Gun control

Sorry, This response is taking a long time. I'm currently on vacation, So things are moving a little bit slower I just want to thank you for an amazing debate. Some people on this site write 3 sentences when responding to claims, So thank you for having full responses. Here is something that I think should have been emphasized throughout this debate. Actual statistics and sources are very important because they reflect the truth, While logic ASSUMES the truth. Ultimately, Because of this, I think we can both agree that statistics speak louder than logic. So while your logic is well thought out, It doesn't represent the truth. Here's an example: Your logic claimed: More women and children will die if guns are restricted. (I would also like to emphasize that there was no impact of how banning guns will end up with more women and children's death. You may be thinking, "yes I did, He already asked me this! " However, Your response was "men will prey on women and children because some men are evil. " How is this at all related to gun regulations? Real sources/statistics say: that less people, Men, Women, And children die less because of gun restrictions. So we aren't just saving women and children, We are also saving men which is something that you didn't emphasize while mine does. Overall, Less school shootings--> less deaths-->my case has better impact and the weight of this debate goes to my side. Https://www. Businessinsider. Com/how-other-countries-avoid-mass-shootings-2018-2 There were two refutations to this point. We both made it clear that the most important thing in this debate is saving lives. Now, Because this is the most important thing in the debate, You will probably need some evidence: something that I supplied, And something that really didn't come in your responses. As for the abortion argument that you brought up. . . Good job catching that. Here is what I was trying to say: There has to be a net benefit to the sacrifice (if you don't know what net benefit is, Here is a short explanation: It is part of a counter plan. If someone presents a plan, The opposing team can present a counter plan, Which must have a net benefit. A net benefit is a reason that some benefit of the original plan is overpowered by the consequence/a benefit to the counter plan that the original plan does not supply). So, We must weigh our options. There is a net benefit to having an abortion because the woman could avoid physical harm, She may not be able to take care of the baby, The baby may be sent of to the foster care system which is, Unfortunately, Brutal. There is a net benefit to that plan because no one suffers, While not having an abortion results in unneeded harms. There is a net benefit to gun restrictions because, As proved above, There are less deaths. The only 'benefit' that we would be losing is, "we, As Americans, Deserve to own guns. " That isn't a good reason to support something. "We deserve it. " And that seems to be a bulk of your argument. So, Ultimately, There is a net benefit to gun restrictions, Negating, "that definitely does not mean that they support the negative outcome of there belief system, " when it comes to guns. Then I must move onto the psychiatric health tests that you said were, "discriminatory. " Here is the thing: people that have mental health problems that could cause them to lash out. I'm going to use a comparison: airport security. We have airport security to make sure that people don't do something bad to hurt themselves or something else. If that person has something that could potentially be a threat, They will not be allowed to enter the plane. It isn't discriminatory, It is the most logical option to protect people on the plane. You said it was, "potential violence, " but there is, "possible violence, " when getting on a plane, And yet we still have regulations around it to protect the people on the plane. So now regulations make a lot of sense. Next, You tried to belittle the deaths from guns. 1, 077 deaths is a lot. Think of the victims, Think of the families, Think of the friends. I'm not saying that 9/11 was good, As was implicated. Belittling that amount of deaths is morally reprehensible. Name another crisis that needs this much fixing THAT WASN'T CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. When kids are being shot in schools, And according to you, "it isn't a big deal, " that is when you know that the logic you have presented is flawed. I looked at the source you put for why America is similar to a few countries, And the regulations backfired. HOWEVER, If you looked at the source a little closer, You would see that they were referencing BANS, Not the kind of regulations that I had recommended. Here is a sentence from the paragraph: Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, Whether it"s Chicago or D. C. Or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, Or Ireland. You didn't ever find a source that was specific in refuting my proposed regulations, It only talked about bans which I have said over and over, Are not what I am advocating for, Thus negating your source and making it irrelevant. Then you said that, 'it wasn't likely for Trump to get elected, " and a bunch of other examples. Here is where some minor hypocrisy comes in. You scrutinize my point about psychological tests, Saying its, "potential violence, " but then you make a point about how the is still "potential" that there will be a government takeover. You say, Potential violence is irrelevant, But then you talk about a potential government takeover? Seems hypocritical. Now onto the fundament right. I legit put the definition and the link to the website. I didn't "leave out" anything. It isn't a fundament right by definition. Now, On to protecting yourself. Police save so many people from home invasions every year. There is no need to implement a system in which a huge amount of people die every year for no reason. Just call the police and hide. It has saved a lot of people. The police system isn't broken. Of course, As I said in my last response, I win on timeframe and probability. Your impacts are improbable and won't happen for a while if the DO occur, They won't happen for a while. My impacts, On the other hand, Are very probable, And are happening now(timeframe and probability). ' And finally, On to your challenge: "WHY RISK USING REGULATIONS THAT COULD BACKFIRE"? Please tell me: what risk? What could backfire? Will it result in more deaths? Here is something that I wanted to say earlier, But I didn't have time, So I'll do it now. You tried to belittle the deaths people who died. And your right, 3, 000 people did die in 9/11, But you have to think about the families and friends that knew these people. They are suffering too. So it isn't just about the people killed, It is about the people that are traumatized from these horrible disasters. So really, Gun violence is indirecting a lot more people that 1, 077. Thank you so much for a great debate, And thank you for letting me see your side of things. I will friend you, So if you want to keep debating this afterwards, We can. You are one of the more respectable people on here so thank you so much! -Flaming. Liberal (-: