Question: Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Title: There should be more gun laws Content: Extended

Title: There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! Content: Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", stated in 1998, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...

Title: Gun control laws Content: In America, many people in the government are attempting to pass laws pertaining to the usage of guns. They include rules that restrict the everyday usage of guns, effectively limiting the safety and protection that they can give us. Some of these gun control laws should not be implemented in the U.S because it would cause many unnecessary regulations and negative effects. On the list to be banned are 157 specifically named pistols, rifles and shotguns. Yes, there are many, many more guns out there than this. However, the proposed legislation ( http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...) also states the following regulations: The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of: All semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. This may sound reasonable at first, until you consider the fact that nearly all semiautomatic rifles bear a detachable magazine; for those who do not know, rifles are guns with a large barrel and stock that are loaded by putting bullets into a rectangular “storage compartment”, or magazine. It is very reasonable to let citizens carry at least some form of semi-automatic firearm, for defense. These are not the only “widespread” bans either. These people also propose to ban semi-automatic pistols with a detachable magazine, ammunition feeding devices capable of using more than ten rounds at once, and semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can shoot more than 10 rounds at once. When most people think of a “semi-automatic” rifle, they think of a machine gun. They think that these guns can fire many shots every second, with automatic fire and huge bullet capacities. In reality, however, these guns only fire one bullet per trigger press. It then loads a new bullet into the chamber, ready to be fired. If you consider this, banning these rifles goes against their written intentions. Their reasoning for the bans is stated at the top of the paper: Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload. If this is true, they should get rid of all rifles and automatic weapons. However, it clearly states that “The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.” By doing this, they give criminals another two thousand guns to use, making the ban completely useless. The article also gives us a few reasons why it’s necessary, but these reasons can be negated from their argument easily. They tell us that a previous assault rifle ban in 1994, which expired in 2004, was very clearly effective. They supply us with the information that over 350 have been killed since it expired. 350 people were killed by rifle in the year 2010. However, that number pales in comparison to murders by pistol, a weapon that is not automatic, with 6,000 murders (http://www.theblaze.com...). Many people would argue that these confinements will stop people from having the guns to kill with. Although they may limit the use to most citizens, real murderers can and will find other ways of getting the outlawed weapons. As of now, thorough background checks are required to buy a gun. With this in place, how does any criminal get their hands on a gun? They cannot get them through normal means, so they must use illegal trades and the like to get them. Strict laws have never stopped people from breaking the rules. It is not like there were no mass murders in the time period where the guns were illegal. for example, in 1997, a time where the assault rifles were banned, this happened: After he was expelled for having a gun in his locker, Kipland P. Kinkel, 15, a freshman at Thurston High, went on a shooting spree, killing his parents at home and two students at school. Five classmates wrestled Kipland to the ground before he was arrested. If somebody sets his heart on doing something, there is no way to stop him, for better or worse. For many years now, people have been trying to lay down a ban on “assault weapons,” guns that can fire large amounts of bullets at a time. There are many, many reasons that this should not be implemented into our society, including the ones listed above. It is useless in a lot of ways, allowing people to access thousands of “sporting” rifles which are “strictly for competition.” The United States would be better off without the law.

Title: Gun Control in the US Content: 1: Your Imgur link is broken, but sure, maybe the gun control laws passed did little to stop crime, but they were effective at reducing the amount of military-grade weapons used in shootings. Less Ammo = Less Death, Less Death = More People Alive After Homocides. I think the amount of survivors is more important than the amount of crimes in general, as shootings are generally and unfairly treated as one crime, whereas it should be considered at least 10 different cases of murder in the event that 10 people die in a shooting. 2: The point I'm trying to make about hunting rifles is this: Less Ammo = Less Death 3: Paris doesn't really apply to gun control, those rifles and devices were sourced from the middle-east by a terrorist organisation 4: Switzerland, Mexico and Honduras gun politics have very little to do with US gun control laws. The reason the homicide rate in Honduras is because of the extreme poverty, yet illegal trafficking of firearms is also to blame there, so if firearms and their respective favela gangs were disbanded/weeded out then I can bet you that homicide would become significantly harder to commit then. In reality though, their police force is terrible for that stuff, so I bet any laws there would be effective until the government gets their act together. So, all-in-all, the US is in no position to be compared to a place like Honduras, which is much harder to analyse and pick apart than the US. There are simply just too many variables for a reliable conclusion to be made. 5: Average citizens don't prepare for shootings or partake/pay for gun lessons. Most gun discipline in the US is self-taught or rarely practiced. The NRA has proposed to make gun training required, but so far no bill has been passed to make it so. An average citizen, therefore has inferior training and knowledge than a gunman with a larger gun/calibre. Remember, if you take away that gunman's "black rifle", you take away his ability to harm more people in the same position as the hypothetical woman. In conclusion, Gun laws may do little to actually stop crime, but they have the potential to reduce murder rates and increase the survivability of an encounter with a murderer.

Title: Gun control Content: If we have more gun laws we will have more crime.

Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThis resolution can also be interpretted as the U.S. Congress Should pass stronger, more effective gun control legislation than we have now, to deal with the surge in mass gun shootings over the last three years and the 491,930 cases of gun violence the nation experiences on average annually. (On average, 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year [1], and contrary to popular belief, statistics show that gun violence has not decreased over the last decade [2]).First Round is for acceptance only. (However, Con make a brief statement about his position on this issue in ROUND 1 and even provide 1 to 5 sources to back up his claims.)[1] (http://www.americanprogress.org...)[2] (http://www.dailykos.com...)

Title: The US Should Have Better Gun Control Content: I accept

Title: Gun Control Leads To More Crimes Content: -This post is based on laws in the USA- Gun Control Laws are designed to prevent incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech from occurring. If an individual is so mentally unstable that they desire to shoot random classmates, it is not feasible to believe that a gun control law will stop them. If an individual truly wants to harm others, then they will try to do so regardless of laws or regulations. This greatly prevents the laws from serving their purpose (to prevent gun crime). If anything, gun control laws will increase crime. A saying often muttered in the Southern United States is, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This statement is often ignored but it is true. Criminals rarely go through the legal channels to obtain their firearm so it is easy to conclude that criminals will barely be affected by gun control laws. The average citizen will be the one affected. The only real accomplishment gun control laws will have is hindering law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right [[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html]] If citizens are heavily hindered from getting guns they will have a harder time protecting themselves. I believe that citizens should rely on law enforcement, but on average Seattle's emergency crews took 8 minutes 46 seconds to respond (by respond, I mean arrive and begin helping victims), Oklahoma City 7 minutes 36 seconds, Tulsa 8 minutes 48 seconds, Columbus, Ohio, 7 minutes 49 seconds, Charlotte 6 minutes 56 seconds, and Fresno took 22 minutes 11 seconds [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm]] . If you have no protection, what could happen to you in that time? In conclusion, I believe that gun control activists mean well but, in the end, these laws will cause more trouble than they're worth. If someone is determined to commit a crime using a gun, a law will not stop them. If they break one law (murder, robbery, etc.), they will not mind breaking another (gun control law).

Title: There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! Content: There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...

Title: Gun Control Content: I think we should have more Gun Control laws.There are too many deaths in this country because of guns. In this year there were 7,910,100 crimes comitted, about 700000 were comitted with guns. There have been too many suicides because of guns. Also school shootings people! Innocent kids died because teenagers easily obtained guns! And this is why we should get rid of guns. We need too have compassion, we should have gun control laws that prohibit civilians to own guns, but the police and armed forces should be allowed to have them. With these laws murder rates will go down, according to www.justfacts.com there were 10,615 murders with firearms. Also there have been far to many accidents. Because of laws alowing us to carry guns, many children have died. In the case of Sandra Smith a 9 month old baby crawled up her dad's bed were there was a gun and shot herself by accident when playing with it. When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. In my opinion guns are to over-rated! We think we need guns for everything that involves protection, but guns have only brought trouble and disgrace into our nation.

Title: Gun laws Content: Should the gun laws be more strict?

Title: Gun Control Content: Hello all. This debate is part of the current Debate Tournament. I will be contending that gun regulation should be minimal and only in the forms of background checks to purchase a gun. If my opponent wishes for a different resolution, I hope he comments on it before accepting it. Contention 1: Guns protect people If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, which actually increased crime rates. States with right-to-carry laws tend to have lower crime rates than those without [1]. It makes logical sense that criminals, when deciding their targets, will be less inclined to rob from somebody who may be armed with a gun. When people are allowed to conceal their guns, they create a positive externality on society, protecting the non-gun owners with criminal’s fear of assaulting somebody who can fight back. When the criminal knows that the victim is unarmed and not dangerous, he is much more inclined to infringe on their other rights, such as property and life. Criminologist Gary Kleck concluded that “handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes” [2]. Guns can be used, without being fired, to intimidate a criminal to stop committing a crime and flee, thus protecting everybody. Also, a large number of potential crimes never even occur because the potential criminal is too scared of the possibility of confronting somebody with a weapon. The clear power of guns in the law abiding civilization, in addition to the general inability of the government to completely enforce its idealistic gun restrictions, make the notion that banning guns would do anybody any good somewhat ridiculous. In Washington D.C., the homicide rate tripled between 1976 and 1991, during which it banned hand guns, while the national rate only rose 12 percent [2]. This would logically result from the fact that law abiding citizens gave up their guns, leaving a full 100% of the guns in the hands of people with the clear intention of breaking the law. Criminals, now knowing that their victims are completely defenseless, are all the more keen to use their guns to rob, steal, and murder. The individual citizens are much better at defending themselves than the police force, which is unable to give constant protection at all times like a gun can. Guns give regular citizens a much better fight against criminals, deterring them from even trying. That shall be all for now. [1] http://www.cato.org... [2] http://www.roanoke.com...

Title: Gun Control Laws Content: There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.

Title: Gun Control Content: 1. Guns deter criminals. Gun control leads to more crimes because criminals are criminals because they break the law, so citizens won't have protection while criminals will have guns. Yes, maybe a few will be put off from obtaining guns, but do you know what? They break the law, so they won't care if there is a law that says that obtaining guns is illegal. As the old saying goes "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". And now that your average citizen can't obtain guns, the criminals are no longer scared of robbing someone because they might have a gun. Even if criminals are scared of the law(which would be pretty strange), it is now a criminal with a knife versus an unarmed citizen. If not, which is very probable (because after all, criminals are criminals because they break the law), it is now a criminal with a gun versus a unarmed citizen. 1A. Evidence. 1Aa. Americans using guns for good. Approximately 11,000, or 67% of America's murders are committed with fire arms. However, 162,000 households believed that someone would have been killed if they didn't carry a firearm for protection. Not only that, US civilians use guns to protect themselves from crime about 1,000,000 times a year[1]. Americans use guns to frighten off intruders about 500,000 times a year. 1Aaa. Guns deter criminals. In a survey of felons, 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" and 40% didn't commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"[1]. This shows that guns prevent more problems than they cause. 1Ab. Crime Comparison between Countries with & without Gun Control. Before I start saying this, I would like to say that comparing countries is not the most accurate method, but it is useful nonetheless. Let's compare crime rates in countries with and without gun control. In America, there is about 4 gun committed homicides per 100,000 people. When you compare that with France's 0.2 gun committed homicides per 100,000 people[2], it points to an obvious conclusion. However, that's before you look deeper into the subject. In London, which has gun control, you are 6 times more likely to mugged than in New York City. By 1995, all crimes except murder and rape were far higher in England than in America. Only 13% of burglaries occur while people are at home in the US, compared with 53% for England. America's murder rate is getting closer and closer to England's, and may converge in the near future[1]. This proves what I have been saying. Yes, criminals commit most crimes with guns in the US because criminals have easy access to guns. However, because citizens may have guns, the crime rate is much lower overall. 1Ac. What happens when you put gun laws into effect. When Washington D.C. put gun control laws into effect, the homicide rate tripled, while the national average rose 12%[6]. 1Ad. When gun ownership is the law. In Kennesaw, Georgia, they had a crime problem. Their population was about 5,000, but they had a crime rate of 4,000/100,000, well above the national average. They passed a law which said every homeowner had to own and maintain a firearm. It then dropped to 2,000/100,000, while their population has quintupled. Not only that, not a single citizen has been killed by a gun[7]. 1Ae. Good gun laws. This does not mean I don't believe in background checks and such for buying guns. Gun control advocates often cite the Tucson shooting, but a simple background check could have stopped Jared Loughner from buying a gun[4]. 2. Cops and crime. Without guns, there isn't much to protect people. After all, if someone suddenly pulls a knife/gun on you, the cops won't be there to stop it. The average police response time is about 8 minutes 30 seconds[5]. If someone pulls a knife on you, and you have no option for self defense, then you are screwed. 2A. Guns, unlike cops, can give you constant protection. Guns will almost always be better at stopping crime than being protected by cops. Conclusion Gun control leads to more crime, and there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Many events like the Tucson shooting could have been stopped by background checks, but those kind of laws should be common sense. Sources [1] http://www.justfacts.com... [2] http://www.gun-control-network.org... [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://www.mtsusidelines.com... [5] http://www.washingtontimes.com...[6] http://www.roanoke.com... [7] http://www.wnd.com...

Title: Gun Control Content: There should be gun control.

Title: more gun control should occur Content: looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all. here are my initial thoughts/rants.... why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand. -background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people. the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up. -a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here. a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.// -so when people say "guns don't kill people people kill people" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway. -i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least. -i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights. if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?

Title: Gun Control in the United States Content: There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries and continents besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the United States. This includes Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.sunray22b.net... http://www.deseretnews.com...

Title: Gun Control Content: Criminals and gangsters don't follow laws. If they want guns they will get them at any means necessary. If there was a gun control law passed, it would increase the death rate for the law abiding citizens because of lack of self defense options. It would in crease the number of break-in's because an intruder will know that he wont be shot because of current gun laws and they will have a gun they got on the black market. Speaking of which, with gun restriction laws in place, it would increase the black market so that people can get the guns back that they were forced to give up. And look at Switzerland. Every family is required by law to own a fire arm and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

Title: We need more gun control Content: I extend.

Title: Is strengthening gun control laws necessay Content: More gun control is absolutely necessary in today's society and is not a violation of the second amendment. People should be allowed to own a guns for self-defense and hunting purposes, but you don"t go hunting or defend your house with a modified assault riffle unless your street is being invaded by Turkish Rebels and you don't use 30 rounds either when you are hunting. It is not necessary for an ordinary citizen to have weapons of such force, with the potential to do so much harm, and you don't need a high caliber magazine to defend your home or hunt with. If you can't hit what you are shooting at with less than 5 bullets you don't have business owning a gun. Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.

Title: Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America Content: Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I defined gun control I said laws and regulations regarding guns which don't necessarily mean a ban on any type of gun it just means more laws regarding guns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly, Unsurprisingly America has more guns than any country in the world. A staggering 89 guns for every 100 people. This is far more then doubling the second leading country in this area. The USA also has the most gun homicides (A staggering 22 more per million then the second leading country in the world) and also the most deaths because of guns in general. This data was all collected by the United Nations. There has been research conducted by Leah Libresco that shows that these two things are directly related. Another smart group of individuals, who also found that these two things were connected are the Harvard School of Public Health"s Injury Control Research Center. The Boston University School of Public Health found similar findings showing that a 1 percent increase in guns was most likely to create a 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicide rate at the state level. In all these findings the variables were controlled and the research was performed by experts. All this data proves that America's easy access to guns and quantity of guns leads to more violence. Having so many guns makes it incredibly easy for criminals and felons to access. To fix this problem America would have a limit on the number of guns made and imported into America. We could also have stricter laws on who could have guns. An example of a few is making background checks mandatory so that there would be less of a need for guns in America. We could also make an age restriction on guns. Don't you think its a bit weird how kids aren't allowed to drink until their 21 but they're allowed to have a weapon that kills humans? Thank you for reading my argument and I hope you consider it deeply. Sources: https://www.vox.com...

Title: there should be more gun control Content: looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all. here are my initial thoughts/rants.... why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand. -background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people. the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up. -a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here. a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.// -so when people say "guns don't kill people people kill people" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway. -i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least. -i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights. if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?

Title: Gun Control Content: For the final round, I will be rebutting my opponent's Round 3 responses to my initial arguments.= Final Rebuttals =More Guns, Less CrimeEngland and Wales' homicide rate jumped following both gun restrictions, showing that gun control does not work in eliminating crime. The graph doesn't "look high" because England and Wales' homicide rate per million people were together in one graph. Remember, we are measuring the murder rate over time and how the trend changes when gun control laws are implemented. I have clearly shown that the murder rate rose, and that gun control does not work, especially not in this instance. Pro drops the facts I showed about how the crime rates in European countries with various gun laws were higher with more laws and lower with less.Pro then goes on to examine my source and pulls out the Chicago graph that measured the murder rate in response to the strict gun bans. The graph did fluctuate a bit but was also cut off at 2007, so allow me to provide some missing info: An Illinois concealed carry law was enacted in July 2013. The Chicago homicide rate of the first quarter of 2014 saw the rate at its lowest since 1958[1]. This is a significant change that "coincidentally" happened right after the ban on carrying guns was lifted.It is true that the UK's murder rate is slightly lower than America's, but it has been rising significantly ever since gun laws have been enacted. America has the highest ownership rate of guns in the world, with 90 guns per 100 people. If more guns means more crime, then that should mean that the United States has the highest crime rate in the world. However, the U.S.'s homicide rate is not in the top 10, or the top 50, or the top 100 - it's homicide rate per capita is #111, despite having so many guns[2]. Most of the countries above the U.S. are progressive countries with gun control laws, so the mantra that "more guns, more crime" is a very false one indeed. Indeed, the crime rate can be affected by different factors, but gun control ultimately has the largest effect since it directly targets the amount of guns used for crime.The "homicides with large anomalies unrelated to guns" in the UK graph means that homicides were committed using knives and other non-firearm weapons. This shows that even if criminals don't have guns, they will still find ways to commit crime without them. The large spike was the result of the criminal response to the UK gun ban in 1997.We must note that my opponent has not provided any counter evidence to suggest that gun control does reduce crime, he has just stated his issues with my evidence.Self-DefenseTheoretically a criminal may have a harder time finding a gun with gun control, but they will put more effort into to obtaining illegal guns and non-firearm weapons that will not make the homicide rate lower, as we have seen with several examples above.As for the objections to my sources 5 and 6, the people who used guns for self protection were actually 9%, not .9%. This plus 7% makes 16%. We must remember that the study was focused on defensive gun uses, which is the polar opposite of offensive or criminal uses. The rest of the data is simply not noted, so it is wrong to jump to conclusions.Pro looks at the introduction of my round 3 source 5 study instead of reading the rest of it. The last line of the introduction reads, "There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?" The next section is titled "Dr. Kleck's Answer" where he uses multiple paragraphs to answer this question. Pro clearly has not read the rest of the study.GunCite.com is not at all biased. Just because the name includes the words "gun cite" does not mean it is anything seriously leaning toward one side. My opponent has attempted to dismiss the site because it's pro-gun, but that does not refute the numbers or data collection. In doing so he has committed the Genetic Fallacy[3]. Lastly, the article may be made in 2003, but the numbers and data are still as true today as they were then, so this is not even close to making the article wrong.Thanks a bunch for the debate Pro! It's been a pleasure.[1] http://www.ijreview.com...[2] Pro's source, Round 3[3] http://www.nizkor.org...

Title: Gun control in America Content: Again as I stated- having rifles which are dispensed from a controlled facility for the purposes of hunting still allows the right to bear arms to some degree. I will again restate my point that since guns have become much more efficient killing machines over the years, the 2nd amendment should adjust accordingly. Our founding fathers could not have possibly predicted what guns are like today. I have heard many times the argument gun laws only take guns out of the hands of honest gun owners, not criminals. Yes and no. Initially after more gun laws are passed, many criminals would still have firearms. The idea isn't to snap your fingers and do away with all illegal firearms, but to progressively weed them out over a period of time. Yes, many guns are brought in illegally. That problem is not by any stretch of imagination impossible to deal with. Your facts you cited, though I have no reason to believe they are false, are from a study attempting to prove gun control is ineffective. The problem with this is that if you want to, facts can be easily cherry picked to "prove" either side. Since gun control on a federal level hasn't ever been taken up seriously , I am not sure there is any statistical evidence that when looked at from an unbiased standpoint that suggests with conviction gun control in general does or doesn't work. To prove my point, here are some bias statistics that would suggest gun control does work: http://nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com... Now, here are the some statistics presented from a non bias source: http://hubpages.com... See what I mean. You can stack the facts to promote either side, but when looked at comprehensively, there is no solid statistical evidence either strongly suggesting is better. The determining factor is the amount of original crime before the laws were implemented, and more importantly, how you execute the laws. Gun control has failed in some countries not because it is a bad idea, but because authorities simply lack the strength to enforce it. If gun control is done correctly, and the government exerts an effort to remove illegal guns from the streets, along with a crackdown on illegal gun imports, it would be reduce the amount of violent crimes. Despite the lack of strong statistical evidence for either side, there is a solid and logical argument that gun control in the US would be a positive thing. If an armed robber enters a house, and sees that the owner is there with a gun, he will be more likely to kill in perceived self-defense. The owner of the house will also be more likely to kill in perceived self defense if the robber is armed. The rate of deadly crimes of passion, when guns are removed from the equation, will also decrease. It's much easier to act on emotion or impulse when a gun is easily available. Also, guns can and do fall into the hands of children, and many fewer guns means many fewer occurrences of firearms falling into the wrong hands, including those of children's. It is my opinion and the opinion of many defense of material objects is not justified by the taking of life if there are other ways to obtain justice, such as through a court system and police. Additionally, if it was proven sufficiently that gun control didn't reduce violent crime or deaths from it, then why is it so many areas plagued with violent crime are screaming for gun control? Although I don't pull out this argument frequently myself, gun control would also reduce school shootings and potentially prevent terrorists from stockpiling weapons. "Why don't we just do background checks instead?", you might ask. To which my response is that background checks are not successful in preventing aforesaid people (terrorists and potential shooters with a mental disability) from obtaining a gun. Additionally, the same people who advocate the success of background checks are the same people who riddle them with loopholes making it easy to stockpile weapons. As long as there are weapons out there, criminals will get their hands on them. Thus, the idea is to have the smallest amount of weapons possible. Many people would counter this with the idea that "criminals will be intimidated if they know citizens are statistically well armed and that there is a good chance the owner of the house they are robbing is in possession of a firearm." While this seems like a logical statement, facts suggest this is not true. There are nations with very low gun ownership rates that have crime rates lower than nations with high gun ownership rates. Ultimately, my point is that gun laws can and will work in reducing homicide rates and crimes of passion if you combine them with an earnest effort to stop illegal gun imports. The reason gun control has done nothing in Europe, where much of the gun rights people get their data, is that trade is very difficult to regulate and one can transport guns through borders with relative ease if one so desired. We do not face this problem nearly as severely. Canada already has strict gun control laws, so we would receive little or no illegal guns from them. The main effort would be to stop shipments of guns from Mexico, which with a combined effort of strengthening of the border patrol (which we arguably need anyway), and patrol from the Coast Guard, is entirely doable. Another argument is "Guns are part of America's history, it's wrong to take them away." My response to this is simple, just because something is part of our history or an element of American culture, this tells us nothing about whether said thing is good or not. For a long time, racism was part of American culture. Therefore, is it a malicious infringement of American culture to make it illegal to deny someone employment because of their skin color? Of course not. Just because something is a part of America's past doesn't mean we must or should embrace that thing in the future.

Title: Gun control America needs to change Content: 1. You cannot reduce gun crimes with more guns! The mores guns there is the more violence in the world. Bedsides if you just got rid of guns altogether or had stricter gun laws then it is not likely that there would even be a shooter in the first place. Look at the UK, There has only been 1 mass shooting since stricter gun laws were put in place. In America, Mass shootings are happening on a regular basis and your solution is more guns! You have tried that and it clearly has not worked, It is time for America to make a change! Masses of people are dying on a regular basis and you are doing nothing effective! 2. Why waste money on things that can kill people? ! I think just like your driving test you should have to pay for this test and to have a licence for a gun. The practical test would ensure that you actually know how to use a gun safely. The theory test would be the part where you mental health, And your background is checked and yes I admit people could lie BUT it would still make it that little bit harder for people to access guns and could prevent some gun crimes from happening. It is worth doing even if it only saves a few lives. 3. If you don't like the way your country is run you should not be protesting with a gun anyway as that would be murder. The police and the military are there to protect you from any foreign invasion so you do not need a gun for that either. "a gun behind every bush" I believe is a terrible saying because that implies that you are living your life in constant paranoia and fear and that is no way to live. America has a very good police force and military as far as I am aware and they are there to protect you so I do not think you need to worry about having a gun on you at all times. 4. How is taking away guns going to make more people die of gun crime! You cannot shoot your way to peace! 5. Cancer is not something that can be prevented. It is not a choice. You cannot compare someone dying because somebody shot them to somebody dying of cancer. America has the power to reduce gun crime, That is a fact you can reduce the amount of deaths due to a gun. I don't understand how you even think its okay to compare cancer and murder. 6. Yes there will always be the black market and you will never be able to completely get rid of the guns in America but putting these laws in place will decrease gun crime massively. It will make it so much harder for people to access guns and therefore the amount of shootings will go down. Look at the UK, Japan and many other countries who have enforced strict gun laws. Look at the amount of gun deaths in them counties and then look at the amount of gun deaths in America and try and tell me that the number of shootings will go up. These laws have worked everywhere else so now America it is time for you do make a change and help the people in your country. You can reduce the gun crime massively if you take a step, Be brave and stop hiding behind you guns.

Title: should all guns be banned Content: Response to Harm 1: Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., gun rights activist, stated, "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them." According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who "used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence" obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. Response to Harm 2: More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012. Response to Harm 3: According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Response to your plan: There are a couple of problems with your plan. The Second Amendment was made to protect the civilians from a corrupt or unfair government, the colonists were running from the British government, fought a war, and made the Constitution of United States of America to protect themselves. The fact that you say that a government could pass a law, moreover make THREATS, is the exact reason the Second Amendment was made. America is a democratic, not a fascist, country; a law where police officers could search your house without a warrant and at any time would never pass. Furthermore, the punishments and the law itself are so extreme that it wouldn't be surprising if there a second civil war happens in return. Response to Advantage 1: A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law" Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" Response to Advantage 2: 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children" Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation"not violence." Response to Advantage 3: Look to "Response to Harm 3:" I stated that civilians would not feel safe and that it denies civilians a RIGHT to self-defense. Source: https://gun-control.procon.org...

Title: USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws Content: It"s simple: Australia enacted strict gun control in 1996 and since then, there has been either zero or one mass shooting (depending on what you consider a mass shooting). America let"s every citizen carry a gun and it has resulted on an average of one mass shooting every ten days in 2018. If America issued the same buyback scheme and gun laws John Howard enacted, the mass shooting count would drop significantly, if not completely.

Title: Gun Control Content: Okay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people." The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny." Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence." Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round.

Title: Gun Control In America Content: I am a gun owner in America that is looking for a intellectual debate on whether or not gun control is needed to become more strict or loose. My stance subject at the moment is to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, to make gun laws the same on a nation/federal level instead of state laws. The NFA is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment but is one of the most obvious and highlighted ones to take down. While shootings are almost a common occurrence, I believe gun control is not the answer. You start with your claim first. Accept only if you're very knowledgeable about the topic

Title: Gun Control Content: Gun control laws do not provide for a safer society. This is shown through multiple ways, either with honest comparables looking at violent crime and homicide rate, or crime trends before and after enacted laws. When compared with other countries using actual comparable populations, you find the United States is roughly in the middle of all developed nations for gun violence, or homicide rate. You can also see how violent crime has risen in areas where gun control has been enacted throughout the world. The simple fact that there has been a near 50% increase in guns owned in the United States since 1993, and an over 50% decrease in gun homicides shows that it is not the guns being the problem. You are safer with a gun than without one. In fact as most studies have shown you are 43 to 260 times more likely to defend yourself with a gun than be killed by one. Taking the gun out of your hand won’t take the gun out of the criminal’s hand. I have shown how the vast majority of criminals obtain their guns illegally, and most stated that they could have obtained an illegal gun if they were unable to purchase one legally. Disarming everyone else in an attempt to disarm the criminal is backward logic. This is also evidenced by countries that have a higher gun ownership have lower violent crime. Mass killings won’t be hindered by gun control. Just turn on the news and you will see that places all over the world, even places where gun control has become gun bans, are having mass killings. Saying these ideological murderers will be stopped by laziness (not being able to buy a gun) is a lazy argument. You might not be able to prevent a radical from acting out radical ideas, but you can arm more citizens to stop them. Our founding fathers made clear the purpose of our 2nd amendment. We must protect our freedoms from anyone who would try and take them, including foreign powers, or domestic tyranny. An armed population is what prevents governmental powers from pushing their ideological pursuits on it’s own people. To drastically reduce what the people can arm themselves with, compared to what the government has at its disposal, is directly contradictory to the 2nd amendment. How does this keep us safe? God forbid we become disarmed, and God forbid the government starts to push it’s agenda, and all who oppose become enemies of the state, and God forbid they make the punishment for non-allegiance to their ideology anything up to and including death. But since history is replete with this exact system of take over, our founding fathers put a check and balance in the face of such unrestrained power, a gun in the hand of the citizen. The left will constantly pick numbers that show biased views, compare apples and oranges in terms of ratios or trends, or flat stats that are sampled from a small population with conclusions inarrivabile from their premises. The truth is, guns are tools. They can be used for good or bad, moral or immoral ends. Gun control is actually an obstruction to the safety of society.

Title: Gun Control Content: Over the past months, the debate over gun control has taken bounds through media; after the sandy hook shooting this trend is more easily observable. The Obama administration is now slowly moving closer and closer to gun restriction and confiscation, but is it a rational move? Today, out of every 100 Americans, an estimated 88 people own guns; which takes the figures well into the millions of people; yet arguably the vast majority of whom are law-abiding citizens. More Freedom Means Less Crime: Much like any other matter in our social life, Freedom to bear arms leads to more peace and security and it does not necessarily mean that every single person has to have an AR-15 for this to happen but precisely this freedom to bear arms alone guarantees less crime. Statistically speaking, in nearly every city more gun freedom means and has meant less crime. This is an undeniable, irrefutable and an unquestionable fact that the "anti-gun" media never stops to address. The example of this is very easily observed in the southern states like Texas, where some of the least restricting gun control laws are prevalent and not so surprisingly they have very low violent crime rate. For example after the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years. Also see point 5 for the case for Switzerland"s gun control. The issue of guns and gun control could not any simpler if people only understood the above fact. When we reflect on facts and statistics many of our arguments actually settle by themselves. In this case we can easily refute the notion that views guns as an "evil" piece of machinery, which is thought to be evil in the hands of regular citizenry and good when used and monopolized by the government, the military, and criminals. On the other hand where there is more restrictive gun control laws there is much more crime. States like New York and Illinois have some of the worst crime rates not only in the US, but in comparison around the world. The city of Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the United States yet it has become one the centers of overall crime in the US and deadliest Global cities! The harder gun control laws get, the higher crime rate soars. So the question must be asked: has the imposed gun restriction reduced crime? The answer is absolutely not. The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011. For any wise reader, who is able of some rational thinking, the above mentioned facts and examples should be enough of an argument to the end this debate, but let"s not cease here as I have nine more points to cover.

Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: Thank you for responding. R1 I need to clarify my position, gun control laws should be lessen back for law abiding gun owners. Why should law abiding citizens be punished because of the actions of deranged people. I would certainly not want someone who is mentally ill or violent to own a firearm, but there is nothing we can do about it other than arming ourselves to protect us from them. If someone wants to own a firearm they can get one illegally. Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter broke 41 laws that day, more laws would not have stopped him. This also shows that gun control does not work as Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. R2 "This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this." "In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower." The murder rate did not just average 73% higher over the span of 1 year, rather it rose exponentially over 30 years. This shows that areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes, specifically murder. DC is not the only example, numerous other cities have shown the same results such as Chicago. When the handgun laws of DC were overturned in 2006 the murder rate in DC has dropped exponentially. R3 The original intent, remains the same today, "We have a tangible police force to protect us now". The reason the right to bear arms exists is to protect us from the police and government forces. "A free people ought to be armed." George Washington once said, without trying to make an ad hominem argument, I think the principle behind that quote remains true to this day. The right to bear arms is essential to protecting our liberties from enemies, even if the enemies are those who swore to protect us. R4 My argument here needs clarification, I understand you are not calling for a complete ban of firearm, my point here is that nobody has the right to limit my freedom to own a firearm. Yes, I will acknowledge that firearms are used for terrible things, but to judge all gun owners on the actions of the few is irresponsible and unfair. It is like judging freedom of speech by the actions of neo-nazis and the KKK. It simply isn't fair. " illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3]." "legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense." A government survey from the 90's shows that "Government figures from the National Survey of Criminal Victimization suggest 100,000 uses a year of guns in self-defense against crime, the vast majority of these uses being the display of weapons to deter or dissuade." This was during a time of higher crime rates in the United States than today, also it is very difficult to measure how many firearms are used in self defense and protection because you cannot measure crimes not committed due to knowledge of firearms in a home or on a person. MAIN POINTS REBUTTAL P1 In order to argue against this I need clarification on what your overall position and what "gun control laws" are we debating. Specifically background checks or something else. P2 Foreign Nations: In order to understand why other nations with gun control laws have lower gun crime rates one must look at many factors specifically, culture and overall crime rates. In many nations such as Britain who have fewer gun murders than the US, when their gun control laws were enacted, the homicide rate rose in which guns were used and not used. Britain since has one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world. Also, the 12,000 statistic is unreliable as it does not consider how many of the firearms used were illegally purchased. Also while on the issue of other nations, Switzerland's gun related homicide is (for 2010) 40. In a country where people are required to own semi automatic weapons. Every male is required to own(http://en.wikipedia.org...) a SIG SG 550(http://en.wikipedia.org...) A 550 is capable of fully automatic fire. You have completely ignored the culture issue that is much larger than laws. Sources: http://www.justfacts.com... http://www.justfacts.com... http://www.cnn.com...

Title: THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms Content: Re: Increase of TerrorismI will agree with my opponent that the gun laws are far too permissive and relaxed. As I mentioned in the previous round, guns are not and should not be free from government control or regulation; however, any form of regulation must be consistent with the Constitution. Con argues that there has been an increase in terrorism and attacks on the U. S. Although it appears to be true that mass shootings have increased this ignores the overall trend. According to an October 1 (and updated in January 2016) report from Pew Research, since 1990, gun violence and gun related crimes has gone down steadily (1). This is due to many factors including a better economy, more police officers and technology, a decline in alcohol consumption, and a significant decrease in lead thanks to the Clean Air Act of 1970 (2). Indeed, it has never been a safer time in the United States for children (3). As for the rest of Americans, it also remains true that America is far safer now than we were 8 years ago under Bush (4). Another important factor to consider is the amount of errors on the no-fly list. If the no-fly list is as deeply flawed as it currently is, how are we to expect that such a list would function well as a no-buy list? Indeed, the list would not have prevented many of the most recent shootings in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook Elementary School (6). None of these attackers were on the no-fly list including those with extremist ties. The Orlando shooter was on the no-fly list, but was removed in 2013 after the FBI could find no evidence of terrorist ties. An alternative solutionI would like to take some time to propose an alternative policy for public safety. What would be effective to prevent more mass shootings? I would argue that expanding background checks, mandating gun insurance, requiring extensive psychological testing, limiting magazine capacity, and requiring a waiting period to purchase firearms would be far more effective than no-fly no-buy. We know that these policies work because they have worked in Australia and other places (7). These policies will effective and would be far consistent with the Constitution than no-fly no-buy. ConclusionCon's case relies on public safety and the increase of mass shootings. However, as I have shown, that ignores the overall trend that gun violence has gone down. Furthermore, no-fly-no-buy would not have prevented several of the most recent deadly attacks. There are good reasons to be skeptical of the no-fly-no-buy policy. Because the no-fly list is deeply flawed, it is questionable whether or not it would be effective as a no-buy list. Furthermore, due to the secretive nature of the list, it is nearly impossible to get off the list or contest your inclusion. Americans should not be forced to give up more liberties - including that of due process, the right to a speedy trial, being able to contest a government witness, and the right to bear arms - in the name of public safety over a list that has not been proven to be effective. I have also proposed an alternative solution that would be more effective and less intrusive than a no-fly no-buy policy. I look forward to hearing my opponent's reply. Sources1. . http://pewrsr.ch...;2. . http://wapo.st...;3. . http://wapo.st...;4. . http://bit.ly...;5. . http://nydn.us...;6. . http://nbcnews.to...;7. . http://nym.ag...;

Title: Gun Control Reform is vital for the safety of our Country Content: Gun Reform is a necessity for the future of our country. Our relaxed reform rules clearly not working right now. Sixteen of the top Twenty-Eight mass shootings in the U. S. have taken place in the passed Fifteen years. That’s a staggering statistic. Furthermore The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). More rules and regulation would reduce gun deaths. About 200 Americans go to emergency room each day, gun violence being the cause. Now I know the number one argument on the opposing side will be it’s our 2nd Amendment Right to own guns. With this being said there were gun controls back in the colonial time. Some of the laws consisted of criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, Slaves, and Native Americans; there was regulation of gunpowder in homes and loaded guns were banned from Boston houses. With this in mind there should be no reason to have High Capacity Magazines. A Mother Jones investigation discovered that he use of high capacity magazines were used at least 50% of the 62 mass shooting taking place from 1982 and 2012. With High capacity magazines being used injury rates rose about 156% and the death rate rose about 63%. There is also no need for civilians to have access to military grade weapons. The 2nd Amendment was written when guns were single loaded long rifles or muskets. Now people can acquire military grade issued SCAR and guns like it. In conclusion there is no need for the public to have access to high-grade militant weaponry.

Title: We need gun control Content: Sorry but gun control is flawed. If we ban guns there will just be more crimes. Store owners need guns but they don't. If guns were allowed in more places violence wouldn't take place. If teachers had guns they could stop the school shootings. If we past a law that allowed the officers on school grounds to act instead of standing by they could stop it. Maybe you should stop trying to ban guns and try to pass laws that allow more guns.

Title: Gun Control in the US Content: 1. The Imgur link isn't actually broken, click on it yourself and it shows that it takes you to the chart, proving my points. 2. Regardless if there is less ammo, that still means that more than one person could die either or, and the criminal could easily just bring more ammo. 3. Which exactly proves my point. The criminals brought the guns illegally into the country to do terror acts, which is what I've been saying this entire time. If one of those hundreds of people had one gun, that would have limited the amounts of death in Paris. 4. Illegal trafficking of firearms would happen in the US if they banned guns as well, making it no better than Mexico or the rest of Central America. It would be a downhill spiral into more poverty and all that rampant problems we see there today. You never addressed the Swiss point though, every citizen there has a gun by law. 5. Once again, it doesn't not take training to pull a trigger on a handgun and killing someone, training for higher up firearms i can understand, but that doesn't make them necessary, I do believe the NRA bill should pass however. In conclusion, gun control is irrelevant to the issue of stopping crime and does nothing to help or aid the victim, and does more to help the criminal, who is breaking the law regardless, so illegal firearm trafficking would be much more rampant.

Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: Owning firearms is a right. The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do. Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal. "Assault weapons" should not be banned, or any other firearm. The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty. Lastly, a moral argument: government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies. (This is my first debate on this website, please excuse any formatting errors, etc.)

Title: Gun Control Laws Content: The laws that are in place make the guns illegal, that is why they are called "illegal guns." Without the proper enforcement it makes it possible for these people to obtain these illegal guns. More gun control law enforcement is what is needed to prevent these tragedies. These laws are key to stopping tragedies that would occur in a no gun control world. In your world, a world without gun control, it would make it easy to obtain guns for any person. Whether they be a hunter or a killer. So why should there be no gun control laws? Also your "evidence" states that when gun control laws are enacted violence goes up, but you refuse to give the "why" to that argument. My evidence provides the reason why gun violence increases, and that reason is poverty. My stats directly answer yours for this fact. --- On your conclusion: Your first point says that poverty does not have any relation to gun violence. Again, that has been disproved by my stats and your own statement. Poverty is a leading cause to gun violence, and cutting down on gun violence the key reason for enacting gun control laws. On your second point I have an empirical example. England has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and their gun violence is extremely low per capita. Also, I sight Canada's 1977 gun control laws (see above argument) and show that Canada's gun violence is also extremely small per capita. On your third point, you have not proven why no gun control leads to less gun violence because you do not provide the "why" in your arguments. Saying that more armed citizens prevents gun violence is a falsehood. Look at Canada and England. --- So voters do not look to PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs, but look to the empirical evidence that I have provided.

Title: USA should have more gun restrictions Content: Alright. First off, I would like to thank my opponent for creating an interesting debate. 1. "Nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions."Now I dislike this sentence. It has many flaws in it. [1] Obama is actually planning to do more background checks AND banning military style weapons from the public. He actually gave a speech about gun control this year! Also, there are background checks required for certain jobs. (Say a terrorist wants to work as a flight attendant) They check his/her background information. This helps make sure that no terrorists do something again, (like 9/11)2. "Australia had a Manhattan pro to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results."[2] That may be the story for Australia, but in Britain it was way worse. Britain has always tried to enforce gun control, but have always failed. In 1987, due to their strict gun control laws, the Hunger ford Massacre happened, killing many people. Not to mention that about 10 years later, Dunblane school massacre of 1996 happened. Both of these killed around 20 to 30 people EACH.3. "It's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more backgorund checks."I just said Obama plans to. 4. "It's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence." [3] No it's not common knowledge, actually having a gun in your home can protect your from burgulars, terrorists,(a little extreme, but it can happen) and other things as well. (such as intruders)5. "Not all criminals are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun." Not all, but most are. Criminals are thieves or murderers who will do anything to achieve their goal. (rob a bank, murder a person/revenge, rob a home, etc.)6. "If we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect." It will have SOME positive, but mostly negative effect. What will we do if a criminal breaks in? Also, if guns go illegal for civilians, it will just be like marijuana, people will be smuggling them everywhere.I'm done, Pro, you are up. Cites:[1]- http://www.whitehouse.gov...[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.safewise.com...

Title: Gun law Regulations Content: Gun control laws would make it a little more difficult and a little more expensive to buy a firearm. In disagreement with your statement of "people doing what they can in order to get what they want," basically means that in order to stop the trafficking of guns from states with looser gun laws into states with tougher gun laws something major has to be done. However, with these laws, it WILL be harder to attain a gun. Even President Obama said If gun control laws are in effect then a set up of a strong background check system including having the FBI hire a couple hundred more people to help process background checks because their big numbers since talking about 20 million checks are getting done every year. Hiring 200 more ATF agents to be able to go after unscrupulous gun dealers. Then that will apply across the country and so, you know, some states may have laws that allow for conceal and carry. Some states may not. There"s still going to be differences, but what will at least be consistent across the country is that it"s much harder to get a firearm. There is no guarantee that criminals especially ones like the modern say Al Capone are not going to have ways of getting guns, but it may be a little more difficult and a little more expensive, and the laws of supply and demand mean that if something is harder to get and a little more expensive to get, fewer people get them and that can make a difference.

Title: more gun control should occur Content: Pro stated: why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. Rebuttal: The current administration's catch phrase (“meaningful legislation”) is simply a generic “pathos” (emotional) appeal, which exploits voters who are instinctively reactionary, rather than rationally critical.To counter this pathos appeal, I will utilize a “logos” approach. After all, an emotional argument is best countered by a rational argument. Premise 1: Meaningful legislation already exists. Article 18 , section 922 of the Federal Firearms law prohibits Felons, Drug users, non-citizens, subjects under court restraint, persons with assault convictions, fugitives, dishonorably discharged service-members and minors (article VII) from owning or coming into possession of a firearm. [2] This is a blanketed federal law, applicable to all states. In addition to Federal guidelines, each state has supplemental gun laws. Connecticut (Sandy Hook) has a law in place to prevent mentally ill persons from acquiring a firearm. Connecticut State Law 53a, article 217c prohibits a classified mental patient in custody of a state appointed guardian to purchase a weapon. [3] Adam Lanza actually attempted to buy a gun, and the laws in place prevented him from obtaining it. Current gun laws work if they are enforced. Sandy Hook cannot be blamed on an absence of gun regulation. It must be blamed on the presence of malicious, criminal intent. The law already prohibited his actions. In fact, Adam Lanza broke at least eight gun-laws before he even entered the school. --------------------- Pro establish: background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. Rebuttal: Background checks are already in place. The Brady Handgun violence act prevented 190 million weapon sales between 1994 and 2009. [4] That's approximately 12.6 million gun sales annually. By any measure, a hugely successful law. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the US, being one of only seven states that require background check in all gun sales, including private, gun-show and auction sales. Clearly, an Executive mandate to make this common place would have little effect on gun violence, because the Sandy Hook shooting occurred despite the rigid Connecticut gun law. Premise 2: Background checks are already sufficient. According to the National Institute of Justice, only 2% of gun related deaths occur from weapons purchased at gun-shows.The source does not list how many of those guns where stolen from the owner or if the gun related death was criminal (or self-defense). [5] Why is my opponent so focused on the 2%, while the 98% run a muck? --------------------- Pro said: there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. Rebuttal: Straw man argument. Current gun laws are already removing weapons from the wrong hands, while guaranteeing the 2nd amendment to law abiding citizens. As stated above, current background checks prevent 12.6 million illegal gun sales annually. --------------------- Pro stated: -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. Rebuttal: Certified Mental illness already prevents gun ownership. The problem is diagnosis. Most psychotics aren't diagnosed until they have psychotic breaks. Not one incident (as far as I have found) lists a shooter who was a ward of the state due to mental illness. At some point we need to stop blaming gun laws and start looking at the people who know the killer. More often than not, there are warning signs, if not flagrant threats. Premise 3: The citizen has a duty to report suspicious behavior. Yet more often than not, suspicious behavior is ignored, rather than confronted. Seung-Hui Cho was in psychiatric care for good reason, but a failure to diagnose resulted his release from state custody to an “outpatient” treatment, which allowed him to purchase weapons. Had the mental health professionals taken his condition more seriously, the shooting would have been prevented. In fact, had the two women, whom he stalked, pressed charges against him, the shooting would have been prevented. Had the classmates reported his threatening social-media profile to the school, in which he posed with loaded weapons, the shooting could have been prevented. I challenge my opponent to explain how the Virginia tech massacre was a failure of gun laws, rather than a failure of the people around him to recognize his capacity for violence. --------------------- Pro established -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... Rebuttal: Most people don't know what an assault weapon is. Premise 4 The American population is mostly composed of low-information voters.70% of people questioned in a poll believe an assault weapon is a gun that keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down. [6] --------------------- Pro stated -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. Rebuttal: There is something to be said about banning all guns. “Terrible idea”. How safe should we feel with criminals knowing that we are not armed? Consider this single mother who saved her own life, and the life of her infant, by shooting the intruder. [6] --------------------- Pro established - japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths. Rebuttal: Japan's homicide rate is a cultural phenomenon. Consider the quote: “Japan’s crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.” [8] --------------------- Pro remarked - in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. Rebuttal: Correct. Most gun crimes are crimes of opportunity. Very few criminals fight fair. They us the gun to gain an advantage over the victim. There is only one cure for this: Arm the victim with a gun. If you remove the ability of the victim to arm themselves, you've removed the ability of the victim to protect themselves from criminals who use any means of opportunity to prey on their target. To correct you premise:” In fact, most gun situations involve victims that didn't have a gun to defend themselves with.” --------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.justice.gov... [2] http://www.ncsl.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.cato.org... [5] http://www.debatepolitics.com... [6] http://abcnews.go.com... [7] http://frontpagemag.com... [8]

Title: There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws Content: The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.

