Gun control lowers crime

Rebuttals:"Yes, a 1 – 10 ratio. However, the crime difference is about a 3-8 ratio. Using this, we can see the ratio then becomes 3.75 – 10. "As I mentioned in the previous round as well, my opponent is the winner of the debate if we assume that petty crimes and major crimes count as equals. If however someone looks at my original reference another time. http://news.nationalpost.com...and considering the agreed upon 1-10 ration between Canada and USA one can see that the corrected ratio between Canada and USA regarding the gun related crime stands on 1730/10129 a 5.85 ratio in favor of reduced gun related crime in Canada and a .51/2.97 a 5.82 reduced number of homicides with guns. As you can see introduction of gun control has clearly succeeded in controlling its target, that is reducing the major gun related crimes. " Criminals would not follow the law and could obtain weapons without permission via black market. "The problem with this statement is self revealing. It is true anyone can have access to guns if he tries really hard. But one has to admit that it is far more risky to get engaged in illegal black market gun trafficking and purchasing than it is when you can simply go to a sport shop and order your weapon of choice. The law enforcement can enact cracking laws which would make life hell for whoever traffics weapons in to the country. In Canada the penalty for possessing illegal arms is heavy and the trafficking of illegal arms is considered a capital crime. The advantage of control is incontrovertibly clear. "Listen to this: My opponent has admitted guns deter crime. " Now that's a disappointing argument from my opponent. Apparently after 3 rounds of debating my opponent sill has difficulty grasping the idea of the debate and my stand. I need to state it again. The debate is about gun control. not about forbidding the gun ownership. There is no point of argue that in a place where is considered private such as the privacy of one's bedroom and where the law enforcement cannot be trusted to act fast, it is the right of any citizen to defend himself and his family. There is nothing about gun control that prevents one from this. Still gun control proceeds with making clear that if it's about defending your household you won't necessarily need more than a handgun or a shotgun with limited ammunition at most. The lack of gun control on the other hand results in for instance and elderly lady buying the weapons mainly designed for the war zone, with virtually unlimited amount of ammo that her mentally unstable kid can use for committing a carnage in a school or other in a cinema. I hope firstly the audience and secondly my opponent realize the difference of the case and the importance of gun control from this perspective. " “The law was rectified rather as a future measure than to address a problem. No wonder that the crime rate did not show a sharp change, since the law was not there to address an immediate problem. ” False, Canadian crime rate [3]:"Unfortunately either my opponent failed to read or he didn't care to bring the amendment to the above phrase that he copied from my argument. That is the increased terrorist acts committed in the province of Quebec during the peaking intervals. That part of the country at that time was in a state of semi civil war. With military deployed in large cities such as Montreal. Thus the sharp increase in your census. But it wasn't an issue directly related to the public. If the terrorist groups such as FLQ proceeded with bomb terrorizing the country, that cannot be put on the census of the ordinary citizens. It is wrong to count political terrorist activities as ordinary civil gun crimes. "2) this is a lie. And mass shootings have actually become more common since the 1970s [6]. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...Above I've brought the same reference brought by my opponent with which he called my argument a lie! I request the audience to review the charts again and make a sound comparison to see if one can compare 3-4 shootout incidences with maximum 1 casualties to any of the carnage that one hears coming out of the States on a regular basis? Based on a sound judgment I clearly rest my case! ========="The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case. "Considering Canada gun control laws I perceive that my opponent has confused two parts of the gun control. The Canadians do not consider the essence of gun control not to be effective, the part of the gun control law that the Canadians deem to be less effective yet still rows after rows of governments have refused to scrap, even though they keep giving promises to do so, is the long gun registry. The above phrase to my knowledge refers to the long gun registry problem. Still it's not hard to see the importance of the above sentence. No registered gun has to our knowledge been used for committing a crime. In other words no single person has gone to a sports shop, bought a gun and went to a mall for a shoot out! Gun control doesn't elliminate the gun related crime but properly applied and enforced it makes it extremely hard for the criminals and ill minded to exact their plans. Conclusion:Based on my arguments I have shown that gun control succeeds in reducing the crime in the field that is destined for. Gun related crimes. I leave it to the fair judgement of the audience to vote for the side with the stronger argument.