Loose Gun Control

My opponent says that i am violationg a logical fallocy, however there are many other cases in which this has occured if you dont not believe that the one caused the other. Also, you have no evidence that the one did not cause the other you are just stating fallocies, which i could do also. Plus, according to the 42 fallocies there is no such thing as a "logical fallocy" you can look at this website which lists the 42 fallocies. http://www.nizkor.org... However back to my argument, it has happened not only in England, it has happened in other countries. "What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent." So nice try calling out a fallocy, but it has caused it more than once. You are also, trying to twist my words to the audience. I didn't say that some people only want it for protection, i said that some people want it for power and protection, not to use it in a violent way. You are violating a fallocy, that if one thing isn't true the other must be true. Which is not the case, people who buy guns to use them offensively end up in jail and the way we have the gun control even if you aren't using it offensively you end up in jail. Look at Plaxico Burress, he had a gun for self defense it went off and he shot himself in the leg, now he is serving time in prison. He had a gun license in florida, but not in new york. That is a problem if a person has a gun license in one state, and move they have to get a new license. For a professional athlete who goes to a lot of different states and wants self protection they have to carry a gun illegally because it will be so difficult for him to get one in each state. Also, like i said in previous rounds countries will apply gun control to oppress the people so they can't fight back. Send to a friend Print PDF Format Subscribe to FFF Email Update Subscribe to Freedom Daily Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 2 by Benedict D. LaRosa, November 2002 Part 1 | Part 2 What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent. In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported, "In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual." The Manchester Guardian of January 14, 1999, lamented that their city was being called "Gunchester." Police sources were quoted as saying that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young criminals. Some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons. The police risk confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing machine guns. A 1971 Cambridge University study showed that in heavily gun-controlled Great Britain, "the use of firearms in crime was very much less before 1920 when Britain had no controls of any sort." In fact, crime has increased so much in Australia, Canada, and Britain, all of which have strict gun-control laws, that the Wall Street Journal has since reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially lower than in those three countries. Gun control abroad In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate. "But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated. China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated." I understand my opponent says we have checks and balances, so that we won't ever become a dictatorship, but everything has grey areas and there are ways to work all systems. If every system worked perfectly we would live in a perfect world, and as we have seen over time every country has a downfall. If that wasn't true there would still be the Roman Empire. I understand the U.S. Government's system is working at the moment and has worked in the past but all it takes is one person to figure out there way around the system. When that time comes do you want to be defenseless? I dont think so. Here is the source i used for my information, http://www.fff.org...