Title: USA should have more gun restrictions Content: con argues that obama will change the gun laws. he's been trying for years, most significantly since sandy hook going on two years ago? nothing changes. england. no need to get into the specifics of your studies, though i'm sure i could. just look at the bigger picture. "In the United Kingdom, firearms are tightly controlled by law," "The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[5] There were 0.04 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010." at best, con has shown how maybe the USA is unique and we won't improve with reduced guns all across the board. that doesn't mean we can't improve with more background checks, or restrictions in general. perhaps that common knownledge of guns causing more violence is not common knowledge to con, but it is common knowledge. see end of post for stat information. evn without stats, one can argue what seems to be the case. is anyone willing to say..... 'it seems to me that 100% of people who are denied or hindered a gun because of a check, will simply go get another one? that's absurd. obviously checks will cause some necessary benefit. if the mom of the sandy hook shooter didnt have a gun, theres no reason to beleive shed have been a black hoodie and went and got one. then hed have not had a gun at a time hed have done a crime. are we to think hed necessarily have went to get one illegally, and that 100% of people in these cases would? December 14th 2012, two deadly attacks at two different schools. One guy had a knife the other a gun. At one school 26 people were killed at the other school 23 people were wounded. Take a guess which school had the knife attack and which had the gun attack? -------------------- http://aje.oxfordjou... Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://www.minnpost... Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death " and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn"t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide. The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes. Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership. What he found was sobering, to say the least.

Title: The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns. Content: I argue for gun control(ie requiring a license to own a gun), Pro argues for the motionSeveral studies show that pro-gun legislation increases crime.Open carry laws increase crime - http://feeds.latimes.com...Another study shows: "The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis. Quite the opposite." http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Gun control decreases crime by making gun access harder and thus reducing the ability to commit violent crime.

Title: Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms. Content: DISADVANTAGE: CONSTITUTIONALITY In the Constitution of the United States, the second amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. " Therefore, your entire plan is entirely unconstitutional and will be declared so in the Supreme Court once this plan is passed. The impact is the impeachment of your administration. DISADVANTAGE: PUBLIC SUPPORT According to recent CNN polls, public opinion of strict gun control laws is only supported by 39% of the American population. Therefore, public support for this policy is limited and passage of this law will increase tensions in this country. The impact is thousands of riots around the country which will lead to civil war over a policy that no one wanted. . http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... This will not link to the counterplan because our c/p is not gun control, only stricter regulations (see below). CHILD MORTALITY Alternate cause- When we ban all firearms for all Americans, we are punishing those honest tax-paying citizens who do not murder their neighbors. Instead, as the article below states, the cause of the high homicide rates in the U. S. is due to the large number of assault military-grade-like weapons that plague the inner city streets of our nation which are being handled by dangerous criminals and former felons. SEE OUR COUNTERPLAN which will solve both of these issue without causing the disad impacts and alienating the rest of the American people. . http://www.usnews.com... SOLVENCY How will you be able to take away all of America's guns? And even when you do, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR IT? ! This is extremely horrifying and you should be impeached. I also question how you will be able to execute this. . which questions if you'll be able to solve your advantage at all! COUNTERPLAN The United States Federal Government shall 1) Ban the use/sale of assault weapons in the United States; 2) Implement mandatory background checks and restrictions to limit the sale to those persons on a "gun-watch list"; 3) Funding for anti-firearm-smuggling programs for the U. S. Border Control will be increased to limit illegal arms flow into the U. S. ; 4) Create an independent federal commission under the U. S. Department of Justice to regulate all federal guidelines, of whom the members shall be appointed by the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs; 5) All guidelines, including definitions of "assault weapons", will be revised every 5 years. C/P S: This counterplan will solve your Child Mortality advantage while ALSO being constitutional and not causing our disadvantages.

Title: more gun control should occur Content: All arguments extended.

Title: Gun Control Content: why

Title: Gun rights Content: We need to ban guns as guns kill people. They are a weapon: A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... As it kills it is a weapon. having gun control would lower crime. Weapons should be controlled to lower crime. More guns less crime makes no sense because letting people have guns = more likely people die from guns. Having no to little gun laws is illogical. This will be copied from a source: The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person. Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.) http://www.asahi-net.or.jp... I have won.

Title: Guns should be more regulated in the United States Content: Hello, I apologize for this debate slipping my mind. Looks like it did for my opponent as well so lets just start now. As a roadmap I will give 2 contentions showing my position on the topic. First Contention: 1. Gun Control Is No Answer to Crime. According to a Harvard study in 2009 the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong. For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000. Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate." And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides. The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8. The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world." In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. Second Contention A. Guns are needed to protect ourselves 1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated. 2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the "more difficult" of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated. 3. After the rise of the Nazi"s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the "Brown Shirts", were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts" fate. 4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated. As we"ve seen in the past, guns are a very important of self protection and while some might use a tool with malicious intent we cannot punish all citizens. Regulation does not solve this problem because whether or not it is more regulated someone with malicious intent will find a way to commit a crime whether or not these regulations exist. What we need to focus on instead is actually focusing on how to reduce the amount of this criminals and actually address the problem itself. Thank you, I urge a vote in the negative.

Title: More Gun control or less Gun control Content: There should be more gun control, because there are way to many crazy people in the world for there not to be. Less guns mean less crimes and murders! In other countries like Canada, they have stricter rules on having/carrying guns, and they have WAY LESS crimes and murders then the united states. Guns can be used for hunting, but is it reasonable to carry an AK-47? If we have stricter gun control then people who have a mental illness would not go around killing people. THE GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE THE PEOPLE KILL THE PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS!!!! I've never needed to use a gun in my entire life, to defend myself. There are other ways you can defend yourself besides guns. If someone comes on my property with a gun and starts shooting isn't there other weapons I could use besides a gun? I could use a knife to defend myself, why do we need the guns. In the Second Amendment it does say we have a right to bear arms, but this right should be limited. We cannot have people going around buy guns and killing people. When you buy a gun , you have a background check, but what about the people who get the guns illegally? What are we going to do about them, there are billions of people in the world how are we going to stop this person from buying illegally a gun. This is exactly why we should gun control. America has a very low level of gun control already, and if we have people buy guns with bad intentions they are putting others in harm. THE WORLD ALREADY HAS SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH GUNS ARE WE HONESTLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PROBLEM BY LETTING PEOPLE BUY MORE AND MORE GUNS? How many people have been killed by a gun in the past year alone, does it matter? NO IT DOESNT BECAUSE GUNS ARE GUNS AND THEY ARE USED TO HARM, THREATEN, AND KILL PEOPLE. They need limitations on fire arms.

Title: Gun Control Laws Content: It is true that gun control policies are hard to enforce but the good of having them and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms far outweighs the difficulty of enforcement. The basic argument put out by PoeJoe is not that control is bad, but that it is hard to enforce. That reason does not mean and that these policies should be abandoned. As for your argument that gun control rates increase with stricter gun control laws you fail to acknowledge alternate causes. Look at the places you cite as examples, D.C. and New Jersey. Both those places have huge poverty rates, some of the biggest in the nation. It is no surprise that D.C. and Jersey would have increased crime since the people there are so desperate. Here are some stats that tend to prove the foregoing point: In 1987, more than 3,000 men aged 15 to 24 were murdered with firearms in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.) As for humans being inherently evil, that is simply not true. Sociological studies show that humans come into this world tabula rassa, meaning blank slate. If you want to cut down on violent crime you have to attack the root of it, the poverty and accessibility of firearms to the public. So my position is not only for strict gun control laws, but more enforcement. The USFG should pass legislation to crack down on the illegal gun trade. Basically there is major laws dealing with stopping the illegal gun trade but the money and resources are not there. Proper funding and resources have to given to the members of the law enforcement community. There are only 22 federal gun control laws, of which 20 are not enforced due to the lack of funding. Third-Way.com explains it: "The current Administration has not displayed anywhere near the same aggressiveness with the other 20 major federal firearms laws, even though enforcement of most of these laws could greatly reduce gun violence. Prosecutions for 11 of the remaining 20 major federal gun laws were either the same or lower in 2002 than 2000. For example, the number of corrupt gun store prosecutions dropped from 36 to 27. The number of prosecutions for illegally selling to a minor stayed at 7. The number of federal prosecutions for lying on the background check form did increase – from 501 to 587 cases – but that still means that 99.6% of violators were not prosecuted in FY2002, compared to 99.7% in FY 2000. During the first full fiscal year of the Bush Administration, the proportion of federal cases devoted to the two most frequently prosecuted statutes actually increased from 83% to 86% of total federal prosecutions. Crimes associated with corrupt gun stores, illegal firearms traffickers, straw purchasers, gun thieves, those who obliterate firearm serial numbers, sell to minors, bring guns to schools, and lie on a background check form to obtain a firearm were barely enforced under President Clinton and are still barely enforced under President Bush. "

Title: Would gun control stopmass shootings? Con is no it would pro is yes it would Content: Good Afternoon, since 1791, the United States has had the second amendment which is a law that allows US citizens to carry guns. As a result, within the past six years there has been over 1600 shootings in the US resulting in thousands of lost lives. Because of this my partner Luke Mahan, and I Jack Gilbert are for the resolution, The United States should abolish the Second Amendment. Observation 1: Definitions Abolish: To formally put an end to. Source: Dictionary.com Second Amendment: An amendment to the US constitution, guaranteeing the right to bear and keep arms. Observation 2: harms Harm 1: The Second Amendment has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime rates Support: The Second Amendment has guaranteed the right to carry guns. However, some states decided that guns are not allowed. All of the other states that did allow guns between the years 1977-2010 had a 2% increase in murder rates and at least a 9% increase in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. This shows that guns not only have an effect on murder rates but also other serious crimes as well. If we abolished the second amendment, all states would have a dramatic decrease in crime. Source: National Bureau of economic research Harm 2: Guns have resulted in many tragic accidents over the years Support: Of the 32,000 gun deaths in America in 2011, 591 were due to accidental discharge, and an additional 248 were due to undetermined intent. That makes it where 2.59% of all gun deaths are by accident. Since then, the numbers haven't changed much. In 2017, 1300 children were killed by either an accident or a murder with guns. What does this tell us? Even if your intentions right, even if you just have a gun for self-defense, there is always a huge possibility that you will misfire. Source: Quora.com Harm 3: Guns are rarely used in self-defense Many people use self-defense as a primary reason to hold guns. But a study has shown that only 0.79% of people actually use their gun as a means of protection or a threat. Defense is the primary reason people carry guns. But there is absolutely no use if we aren't actually using the gun. Source: inter consortium of political and social research Observation 3: Plan Mandates: The US passes a law against concealed carry. Now obviously, there are going to be some people that refuse to give up their gun. For this reason, we need to make a threat. The government would pass a law saying that they have a right to go through your house if they sense suspicion at any moment and search it. If they find a gun, you are sentenced to 6 months in federal prison or a fine of $250,000. This way, the number of people who turn in their guns will skyrocket dramatically. Even if some criminals get their hands on guns, this number will not be nearly as high because they know that their consequences will be much higher and they will be way less willing to take the risk of being caught. Agency: The government Funding: By Normal Means Enforcement: Supreme Court Observation 3: Advantages Advantage 1: Crime rates would decrease Support: Taking away the things that increase crime will decrease crime Source: National of Bureau of Economic Research Advantage 2: The rate of tragic accidents will decline. You can't accidentally stab someone, you can't accidentally punch someone, but you can accidentally shoot someone and it has happened many times. Without guns, tragic accident rates will drop tremendously. Advantage 3: Self defense will be left to well-trained officers, not inexperienced citizens. Just because citizens rarely use guns, doesn't mean the police won't. They take their job, as not only the right but the privilege to protect the citizens of the US. They are the ones we can trust, and they are the only ones that we can know will come to the rescue every time. Source: Inter consortium of political and social research In conclusion, all guns should be banned. So many of today's killing problems will be solved.

Title: Gun law Regulations Content: Gun control is definitely needed in today"s society. The regulation of guns is an extremely necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. Gun control is basically the effort to stop the rise in violent and fatal crimes by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms (guns). These laws would reduce gun deaths being that guns are the leading cause of death by homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. It is said that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States a women's risk for being murdered increases by 500% if a gun is present during a dispute. Gun control can also lead to fewer suicides being that there were 270,237 gun suicides in the US for about 52% of all suicides. A recent study found that when gun ownership went down in the US, the overall suicide rates decreased. - There are way too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults and if guns are readily accessible, they can more easily fall into the hands of children. Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes such as the incident in Newtown, Connecticut which killed 20 children and eight adults (including the shooter himself). Even President Obama said that after the Newton incident, his administration would take action towards more gun control. In his speech at Newtown, he asked, "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" Lawmakers have also said it is time for the nation to take a look at its gun control laws.

Title: The second amendment should NOT be restricted Content: Firstly, gun control has not worked in the past. In every case, we have seen crime rates increase after gun control is passed. Even England, with their low crime rate and high gun control, had even fewer crimes per year before the gun ban. This phenomenon is universal. It occurs in the US, Europe, Russia, South America, Jamaica, the list goes on. The reason is quite simple. Criminals don't obey these laws, which only disarm people who obey the law. This encourages criminals to attack or rob the sitting ducks that are citizens. Another reason is that the second amendment acts as a deterrent against oppressive government. The reason America is the freest country is that we have the 2nd amendment.

Title: Gun Control Content: Rebuttals and New PointsYou wrote: "So with that being the case, it could be easily be concluded that increased gun ownership has a direct effect on crime rates. In that they go down..." I will disagree with you on that issue. If people have guns, there will obviously be a part of the population that is violent and has a criminal background. Now, if you were to increase the amount of guns being sold and reduced regulations, more people would have guns and, assuming the proportion remains the same, there will be a higher amount of criminals with a gun in their hand, thus resulting in more crime. Guns for self-defense are acceptable, but I will not agree with you when you say that 'more guns = less crime.' Yes, people should have the right to protect themselves, but regulations must be put in place in order to ensure violent individuals do not obtain a weapon. You write that "banning them [assault weapons] would have a very small impact on the actual crime rate." That is true, yes, but wouldn't you save a life if you had the opportunity? Banning assault weapons may not impact crime by a large scale, but I will tell you this: Every life is precious. We must try to preserve every single one we can. The crime rate in the US is at a considerable height. Due to a lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate has increased over time. However, the Democrats are enacting intelligent gun control that has slowly began to impact crime. Please look at the following links to see statistics: http://www.policymap.com...http://www.andhranews.net...I will now respond directly to some of your points. "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)."I acknowledge that."Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000. The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France"s, at 504; Finland"s, at 738; Sweden"s, at 1123; and Canada"s at 935." These are other countries, not the United States. And also, I do acknowledge the numbers. However, I interpret the numbers in a different way than you do. "Even with enhanced gun control there are over 300 million firearms in America. Guns don't just go away, with proper maintenance they can and do last over 100 years. Gun control would also fail to stop mass killings. Recently in China, 26 people were stabbed to death and another 140 were wounded. Bad people will always do bad things."First of all, this is China, not the United States, you are talking about. Secondly, I will acknowledge that violent crimes can be done with nearly any object: a knife, a rock, a rope, etc. However, gun control is the first step into the right direction. Once gun crimes have been reduced, we can focus on increasing security, police salary, education quality, counselor programs, etc. All problems in the universe can be solved. That is my belief. I support the second amendment in its original interpretation, but I do believe that there need to be regulations put in place to ensure that future crime can be prevented. Gun control can increase crime, yes, but it will have positive influences. Also, another measure of gun control I have addressed was decreased gun productions. If there are less guns available, there will be less people buying those guns, and less people using guns to violently kill other people. This you cannot deny. Now, gun control is essential. The American system is full with flaws. You can go into any gun store, show your driver's liscence, pay the money, and you have that gun. There needs to be a system similar to what Germany has. "In Germany the possession of any firearm with a fire energy exceeding 7.5 Joule requires a valid firearms ownership license for any particular weapon." [1]If we were to implement this policy and added a few of the measures I proposed, we would be a nearly crime-free nation. I can assure you that. And also, I will post a link to prove to you how different the crime rates of the two countries are: http://www.nationmaster.com...I hope you are convinced. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...I await your response enthusiastically. I look forward to your counter-rebuttals and any new points you may have.

Title: Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened Content: Gun controll laws should not be tightened because approximately 92% of guns used in crimes come from an illegitimate or illegal source. Therefore, tighter gun laws would only make it harder for people who want guns for a legitimate reason such as self defense or hunting to get guns and defend themselves from the criminals that aquire them illegaly. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Title: That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Content: The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these "laws". According the the second amendment we are to have guns for self defense, or to protect against corrupt governments. Gun control disarms the public, making them easy to rule. Dont believe me? Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all implemented gun control laws to further control their populations, Making them easy targets for massacre. Im not saying that countries like Canada, and the UK are planning to kill off there people, but its just a form of control. If we let the government disarm us, whats next? My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet. No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves. If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? I think not, you would wait for some one who is weak, an easy target. The great thing is, as soon as you have a gun, your not an easy target anymore. Your something to be feared and respected. The governments tales of lower crime rates and safer cities are merely smoke shields for a bigger issue, that of total control.

Title: Gun control should be limited to age and only non-rocket weapons should be allowed. Content: A. Fine, guns are more destructive. But, here is what is more destructive. A person who has access to the internet. That has plenty of recipes for nice bombs that can take out a school caffeteria. Personally, I would rather take my chances with a person with a gun than a merciless bomb. What are you going to do? Take away fertilizers, disable the internet, shut down pharmacies. B. People are only more scared of guns because society, for unknown reasons, has demonized them. They should demonize cars, they are much more deadly. C. You claim that by restricting and taking away guns gun violence will decrease. I will take two different routes for this. One, the only people who obey the gun laws are the law abiding citizens. The law abiding citizens do not hurt people. However, the outlaws, people who do not obey the law, will not obey gun laws, because they do not obey the law. Thus, these people can be significantly more destructive because no one can defend themselves. Route two. In a perfect world where all guns would disappear from the homes and the street, criminals will still be criminals. They will use knives, bows, blowdart guns(sarcasm, but you never know). I would rather be shot with a gun than with a broadhead arrow(ouch). Still, people will not be able to defend themselves from criminals. Not to mention that you have read my bomb comments earlier. I already defined what I mean by any gun. It is toward the end of the previous debate. D. It is illegal to carry a gun in a church. Problem is, the phycopaths don't care. Where better to shoot up. Plenty of people, Christians, defenseless. You mentioned a phycotic ex breaking into your house, shoot him. Problem solved. And still, removing the guns will not prevent him from walking in with a crowbar to beat you to death. That hurts more than a gun anyway. The politician making the speech can shoot back, along with all the other people in the audience who sees the shooter. That way we don't even have to waste tax dollars on a trial either. E. Who is morally superior? A woman who has been raped and strangled or a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet(even if the rapist had no gun). Yes, allowing people to carry a gun anywhere is perfectly reasonable. Besides, the criminals already do it, so why not beable to defend yourselves at these places. By the way, the theatre and Aurora was a gun free zone. Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone.

Title: Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment Content: Closing statement. (I'm on my mobile, please forgive for minor spelling errors.) Gun laws exist for a very good reason. It is to prevent people who may use guns in a way that is harmful to themselves and society. I have given examples and reasoning in my previous arguments, and Pro has not refuted them. My opponent makes good points about guns. Indeed, people break the law everyday, and criminals will get their hands on anything illegal if they wish enough. Certain gun laws today (such as the "gun free zone" where they don't check you for guns) do in fact harm law abiding citizens from practicing their liberty. Such laws should be amended. However, a majority of the gun laws are likely useful in preventing shootings and such. In an ideal world, those who wish to use guns for legitimate defensive or recreational purposes would not feels the restrictions of gun laws. However, this is not an ideal world, and things must be sacrifices to prevent gun crimes. Also, modern technology has provided with many non-lethal but effective defensive weapons, such as stunguns and tranquilizers. I myself am not quite sure what President Obama is trying to do, so that will not be something I would debate. Thank you.

Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: I would rather leave my debate unmentioned until round 2.

Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: U.S. Congress's Unwillingness to Pass New Gun Control Legistlation has Spurred President Obama to use Executive AuthorityU.S. Congress's unwillingness to pass new gun control legislation over this last decade--which includes failure to extend the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban [1]--has prompted President Obama to take matters into his own hands, by using Executive Authority, on the basis of surging incidences of mass shootings across the country.In Summer of 2013, after the U.S. Senate failed to pass bill S.150: the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, the White House closed a number of gun law loopholes and took various actions to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns and for certain assault weapons to be obtained inside the United States. One such executive action included barring the acquisition of machine guns and similar assault weapons without a background check; the new ATF regulation requires all individuals to undergo a background when trying to attain a machine gun, or similiar assault weapon, or a short-barreled shotgun [2]. The White House has also banned U.S. military weapons sold overseas and across national boundaries from returning to the country [2].The U.S. President has implemented a dozen more Executive Actions to close numerous gun law loopholes and to prevent assault weapons from getting into the wrong hands, but the extent of these regulations is brutally limited.Gun Crime & Injury Due to Firearms Are Off the Charts in AmericaStatistics show that America is presently experiencing a crisis with gun violence [3][4]:--On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for firearm injuries in the emergency room; 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year.--One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed with guns everyday (either murdered or suicide), 609 are killed with guns every week; over 100,000 are shot in the U.S. per year.--In 2011, more than 80% of all homicides commited in the U.S. were done with firearms.--In 2010, 82 children under 5 years old died from firearms compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty.--Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 then the number of soldiers (5,247) injured in combat in the war in Afghanistan that same year.--Every day on average, 51 Americans kills themselves with a firearm and 45 are shot or killed with a firearm.--The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.--In the U.S., firearm homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people 1 to 19 years of age.--A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.The following map illustrates the number of deaths in each U.S. state due to injury by firearms per 100,000 people (year 2007). You'll notice that states with additional gun control laws have fewer deaths due to injury by firearms per capita; this is partly explained by the fact that there are fewer suicides by firearms in these states [6]. The financial toll of firearm violence/injuries in America is also staggering. Every year, U.S. taxpayers pay $100 billion for medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and other expenses caused by firearms violence or required for firearms violence prevention [3]. The lifetime medical cost of all gun violence victims in the U.S. is estimated to be $2.3 billion, with approximately half of the cost paid by U.S. taxpayers [3]. The lack of weak, porous gun control laws in the U.S. is a drain on taxpayers.And contrary to popular belief, the number and rate of firearm deaths in the U.S. have not decreased for a decade; they've actually remained the same [7]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that from 1999 to 2010, the number of deaths caused by firearms each year has remained constant (a slight increase) while the rate of firearms deaths has remained the same (10.32 deaths per 100,000 population) (table directly below) [7]. This is in contrast to the decline in both the number of deaths and rate of deaths caused by firearms observed over the previous decade, after the Brady law went into effect and required background checks on most gun purchases (all sales performed by licensed firearms dealers) [8]. Unfortunately this decline has not continued over the last decade.The CDC reports the same trend with HOMICIDE Firearms deaths and rates per 100,000 people over the last decade. Despite observing a decline in this number and rate from the 1980s to 1990s (after the implementation of the Brady gun control law), the numbers and rate remain constant from 1999 to 2010 (table directly below) [8]. The same trend is observed with suicides caused by firearms and with non-fatal injuries caused by firearms; this despite the Brady Campaign showing a slight drop in the percent of Americans and American households that own firearms during that period (graph directly below) [8]. The United States has more than 11,000 gun-related homicide killings per year--which is off the charts compared to other advanced countries [9]. Compare this to Japan, which experienced only 7 gun-related murders in all of 2011; in Japan guns are hard to come by, but they're not completely illegal (approximately half a million firearms are registered to private citizens in Japan) [9]. Japan has a population of 130 million people, or slightly less than one-half the population of the United States [9].U.S. Gun Rights proponents often bring up the the example of Switzerland to show how liberal gun regulation can accompany low gun crime. For example, the nation's 8 million people own 2.3 million guns, but gun-related homicides numbered just 24 in all of 2009; the U.S. has as rate that is 11 times Switzerland's [9].But what's often ignored is that most guns registered in Switzerland are military rifles issued to men when they join the conscript army (not concealable, portable handguns) and when Switzerland cut the size of its army over the decades, gun violence also fell, says criminologist Martin Killias at the University of Switzerland; domestic killings and suicides were higher when more people in the nation had access to guns [9]. According to Killias, the real problem is how many people have access to firearms, not the total number of weapons in the nation [9].And to substantiate this view critics point out that Switzerland has a firearms suicide rate that is the highest in all of Europe [9].Some Gun Rights proponents also point to Brazil and to Mexico as examples of nations that have banned firearms but that still see homicide-by-firearms rates higher than in the U.S. Still, experts point out that ferocious drug wars mixed with high levels of local corruption push and pull firearms into those regions, through porous, poorly-regulated borders, even though guns are banned in both nations. In these nations, drug gangs are often better-armed than police [9]. However, experts still point out that recent enacted guns laws in Brazil have made a noticeable impact on the country's homicide-by-firearms rate over the years [9].A recent study of international gun crime statistics has shown that the critical detail in gun violence around the world is gun ownership. Though guns are illegal in places like Mexico and Brazil, easy access to guns in these nations forces them to have high levels of gun crime. The study, which reviewed gun crime in 27 nations, showed that gun accessibility/ownership was an even bigger factor than mental illness when it comes to firearms deaths [10]. The study found that mental illness did play a role, but not as large as gun ownership [10].Mass Shooting Events are Surging in AmericaFinally, mass shootings are surging in america. Incidences of random mass shootings carried out by disgruntled perpetrators at public schools, in universities, in large malls, in theaters are on the rise [11]. The FBI reports that since 2000, the frequency of Active Shooter Events (mass shootings) has steadily been increasing (graph directly below) [11]. The number of people killed, shot, and injured in these mass shooting events is also surging (graph below) [11]. From 2000 to 2002, there was 5 or less mass shootings per year; by 2003, that number jumped to 7; by 2005, it jumped to 8; and by 2010, the number of mass shooting events climbed to 21 [11]. Horrifying events like those observed in Newtown, Connecticut (where 26 people were killed) and Aurora, Colorado (where 12 people were killed & dozens more injured) are increasing in frequnecy in the U.S.The number of school shootings is also on the rise (distinguished from "active shooter events"). In fact, since the heinous shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut, there have been 74 separate school shooting events in the U.S. (map below) [12]. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://seattletimes.com...)[3] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[4] (http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[6] (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)[7] (http://www.dailykos.com...#)[8] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[9] (http://www.csmonitor.com...)[10] (http://www.npr.org...)[11] (http://leb.fbi.gov...)[12] (http://news.yahoo.com...)

Title: Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished Content: Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished

Title: Gun Control (For or Against) Content: Okay first off I'm just gonna say people have guns for different reasons:Gun control laws do not stop crime; gun ownership stops crime.Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year.Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. And as you know (or you should) alot of people like to shoot i you shouldn't keep people from doing so.

Title: Guns Should NOT Be Restricted Content: The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.

Title: Gun Control Content: I accept

Title: Gun Control Content: I want to start off by saying that all these shootings are a tragedy for those losing loved ones,friends, co workers, and neighbors. My argument against Gun Control will give you an understanding why we can't have it. I. The second Amendment gives citizens the right to own a firearm The constitution reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " More laws will infringe that right. II. Gun control causes more Gun deaths In the last 30 years the Assault weapons ban has not effect much in towards of gun deaths. States and cities with strict gun control had more deaths let me get an example Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and in the past 22 months there have been 1,310 people killed by gun violence.

Title: USA should have more gun restrictions Content: the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success. australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform) japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low. it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support gun restrictions, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.

Title: Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting Content: Regarding my opponent's very literal interpretation of my argument: As clarified in the comments prior to the debate "I'm arguing gun control laws, including but not limited to the examples provided, should be passed by Congress. I made an additional point that there is a refusal in Congress to even discuss these possibilities at the moment." I do not argue that gun control legislation is necessary for our day to day existence, I argue that gun control legislation is necessary to improve our country's safety from mass shootings and gun violence. Furthermore, necessity was the word of choice to imply the urgency, importance, and passion I feel for this issue. Now that this clarified I am happy to debate the actual issue. My opponent argues that "We are teaching people about safety, and other methods. We are instilling things and discussing things which can help stop gun violence without having gun control." While I have no problem with educating people about guns there is no indication that it is effective by itself at curbing gun violence and preventing mass shootings. I contend that in addition to prayers that education, "other methods", and "things" are not enough. My opponent asks why I would ban only assault rifles as opposed to all guns since they represent a relatively small number of gun murders. First, an assault rifle ban would be a policy specifically intended to combat the mass shooting epidemic the US is undergoing seeing that they are the weapons most commonly used in mass shootings: http://www.motherjones.com... In addition an assault weapon ban is obviously a more realistic proposal than banning all guns. This is corroborated by the article provided by my opponent that cites a poll in which "59 percent of likely voters say they favor a ban." I am not trying to ban all guns and strip Americans of a Constitutional right. But seemingly all other rights are subject to regulation and adaptation and the refusal to implement anything or even discuss implementing anything sort of regulation for this particular right is costing innocent lives and that is unacceptable.

