Question: Should more gun control laws be enacted?

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

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 Control Laws Content: I am sorry to see my opponent has forfeited his round, but, as promised, I will provide my rebuttal to my Pro’s argument. “There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years.” First, I would like to illustrate there has not been an increase in mass murders in the last twenty years. A study conducted by Fox and Delateur asserts “mass shootings have remained stagnant over 34 years, averaging 20 a year, and that few are committed by the sorts of mentally deranged individuals that are commonly portrayed in the media.” [4] The study debunks the myth ‘Mass murders are on the rise’ by using FBI statistics and looking at any mass murders occurring between 1976 and 2011. Other sources such as “Mother Jones” limit the definition of mass murders and show a distorted view unlike the Fox and Delateur study which is a comprehensive study. “The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. “ My opponent does not provide any evidence for this claim. “In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united states.” Pro has not provided any evidence for his assertions. In fact, the link Pro provided in his opening statements actually shows union gun control, prohibition, and post-JFK assassination gun control corresponding to increasing the homicide rate in the United States in the related time frames. Thank you for your time, guy and gals! I look forward to Pro's Conclusion. [4] http://www.trendingcentral.com...

Title: Why more gun laws are a bad idea. Content: We should not countinue to make more restrictions on gun laws. There are many reasons for this, crime prevention, protection, rights.

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: Gun Control Content: There should be gun control.

Title: Gun Control Content: Should the US government tighten gun laws. Why and how for both answers

Title: Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban Content: In the light of increased gun crime and mass shootings, Many a reasonable human has called for some sort of change to happen with our firearm laws. Although scholars seem to agree that it is the time for change, Some ideologues still stand firmly behind the current legislation? Why? Do they have the facts on their side? In this debate with Our_Boat_is_Right, Who I admire for his strong ability to debate and dedication to the craft, I will be setting out to prove that the answer is a firm "no. " --Concealed Carry Laws-- The National Research Council has found that "shall issue laws" (laws that require authorities to issue concealed carry permits) increase crime rates by 3 - 5 % [1]. Another study by Stanford Professor John Donahue also found that conceal carry laws increase crime [2]. There's very little to no studies that anyone can cite that say that concealed carry laws decrease crime. So, I ask Pro, Why does he support concealed carry? --Gun Laws-- My argument for gun laws is short, Simple and to the point: Places that have more gun laws have less gun crime than places that have less gun laws. We find that countries with more gun laws have less crime, [4] and although it is true that it is impossible to prove that less gun laws are cause of this, We can find that the states in the U. S. With less gun laws pretty consistiently correlate with the states that have the most gun crimes. [5] -- Assault Weapons -- Automatic and semiautomatic weapons do not save lives, They kill people. There is no reason to keep assault weapons. There is no evidence that they deter crime any more than your average gun. Will someone who may already be mentally unstable or desperate enough to rob a house draw the line at seeing not a regular gun but an assault weapon? There is no evidence that they do anything better than your average gun, Except kill large amounts of people. This is why they are the weapon of choice for mass-shooters. [3] --Unconstitutional? " Finally, Some radical defenders of guns posit that gun restrictions, Bans, And the like are wrong simply because they violate the fundamental lawbook of our American society: the Constitution. But is this true? Are gun control advocates really violating the constitution? My answer is no, And this is what will be addressed in this contention. Here is the Second Amendment: "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. " According to The Supreme Court, Gun law regulation to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is perfectly constitutional, Which is all the handgun control I advocate for. [6] The Supreme Court also dictated that banning sawed-off shotguns also doesn"t violate the Constitution because they saw no way that a sawed-off shotgun could be used lawfully. [6] These similar restrictions would also apply to an automatic and semiautomatic weapon because these rifles were also made for the use of military combat, To kill as many people as possible. So, It is true that it is legal to ban certain guns. [6] Finally, Whether the Constitution prohibits regulation or banning of concealed carry laws is still up in the air. Of course, This could all be seen as an appeal to authority. So here are some of my individual arguments: It is fairly obvious that the Constitution would not want mentally insane people or criminals possessing guns. So gun control is pretty reasonable. It is also ridiculous to say that the Constitution would be against allowing assault rifles, Because they are guns that could be used for self defense. By that logic, Could someone have a turret gun on the top of their house, Because they could use that to protect themselves? Could someone have a bazooka gun, Because it could be used to protect themselves? How deep does this rabbit hole go? ! Finally, The Constitution says you can have guns. It doesn"t say anyone can have guns. It doesn"t say you can have any gun you want. It most certainly doesn"t say you can own guns anywhere? On top of all of this, Bringing up the Constitution, A document written hundreds of years ago to dictate a government that had just escaped tyranny and was radically different from our own in modern times, Is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Just because it"s an important law doesn"t mean it"s subject to scrutiny. In conclusion, I have proved that concealed carry laws increase crime and thus should be disallowed, Assault weapons increase crime thus should be disallowed, And I have proved that gun regulations decrease gun crime and thus should be implemented, And I have done it all within the framework of the Constitution. Sources in comments

Title: more guns means more overall homicide Content: the debate is about more guns means more homicides or not. not about what concealed carry laws do or dont do. they might just make more guns less bad, but the bottom line is more guns means more bad, more murder. concealed carry might make so many guns less bad, i dont know. i do know ninety percent of gun researchers think more gun control is better than none when it comes to homicides. i dont know the magic gun control if we have lot of guns. but the point isnt about this or that gun control, it's about more guns mean more homicides or not.

Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: I am for more Gun Control laws and policies in America. My opponent must be opposed to any further Gun Control laws being established in America.

Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: Kind Regards for this Debate. I will take the Con side of the topic "more gun regulation should exist" and thus will be against more gun regulations. 1st I would like to define that we are talking about the USA here, as Pro has not stated what country we are talking about. Further I would like to define 'gun' as firearms and 'regulations' as sale regulations.Opening Statement:I would first of all like to point to the topic, "more gun regulation should exist". This topic is quite clear, however Pro has not actually posted a reason why this should happen. As Pro has not included an actual argument I will dismiss the majority of Pros statement as it has no context. However, I will still give my arguments, as well as do some rebuttals as to what Pro has stated in their opening statement. First of all I would like to dismiss the common fallacy that Pro has used, "the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons", as this is simply incorrect. If we take a look at the number 2 country of firearms per capita (after the USA), Serbia, with 69.7 firearms per 100 residents and looking at Pros thesis, Serbia should have a huge homicide rate. False. In fact, Serbia has about the same homicide rate as Australia, which Pro used as a 'case study' about how well firearm regulation works. In fact, the majority of European countries have about 30 firearms per 100 (except Britain) and have extremely low homicide rates, a fraction of the US rate. And just to make this thesis even more ridiculous, the country with the highest murder rate, Honduras, has a small amount of firearms, only about 6.6 per 100. Brazil, the country with the most murders, 50,108 in 2012, also has a relatively low rate of firearms per capita, about 8 per 100. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) Please note that the image is missing several European countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and more. These all have high firearms per capita yet low homicide rates. If this does not prove Pros thesis as incorrect then I do not know what will. However, now to my reason as to why there should not be more regulations. 1st: The US constitution:The US constitution gives US citizens/residents the right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Furthermore, the actual reason as to this is very important. No, the reason is not hunting or personal self defence. It is for defending the human liberties. The founding fathers were of the opinion that in order to create true democracy the citizens had to be armed. In case the government turned tyrannical, the citizens could regain their liberty as well as their country. After all, Government is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around! 2nd: Firearms have no relation to violence:As proven above, there is no relation. This brings me to number 33rd: The 'US problem' is because of society, not firearms:Why are countries that are very similar to the US not affected by the same issue? The answer is simple. It is the US society. The US media bombards the viewer constantly with 'end of the world' and 'you are dying' issues. No surprise people react the way they do. Furthermore, the US prison system is not working, but this is a different issue. 4th: Firearms control does not work:When I lived in Europe I had several firearms pulled on me, although there are tight laws. And I am sure none of those were legal. In fact, even where I live in Australia there are illegal firearms. This is actually quite close to my area, and these firearms would even be illegal in many parts of the US. Yet they are home build, seemingly. This means that gun control does not work. In fact the hardest thing to acquire for a firearm are the bullets, not the firearm itself. Anyone could go to their local hardware store and buy the necessary components for a working firearm. And the people who would have firearms if all were taken away would be criminals and not normal citizens. 5th: Protection for the US:Lets say the US was invaded, not only would its armed forces pull off a hell of a fight, in every bush there would be some guy with a rifle taking shots at the enemy. This improves the US defensive power dramatically. 6th: Prime use of firearms:The grand majority of firearms never get used on humans. It would be like banning all knives because somebody got stabbed. I am sure that the majority of people use knives every day and do not get stabbed nor stab anyone, it is the same with firearms. Anything can kill you, that doesn't mean everything needs to be 'regulated'7th: The firearm makes equal:The modern semi-automatic firearm is the 1st thing in history that has made all people more or less equal. The possibility for a 5ft female to release 10 rounds in a short succession into a 6ft male has made people truly equal, where they are not, body and strength wise. Or is this not a good thing?I could keep going, but I think that is enough. Conclusion:Con has displayed 7 reasons as to why firearms should not be more regulated while Pro has not even shown one reason.What Pro has provided, the out of context 'evidence' was easily negated by statistics and proven to be simply not true.Thus I, as Con, am still of the opinion that there should not be more firearms regulations.Kind Regards to Pro for the debate, I am looking forward to your arguments.

Title: Gun Control Content: Rebuttals & New PointsI will admit that my equation was inaccurate in a sense. I will agree with you that there can be too many regulations. However, I will not deny that there must be some regulations put in place in order to ensure violent individuals do not obtain a gun and that the future crime can be prevented. The court cases you have listed - especially Heller v. District of Columbia - support my point: the second amendment must not be misinterpreted. That is what I have said in the previous round. It seems we agree on some issues, while we disagree on others. I will admit that there are some negative influences when you increase gun control, but there are also many benefits that one cannot simply ignore:"There is no question, of course, that guns figure in countless murders, suicides and accidental deaths. Over the five years ending in 1997, the Justice Department says, there was an average of 36,000 firearms-related deaths a year. (Fifty-one percent were suicides, and 44 percent homicides.) Determining whether particular gun control laws would have, on balance, prevented some of those deaths is difficult." [1] There are three possibilities: 1. Gun Control laws decrease the crime rate.2. Gun Control laws increase the crime rate.3. Gun Control laws have nearly no effect whatsoever on the crime rate.I will support possibilitiy one and three. The crime rate will be influenced by gun control, whether it be a major influence or a minor influence. However, one cannot deny that there will be some influence. Some of the sources I will list will support me, some will support you, and some will support both of us. I do believe, however, that the sources I will list will strengthen my stance. "However, the acts of violence themselves and gun control show that there may be a correlation between the availability of guns and crime. What the relationship is still undetermined for such contradictory data exists that can trump and repel arguments given by both sides of the gun control debate, pro gun control and against gun control." [2] You cannot deny that there will be a relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate. I will admit that some states have gun control laws that are too strict and that some states have too weak gun control laws. However, let's put party aside and work together for the betterment of the American society. We can begin by expanding a few aspects of gun control. You cannot deny that we need background checks, limited ammunition, and a regulation of gun production. We will need to improve security measures in order to ensure that schools, malls, movie theatres, and other public places are safe from violence. Both gun control and security measures will ensure that crime is DECREASED. The crime rate as a whole may stay about the same, but I assure you, there will be a positive influence once sophisticated gun control is enacted. I recognize that this debate is about gun control specifically, but I would like to point out some other ways to reduce crime: We need to reform our education system, increase spending in security, reform the tax code, and assist the people that are troubled, depressed, and maybe mentally ill. These measures, alongside gun control, will ensure that crime is decreased. I do not believe that the points you have are sufficient enough to support your claim. You will need to find new evidence. Sources[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://gun.laws.com...

Title: there should be more gun regulation Content: I believe there shouldn't be more gun regulation. First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away or controling guns is just going to cause people to sneak around and do it, or find another way to kill people. Also the second ammendment says "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." People should have a right to have guns.

Title: Gun Rights Content: I, WhiteHawk, will be arguing why there should be no more gun laws than there already are and every citizen ought to own a firearm. My opponent, I assume, should be arguing about why guns should be restricted from citizens.

