Gun Control Is Still Bad

EXTENSION OF (http://www.debate.org...) Somehow people believed your side was right when the arguments you made were incredibly ignorant and weak. You ignored most of my counters and hooked the debate into a corner. I want to continue debating. >"when I have stated Gun Control is NOT about taking away guns from everyone but instead making it more difficult for people with ill intent to receieve a gun, even if it's just by a few minutes." You have yet to explain what kind of gun control measures will realistically work. The only direct option you have told me is to impose a "waiting list".. Sorry but a waiting list is practically useless in terms of gun control measures.. Unless you are in favor of abolishing all gun laws except for a "waiting list"(you would practically be agreeing with me at this point) then I am going to need more reasons. >"He refuted my Bundy source because he did not read that today's situation with those terrorist started from years ago." You gave me an article that doesn't support your claims that said link is a "source". Then you told me to read the articles source.. What? >"He believes video games and shooting at a gun range will help people in a terrorist situation when instead and does not show proof" Are you really debating this? It's common sense that it helps, by what extent varies extremely but obviously not a large amount. The American and Canadian military both incorporate video game shooting simulators AND firing ranges in their training. Why would they be doing such things if it brings no benefits to them? >"because it will get more people harmed" Perhaps. It's extremely situational and depending on many factors. >"When asked to show his OWN sources for his BOP on Germany he simply just tells you to google it" Because you're acting like a bloody moron. It's like asking me for a source on 9/11, but okay ill take 10 seconds out of my time to link you. http://www.bbc.com... There ya go, one link out of the thousands for you to read. >"cited sources that shows the decline of gun violence and suicide rates in Australia" I asked for a source, not an article. I want to be able to read the numbers. >"In conclusion, the only negative side that con has proven is that gun control makes law abiding citizens wait for their guns." That would be true if all guns laws were abolished except for making law abiding citizens wait. Is that your final argument? >"Because in Australia suicide rates by guns dropped 74% while suicide rates by other means did not rise" Of course suicide rates will drop when there are less guns, but it didn't change the overall suicide numbers very much. >"showing that helps people out as well as their crime rate due to gun violence dropping." Show me a direct source(a numerical graph or chart) (not an article) showing Australias gun violence going down. >"The reason is simple, it makes it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns" What kind of criminals? Petty solo criminals with low intelligence (which makeup a small amount of the overall crime statistics) Or huge gangs and intelligent lone wolves that make up an overwhelming percentage of crime. Give me the name of any country in the world that has successfully kept guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs.(hint... you can't) (EDIT, except for North Korea).. >"When they have to learn to deconstruct and reconstruct how to get their guns it takes time, to learn that skill," This just proves how ignorant you are about guns, have you ever owned or taken a gun apart before? You realize deconstructing guns isn't some huge complicated thing you make it out to be. Even a noobie with no experience can watch step by step processes that take about 5-10 minutes. This is really something I would like you to counter me on because this is a major hole in your argument. >"as well importing which takes a while." takes a while? As opposed to what not getting a gun? Criminals and gangs can make border runs and have everything needed to supply group in about a day or two. This really doesn't hinder gangs is anyway. Some gangs can border run guns faster then the waiting list to get a gun legally. What are you going to say about that? >"In the time it takes them to learn it, they have a higher chance at getting caught." Uhm...... what? Do you realize what you are saying? Let's take this into another perspective for a moment and compare it to drug gangs and drug running. Criminals can smuggle the ingredients and seeds to make anything from meth labs to Marijuana grow ops, they have to grow/process those drugs for several weeks to several months. They do this constantly and only a very few get caught. Smuggling (and rebuilding) guns is not only easier but takes an overwhelmingly less amount of time. So your argument is invalid. >"Even them just looking for someone that can already do it has an inherent risk." Like I said before, the fact that you even say this shows your extreme gap in knowledge, and ANYONE that voted for you in the last debate that did so for that argument is also extremely ignorant. I don't know how else to explain this to you. Ask any gun owner and they will tell you that they disassemble their guns for cleaning, and partially doing it is called "field stripping".. 99% of gun owners do this... Full stripping is just a few extra steps taking several more minutes. But really your ignorance blows my mind. >"He also contradicts himself when he says most mass shooters are done by psychopaths yet before in the earlier rounds when confronted with most mass shooters are white males" How is that a contradiction? Do you know what that word means? An overwhelming amount of mass shootings are done by psychopaths, and most of the white males that have done these shootings are psychopaths. Where is the contradiction? More idiotic ignorance I see. >"he says they just have anger problems." More ignorance and a basic failure to grasp such a simple understanding. Let me make it easier for you to understand. Many people are angry with certain issues, like , racism, hate for women (misogyny)... Not just with whites but with blacks also. They may have persecution complexes or feel discriminated against. This makes them angry and want to lash out, but most people don't actually lash out... Why?? Because they have strong humane emotions and social barriers that never take them to the next level, but psychopaths have many brain dysfunctions, things like limited empathy and emotions, extra-violent tendencies and so forth. To put it in a nutshell they are mentally insane. So when psychopaths get angry they have a MUCH higher chance at lashing out as opposed to someone who isn't insane. Do you understand now? >"no matter how much training people have there are those when the battle began that sucks there thumb in fetal position and those that are ready to die for their cause as well as everyone in between. However the "shiniest as he say it" always have a different look in their eyes after the first bullet begans to fly." You are making my point. Before when I said something along the lines of "if 30 people in the Paris attack had guns there would most likely be a positive outcome as opposed to no guns" that's what I meant.. I didn't expect the 30 people to automatically charge in like the movies and save everyone without getting a scratch. In reality perhaps 25 people would instantly run away, I would take a good guess that there would be at least one person willing to go in and attempt to stop the shooter, and all it takes is one guy with a gun to POTENTIALLY change the situation. Who really knows what would happen. There are a billion possibilities. Plus that was one isolated case.. What about the Liveleak video I sent you of the terrorists running in the open streets shooting random people, and there were MANY people watching from the windows and on the roofs of buildings. Are you seriously telling me that if even one of the people on the roofs or in the windows had a gun that the situation wouldn't of gotten better? Heck there were about 30+ people recording the situation as the terrorists ran along the streets. Imagine instead of a camera scope it was the scope or sights of a gun.