Title: Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened Content: more guns =/= more safety but having more restrictions is pointless if it has no actual effect on homocides. However, this is completely contradictory because if more guns = more crime, less guns will = less crime. Furthermore, your statistic doesn't actually say "92" in it, yet states that criminals find it easy to acquire guns illegally, but does not give a number of how many actually acquired them illegally. It merely states that only 8% stole guns. Adding restrictions on guns takes away guns, leaving fewer guns in houses, which as I have already stated will lower crime. All of my arguments still stand as my opponent has made no clash.

Title: Gun Control Content: I am pro gun control. First off gun control is not the same as a gun ban so prohibition doesn't count as an analogy. Also, places with very strict gun control like Europe have much lower murder rates and much lower murder rates from guns so this argument that gun control won't stop criminals from using guns is false. When you make (enforced) laws restricting something, that thing will be harder to get, and won't be mainstream, so it will be more expensive and harder to get. This will reduce criminals' access to guns. Gun control bans ex-cons from getting guns making it harder for them to get them. It also restricts the power of these guns. We certainly wouldn't want mentally deranged lunatics with machine guns mowing people down. If there are only slower shooting guns in circulation fewer people will be killed. Gun control allows police forces to be more effective because they don't have to face criminals with machine guns quite so often.

Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: My objective with this debate is to educate both debaters and the readers about firearms violence inside the United States and how it compares to other industrialized nations, and about troubling weaknesses in federal gun control laws and the loopholes specific prohibited individuals use to get their hands on these powerful, remarkable weapons. Loopholes & Weaknesses in current Federal Gun Control LawsAs I discussed in the previous ROUND, there are certain limitations with current federal gun control laws that make it difficult for the ATF and law enforcement to reduce gun violence in our nation and to sometimes quickly apprehend a culprit following an incident of gun crime or violence. Among the restrictions placed on law enforcement are the Tiarht Amendements, which prevent law enforcement from creating an electronic registry of gun purchases and gun owners at the federal level (therefore limiting the ATF and other national law enforcement agencies from being maximally efficient in their work and prolonging gun crime/violence investigations) [1]. The Amendments require law enforcement and the ATF to destroy records following gun transaction background checks and they prohibit law enforcement agencies from diseminating what information they might have (such as forms 4473, collected after firearms dealers go out business) to the courts [1]. Furthermore, firearm sales between individual persons is hardly managed at all by current federal gun control laws and such transactions do not legally require a background check to take place [1], providing convicted felons and other individuals prohibited from owning/operating firearms with an opportunity to get their hands on one. Indeed, the ATF estimates that a whopping 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks [2]. But, as I will demonstrate in this ROUND, current federal gun control laws are also weak in other ways and they're presently riddled with loopholes that make it easy for some prohibited people to get their hands on these lethal weapons of war. Currently, millions of fugitives across the country can pass federal background checks and buy guns illegally because police departments are not required to enter names into a national database that tracks criminals on the run [3]. This dreadful gap is largely a byproduct of the fact that police and prosecutors are often unwilling to spend the time or money to pursue fugitives across a state border. Because state law enforcement has no intention of pursuing these fugitives of justice in a different jurisdiction, these criminals travel relatively forgotten; the fact that there's no federal law requiring state law enforcement to enter fugitive names in the FBI fugitive database--the National Instant Background Check System--makes this problem a serious weakness of current federal gun control law [3]. Investigative reporter Brad Heath of USA Today recently found that in five states alone, law enforcement agencies failed to provide information to the FBI database for at least 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants, according to police and court records on file [3]. What's shocking is that tens of thousands of these fugitives on the run are wanted for violent offenses and felonies [3]. According to USA Today, the federal databases used to perform background checks are missing more than 900,000 Michigan arrest warrants, 150,000 Ohio arrest warrants, 184,000 Washington arrest warrants, and many more from other states [3]. In response to this alarming discovery, Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has said, "It is. .. not surprising to me the extent to which there are holes in our system, given Congress' lack of success in addressing them" [3]. In many cases, entering fugitives' names in federal databases would be as simple as checking two boxes in a state law enforcement's computer system, but the lack of courage by Congress to pass additional gun control laws, such as requiring state police to report names to the FBI database, allows this major lapse in background checks to continue [3]. And fugitives on the run are taking this opportunity because of Congress' inaction. Fugitive Deandra Smith, who was already wanted for a nightclub shooting (and multiple felony charges), was able to purchase a variety of guns at an Arkansas Pawn Shop in 2013 because his name was not entered in a federal or even a state database [3]. To quote his lawyer, "Without that [entering his name in a database for background checks], it wouldn't matter how many background checks. .. [firearms dealers] ran [3]. " Every year, hundreds of thousands of fugitives on the run and people prohibited from owning firearms, like Smith, attempt to take advantage of the current set-up [4]. According to a new report by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Program, which observed 78 gun shows in 19 states, loopholes in present gun control laws allow for easy access to guns that can be purchased by just about anyone, whether legally prohibited from purchasing a gun or not [5]. Among the findings [5]:--illegal purchases, where surrogates buy a gun from a licensed dealer, is common at gun shows--anonymous, undocumented gun sales are common--parts used to make untraceable guns are widespread and easily attainable at gun showsGaren Wintemute, professor of medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine, found that “illegal" purchases "were often conducted entirely out in the open" [5]. Wintemute asserts that more has to be done to prevent both unregulated gun sales and illegal guns sales at gun shows; “law enforcement needs to have an expanded, proactive program at gun shows to prevent the illegal sale of guns” [5]. If not, individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, like the dangerously mentally ill, minors, and convicted felons, will find gun shows to be an excellent source to obtain firearms--weapons the law states they shouldn't have. Currently, 44 states have laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, but few states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill to the national database for background checks; in fact, just seven states account for 98 percent of all names prohibited for mental illness [4]. A frequently cited example is that of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter who passed a background check to obtain the gun he used with which he killed 32 people on the university campus (and wounded 17 others), despite being declared mentally ill two years prior [4]. Different states also have varying degrees of additional gun control laws in effect, but some have very few, almost entirely relying on current federal gun control laws (some state governments have also tried to abolish federal gun control laws within their state borders, even calling for the arrest of federal agents who dare to enforce firearms legislation; something not permitted by the U. S. Constitution [6]). What Federal Gun Control Laws Ought to DoCurrent federal gun control laws do not go far enough to prevent fugitives, convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors from obtaining weapons they clearly shouldn't have. The Tiarht Amendments, though understandly trying to protect the anonymity of gun owners, create a stumbling block for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies charged with apprehending culprits of gun crime/violence. They frequently act to prolong the time between an incident of gun crime to final apprehension of the assailant, and in the case of new criminals or fugitives/convicted felons, like Deandra Smith, that's simply more time for them to engage in gun-related criminal activity. It would better serve law and order in this country to establish an electronic registry that law enforcement can use to link an individual gun owner with a registered firearm make, model and serial number. We can still protect the rights of gun owners to defend themselves while more effectively restricting criminals and others prohibited from owning guns. We shouldn't have to make the ATF and other law enforcement agencies jump through hoops and expand their investigations just to determine the individual that owns a gun make with a specific serial number. Determining who owns what gun should be as easy as it is to link a driver with a specified, registered automobile, especially for criminal investigations. Gun transactions between unlicensed individuals should still require a background check; it's simply way too easy for someone prohibited from owning a gun to purchase a firearm through these transactions. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks--well that's just an incredible opportunity for minors, the mentally ill, fugitives of justice, convicted felons, drug peddlers and others to abuse! Gun Control Laws need to be expanded so that all gun transactions require a federal background check. Federal law should require state law enforcement to register a fugitive's name in the FBI fugitive database to better enforce current restrictions with gun laws. Our current gun laws would be so much more effective if this was already the case. Likewise, the names of the prohibited mentall ill should be required to be submitted to the national database for background checks. (Additional recommendations exist. )[1] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (. http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[3] (. http://www.usatoday.com...)[4] (. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[5] (. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...)[6] (. http://www.nytimes.com...)

Title: Severe gun control Content: Lets get started I. No correlation between more gun control and less crime "…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world." -As presented by Harvard gun studyThe idea that banning guns will lead to less crime is false. In reality, it is actually the complete opposite. II. 60% of guns are used purley for self defense No, all gun owners are not criminals, and many have not commited any crime related to gun. 60% of guns are used for self defense and banning them may in fact lead to an increase of crime. It is really no supprise that a criminal would not try to break in to a house with person that owns a gun. Why should others suffer because of shootings , due to someone's stupidity or mental diesese? III. Decrease in gun ownership lead to an increase of crime"If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)"-As presented by Harvard gun study So, less guns do lead to more crime. In Ireland and Jamica, after banning guns, it has shown a steep increase of crime. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...http://www.theacru.org...http://www.gallup.com...http://www.bostonmagazine.com...

Title: Gun Control Content: Accepted.

Title: Gun Control Content: OK, so, our second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms. It also states that it this right shall not be infringed upon. The reason our Founding fathers have made this law was not intended for self defense, not intended for hunting and gathering food, it was to protect against government tyranny. This means that we should be able to protect ourselves from our own government if it goes berserk and corrupt. I understand, that some gun control only wants the ban of assault weapons, but here is the truth. Far more people are killed by handgubns than assault rifles. In 2012, only 332 people were murdered by any kind of rifle. And actual firearm crimes account for a very small percentage. In fact , most firearm deaths are suicides. The National Institute of Justice has been researching this for years and a study from 1993 to 2011 shows that gun violence only accounts for at most, 8 percent of all violent crimes. ¨But assault weapons are the weapons of choice of mass shooters¨, one might say, criminalist James Alan Fox estimates that there are less than 100 victims per year related to these events. But their deaths account for less that one percent of all homicides.Gun control does not help us, because most criminals get their guns through illegal means. This includes stealing and the blackmarket.

Title: The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control Content: Contention 1: What the studies show. For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls." This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.

Title: Should guns be legal Content: firstly, a true law-abiding citizen would know how to make a law measure to solve a problem. acting as a vigilante with a murderous weapon while the police is there is surely not what a law-abiding citizen would do. secondly, having more guns will not solve any problem either, and if anything, will only create more chaos and disorder. there is no guarantee that these so called 'law-abiding citizens' will stay sane while they know that they live in a country where everyone has a gun concealed behind their back and the criminals run amok with more murderous type of guns which overpower the citizens'. even though there is a regulation to make sure that only sane person can have a gun, it will only nullify the first objective; that everyone, without exception, should be armed with guns to be able to protect themselves. now it is clear that allowing ALL citizens to have guns is wrong, and restricting the rules will only result in some people do not have a gun and cannot protect themselves.

Title: Gun Control Content: My argument is clear. Guns should be accessible to law-abiding citizens rather than the civil disobedient. My view on gun control in general is a ban on all assault weapons and other high caliber weaponry while imposing strict regulations on the registry and sale of handguns.Rebuttals “I would like to receive an actual peer reviewed study that shows that the supposed fact that 50% of American households have a gun prevents home invasions.” There is no study on this particular statistic because this is just common sense. My opponent fails to recognize that this can be a deterrent for home invasions. People will always think before entering a home given that every other home is armed with a firearm. You quoted that homeowners are more likely to be involved in a fatal or non-fatal accidental shooting. This statistic may indeed be correct, however, the assaults and suicide attempts do not correlate with whether or not firearms are accessible in the home. If someone wanted to commit suicide they will find ways to do so. Just like the homicide theory. People will find other ways, just because they don’t have a firearm at hand doesn't means they will not commit those acts. “My opponents claim that the United Kingdom is statistically worse that the United States and South Africa concerning violent crime is flat out false.” I had stated that the UK is the most violent country in Europe. Including non-violent crime, statistically there is more crime in the UK for every 1000 people than the US. Taking into consideration that the US population is far higher than the UK, crime rate is shown per 1000 people. http://www.ons.gov.uk... “The rates of murder in Chicago and Detroit don't prove that gun control doesn't work, they underline the need for stricter federal regulations. The study I am about to cite looks at where the guns used to commit these murders in Chicago, Illinois are purchased. "More than half of these guns " nearly 10,000 or almost 58 percent " originate from outside the state of Illinois. More than 3,000 guns come from Indiana, and another 1,000-plus come from Mississippi".[5]” My point exactly. Since an all out gun ban is off the table this will be likely to happen all around the US. Considering that there are around 300 million guns, an all out gun ban is not feasible to be successful. You take the guns away from the law-abiding citizens then they will be unable to defend themselves. Criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms, whether firearms are heavily regulated or banned. “The idea that when a shooting is going on and everyone is in shock, we need more guns in the area that could just as easily be used to kill even more people, accidentally or not just doesn't make sense. For example, how do we know that the armed guards you are proposing are immune to mental instability?” There will be a psychological test and other testing done prior to employment. Your statement says clearly that everyone is or will be mentally unstable one point in their lives Is simply not true. It seems you can’t distinguish between the mentally stable and the mentally unstable, the good guys and the bad guys. Those who are mentally unstable are usually diagnosed at a young age due to birth defects or problems during their childhood. A physiological test should scrape out the unstable. Arguments Like I have stated in past rounds, guns are used to deter many crimes and have resulted in less crime all together. A study done by Department of Economics, Quinnipiac University had shown that states with shall issue CCW laws had less crime than states with stricter gun laws. Found that ‘shall issue’ laws resulted in a 7.65% drop in murders and a 5% drop in rapes. “Research suggests that individuals would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew that many others may be carrying concealed weapons.” http://www.tandfonline.com... Also more studies have shown that gun control doesn’t reduce murder rates.A Study conducted by Harvard Universit, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France had low murder rates. The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. http://www.law.harvard.edu... Final Arguments The availability of obtaining firearms will result to more murder rates/attempts is a common misconception with no evidence or statistics backing the claim. Sounds reasonable to a lot of gun control advocates, but this is simply not the case. The US has more than 300 million guns, with a black market in these already developed. It will be impossible to find a reasonable piece of gun control legislation that will actually be successful. Gun related crime is 100% on the person behind the gun. Guns don’t talk, don’t move, don’t shoot randomly. People don’t blame knives when someone Is killed by one.

Title: Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America Content: Laws of Debate: Round 1 will be stating your 3 main arguments, and why you support your position in the debate. Round 2-4 will be backing up your argument with evidence and countering your opponent's arguments. Gun Control defines regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now for my three points regarding gun control Firstly, research has proven that more guns in a country are the main cause of more deaths therefor proving that laws targeting firearm restriction would lead to many fewer deaths. Secondly, the NRA (National Rifles Association) and the Republican Government know what they're doing is not right, so they need to keep money involved to make everyone happy. Lastly, Guns are used for protection, but we wouldn't need them nearly as much for protection if there were no guns to threaten people in the first place. Thanks for listening to my argument. Since this is a serious topic I hope that whoever takes this argument is mature and respectful enough to handle this especially after the recent massacre.

