Gun Control

Pricing the bullets at a higher point was an analogy. My opponent has stated: "Raising prices of ammunition won't work since it only makes it harder for the law-abiding citizen to be disarmed, making them easy victims for a criminal to attack." There exists nil correlation between pricing bullets at a higher point and citizen disarmament. Bullets do not enhance gun capability or grant you supernatural abilities. This statement has zero strategical value to support your stance. If they are law-abiding then they are putting their guns to practical usage, not indiscriminately attacking innocent civilians and blowing up offshore oil tankers. There isn't a need to disarm the innocents. The remainder of the sentence, "making them easy victims for a criminal to attack" has absolutely no connection to the first portion of the sentence thus rendering it digressive. Con proposes making your own ammunition and selling it at a lower price point; once again, I reiterate that my initial point was used solely as an analogy. Criminals don't care about the law you say? Then why do I not see any convicts committing mass-murder in broad daylight? Why do I not see prostitutes walking around the streets asking people for money? They have a sub-normal acknowledgement for law and punishments that could be beset upon them such as eviction or imprisonment, but they are, to some degree obligated to comply to law or to be sentenced to life in prison where they cannot commit any more crimes and felonies. Their aim is to commit a crime and get away with it. They do disregard some laws and commit them discreetly but if laws are enforced to a greater extent such as making broad daylight permeate twenty-four-seven (an analogy), then the amount of mass-murders and genocidal attempts that would occur annually would be greatly reduced. No more Sandy-Hook or Dark Knight Rises shootings. Con brings up governments whose 'political theories' don't coincide. Politics have some association to law but it can be resolved. In every country, the laws are quite similar, no drinking booze until you're over 18 (can range from 16-22), no driving until you reach a certain legal age and no job application until you reach a set age. The only deviation from one country to another is bi-laws such as no painting your garage door purple or no smoking on thursdays. I neglect to even consider them because often they are foolish and nonsensical. Of course politics will differ from a capitalistic government to a communist regime or a liberal government to a conservative one. Political leaders also have very different viewpoints and standards and the side in which they wish to defend may not always coincide with another party's objectives. Con states: 'Every time a state has lowered the restrictions on guns, crime is lowered.' Cite the statistic. Con states: 'When states enacted concealed and open carry, crime rates dropped at least 15% the first year in almost every state. ' Cite the statistic, and also take into account that we are referring to crimes on a global scale. Con states that criminals kill by their will. As an aforementioned point, they have some acknowledgement for crime and they try to carry out their felony either with no suspicion or with minimal suspicion and reduced punishment. Abraham Lincoln and JFK were both assassinated during the dead of night and both assassins were tried - their punishments would have been magnitudes stronger if the murder was committed during broad daylight, where forensic evidence would not be necessary due to the plethora of eyewitness accounts. Once again, law deters criminals. It's directly proportional; we further restrict the law, the crime rates go down.