Title: Gun Rights Content: This is a gun debate, so I will just keep it at that. I see how you brought up the Sandy Hook shooting, but sitting here saying that more gun laws will prevent more gun crime is just false logic. Especially when you consider that the state of Connecticut already had an Assault Weapons Ban. It seems as though you want the law abiding citizens to not have the means to protect themselves against the criminals who will get weapons anyway because they have no such desire to follow any laws. Here is a good example (you might have heard of this guy prior: Adam Lanza shot his mother (#1) then stole three of her guns (#2, #2, and #4). Lanza then stole her truck (#5) and illegal transported three weapons (#6, #7, and #8). He then carried those guns into the school without a carry permit (#9, #10, and #11). Lanza then proceeded to break into the school (#12) and brought all three guns on school property (#13, #14, and #15). Adam Lanza concluded this law breaking fiasco by shooting 26 more people (#16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, and #41. In total he broke FORTY-ONE laws. Yet while the victims still lay in pools of their own blood, liberals like yourself are arguing that had there been more laws, this tragedy could have been averted. -Past Attempts of Gun Right Bans- Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime. In comparison, let"s take a look at Britain, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world. Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen " Piers Morgan " who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating. Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst "rich" countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990R42;s. Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves. In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives. Another interesting thing to think about is the fact that Medical Errors, Unintentional Injuries, Alcohol Abuse, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Unintentional Poisoning, Drug Abuse, Unintentional Falls, and Non-Firearm Homicides ALL cause more death than Firearm Homicides. Over 50 times the amount of people that die from Firearm Homicides die from Tobacco Abuse every year, but I do not see ANYONE trying to ban or limit that. Source: http://www.infowars.com... -The Founders on Gun Rights- The founding fathers (who drafted the Constitution) believed that the citizens should not only be armed, but armed as heavily as the United States Government!! Take these quotes into consideration: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46 - James Madison "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29 - Alexander Hamilton "Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry "That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..." - George Mason It is very clear that the founders obviously believed that we should be armed as individuals, not only as a militia. -Liberal Logic Gun Analogy by Doug Hagin- "Liberal logic says if we had fewer guns, we would also have fewer crimes. Therefore, from this we must conclude Liberal logic also dictates the following. Fewer eating utensils would soon lead to less obesity. Fewer restaurants would also lead to less obesity, as would fewer cattle. After all cows give milk, and milk can be fattening. Cattle also give us beef, which can also make us fat. So we can conclude, using Liberal logic, that if we had no cows, no restaurants and no utensils, obesity would be quickly eradicated. Fewer pens and pencils would lead to fewer grammatical errors such as misspellings. Fewer pens and pencils would also lead to fewer notes in class, thus leading to fewer kids getting in trouble for passing notes in class. Also without pens and pencils, students could not write nasty things about classmates could they. So we must eliminate these tools of intolerance. Paper too, should be tightly controlled. Without paper, even students with pens or pencils would be unable to write bad things or use poor grammar while writing. So using Liberal logic, which says more gun control and laws will lessen violent crime, we must also confess that having tight controls on pen, pencil, and paper would curtail poor grammar and hateful writing." -Doug Hagin Source: http://www.renewamerica.com... I rest my case for the time being and I look forward to seeing your next rebuttal.

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: If we have more gun laws we will have more crime.

Title: Gun control Content: You said it well when you said, "Like I said the problem isn't the laws themselves it's enforcing them." We aren't talking about a gun-ban, nor the enforcement of gun control laws. We are talking about are gun control laws a good idea in general. We aren't talking about adding extra laws either. My position is simply gun control laws are a good idea to have, but not to go overboard with.

Title: Gun control results in a less violent society Content: Gun control is not necessarily needed. In my personal opinion, what needs to be done is ... 1) Guns to be made more expensive(Not Gun Control) 2) Wether guns are controlled or not, they will still be there.

Title: Should we have Gun Control Content: I am a little new to this site and will try to to best I can to get my point across on this platform. Be for I get stated you should know that some gun control is necessary but not to the extent that it has been presented by many. I believe you live in the U. S. so this response will be based on the U. S. unless you wish to extend to other nations around the world. Now we all after remember that criminals break the law. The laws we have in place now criminals have broken and we must not respond with feeling but with logic to the tragedies that occur. We currently have background checks and have many limitations on firearms now. What we should focus on instead of creating more regulations is to enforce the laws we have now. Examples of failures to act are in the recent Parkland Shooting when authorities failed to prevent the shooting while they had information of a possible unstable individual that could harm someone. We need to protect our second amendment. It allows us to protect ourselves from criminals or tyrannical governments. That is why we do not need to get new gun control legislation.

Title: Gun Control Laws Content: Studies show that gun control laws lead to a lower firearm murder rate in the United States. I am strongly in favor of stricter gun laws. http://www.politisite.com...

Title: Should guns laws be implemented Content: Should guns laws be implemented and the second amendment abolished to prevent mass shootings. I personally feel as if we are safer with the right to bear arms. It is fairly rare for mass shootings to be committed by legally obtained weapons.

Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.

Title: there should be more gun regulation Content: more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.

Title: Loose Gun Control Content: I will start off with debating my opponents argument that allowing more gun ownership adds fuel to the fire, my opponent is assuming that if people are allowed to have guns, they will use them. Some people just want guns to feel more powerful and protected. We have no proof that if we allow people to get guns easier than they will use these to commit crimes. I am not saying that anybody should be allowed to have a gun. Obviously if you have committed a crime before you should not be able to get a gun, but the real thing is either way people are going to get guns. People get guns illegally all the time, how do you think people in gang wars, or drug dealers get guns? Do you think they get their guns legally? My answer is no, they get them illegally in the streets. I am not saying that we should give guns to criminals, that is not my intention. All i am saying is people are going to get guns regardless of the laws. Wouldn't you rather them get them legally so we can track the guns than illegally? Your argument saying that it creates more crimes is not true. Here are some facts i found about strict gun control laws put in place with the relationship to crimes: In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported, "In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual. " . http://www.fff.org... My opponent says that more guns create more crimes when it is actually the opposite, less guns equal more crimes. I have the facts, i dont see any sources or backing in my opponents argument saying that more guns will create more crimes. However i have a source that shows less guns create more crime. All my opponent is trying to do is argue against my arguments, when this debate is about loose gun control.

Title: Gun Control Content: Debate: I will be arguing that the United States needs more gun control, my opponent will be arguing that the United States needs less gun control. Structure of Debate R1: Acceptance. R2: Pro's opening arguments, Con's rebuttal to Pro's opening arguments. R3: Pro's response to Con's rebuttal, Con's opening arguments. R4: Pro's rebuttal to Con's opening arguments, Con's response to Pro's rebuttals.

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: guns should be banned Content: Yes. they should. So many people have lost their lives because there has been very little gun control. If there is no gun control, hundreds more could die. with all these deaths, people live in fear. fear that they might be killed or a loved one may be killed. Many families mourn over the deaths of their children because there is no gun control.

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 Content: Sorry for not posting my argument earlier, But I am very busy this week (Such bad timing to start a debate when I have an APUSH quiz this Friday, A Spanish quiz this Friday, And a pre-calculus quiz this Friday, Lol). So anyway, Here are my points: I am thinking of some universal gun control laws, Which are laws that should be implemented in every single state, If not implemented already. 1. All states must have a background check on all gun transactions. Why: Because this is highly useful for sorting out the good guys from the bad guys. 2 Any person that has already committed a serious misdemeanor or crime, Violent or property, Should be barred from owning a gun. However, There should be a time limit so that after a set amount of years, Criminals will attain a second chance to own a gun. Why: Because criminals overall have a higher chance of a committing a crime again, So barring them for a certain amount of time would allow them to think for what they did wrong, And then maybe be given a second chance to prove themselves they can be responsible gun owners. 3. All gun sellers must have a permit with them, Including private sellers or sellers that don't mainly rely on gun transactions for a living. Why: Informal and improper transactions increase the chances of a criminal obtaining a gun. A random person shouldn't be able to sell guns to anyone; only licensed individuals should be able. 4. Implement a law that measures the degree of self-control in an individual. Why: Because self-control is a key characteristic for being a responsible and sensible gun owner. Gun laws are very strict regarding obtaining a permit for concealed carry, And as a result, People that have a permit to conceal carry guns are very law abiding. 5. Require medical checks for medical disorders/conditions, Such as depression. Why: Because this would greatly help reduce suicides as well as murders. I also want to remove these laws: 1. School weapons ban. 2. Out of state honoring licenses.

Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: here is the debate with working links http://www.debate.org... more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons, or that they will just run out and get a gun illegally. background checks are just a step removed from the idea that not everyone will just find a way to kill anyway. https://www.youtube.com...... http://thinkprogress.org...... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com...... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org...... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.

Title: Gun Control Content: More regulations on the possession and sale of guns are needed in the United States.

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: "Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality) Content: This is my argument from another debate: First, I will start with the fact that more gun laws lowers gun violence. First, I will start in the US. States that have more fun laws, like background checks, difficulties in getting concealed carry permits and the like, have lower gun laws then states with loose gun laws. [1] Now let's look at other countries. First, look at Japan. They have extremely strict gun laws, and they banned all guns minus air rifles and shotguns. Their gun murder rate is 0.0 for every 100,000 people. They only had 11 gun murders in 2011; the most recent data. [2] Now let's look at Canada. They have strict gun laws. Their gun gun murder rate is .38 per 100,000 people, which is quite low. Now let's look at the US. The U.S. has some of the weakest gun laws in the developed world. Their gun murder rate is 3.43 per 100,000 people. [4] So this is strong evidence that more gun control equals less gun crime. Now I will address your argument. Here is the full second amendment: "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." Notice the, "... Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Part. This only gives the right to bear arms to part of a militia needed to defend the country. We don't need militias to defend our country, because we have a military. So not everyone gets the right to bear arms. Also, the second amendment says, "Arms." Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knifes, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms. Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too. Finally, even if the second amendment of the constitution was, "We the people have the right to keep and bear arms", restrictions like background checks, mental health checks, bans on certain guns, and so on will not hurt law- abiding citizens' chances to get a gun, only potentially bad people's chances, which is good. Do we really want convicted felons to get guns? No. Now onto your argument. " If you don't think anyone should own that gun, then don't own that gun. Nobody is forcing you to own a weapon." - Yes, but the effects of people owning guns can be felt when you get shot. "yes. That does say a well regulated militia, but do you see that tiny little comma in between that and "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't say "the right of the people in the militia" and it doesn't say "the right of the people who are police" and it doesn't say "the right of the people in the military" it says "the right of the people" the American people." - Can you prove what that comma means? Unless you can't, your argument is useless. The comma was mearly a grammatical comma. Anyway, this amendment is about technology. Tech changes over time. And circumstances change too. I would fully support this amendment in the 1700s. Why? Becaus the only guns were inaccurate, slow-to-reload, one shot muskets. And their was no strong military to stop attacks, so it makes sense that we need the people to be armed. But now we have the strongest military in the world, and our guns have hundred-round clips, that can be reloaded within 5 seconds, and are accurate for hundreds of yards. This means that the amendment is outdated, and needs updating. An example? Imagine if all the laws around drones are never changed again. In 20 years, when the public has access to drones with LMGs, bombs, and spy cameras on them, you would think the law needs an update. This is the same for guns. Your hunting argument is one I never heard before. Can you provide a link that will make this rebuttal make sense? "If you believe in gun control, you are being lied to." - As I have shown in this debate, that is not the case. Some people might attack me for my arguments, as they are mostly focused on gun control in general. However, my opponent takes many jabs at gun control throughout, and he makes no laws regarding kritkiks, so my arguments are valid. I have shown that gun laws are complely legal and help reduce gun crimes. I await my opponent's response. [1] https://img.njdc.com...... [2] http://www.gunpolicy.org...... [3] http://www.gunpolicy.org...... [4] http://www.gunpolicy.org......

Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: Kind Regards, I will now precede with rebuttals to Pros claimsRebuttals:First of all I would like to note that Pro still has not given an actual argument. Thus Pro has not actually stated why 'more gun regulation should exist'. Furthermore Pro has, from 7 clear arguments Con provided in the previous round, tried to make a rebuttal of only 3 of them. Now, additionally, I will provide evidence as to why all 3 of Pros rebuttals are incorrect. Please note that Pro has not done that, Pro did not provide any evidence. 1.) Pro states that I have given 'anecdotal' evidence. Not at all! This information comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, (https://www.unodc.org...), I believe this evidence more than all the sources provided by Pro. Also we need to look at what focus Pros sources have. Lets start systematically.2.) I will dismiss the you tube video, as it is John Oliver, he is a comedian. His 'facts' always represent what he wants the audience to see and never the bigger picture. 3.) http://thinkprogress.org... This is an article about the US. The US is the only country with this 'problem' and I provided the evidence for that last round and Pro dismissed it as 'anecdotal'. I quote from the 'source', "The largest study of gun violence in the United States". Unrelated to Pros claim as to incorrect evidence. 4.) http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... Once again, same as above. "Data from a US mortality follow-back survey". Same thing as above, unrelated to Pros claim. 5.) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... . This one is interesting, as it kind of relates. But only one piece of evidence. Not that Pro would have known that, most likely. But I looked at it nevertheless. 'Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide'. Lets look at the source of this 'source'. http://jonathanstray.com... here, so anyone who wants to read it. Their research seems quite bad. I mean look, the number 2 on the homicide rate in 1994 is Northern Ireland. This is a bad joke. Finland unsurprisingly has a high firearm suicide rate, as because of its location. But in fact, the countries that have a high percentage of firearms, Germany, France, Norway and such have extremely low homicide rates. Suicide rates are another thing. If there is access to a firearm and a person wants to commit suicide, the firearm is the easiest way. But this is about firearm homicide. And seemingly it is unrelated. So once again, Pros 'thesis' about my 'anecdotal' evidence refuted. This all means that Pros statement that "but the studies I showed illustrate that the norm is as I stated" is incorrect, as already shown in my previous round. In fact the US is not the norm, nor is Pros theory that "the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur". In fact the countries with the highest homicide rates all have very low firearms per capita. Please Pro, provide evidence that this is wrong. Lets provide a graph. Pro, refute this. With evidence, please. Just if you want to check yourself, I will, though I normally do not use that, simply provide Wikipedia links and you can check yourself. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) international homicide rate, just click the 'rate' and get it to sort descending. Here is the link for the count of firearms per capita (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Now simply check how many firearms there are in the countries with the highest homicide rates. Not many. The US may have a high homicide rate if you look at '1st world countries', but if you look at the entire picture the number is very slim. Honduras, the country with the highest homicide rate, the number per 100.000 population has a rate of 90. 'Only' 18 times higher than the US. The second country, Venezuela, 'only' nearly 11 times higher than the us with a rate of 54. The US has a rate of 4.7. Yet, this number is constantly played up to be enormous. It is not. Look at the graph above. As for Pros claim that background checks and 'regulateions' do not contradict the 2nd amendment, yes they do. The 2nd amendment is so that citizens can be as armed as the military infantry, in case of tyranny and they need to fight to regain the country. Is this the case right now? No, certain weapons are prohibited and as such the right to bear arms is infringed. As for the war scenario, yes, this was far fetched, but possible. And Pro has not said that it is not possible. Switzerland is extremely armed, as every male who completes military training gets to keep his rifle. These are military rifles to mention. And once again, Swiss firearms per capita is high but their homicide rate extremely low. "besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns". Really? Regulation is the first step. In my home country, Germany, I can walk into a weapons store when I am 18 and buy an air rifle. In Australia where I live now, air rifles are considered firearms in exactly the same way regular rifles are. You in fact need the same license for an air rifle as you need for a 'real' firearm. A Australian friend of mine wanted to license his .22 when he was younger when he moved state and was laughed at because 'we don't license those'. Look at Australia now. Farmers, who would need a semi automatic firearm cannot possess one because they are illegal. Is this in a sense not just infringing peoples lives and liberty? Once something is regulated, it will just continue from there. So I can well understand why people in the USA do not want any regulations. And as I have proofed above, firearms control does not work in Australia. Criminals have them. People who abide the law do not. So why would you want to start this chain? "my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns". Oh, so weapons would be 'taken away'. Does this not mean that the 2nd amendment is not followed? The 2nd amendment is there for a very good reason and everybody who does not understand that should keep out of politics. Conclusion:Pro still has not provided an argument. Con has refuted all of Pros claims and the half hearted rebuttal by Pro in this round. I still note that Pro has made rebuttals for 3 out of 7 arguments provided by Con. This is less than 50%. Con has negated all of Pros 'evidence' that was used to 'support' a non existing argument. Overall Con still stands to their opinion that Firearms should not be more regulated. Kind regards, I am looking forward to your final arguments and conclusion.

Title: should there be gun rights Content: Yes there should be gun rights. We should be allowed to own as many guns of whatever type we want. I win.

Title: Gun laws should remain unchanged despite the recent events in Aurora, Colorado Content: To my opponent, I too look forward to this debate. I'm going to just get to it and counter my opponents arguments for more gun control. Your first point made is a very true statement, this is not the first incident of gun violence, and sadly it will not be the last. No amount of gun control will stop crimes committed with a gun. Moving on to the children getting hold of weapons, when you say "The very factor that guns are able to get into even the hands of a child" are you talking about a gun left out in the open and an unknowing 5 year old pick it up? Or are you referring to teenagers living in the cities getting guns from a dealer and committing crimes? With the first scenario, no law will prevent those kinds of incidents. Unfortunately it's either the stupidity of the parent leaving a loaded firearm out of its case at a level a child can reach, or some sort of distraction causing the parent to leave a loaded firearm in the open. Those are just careless accidents in the privacy of one's home. With the second scenario,we don't need to focus on preventing kids in the cities from getting guns, but instead try to raise the standard of living in this country so that kids in the cities aren't forced to live a life of crime. If we can put together an economic recovery plan, not as many people will be forced to resort to crime. Now, with your second point. Yes, the shooting was senseless and horrible and nothing like this should ever happen again. But the sad part about reality is that something like this is bound to happen again. James Holmes' guns were all registered to him. All of the guns were legal. He cleared the background checks. There was no evidence that he was going to go on a shooting rampage. He didn't have any psychological problems in the past which would have prevented him from purchasing these firearms. But, if he had an incident that hinted at psychological issues before he attempted to buy those guns, he would've been turned down and the disaster would've been averted. Nobody knew his mental state was going to detiorate the way it did. It's just one of those things that is unpredictable and unpreventable. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate, but there was nothing anybody could've done to prevent this tragedy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... With the final point, yes, you can enact stricter gun laws and tell people that there is less reason to carry firearms. You can tell people that statistically speaking that they are safer than ever before. This doesn't mean that they will listen or believe you. It comes down to a fact of feeling secure. If people feel safer with their Glock, Beretta, Sig or any other handgun resting in its holster under their shirt, then they are going to wear it wherever they go. I appreciate that you are taking time to debate this topic, as I find it an interesting one. The ball is now in your court.

Title: Gun Control Content: I will gladly accept. However, I will specify certain things. Resolved: Gun Control should be a law in the United States I will be affirming/upholding this resolution (Pro). You will be negating this resolution (Con) I hope we can be civil and I wish you best of luck! -LDBen

Title: We Should Have Stricter Gun Control Content: This debate will cover whether or not we should have stricter gun control. For the first round, we will set up the perimeters and definitions. We should not have arguments/points/etc. in the first round, only introductions. From the second round onwards, we shall flesh out our arguments. Gun control would be considered as how easy it is to attain guns (meaning eligibility and sales), how strict the regulation on concealed weapons is, and how much power our government should have in terms of regulating guns. Gun control should not be considered on the levels of military and law enforcement. It is my position that we should not have stricter gun control.

Title: Gun Control Content: When I mean by gun control, I do not mean by the government banning and confiscating all guns, Like some liberal extremists do. I just mean to make gun laws stricter, Especially in states that lack enough gun control laws. I am taking the pro side and arguing for stricter gun laws, Especially in states that need more gun laws, And con will be arguing for against stricter gun laws. Con will start the next round.