Title: Gun control in America Content: I believe firmly in gun control. I believe exactly the following statement: The government should legislate a ban upon all firearms including, but not limited to: handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns. I do believe there is a case for small caliber rifles being legal for recreational/hunting purposes, with the stipulation that they be stored in a public government building, and dispensed collected according to the nature of use. You would still own them, just turn them in when not in use. I acknowledge this is something that could be done on a state level, which is probably the only way any gun control law of that nature would ever get passed. With that exception, I believe gun control is a good and necessary thing for the bettering of our nation. I am not saying my proposal is the best without question, just that I think it would work and I think the logic behind it is pretty solid. I am certainly open to other ideas and opinions. Bottom line is this: I am against the right to own any gun with the possible exception of small caliber hunting rifles. If you disagree with gun control, please challenge me, I am interested in what you have to say.

Title: That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Content: This is my first experience on this site, and you are giving me quite a challenge. :) "For instance the number of murders committed per year, with a gun, by people within the age range of 14-24 years, increased at a rate of 173% from the year 1985 to the year 1993 and later, it went down by around 47% from the year 1993 to the year 1999. " First of all just a little clarification, what country was this study made in? "This inclination by my oppoent is with this culture reflected in our movies, television, music and various other creative forms such as art. Which is based upon the theme of the so called ‘gun culture'. " If I read correctly, you stated that because of cultural influences I am against gun control. If so, then yes! But it has absolutely nothing to do with the movies i watch, or any other art form. It is based on the beliefs of founding fathers, the people who built our countries. The second amendment clearly states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Did you catch that? It is the right of the people to bear arms, for personal defense, and or defense from corrupt leaders. The second amendment is built on these main facts: :Deterring tyrannical government :Repelling invasion :Suppressing insurrection :Facilitating a natural right of self-defense :Participating in law enforcement :Enabling the people to organize a militia system If the American government changes these key elements in political structure it opens the door to an entirely new and worse evil, tyranny. Total governmental control should be shunned like the plague, they are here to choose were our troops go, make economic decisions, and protect our values. Not rape our basic human rights to self defense by taking away our weapons. "How do we know this is true. Maybe criminals would become more agressive and in return citizens would be more agressive. This would cause alot of distress on society. " Are you aware that the gun related crime rate in the US is twice that of Israel? Its true, out of 100,000 people, 4.8 will be killed in the us by a gun per year, while in Israel only 2.4 are killed. This is a huge difference! What makes their murder rate so low is conscription. In Israel each man must serve at least on year in the army, during that time even when off duty they must have a fire arm on them at all times. This forces criminals to deter, or like I said before think twice. They half as likely to commit a homicide with a fire arm. By arming what could be future victims, they cease to be victims. They can now stand up for themselves, against an a assailant, or corrupt tyrannical government. "These advocates for gun control argue that the availability of guns can be successfully reduced only by strict federal measures. " Well thats great! If you want a spineless, easily pushed around public. Statistics clearly say that higher gun rates equal lower gun related crimes. (See my previous comment) With out guns we become a weak and volatile group of individuals who will follow anyone who is in possession of a gun, wether it be the government(Who was used gun control numerous times to control, push around, and kill the public. ), or an armed criminal. The only way for innocents to not bear the brunt of guns, we must arm them. Give them the power to stand up for themselves. Thanks you for your input on this touchy subject. I look forward to hearing your response.

Title: Gun Control Content: 1. Opening 2. Argument 3. Rebuttals This is my first time debating on this website so bear with me. My fundamental views are as follow: I believe that we should repeal the second amendment (which I realize won't do much other than curtail the NRA's power), we should then ban the sale of all guns (including all semi-automatic guns, although probably not shotguns)- just as Japan has. This would make it so that a person must pass through rigorous vetting and testing in order to obtain a gun license. Then, and only then, should someone have a gun. So essentially, we should adopt Japans gun control methods where they have the least amount of gun violence/homicides per capita of any country other than Signapore (where they also have intensely stringent gun laws). Now I realize that the things I have stated above are relatively implausible for the United States, but I am merely stating the logical steps that would achieve the goal of less gun violence in the U.S. To end off: We are essentially the only other country with this epidemic of mass shootings (unless you want to cite Norway or Albania) neither of which are nowhere as advanced of a country as we are. I mean surely you cannot say that this is a people issue and not a gun issue because there are obviously people with mental illnesses in Japan or Australia--but we are not seeing mass shootings there. Thank you to whoever wants to respond.

Title: Gun Control Content: sure

Title: Gun Control Content: ok

Title: Gun Control Content: ok

Title: Gun Control Content: ...

Title: Gun Control in America Content: Regardless of how I MAY have gone off topic, my main statement and idea is that the gun control laws should be better upkept. The gun buyers and sellers are the main part of the issue. If we keep hold of the gun buyers and sellers, the guns will follow. Double checking, triple checking and even more checking after that is necessary to uphold the safety of the people.

Title: Gun bans reduce crime rates Content: A good example is the UK. After they banned hand guns in 1997 they has a violent crime increase by 70% and a homicide increase of 50%. Gun control didn't reduce crime it made crime worse. An important thing to remember when comparing countries is that America has 317million people compared to the U.Ks 60 million. You have to look at murderer per capita not a murders together in numbers. We have more people than all other countries accept China and India so we have more crime. Also Chicagoand D.C have strict gun laws but they hav a lot more crime than other American cities with less gun control. Also in places with conceal and carry laws there is a reduce in crime. Criminals don't know if their potential victim could be armed and are less likely to try and commit an act of crime against them. A study showed that many prison inmates (I forget the study it's on just facts.org gun control and I forget the exact numbers) are in prison because they were caught because their victim had a gun, didn't commit a crime because they were afraid their potential victim had a gun, knew someone (a fellow inmate) who didn't commit a crime because they were afraid their potential victim had a gun or had been caught because their victim had a gun.

Title: That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Content: Gun control creates safer countries. Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so! I await your response.

Title: Gun Control should be administered Content: In the following my refutations of the affirmative's arguments:1) "Guns are made to kill the largest amount of people in the smallest amount of time. This contradicts peace, which we should protect. Therefore, this house would ban guns."The argument is invalid. Would the world be a safer place without guns or other weapons? Yes, most probably. But would a ban of guns lead to a world without weapons? Most probably not! It seems more likely that it will lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes (e.g. to kill or rob somebody) and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes since the former will be more likely to ignore and circumvent the law than the latter.2) "It is very easy to pull a trigger to murder or commit suicide, far easier than using a knife or a rope."While it is most probably true that it is easier to murder somebody with a gun than without, the question is how heavy this argument weighs. 32% of all murders in 2011 in the US were carried out with weapons other than firearms [1]. That suggests that not possessing a firearm is not to big of an obstacle to killing somebody. Thereby this seems to be a weak argument.3) "Some accidents occur when children think that their parents' guns are toys and shoot their friends."This problem could be solved through education. Gun owners and family members can be taught the proper use of the gun. 4) "When a gun is misfired, it can cause serious injury or even death."See refutation of argument 3).5) "Guns teach children to accept violence from an early age. They think that it is no big deal to own a gun, which can kill."Owning a gun for defensive purposes and using it to kill somebody cannot be equated. Again this issue should be solved through education rather than a ban of guns.Now my arguments against the ban of guns:1) Every citizen should be protected against violent assaults. Since no government can provide perfect protection they should not prevent the citizens to protect themselves.2) As mentioned in the refutation: A ban of guns is likely to lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes (e.g. to kill or rob somebody) and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes since the former will be more likely to ignore and circumvent the law than the latter. Thus citizens who want to protect themselves are ultimately the one who would be put in a disadvantaged position.[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Title: The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime Content: "A study ... found that "the United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide." -Wiki - Just because the U.S. has higher rates of homicide in no way means that it is caused by a higher rate of gun ownership. All the American Journal of Public Health is effectively doing is putting one figure beside another in the same statement in order to put a spin on a controversial issue. If anything, I would attribute the higher rates of homicide to largely flaws in our legal / prison system / police state, which serve to worsen conditions for criminals instead of correcting them in any way. "Person with a legal handgun vs. person with a legal full automatic walks into a school and starts shooting people. Who is going to commit more crime....?" "If the gun is illegal it is harder to come by, especially for deranged children or college students. Under our current laws I can walk into a store in most any state and buy a full automatic weapon. WTF do you use a full auto for?" - First off: You are grossly misinformed about fully automatic weapons. School shootings aren't being committed with full autos. There is a difference between an automatic handgun or rifle (meaning that the firearm is operated automatically as opposed to manually) and a fully automatic weapon, which fires multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. I challenge you to name one store in the U.S. that anyone can go into and buy a fully automatic weapon. Full autos aren't even legal to possess without a special federal permit that very few people can obtain. Secondly: Firearm prohibition will not work, just like alcohol and drug prohibition haven't worked. The assumption that "If the gun is illegal it is harder to come by, especially for deranged children or college students" isn't true at all. If guns were outlawed, they would be obtained the same way illegal drugs are. A person who's compelled to commit mass murder isn't going to change their mind because the weapon they plan to use is illegal, and / or a little harder to come by. Third: In regard to the analogy of a person walking into a classroom with a handgun vs a fully automatic, if a person is walking into a classroom with any gun, does it really matter how many rounds they can get off per squeeze? It's a matter of time and ammunition. If there are thirty people in a class room, and the aggressor has enough ammo to kill sixty and intends to, what do you think the end result will be? Fourth: To address your question "WTF do you use a full auto for?", the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that we may protect ourselves from tyrannical oppression. In the event that tyranny would ever befall our country in the future, we're not going to be able to fend it off with pea shooters and shotguns if the aggressors are using more sophisticated weaponry. Additionally, in certain areas of the country like LA, gangs frequently carry illegal automatic weapons. If you happened to be a person living in an area that had to deal with gang violence, would you rather have the option to possess weaponry as sophisticated as the gangs that were terrorizing your neighborhood, or would you opt for lesser weaponry or none at all? I guess you could call the cops and wait for them to arrive, but there's not a lot they're going to be able to do for you when the incident is already over. It's a matter of proactive vs reactive, and which side of the fence you prefer to be on. "Your fallacy assumes that because one thing happens then it must have a link to another. This would be like saying, "The rooster crows when the sun rises, thus the sun rises because the rooster crows" Its simply not true. Another example, because sometimes people die when they are wearing seat belts therefor seat belts don't work. You assume that these two incidents are the rule but it isn't true, they are the exception to the rule." - The point I'm trying to make is that many of the places that have the most stringent gun control laws in the US are vulnerable to violent crime, e.g. college campuses. "Also, concerning Virginia Tech. What would have been done if there were no gun control laws? Are you suggesting college students should carry fire arms?" - I am absolutely claiming that students should be able to carry firearms. There would be far less incentive for someone to walk into a classroom and start shooting people if they knew they would die before they got more than a round or two off. The same applies to other aspects of society as well. "The constitution was created in 1971! Times change, when the Bill of rights was made the second amendment meant that you have the right to keep a musket for defense. It was created in a time when the police force was almost non-existent, in a time when people were expanding west past the confines of the law. Our for-fathers could have never imagined the world as it is today especially fully automatic rifles." - As I stated above, the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that we may protect ourselves from tyrannical oppression, which after numerous geopolitical events such as WWII, it is every bit as relevant today if not more so. At the time when the constitution was written, personal protection was a given. I seriously doubt that if our forefathers could've anticipated that our rights to personal protection in 2008 would be eroded to the point that Americans were having debates such as this, they would've amended the constitution to appropriately address the issue. Ask some of the people who have served in war what they think about gun control, and then ask yourself if founding fathers, who fought and died for our rights, would have a difference in opinion. Not to stray too far from the topic at hand because we could have an entire debate on the issue, but as far as the police force being non-existent in the eighteenth century, I could make the argument that the police state is in-part responsible for the increase in violent crime. "Who reading this debate has heard of deranged murders traveling in groups so large that fully automatic weapons are needed to contain them?" - I've heard of some; such as the mafia, street gangs, biker gangs, etc. Many of the people who do obtain a federal permit to legally possess a fully automatic weapon are eligible to do so because of the fact that they live in areas with high street gang activity, so that they can put up a fair fight should a time come when they would need to defend themselves from such threats. "Someone pulls a pistol in a school cafeteria and starts blasting away. Another guy sees this and pulls his own pistol. A third guy looks around and notices the two guys blasting away at each other and decides to help the guy he likes the most. Guy four notices his friend being shot at and pulls his pistol. Guys five six and seven decide to fight for justice, sadly they don't know who started the fight so they are shooting everyone with a pistol." A) What sense would it make to anyone with an I.Q. of over 25 to go into a cafeteria intending on killing someone when they know many or all of the people in there were or could be packing a firearm? B) Historically, similar situations have occurred on numerous occasions. Think about the exact same scenario playing out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries if a person walked into a bar full of people carrying a gun intending to kill many or all of the people in there. Do you think they'd all panicked and kill each other? - If you need more refutation of full gun control, research the Nazi's during WWII. Also, Do you really need a link to illustrate the fact that prohibition doesn't work because it's impossible to completely police due to the fact that any of the above can be easily obtained on the black market?

Title: Should Gun Control Be Implemented Into American Law Content: Beginning Argument: The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. The is in fact not true! The Second Amendment protects an individual"s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Now for some statistics: 270 MillionAPPROX. # OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA 200,000TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A GUN TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE4 3/5POLLED FELONS SAY THEY WON"T MESS WITH AN ARMED VICTIM5 Closing Statement: With the given data we can assume that Guns do not kill people, People kill People... therefore it can be assumed that Gun Control Should not be Implemented Into American Law. Thank you.

Title: THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms Content: Increase of Terrorism Within the United StatesThe United States has recently suffered and is continuing to suffer multiple acts of terrorism and homegrown acts of violence, due in part by permissive gun laws [1]. The United States, currently within such a vulnerable position, should be expected to take as many precautions necessary, even if it means making an incursion in the tolerance of government involvement within the everyday persons life. It is not a coincidence that the United States, having the most amount of guns per capita in the world [2], also holds the lead in most mass shootings the world sees [3]. In the process of having a more restricted gun control system, there would be an establishment of a database and which persons within those database should have the ability to possess a firearm. The no-fly list was designed to prevent future suspected instigators of violence from obtaining the means necessary to initiate the next attack [4]. Regardless of whether or not people believe that their civil liberties are victim of government incursions towards their un-solidified foundations of rights, the system was instituted for the purpose of protecting them. In order to help my opponent and voters visualize how powerful the recent terror attacks in the United States is, I have provided a graph below to show. While the No-Fly system has controversies on whether it has been targeting a specific number of people within a designated ethnicity or race, instead of abolishing the system or re-arranging an entirely different sector, the program can be reformed in order to prevent innocent person of being on such a list. Other controversies accompany the database with regards to constitutional violations and unjust incursions unto civil liberties [5]. The format of the list not notifying the person that have been selected to be supervised in order to maintain surveillance and precautions was made in order not to alert a possible terrorist not to up their standard of secrecy and anonymity for the greater good of the country. Controversies against the No-Fly list were mostly put down, if not completely unsuccessful considering many aspects of the list within the Terrorist Database fall under new powers granted to the US government in pursuit of terrorism by the powers of the Patriot Act [6]. Specifically regarding Title V, of the Patriot Act in which the American congress approved stronger powers for the government, restraining rights of the individual in order to combat terrorism, including financial support, obstruction of justice, or conspiracy [7]. Such controversy was brought up into the Supreme Court, whom did not find such powers unconstitutional although John Roberts did make statements regarding the methods taken and how questionable they were [8]. ConclusionWhile I have only listed one category regarding the importance of the No-Fly list barring any individual from obtaining weapons, this category is able to span over the subjects of human life, security and constitutional acceptance. I have stated the causation and correlation between permissive gun laws, and how effective gun control can be if established [9], along with how the recent rising in domestic and foreign terrorism forces the United States to take action, concerning that it is the responsibility of the government to protect their citizens, regardless if it may cause controversy and with reasoning accompanied by the Supreme Court giving justification to restrictions of rights under the Articles of Title V, of the Patriot Act, de facto giving the strength necessary for the No-Fly list to bar weapons from being obtained to possible terrorists. I trust my opponent will bring up a worthy argument in the next round. Sources[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.cnn.com...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[6]https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] . http://www.csmonitor.com...[9] . http://www.sciencealert.com...

