Gun control

I think that we can both agree that this debate needs to be simplified. So lets do that. I think a priority in your argument, As in mine is about lives lost/saved. This should be the priority topic/point in this debate, So I'm going to focus on this primarily, Then I will move on to some '2nd Amendment stuff. " And to prove my point, I am going to refute your final argument for round 2. You sort of "named" this argument, 'geographical and socioeconomic differences in countries. ' While that sounds like a reasonable argument, Your paragraph after it didn't really explain the geographical and socioeconomic differences. You singled out certain policies from other countries, All with valid points, HOWEVER, These are not the kind of restrictions that I brought up. The only one that I have outlined was basic restrictions that are outlined in most basic plans of gun restrictions: strict tests based on psychology and other things that prevent people from getting guns. Also, An appropriate age range of course. We don't want underage kids with guns, Similar how we don't want them with alcohol (if you don't see the relation, I can explain it in the final response). Here is a very interesting article about what some countries do to make sure that dangerous people don't get guns and use them in horrible ways: https://www. Businessinsider. Com/how-other-countries-avoid-mass-shootings-2018-2 I will summarize this article now (article is called Australia, Israel, Japan, And South Korea rarely have mass shootings "" and the reasons are clear). 1. "Japanese gun fans have to regularly take written tests. "(similar to Australia) -Japan has never had a mass shooting, And Australia hasn't had one since 1996. (THIS IS THE MAIN RESTRICTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE). 2. "Israeli shooters must wait until their twenties. " -almost no mass shootings from gun/shooting ratio. Israelis think of guns as a "necessity, " while Americans think of them as a right, Except there are very little mass shootings. 3. "South Korean guns aren't kept at home. " Here is mini paragraph from the article. "In South Korea, Where many men learn to use firearms during military service, Guns are just not easily available. People must first obtain a license from police and, Even with a license, Can only purchase air rifles or hunting guns. " -haven't had a mass shooting since 1982. These are the facts. So I would like you to find some facts/sources that are SPECIFIC to these kind of regulations that say that they won't work in the United States. If you are unable to produce any, Then my point stands. You should also explain the geographical and socioeconomic differences that you brought up. Oh also, You said, "America has by far the highest gun ownership rate in the world. " Yes, Of course. And you want to know why? Its because we don't have gun restrictions like other countries. So now that I have proved that there are benefits from this kind of restriction. Unless you can find realistic, Reliable, And comprehensive evidence that it won't work in the US, There will be a lot of lives saved. Now onto some second hand stuff! Your first and second paragraphs were about an oppressive government that would come and attack us. I hear this argument a lot, And I have a few responses and questions. 1) You said it yourself, "government oppression is unrealistic for America as of right now. " Why are you trying to prioritize something that doesn't matter at all? This debate should be about saving lives, Not some "fundamental and basic" right. How is it a fundamental right? Here is the definition of a fundamental right: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, Often held to include the rights to life, Liberty, Equality, And a fair trial, Freedom from slavery and torture, And freedom of thought and expression. Https://www. Thefreedictionary. Com/Basic rights As you can see in that definition, Nothing says guns, Or even hints at it. None of the words encompass "the rights of people to own guns. "It isn't a basic human right, But y'know what is? Life. And 1, 077 people have died from mass shootings since 1966. Those are the human rights that are being infringed upon, And taking away guns from insane people isn't "against human rights. " 2) If an oppressive government were to take over, What would you be shooting at? Usually oppressive governments mean higher taxes and indirect harm, Instead of physical harm. Who are you going to shoot with your 2nd Amendment right? The tax collectors? H&R Block? It doesn't make any sense. 3) We have a democracy for a reason. People are supposed to choose their leaders through voting, And we can assume that people are smart enough to not vote for someone who would want to destroy their own population. If you are referring to another countries leader coming in and attacking us, Your president just put hundreds of millions extra into the military budget, So we have enough defense, Believe me. This invalidates your argument and makes it pointless. 4) I win this debate on timeframe and probability. Maybe you know what those words mean in debate terms, But if you don't, Here is a link: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Impact_calculus Look under, "Basic impact calculous. " I win this debate on those because your fear of, "government takeover, " is not probable. We can all agree on that. Even you agreed. Now, We also win on timeframe because, Even the slightest probability of a government takeover, It won't happen for a while. We have a leader that I personally don't like, But I know that he won't kill off his entire population. And as I said, We have enough defense. I had 4 ways to refute this point so it, Again, Shouldn't be considered in this debate. Now I'm gonna go onto the women and children thing because it doesn't seem inherent to the restrictions of guns. Women and children die in school shootings too, So. . . And I also don't see how gun restrictions lead to deaths of women and children. Can you explain how if gun restrictions are passed, More women and children will die compared to men? I'm a lil confused. Also, You use the word, "skyrocketing, " but that doesn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of what would happen. I must move onto this one thing that you said in your 4th paragraph. "If somebody disagrees with your belief system, That definitely does not mean that they support the negative outcome of there belief system. It simply means that they believe there belief justifies the end result. " How does that make sense? Sure, You may not support the consequences, But, You are INDIRECTLY harming someone or something EVEN IF YOU DON'T MEAN TO. Here is where I think our beliefs differ. I agree with you that some people think that their belief justifies the end result, But you look at is as a positive thing, While I look at it as a bad thing. Lets use an example: you may support animal testing, However, You are indirectly hurting (and I guess torturing) animals. This is a downside to your "belief, " as you put it. In your argument, You basically say that impacts don't matter because it is only about the "belief system" that you are basing your opinions off of. This is the opposite of what this debate is about. This debate is about taking actions while having to deal with the consequences, But you are trying to justify not talking about the consequences by saying, "that doesn't mean they support the negative outcome of their belief system. This logic is flawed and should not be considered in the judging of this debate. And then, Finally, About illegal gun trade, That would be something to worry about if we were to ban guns, Not if we increased regulations, Because they would still be legal to get. Challenges for you to answer: 1) How probable is a government takeover if your eyes? 2) How are guns a, "fundamental human right? " 3) Can you explain how more woman and children will die, INHERENTLY to gun restrictions? Thanks