Conducting Background Checks with Gun Sales is Reasonable
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
George_Clinton
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/10/2014 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 4,050 times | Debate No: | 58808 | ||
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)
 Pro I feel like doing a very short, fast, debate. Note that there is a very small character limit, I want this to be short and sweet. 1st round is acceptance ONLY. Cartoon/political poster/ picture is necessary to be attached with each argument. Polite conduct expected at all times.... GO!  Con |
 |
|
Pro Background checks are a way that the government keeps guns out of known criminals' hands and people with mental health issues, without infringing upon the rights of normal citizens. By screening people who want to buy a gun, many criminals are prevented from buying guns. Many guns used in crimes are bought legally, and background checks help address that. In approximately 14 years (in the US), 1,024,000 people were prevented from buying guns because of mental health or criminal record. 171,028,000 checks were carried out in this period, which shows that background checks do not limit the 2nd amendment rights of the law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen. Main arguments against background checks include hassle and increased cost, but deaths are a much larger price to pay than hassle and costs. Imagine how many deaths those million guns could've caused. Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com...;    Con My opponent's argument is essentially as follows: a. Guns are an issue b. Background checks reduce the amount of firearms in criminals hands c. Background checks are reasonable as they reduce crime A. Guns are an issue Guns are used in defense far more often then in offence [1. Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns]. In fact, gun control would have little effect on homicide or suicide rates as people merely substitute for other forms of weaponry, and guns may even have a decreasing crime impact [2. Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime]. B. Reduces guns in criminal hands If anything, it decreases the amount of guns in law abiding hands who would deter criminals. It reduces the amount of gun shows and gun ownership. This has been linked to increases robbery, murder, rape, and robbery [3. Lott, John R. Bias Against Guns]. Most guns stopped are fals positives, meaning background checks only affect law abiding citizens, NOT criminals [4.http:// bit.ly/1mBV4hh] C. Crime See Massechusets... and above     |
 |
|
Pro Law-abiding citizens are not affected by background checks, they should only be worried if they have something to hide. About your graphs: They all seem to show what you stated, but that Massachusetts law only affected public, not private gun dealers. About 40% of guns in the US are acquired from private dealers, exempting them from the current background check legislation. Therefore, I consider data where only publicly purchased guns were checked to be a bit useless. Guns don't protect you. A study at U.P.A. found that gun owners are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than a control (didn't own a gun). Owners are also more likely to go into potentially dangerous situations that they might have avoided without a gun America already has the most guns in the world AND the most homicides commited by firearms. The US has already done what the NRA said: They got more guns. But that hasn't helped. My sources are in the comments section (URLS are long)    Con Law Abiding citizens This is totally incorrect. Since the Brady Bill was passed, about 94 - 99% (depending on the estimate) of people stopped or slowed by background checks were false positives. In other words, people who are allowed to buy guns--or there is no evidence that they are not allowed to buy guns--were stopped as a result of the brady bill [1. http://nws.mx...]. Therefore, to say that background checks will not affect the average citizen is false, as up to date these laws have been primarily affecting law abiding citizens. MA Forcing dealers to do background checks affect who? The public... So I dont see what your point is here. MA passed the most stringent gun control laws in this country, and the effect was increased crime. This refuted my opponents contention. UPA study Forbes notes, "The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted" [2. http://onforb.es...].    |
 |
|
Pro MistyBlue forfeited this round.
|
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Vere_Mendacium 7 years ago
| MistyBlue | George_Clinton | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Poor defense by Pro
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
| MistyBlue | George_Clinton | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.thirdway.org...
http://www.fbi.gov...
http://www.factcheck.org...