Title: Gun Control Content: We should not stricken gun control laws because it will not fix anything. Because in America we all no that when you ban something it just magically disappears. Well that's not true. If someone were to break into my house and shoot at me I would that I had the absolute right to shoot back. If guns kill people than pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Oh ne-ne this is not true, people kill people. If we were to make it harder to get a gun than we are leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless, when all the criminals will still be able to get a gun.

Title: Gun control Content: Hello those who are reading this I came here today to debate the subject of gun control. Gun control: generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. They vary greatly around the world. The problem with gun control is that it does not work. In the United States we have close to 8,000 deaths a year caused by guns each year but in Mexico ( a country with restricted gun laws ) they have near 28,000 deaths a year. 98% of the time the first law indicated by a dictator is to disarm the public. That is the reason why the 2nd amendment was made so that the leaders of this country could never gain to much power, that is also why we do not allow presidents to stay in office for over 8 years.

Title: Why more gun laws are a bad idea. Content: Pro makes three points in opposition to gun control, I will respond to these after making my initial argument. The first thing to consider is that a gun is a machine that is engineered to kill. It can even be argued that the purpose of guns is to kill. Not just this though, they are created to increase the efficiency of killing. Taking this into account, it is a recipe for disaster to allow the general public (including people premeditating murder) to have free access to guns. Whilst it will not stop murderers murdering people (e.g using knives) it severely reduces the amount of people a murderer can kill. You can kill far more people in a given time with a gun than with a knife. Therefore, not giving the public ready access to guns will reduce the amount of people that are killed when a murderer decides to go out and murder people. 'An extremely high number of murders are committed by criminals.' Whilst this is true, criminals can kill an even greater amount of people if they have a gun compared to if they do not have a gun. Before you go and say that criminals break the law anyway so a gun law would be useless, you must think pragmatically. Whilst it is true that a criminal would not care about adhering to a gun law, the simple fact that a gun law is in place would make it a lot harder for a criminal to obtain a gun because of the lack of gun shops. Furthermore, if it is illegal to obtain a gun then there is a chance that the criminal would be detected and arrested as he attempts to obtain a gun; thus preventing the murder(s). If gun laws were not present then the murderer would only be arrested after shooting people. 'It is a constitutional right to bear arms.' This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Just because the constitution says X does not mean that this is unquestionable absolute law. The constitution is not infallible and the pressure is on it to be relevant to our modern age. It's worse than saying 'the Bible says this so it must be true'. 'The reason for this is to avoid a tyrannical government' Allowing civilians to bear arms would not prevent a tyrannical government. On the contrary, it could very well be used to justify the government using violence to control its citizens if some citizens decided to launch violent protest, which would be very much more effective if guns were allowed. Besides, to suggest that civilian gun ownership could prevent a tyrannical government is to suggest that civilians could overthrow a tyrannical US government. In reality, this would cause a bloodbath that the civilians would probably lose; the US army is, after all, the most powerful army in the world. (1) (1) http://www.shockpedia.com...

Title: The US Should Have Better Gun Control Content: I find it a little bit ironic that using a picture that has a list of facts on it from a credible website is not credible according to my opponent, while using Wikipedia is. But here are some more websites that back what I say (1) (2) (3). My opponent claims that if there are more gun control laws that people will be safer, but is that true. The top ten cities in the United with the strictest gun control laws are: Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark,and Atlanta; and out of these cities 6 have the most gun violence ( New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit). So gun control in America doesn't work there is an estimate of about 270 million guns in the United States and if gun control is enacted where do these guns go. Well they would go to the criminals who would have black market deals. Compare guns to marijuana, marijuana is illegal to own by federal law, but marijuana is still one of the Untied States largest cash crops (http://abcnews.go.com...) this shows that when someone wants something they can get if even if it is illegal like guns. Look at the logistics of enacting gun control, Australia destroyed 640,381 guns after they made guns illegal it cost the tax payers 500 million dollars now imagine the cost of finding and destroying 270 million guns and we are nearing almost 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, the United States can't afford gun control. While the gun murder rate in Australia is low it doesn't mean they are safe since the 1997 ban on guns accidental gun deaths are up 300%, the assault rate is up 200%, and immediately following the 1997 gun ban overall robbery went up 200% from 1997-2002 and has increased since than 20%. crime Australia is not safe from guns just because they made them illegal (2). Compare that to the United States who has had less crime since 1993. While any death is tragic aren't we going a little over board with it. In the US 3 people die out of 100,000 from guns that means 99,997 don't die from guns. Don't give up liberties for security like Thomas Jefferson said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." While the 2nd amendment can be amended the debate topic is not about amending the 2nd amendment. It is about gun control and he should have changed the topic. Pencils are a tool like guns if used right they are great if used wrongly they are not great. Gun control is not about guns it is about the government controlling you and me. Sources (1)http://dailycaller.com... (2) http://freerepublic.com... (3) http://www.justfacts.com...

Title: A jolly good debate on gun control Content: I'm not sure of the structure that this round will take. I'll start by doing quotations and responses and see how it looks at the end. "My opponent states that the statistic I have stated is wrong because I do not believe in restricting ALL guns."I didn't say it was wrong - merely intellectually dishonest. If you use this statistic to back up the banning of certain guns, you ought to be for the banning of all guns, as this statistic makes no differentiation between what type of gun was used."I apologize for any confusion. However, by eliminating more "dangerous" weapons, this statistic will more than likely go down dramatically. The less guns, the smaller the chance you shoot yourself." If we ban hammers it would reduce the number of people hitting their thumbs significantly. The question is; so what? Why should the fact that people are capable of misusing guns mean that guns should be banned in and of themselves? You are begging the question here."My opponent states that my statement "Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws" is an assertion without warrant."Well it still is as you haven't backed it up."However, the fact is, most people prefer to kill people with guns. It's quick, easy, and does the most damage compared to a knife, baseball bat, etc."Yes, I probably would choose a gun to kill someone if I had to. (Unless I had access to a SAM or something - speaking of which I got to hold an SA-7 at work today. So. Freaking. Cool.) However, if I couldn't get hold of a gun (and I believe it wouldn't be difficult even with gun control - more on that later) it would not prevent me killing someone. The knowledge required to make explosives is easy to aquire and explosives can kill people just as quickly whilst doing a lot of damage. I already made this argument last round. There are many economic substitutes for guns, so no lives would be saved by banning them. In fact, though people with intent would be able to kill (due to being able to aquire decent subsitutes), people without intent, that is, the victims, would be worse off than before! "1. My point is, is that people shouldn't be able to "pick up" dangerous weapons primarily because of accidents. A counter argument may be said that cars cause accidents. You must remember that cars are a necessity to many people. In my rural town, you can't walk from point A to point B unless you have a few hours to waste. Guns, especially fully automatic guns or guns with extended magazines, are NOT a necessity in our everyday lives." Guns are tools which facilitate a purpose, that is the protection of ones liberty. While you may need to use a car more frequently, frequency is not a worthwhile metric on deciding whether things are a necessity. (Nor is necessity a worthwhile metric on deciding whether something should be controlled or not!)"My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time." This argument you are making here seems very bizarre. Are you asserting that the rate of fire directly correlates to the lives saved? This is certainly an assertion without warrant, and the opposite has been demonstrated; if there is intent to take life, suitable substitutes can be found - for example non-automatic weapons would be just as effective. "My opponent uses oak chairs as an example. The fact is, murderers use guns more than they are going to use knives or high oak chairs. You might as well get rid of some types of guns to keep people safe from themselves and from others. You can hurt yourself with an oak chair or a toaster, but by taking certain guns off of the market, lives will definitely be saved" C-dizzle unfortunately completely misses the point here. He doesn't respond to argument that anything can be used to harm someone, and just because it is used doesn't ipso facto mean that they ought to be banned. C-dizzle also repeats his mantra that lives would be saved by taking certain guns off the market. I'm going to have to ask him once more to provide warrant for that assertion. 2. My opponent states that black markets would be created by restricting gun ownership. That's why it's the government's job to crack down on the buying and purchasing of illegal weapons.This is a total non-argument. It will be impossible to prevent black markets forming. I note that C-dizzle favours drug legalization (quite rightly) - I am sure that he understands how prohibition doesn't work. It ends up criminalizing a lot of people, but doesn't prevent those who want the good from aquiring the good.My opponent also states that explosives or other substitutes for guns could be made. It's a lot faster to load and shoot a fully automatic rifle than it is to detonate an explosive. Besides, there's always the chance that people move out of the way, you run out of explosives, or the explosive just doesn't work.I concede that on balance, despite my personal taste in the matter, guns are probably preferable to explosives for killing people. That explains why guns are the most popular method at the moment. However, should we be able to somehow magic guns out of existance, explosives would be an acceptable susbtitute for the murderously inclined. Or maybe not. Maybe they'd prefer something else. I can't really say. The point is, is that there will be an effective substitute, which will mean no lives are saved."3. My opponent thinks that guns allow people to resist tyrannical government. I think that this argument is basically obsolete especially in countries like the USA. What is a bunch of civilians with some guns against the Marines? You won't be resist anybody. You won't "resist" tyrannical government because it's impossible to overthrow it."Last I checked the population of America was a bit over 300 million - and the armed forces at around 1 and half million [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I don't know about you, but even making the implausible assumption that most of those solidiers would turn on their country men, I'd still bet on the 300 million with their guns.I would also like to add that my opponent completely ignores the fact of how easy it is to buy guns without a back ground check in the USA. I don't know about you, but I don't want convicted felons walking around with guns. Have they done their time? I'm assuming the answer is yes and that they aren't escapees from jail (and if your statement assumes they are, the only thing we could possibly draw from it is that the bakery as well as the gun shop should be asking their customers whether they have just escaped from prison). They've done their time and their liberty is restored to them. They are citizens, they should have the same rights as the others (I don't know if they do become fully fledged citizens again in US law with all rights intact - if they don't, then they are not valid examples due the definitions of citizens given at the beginning)Arguments dropped.The act of ownership is not an act of aggression and therefore is terrible basis for law Insufficient evidence to suggest that restricting guns would do anythingLack of moral authority to restrict gun ownership Thanks C-DizzleI hope you get back from what ever it is you are doing (I'm assuming it is a hardcore Christian metal concert) in time. I left my response as late as possible.

Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls." This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.

Title: Gun Control Content: "I am sorry, but I feel like this is a little unfair. I would not have accepted this debate if I would have known you would be making these types of arguments. The thing I find unfair about this, is that you don't give the voters a choice in whom……" Ah, I don't believe this is unfair at all. You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1. You also stated before the debate started that I am to argue for gun control. The definition of gun control is, "any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens." Throughout this debate I have clearly defined the problems with the current gun control system in the United States, and I have clearly argued why we must have more and why it would be effective. I have also refuted your arguments in regards to the US having more gun control. I have also clearly laid out why certain guns shouldn't be prohibited, and why other guns should not. By giving examples of what guns would be okay and in what situations, I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles. So I ask the audience to not ignore these types of arguments, because they are the core of the debate and my opponent seeks to detract from that. Furthermore, before my opponent says anything, this is not semantics, because gun control has a clear definition. "This doesn't make sense. So your saying you agree that people need self defence and thus guns are justified, but then go…" I am not contradicting myself at all. I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging. "Gun laws require that in order to obtain a fire arm in your home, you must have a safe to safely store them in. http://en.wikipedia.org...... This deters children from entering, criminals from entering, etc. The only person who should know the combination should be the owner of the gun. So this argument cannot be looked to as a child cannot harm themselves in this scenario." Firstly, your source says nothing about the gun safes being required by law, and you used Wikipedia. Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense. [1] So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home. This on top of the fact that the presence of firearm makes homicide and suicide between family members more likely in the home, shows that a firearm in the home is more likely to cause tragedy than prevent it. "In order to own a gun, an individual must complete basic gun courses in order to purchase one. http://corneredcat.com...... You must show proof of completing the courses neccesary to own a gun as well, among having several other things. Gun laws are strict, and not so easy that any one and their kids can purchase one without the neccesary requirements being completed. People who own gun have a basic understanding and knowledge of how to operate them. Thus we would be giving the government too much power if they are the only ones who own guns. The reason we have gun laws in the first place is to prevent government intrusion. Just like in the revolutionary war, owning and operating guns will prevent government from transforming into a dictatorship." Gun safety training is not the same thing as military training. You know, the military training you'd need to take part in a "well-regulated" militia. Again, the arming of the citizenry in a time of conflict in best left to the National Guard, which can properly train the citizens and integrate them into the state militia. Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us. "So you do claim that a person has a right to self defence, and you give an example..." The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one. "Here you contradict your whole argument….." I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. "Hand guns have the same ability to stop a persons life as an assualt rife does. When used the right way, and fired at the right part of the human body…." No, no, and no again. I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle. This is a clear absurdity. "Again, as I have said before, You are thinking nationally. We must think internationally here. Just like criminals can still obtain drugs, they can obtain guns….." Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up. Opponent's Arguments "This is exactly why gun control is a horrible concept. It limits citizen protection from the exact scenario you are showing." This is why no gun control is a horrible concept. The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals. Conclusion I've stated my case. I have argued successfully for more gun control in the United States. I have given you examples where guns are necessary in our society, where they serve for more good than harm. I have also plainly spelled out what is wrong with the current gun control system today, and how and why it needs to be improved. I have refuted my opponent's arguments, sometimes more than once. I thank my opponent for a strong argument, and wish him luck in the voting period. I believe my argument is stronger, and that you should vote Pro. [1] http://www.vaultandsafe.com...

Title: Bullet Control Content: Lets ignore the amount of big time criminals that would still be able to afford these bullets and have more successful robberies and being able to rob people with no fear of people shooting back. If you Democrats somehow got this law passed, This would only make the Country fall apart even more..... First of all, There is without a doubt that Texas would secede, I live in Texas by the way. But lets ignore that, The southern part of the country would riot, This would cause EVEN MORE crime than before, people would be robbing gun stores, scavenging for bullets and the streets would be on fire, the government would fall, but, lets say this wont happen. As we all know, Obama has opened the borders, probably letting thousands of ISIS members come in and plant their roots and wait for the moment to strike from inside, when they do come out, Millions of people wont be able to defend themselves, it would be mass slaughter. I hope you know that Bullet control is a very controversial decision that should NEVER EVER happen.