Title: Gun Control Content: ====FRAMEWORK====I will be going over rebutalls, before proceeding on to votes.===== REBUTTALS===== "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."I agree with this, however I also agree that you have succesfully made arguments that have defeated your own case as you have argued pro control throughout this entire debate on several occasions. Thus I must assume that if you agree that some good control is good, there should be no reason why you should not think that ALL gun control is good. "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."To be honest, all me and the voters are going to see from this, is you conceding that gun control is okay. Which you have already done on several occasions. Thus since you believe that guns should be kept for some reasons, how are we going to regulate them so strictly, if we do not know most people's motives? Why complicate things and put any restrictions on gun control? Also what exactly are the restrictions were going to be supposedly putting on in the AFF world?"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." Glad you brought this up. You make gun control policies sound all fine and dandy, but you have yet to explain a situation of how we should enforce these policies. Even if you think we should restrict them to only certain people, how do we determine which people need guns? How do we determine which people are likely to have a home invasion? Given that the PRO requires BOP, and this is already the final debate round, all of the questions have gone un-answered. Even if the audience does buy your loopholey arguments that support the CON side, how are they ever going to see how enforcing gun laws is okay, if they don't even know how to enforce it, if you haven't given me or them, anything to look to?"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."Even if you agree that we should have gun safe, this in no way helps your case in the slightest. Your goal is to prove why we shouldn't have guns. We have hundreds of safety procedures in act that go along with our gun rights, but removing or controlling them is not the answer. "So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home."You can safely cross applt my resposibility Contention here. Every person has a basic right. Once that right is taken away, we lose it. But that doesn't mean we should never get the right in the first place. Responsibility means keeping the firearm a safe distance away from a child who may happen to wander upon a firearm. Also, even if not every state is confined to keeping weapons in safes, most laws require that a firearm not be loaded when being stored. If a firearm is not loaded, a wandering child should not have this problem. National law also requires that children be under direct supervision. So again cross apply my responsibility contention here as well."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."I am sure thats what the british thought too during the revolutionary war. Independence can always be breeched when needed, there are plenty scenario's all over the world. India, Pakistan, The United States, etc. Guns enforce our freedom from government tyranny."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" This claim is highly unsubstantiated for a few reasons. 1. You still have yet to offer a plan to carry this out.2. Why is a shopkeeper getting guns over anyone else? What about lawyers, doctors, Contractors, or any one else for that matter? Are they not entitled to their own safety and rights? How are any of them less likely to be mugged then a shopkeeper?3. This claim is unsubstantiated and lacks the evidence neccesary to be a proper argument. Thus it is a logical fallacy. "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."Not in the slightest. They all serve the purpose of protection. Didn't you say that protection was an okay way to use gun control? "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."A guns purpose is to stop someone life. That is the point of your own self defence argument. So what difference does it make on how that gun is used to complete that action. Contra-diction. "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."I explicitly cited drug abuse for this reason. Price doesn't matter. The people who will own and operate guns illegally are criminals. Price doesn't matter. Self defence is depleted when any sort of criminal owns a weapon and civilians do not. So you again contradict yourself.====MY CASE==== RIGHTS:ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND.RESPONSIBILITY:ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND .FREEDOM: "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."I have already refuted this. WE have had gun control for about 200 years. While there is a couple cases here and there where incidents have happened, having them has proved to be much better as we have used them for selfdefences. Our average civil life with gun control is not a gun control, so we have no reason to believe that it will ever be after retaining these rights for so long.====VOTERS====I feel I have won this debate for the following reasons. 1. In order for my opponents gun control policies to be effective, he requires a BOP strategy of how to implement them. He has not done so, thus we have no alternatives, or evidence to alternatives.2. My opponents arguments contradict his arguments. My opponent has conceded several occasions that guns ought to be held for self defence, hunting ans sports, yet also doesn't define who particulary gets these rights.3. My opponent has dropped 2 1/2 of the arguments on my case. Thus we must look to those when evaluating the round.I had great fun in this debate. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period, it's been a pleasure.

Title: Gun Control Content: I am arguing that gun control laws should not be implamented in the united states of america, and that the existance of gun control laws are harmful over all.You may make your case first.Try to keep it somewhat short as well.

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 in the United States Content: Thank you for your response. I'd first like to address that gun control is only a factor in reducing gun crimes. I am not saying that enacting more gun laws would completely erase all gun crime, but is an essential component. As you stated, places such as New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Connecticut have had mass shootings, yes. But the vast majority of states with fewer gun laws, like Texas, have had mass shootings to. These are uncommon incidents that don't happen everyday. If you look at the bigger picture, the gun laws in places such as New York result in fewer gun crimes. My argument that gun laws reduce gun crimes is still valid. My opponent talks about how my source doesn't speculate why there are less murders. First of all, this website was about the facts, not the reasons. Secondly, it's difficult to comprehend why the murder rate is low in these states becuase there are many factors to consider. In my opponent's third paragraph, he explains that the source I used was against gun control. I was only showing the graph that showed how the United States has a far higher gun murder rate than any other country. I'd like to point out that my opponent stated that gun laws in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine, are "non existent," that is not the case. In Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are many gun laws. In Palestine, there are no gun laws but only 125,000 people posses a gun. Do you know the how many people reside in Palestine? 4,000,000. I'd also like to point out that in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, the amount of guns purchased is low and the population in these countries is high. It's also problematic to compare Canada to Iraq because countries like Palestine are under military occupation, making it more difficult to obtain a gun. My opponent claims that Chicago has the highest amount of violence, I agree. But Chicago also has the highest amount of gangs in the United States. Also, Chicago is one of the many cities in Illinois and is only one area. http://www.zeigen.com... In the graph, you can see that there is a dip in 1934. In 1934, the National Firearm Act was founded and murder rate went down drastically. This was after the law was enacted. These might be reasons why murder rate went down. In 1990, the Crime Control Act was made as well as Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. After those laws passed, gun violence went down again. As you can see, gun violence and gun laws have a strong correlation. Again, I want to remind my opponent and the audience that gun control laws and murder rate is only a factor. Lastly, I'd like to point out that my opponent didn't give any sources about the other countries laws and gave false information. He also didn't provide a claim on why we shouldn't have gun laws. Looking forward to your response. http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.zeigen.com... http://www.infoplease.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Assault Weapons Ban Content: The laws in the US should be kept as they are, the only change that needs to be made is more extensive background checks. Right now it's too easy to get hold of a gun. Your constitution grants you access to guns but they should be more strictly regulated.

Title: Gun control laws Content: Hello. In our society, many people wish to implement stricter gun control laws in our society. I am against the proposals, and am taking the con side of this argument.The link we will be using is here.http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...This is a very confusing legal document, so we will be quoting from here. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...Yes, I know that there are quite a few gun control debates, but I think that this is a topic worthy of its controversy.First round is for acceptance, second round is for stating your initial arguments, then we can post our rebuttals. Thank you for the debate, and make sure it's serious. I do not want 50 word posts stating one argument. Good luck!

Title: Gun Control Laws Content: So I will admit I got confused on this challenge. I read this as my opponent being Con against what was stated in his starting argument. However, I have no problem playing devils advocate even if it goes against my own personal beliefs. So I will argue my best in favor of Gun Control Laws and give the best debate possible despite the fact that it is against my personal belief. Now, that said, gun crime in the US has reached significant levels. Every few days it seems we hear of a new shooting or violent crime involving guns. In this debate I will argue for multiple proposed gun control laws and attempt to convince my opponent and the readers that these laws are necessary to stem the levels of crime that we have in the States. 1. Ban on assault rifles. 2. Ban on handguns. 3. Requirement for development of "Smart Guns" and technology to enhance safety. 4. Federal and State mandated buy back programs. 5. Increase in background check scrutiny. 6. High capacity magazine bans 7. Ammo bans. 8. Closing loopholes. 9. Limiting concealed and open carry laws 10. Changing castling clauses to eliminate deadly force with firearms and institute duty to run laws 11. And the most controversial, federal confiscation measures. Those are the points I will be arguing. I will allow my opponent to challenge these points now.

