intend to break with the gun they were denied.
Do you believe someone who wants or is willing to murder someone and already has committed crimes will obey a gun control law? This, of course, does not apply to all past felons, because not all will want to commit another crime and risk being punished again, hence why we have punishments, as an incentive to prevent people from committing crimes, and to discourage convicted felons from reoffending.
con acts as if taking away gun rights can't be part of the punishment. sometimes, someone might be bad enough to not get gun rights, but not so bad they should spend the rest of their life in jail. it's not an either or situation. then of course there are those who are too mentally unstable to get guns. we should have checks just for those people, at the least.
you can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death. the simple act of having a gun causes some people to be more likely to commit a crime. if they didn't have the gun to begin with, they wouldn't commit the crime. or, do you unequivically deny that that would be the case? again either the all or nothing stuff if you disagree.
"You can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death."
I do not know what you are arguing; you said criminals will just get guns illegally if they want them, which is a fact, but then say stopping some people from having guns prevents crime and death. Who else is going to use a gun for crime besides criminals who by definition commit crimes? If you believe taking away someone's right to defend themselves just because there is a possibility they will use their weapon for something other than defense, you might as well be the one threatening their life.
Besides, banning someone from using a gun makes no logical sense, even if there were no guns in the world, people would go back to bows and swords, and if the same is done for those, they will use any physical object they can find, and then their fists. Weapons do not kill, people do, and nothing will prevent them from doing so, if they intend to, except some form of punishment; however, taking away someone's weapon of any kind, so that they can not defend themselves if threatened with one of equal or greater power, is cruelly burdening them with a constant risk to their life, which is why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right to bear muskets, not swords, not non-assault weapons, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.