we should have more background checks, it would reduce gun violence
Debate Rounds (3)
studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps.
this shows that people are denied because of background. it shows that peopele are arrested because of background. it shows that people often don't buy guns, because it is illegal for them to have them.
you may say youself "most" of those checks are annoyances. that means not all of em are. and you say bad people will find a way to get a gun, but to say what i said before, not all of them will. bob is violent prone. he can't get a gun legally. so he doesn't. when he goes off and doesn't have a gun, someone is saved. this is simple common sense. sometimes people like bob will get the gun, sure. not always. in fact id guess not usually. again most people are not black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun.
even if some livesa saved wasn't statistically significant, it's still lives saved. it can only help. but it's more than statistically significant. it's obivous that it'd help reduce gun violence.
if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution and at least have checks?
there's no question checks would be helpful, and at the very least give more checks a shot
the following shows that gun control in general has worked. i wont dispute that other studies show sometimes it doesn't work etc... but it's evidence never the less.
-they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc.
-japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.
1. Background checks are not effective and even if they are, they are not worth the annoyance.
2. Criminals, if they do not get guns, will find an alternative.
1. Background checks are not effective and even if they are, they are not worth the annoyance.
Bob, as you have previously stated, is violent prone. He cannot get a gun legally. So he gets a gun illegally from his neighbor who needs the money from a gun sale. His neighbor does not know that he is a felon. Bob goes and kills people.
2. Criminals, if they do not get guns, will find an alternative. Go to google and search "how to make a tannerite bomb", "how to make a nitrogen fertilizer bomb", or "how to make a chlorine bomb". Go to youtube and search for how to make homemade napalm. All of these things can be built with nothing more than what you may find, and purchase legally, at a drug store. Which is worse, a bomb going off in a school cafeteria, killing everyone, or a shooter in a school cafeteria who kills twenty?
Furthermore, in response to your idea about guns being harmful to the legal gun owner, how about this:
The police in my region have stated multiple times that crime and murder rates are higher in gun free zones. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, but has the highest crime rate(or one of).
How about you read an American Rifleman magazine, you can see multiple examples of a person who would be dead if they did not have a gun in their home. I once saw one about a sixty year old woman who could defend herself. She did not have her gun taken away, she just killed the guy. Where I live, the police will tell you that you will be safer if you have one of two things, dogs capable of swallowing a crook whole, or a gun. It is obvious that guns make people safer.
Furthermore, look at the number of deaths by guns. Include Newtown and Aurora in this, it is still barely a fraction of the number of people killed by car accidents per year. It is about the same as the number of kids who die in a swimming pool, or those that fall off of their bike. The gun crime statistics are negligible compared to the real threats. Oh, let us not forget of the millions of babies who have died because their mother's did not want them and aborted them.
I will leave you with this thought.
Two crimes occurred in Georgia in one weekend.
Both criminals were armed.
House one had a single woman, who was unarmed. The criminal broke in, she hid in the closet, he found her and beat her to death with a crowbar(an alternative to a gun, but just as effective).
House two had a woman and her baby. The criminal broke in, with a gun. She got her husband's gun and shot him five times. She and her child lived.
You want to take guns away/ control them more: you want that woman and her baby dead.
I want to encourage gun ownership: I want to save that single girl's life.
no one is trying to stop eople from having guns, just limiting the wrong people. so your points about how some control inreased violence didn't specifically address background check effectiveness, self defense is still possible. plus i got plenty of studies like australia and japan who show that control done right can limit violence beyond checks. but here and now all im asking for is checks.
you really need to address teh specific points i raised better
I did more than just insist that everyone will still try to buy a gun, I disproved your point about how guns actually make people less safe by using an interview with a police official.
Furthermore, you ignored my point that even if they do not get a gun because there are none, people can make bombs easily, which are far more dangerous.
You claim that you are not trying to take away guns. However, universal background checks are the first step to a gun registry, and a gun registry is the only way to fully take guns away from the law abiding citizens. Nazi Germany proves this. American Rifleman magazine is a good source for this as well.
Furthermore, many sources that tell about how guns make it more dangerous for people during a robbery are collected simply by asking if the people had a gun in the home. Not if the gun in the home was actually used, just if they had a gun in the house. Not to mention my story about the two women in Georgia that showed reasoning against this. Not to mention the thousands who have protected themselves with guns this year alone.
Your source says that Darrel Booker got around background checks twice and almost a third. Clearly, they are not very effective. Best to just make it easier for the law abiding citizens to get a gun so that they can shoot Darrel Booker when he tries to rob them.
While you have a couple of sources about Australia and Japan, I have sources about America. Gun free zones Chicago and D.C. have some of the highest crime rates in the country. How? They do not have any guns there? Easy, the criminals still got guns. They still got guns but the people could not protect themselves because they did not have a gun.
that guns are more likely to cause harm to a possessor. which implies reducing possessrs reduces violence....
it's one of the easiest google searches ive done (search words = having gun home more likely) but here is some info....
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine
whether having a firearm in the home increases the
risk of a violent death in the home and whether
risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater
risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in
home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence
interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a
homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the
person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying
a suicide in the home was greater for males in
homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds
= 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from
committed with a firearm than from one committed by
using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence
19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of
storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having
in the home was associated with an increased risk
of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death " and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn"t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your
non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related
accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible
evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a
victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.
What he found was sobering, to say the least.
read more on findings there great article
and more here
i could go on and on
the only way your argument would hold is if you could say everyone who is denied a gun will go get one off the criminal market.... this is ludicris. surely some will not buy a guy if they aren't suppose to have one. i'd guess it's most people cause they don't want to get in more trouble and they aren't black hoodies who stops at nothing to do crime and get guns.
it's ridiculous to mention bombs. if you have a gun in your closet, you might go on a school shooting spree as it's so easy. it doesn't mean you're goig to go to all the trouble of figuring out how to make a bomb and do it. even knives, there's probly millions times more knives than guns so you're more likely to be hurt but it dont mean the gun aint more times likely to kll someone.
if you have to resort to comparing us to nazi's then it's pretty clear you are engaging in conspiracy theroies as we are no where close to that. we should wowrry about the actual probelms of gun violence than worry about far fetched ideas of government take over.
i have my studies you have yours. a lot of your conclusions i dont even disagree with. but it's at best a stalemate or we can find some common ground. it's really all irrelevant though cause we are talking about screening and background checks, and you haven't shown anything in that regard.
i assume cause it's incontovertible... checks can and do, only help reduce violence.
Cowboy0108 forfeited this round.
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.