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 rights Content: I'm sorry I forgot to cite my sources, but since I'm "new" to this debate thing, I'm not very used to it. However these are the sources I used in round 2:http://listverse.com...http://www.balancedpolitics.org...-http://www.economist.com...http://www.motherjones.com...A principal would most likely not have not be able to defeat the shooter and most likely kill himself and cause others to be injured. Only 1.6 percent of mass shootings end in a successful intervention by a bystander and only 0.5% of Americans successfully defend themselves from gun violence each year. Statistically speaking, there is a 98.4-99.5 percent chance that he would get killed or worse, injured and brain dead. The argument that more guns= less violence is false, the 5 most dangerous states in America have less gun control than states that have more gun control. While citizens should be able to have guns they NEED to be controlled. The Unites States murder rate and crime rate have been decreasing because of factors, unrelated to gun rights. There are two articles here about it:http://usnews.nbcnews.com...http://www.bbc.co.uk...States have also been enforcing more gun control and crime is dropping. A ban on semi-automatic and auto-matic guns in from 1994-2004 helped curb crime and murder in the U.S. until it expired in 2004. The ban on semi-automatic weapons is proof that gun control actually works and crime is easily controlled by gun control. IT's okay for citizens to have guns, but they need to be controlled. With power comes responsiblity, that means background checks and banning dangerous military weapons like semi-automatic weapons so that is doesn't fall into the wrong hands. More guns actually mean more murders and crime according to a study done by Micheal Siegel in Boston College the more guns people have the more crime that they will commit. "With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. A onestandard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent."This also happened to bethe largest gun study EVER DONE. http://thinkprogress.org...More guns= less crime argument makes no sense. Worse is the fact that the U.S. has the higher homicide rates and higesr gun ownership.

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 Content: Gun Control Leads To More Crimes

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: We should ease up on Gun control laws and hunting regulations. Content: I believe gun laws and hunting regulations should be eased up on. My opponent may make the first arguement. Good luck!

Title: Stricter Gun Control in America Content: First debate here :) Anyways, I think stricter gun control laws should not be supported. Against popular belief, guns are much more useful than what people think. Reasons, I will state later. Thanks!

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 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: The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns. Content: Although i do not think gun control laws are right I think that the States should have the Final say in Gun control Laws. You say force as in without regard to the people of the states oppinion therefore violating the states rights.

Title: More Gun Control is needed in the United States. Content: To make it clear I believe I am going to debating about why more gun control in the US is needed; meaning more stricter rules. And with that I pass it on to my opponent for the 2nd round.

Title: Banning guns Content: I'll concede the debate. This is my first debate on gun control, and I do not really have an opinion on it (I just thought it would be fun to argue). Even if guns were made illegal to buy, there are already too many guns in circulation. There would be no way to know whether my argument holds or not. Thus, Con convinced me that his argument was better than mine.

Title: Gun ban legislation and the no fly list Content: The facts are as stated. Laws exist only to limit the law abiding citizen. That is not to say that laws are not necessary, but laws must be in accordance with the Constitution. Banning guns in an effort to reduce gun violence will not only fail, but accelerate gun related shootings to an all time high. The bottom line is that American citizens are guaranteed a right to be armed and have well regulated private militias and no matter how many people clamor to take that right away should not change the constitutional republic in which majority rule but minority right. Gun control is not about safety, it is a another measure by the international banks that run the world to dominate the last few dissenters.

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: Do u believe that Gun Control and a ban on assault rifles will solve the problem of gun crime Content: I took my opponent's challenge and explained how a new gun control measure would drastically reduce gun crime. I also refuted their limited arguments to the contrary. My opponent viewed my arguments, but then opted to forfeit the debate. My opponent was the instigator, but neither attacked my arguments nor defended their own; thus, my arguments stand unchallenged and their arguments stand refuted. The only logical vote is in my favor. Thank you for reading this debate! :)

Title: Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States Content: My opponent has implied that this gun control law would be ineffective. The truth is, laws are only as such. The effects of a law are not to put an end to something entirely, but lower the chances of the problem continuing. Laws, while they may not magically prevent something, provide a consequence for a person who violates them. While what my opponent is saying is true, I remind my opponent that the gun law has significantly decreased the violence since the Brady Law was signed. While a person with a clean record may purchase guns and sell them illegally, the gun law would make it more of a challenge than before. And, if the person is caught selling guns illegally, he or she could be prosecuted. I will clarify what I was talking about regarding felons. By felon, I was really implying those of which have a history of using guns against people, so I apologize if I used the wrong words. Prohibiting guns from convicted abusers nationwide would be a solution to my opponent's concern. However, even if gun laws are left to the states, prohibiting the sale of guns to known offenders would still lessen the problem of gun violence. I restate that laws are meant to lower the problem, not necessarily abolish it entirely, as this would be impossible. The logic to having the gun law would be, if someone can't be trusted with guns, why should they be trusted to use guns for only protective reasons? The problem with guaranteeing full gun rights for safety/hunting reasons is that they are not always used for such. Furthermore, the type of gun is important because if one is capable of committing murder with a handgun, then such will be the same with any gun. All gun types should be restricted for this. Even with the difficulty of bringing and hiding different firearms in banks, there are still many ways to use other guns for harming people. For example, shooting a person across the street with a different gun could happen. All gun types should be restricted from known abusers, in order to ensure that the person has the lowest chance of killing someone with a gun. Again, I apologize for my misuse of wording. By felon, I imply anyone who has misused guns for reasons other than safety/hunting.

Title: gun control laws being stricker Content: if have stricter gun control then we run the risk of increasing gun violence. we have the right to bear arms according to the second amendment. if your house was robed you should have the right to defend you and your family and a kitchen knife wont do much. people also use guns to hunt which keeps the deer and other animal populations down. so if we have stricter gun control laws then we could increase gun violence but other animals population would go up and it could hurt the environment

Title: Gun Control Content: I've limited the words to 1,000 to keep things nice and simple, not too complicated. We've heard the arguments for and against it all before, and it's constantly the same thing, "constitutional rights" this and "safety" that. Well now I've decided to settle it. I'm not a US national but I have done my research, so I have solid facts. I believe that gun control needs to be enforced. It needs to happen because of the countless mass shootings we've seen, the unnecessary violence, the psychological effects of simply owning a gun. Research has shown that 97,000+ people are sho0t in the US every day. That's a daily average of 268 people. Research has also shown that, due to strict gun control laws in Washington DC, the murder rate remains at approximately 69 per 100,000 people. Contrarily, Indianapolis' high murder rate at 1,152 per 100,000 people indicates loose or non-existent gun control laws. Evidently, violent crime rates depend on each state's gun control laws.

