Gun Control

No, I did not prove your point. Your use of the term "banned guns" was what I was referring to. So in the contrary, I showed that your evidence was incorrect in all cases in your Round 3 argument. Of the modern states that you referred to, None of them have, In principle, BANNED GUNS. The facts ought to be straight. I shall base this argument on why guns are not needed - they are unwanted sources of potential violence. Read this straight - "unwanted" sources of "potential" violence. That one possesses a gun means that he can, And that "can" holds large prominence, Cause violence. Giving someone a gun permit, Allowing him to possess one, Never fully removes the risk associated with that. It need not be the ARs - just about any gun that can fire bullets using gunpowder is risky for the general population at large. You say the mother of the Parkland criminal called on her son 39 times. He still had a gun. Imagine - if gun control laws were rigid, His worrisome mental stature, And potential criminal status would have been enough to confiscate the firearm(s) he possessed. What if the mother had respite in the legal system of Florida? What if guns were under strict control? Would this have happened? I shall back that up with the stats - Florida does not require a state permit for possessing guns. There is no need to have a registration. No owner licenses needed either. Assault weapon law? No. This exists for all - both the long and short - guns. Tell me - wouldn't those 17 students still have been safe had there been a helpline for the mother to inform authorities that her mentally unstable son was in possession of a gun? If there was a legal system, If there was any legal infrastructure that would tackle any unstable gun owners, This would not have happened. Also, According to John Malcolm, VP at the Institute for Constitutional Governance, And Amy Swearer, Visiting Legal Fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The principal cause for concern in society from guns is from suicides and illegal possession - not mass shootings. Either way, Gun control is the best option. 80% of gun crime is drug related. Tell me, Can you shoot a person dead using pills? The root cause is guns. Not drugs. That which leads to the mafia killings is guns, Not drugs. Yes, Violence and gun crime may fall. But even in the way you make that statement, It is clear that there is no correlation. This is because it is illogical - when everyone has guns, And some may be influenced to crime, One can never expect gun rates to fall. If homicide rates have decreased, Is this decrease uniform? Take a look at the fact that over 50 percent of gun murders occur in only 2 percent of all counties. 2 PERCENT. Gun control applies uniform law, Even banning the guns, Hence eliminating such disastrous statistics. "If we ban guns, Illegal firearm sales from our southern border will skyrocket". Does a nation base policies on fear from illegal smuggling? If that had been the case, Shouldn't be drugs be fully legal since, As you say, That would increase their price and hence, The rates of smuggling? There is no truth in your statement, At least, With regards to this debate - we must look at the situation in our country, And that what needs to be done here is not the permit of guns, But merely the tightening of border rules. Australia never banned guns. I find it bothersome that you use the term " ban " so liberally - for banning guns completely would mean that society is completely compelled to do away with guns - incorrect. People can possess guns with permits. In the current argument, That the rates of such violence have increased does not really do with guns alone - it has to do with criminal jurisdiction. Your last argument is incorrect too - you see, Banning of guns does not bend around criminals. I have pointed out that it is possible for the confiscation of guns when new policies are introduced in countries. Hence, Law abiding citizens must expect that the law works - take it this way. Let us consider bombs - bombs can, In most cases, Be made from one's knowledge, And from basic circuits and triggers. The damage they cause is devastating. Now, Most individuals don't how to make bombs, But there are people with such knowledge. Of course, Detonating objects are a strict no-no in all states - do we see everything blowing up? Law must be trusted in most cases so as to prevent crime. The legal framework must be rigid enough. Gun control, With I quote, Strict laws must be brought up. Coming to another argument - what impact could this have on little children in homes. They see guns, And with the rise in news of shootings, A child's mind isn't mature enough so as to prevent it from using the gun. I am talking about even those upto the age of 13 - stats show that at least 30 % of kids in America are brought up by a single parent, And 16 % have abusive parents - do guns promote peace in the newer minds? Ask yourself. I brought this up last round - ask the survivors of the MSD shooting. First hand witness to their friends being slaughtered - I pray this never happens, But if we think in their shoes, Gun control is what we must be promoting - not greater liberty for more crime. The route for peace is hard, Often worrisome, But one must at times believe in the laws - minor incidents may happen, Even under gun control. I accept that. But these will be minor - very insignificant, Compared to the state of affairs today.