Title: I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations! Content: I have a few main contentions for why there should be gun regulations. C1. Overall, more guns=more homicide According to a study written by Mark Duggan of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a 10% increase in gun ownership is equal to a 2% increase in homicide rates. He came to this conclusion, by analyzing several different factors that guns which are going to be used in crimes are handguns, rather than rifles, because they are the most easy to conceal. That gun owners are most likely to own handguns because they are the easiest to use for self-defense. He also analyzed the sales of a certain gun magazine and analyzing the places it was bought in found that sale of this magazine and the ownership of a handgun was about 1 to 1. (Every person buying the magazine owns at least a single hand-gun). From this he placed his findings in a complicated algorithm along with the FBI, the states, and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data on homicides and found that a 10% increase in gun ownership relates to a 2.14% increase in homicides. (1) C2. Less guns=less gun homicides Furthermore, between 1993 and 1998, gun homicides fell by 36% while homicides utilizing some other weapon only fell 18%. In this time period, the GSS estimated that the "share of households with at least one gun fell more than 42% to 35%". This suggests that when there are less guns there are less gun homicides. (1) C3. Gun ownership has a greater impact on murder rates than murder rates on gun ownership. Once again using the same paper, people are not much more likely to purchase weapons in order to protect themselves from criminals. Using data from states, the FBI, and NCHS and utilizing a different, much more complex algorithm, it was concluded that a 10% increase in homicide rates only amounted to a .2% increase in gun ownership. Guns increase the murder rate 2.14% while murder increases the gun ownership rate .2%. Shouldn't the 2.14% be protected? (1) C4. Concealed Carry Laws do not impact gun ownership greatly. Between 1985 and 1991, ten states passed laws allowing people to carry concealed hand guns. You would obviously expect that since the benefit of owning a concealed weapon was greater the number of people owning a gun would increase substantially. The results of, once again, a different algorithm, was the number of people owning a concealed weapon increased by .0038% a totally insignificant number. The results are about the same at a county level, state level, and decrease at a national level. Even when limited to a certain time frame. (1) C5. Crime does not decline in high ownership counties. Let's say it is completely true that crime is decreased as gun ownership increases. Then it would be expected that in local areas which have high gun ownership also have decreased crime. We will assume, for now, that criminals can percieve the difference between high gun ownership counties and low gun-ownership counties. If a criminal really needed to commit a crime would they not just go to a low gun-ownership county and therefore crime decreases in one place but, not in another. But, here we run into a problem, "violent crime did NOT decline significantly more in counties...that had high rates of gun ownership." So what does this suggest? More people carrying guns has a negligible impact on the behavior of criminals. More guns=more homicide. Les guns=less homicides. 1) http://www.nber.org...

Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: My opponent has used his acceptance round to state his arguments. Based on this I will begin my rebuttals in Round One, and post my main arguments afterwards. R1 "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." It is true that guns do not cause violence, they are simply the middlemen, so to speak. And it is also true that deranged individuals are often behind gun violence. These two statements are true, but that does not mean there shouldn't be gun control laws in America, as my opponent suggests in the first sentence of the quote above. If deranged individuals do cause gun violence, then there should be laws in place to control and hopefully prohibit said deranged individuals' access to guns. Gun control laws are already minimal in America compared to those in countries like Australia[1] or Japan[2], and to further lessen our laws and regulations is an invitation to an even greater ease of access for deranged individuals. R2 "Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal." 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. More importantly, there can be many factors not taken into account when measuring such statistics. For instance, what if an area is experiencing a significant amount of gun violence, and decides to give stricter gun control laws a shot. The following year after this decision may not see much change, simply because the new laws take a while to have full effect, but people taking the statistics take a quick look at the area and say, "Yep, they've still got gun violence." R3 "The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty." I'd like to stress the use of the word 'original'. The Constitution was crafted at a time very different than ours, when militias were relied upon to help fight in the revolution. The United States was a baby nation at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and the forces of law and order were few and far between, and so it was necessary for people to join into militias to provide protection. America is no longer at that stage however. We have a tangible police force to protect us now. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. A complete ban on guns is not required, but completely free access to guns is no longer needed. R4 "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." It seems my opponent's contention here is aimed at a ban on weaponry. I am not for a complete ban on weaponry in the US, so I cannot rebuttal this in its entirety. However I will comment on the idea that firearms are necessary in the modern world to protect oneself from enemies. Statistics show that legally owned guns are rarely used to stop criminals. In fact, legally owned guns are found to be used in socially undesirable ways, such as threatening spouses and children, 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. This is contradictory to my opponent's idea that guns are necessary for safety. Main Argument: Point 1 I do not argue for a complete ban on weapons in the United States. I argue for smarter and stricter laws regarding gun ownership, especially in gun acquisition. Currently 20% of gun sales are private[4], without background checks taking place. This is a huge loophole for potential deranged individuals. Point 2 We have seen many countries enact very tough gun laws, and been the better for it. My two biggest examples are that of Australia[1], and Japan[2]. Japan has virtually no civilian owned guns. The only weapons that are legal to purchase are shotguns and air rifles, and these are extremely hard to come by, due to the complicated gun acquisition process in place. Japan has had as few as 2 gun deaths a year. Compare that to the US's 12,000 firearm related homicides in the year 2008[2]. Or take Australia, which has seen significant reduction in gun related homicide since the NFA was enacted[5]. It is impossible to look at scenarios like this and claim it's due to chance, and that the same could not happen in America if stricter gun laws were introduced. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://guncontrol.org.au...

Title: Gun control Content: I feel that we need more regulations on guns to keep America safer.

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: There should be mental health regulations rather than gun regulations Content: I will say again: I am not assuming that gun regulations should be completely, absolutely and formally wiped off the face of this planet. Yes, with the gun laws now, we don' have people running around with guns per say. But I don't think more gun restrictions is going to help anyone. Lets take Chicago for instance. Guns are shipped in and out of that city, which is why gun restrictions don't work to their full potential. Right? Is it just that city? Is California better off? Placing gun restrictions on "mobile" guns do not help anyone. Its just like illegal shipment of drugs. Marijuana is illegal, most people at my HIGHSCHOOL use it. "It is because of the lack of gun regulations, guns are being transported illegally and that's a very big issue."- Placing gun restrictions only increases its value. Yes, if your strict enough to prevent VISUAL transportation of these weapons, that great. But its the INVISIBLE transportation of guns that we should be worried about. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW GUN LAWS. But we do! You think that by limiting the people's supply of guns is going to help us fight those who DO NOT follow gun laws? Laws mean nothing to the outlaws. Laws only help the lawful but in this case, it could be the death of us. "A robber with a gun can easily break into your house, putting your life in danger."- Yes. Of course he can. But that still happens even with gun restrictions now. Gun restrictions cannot prevent an intruder from entering a home. That intruder can still get a gun from his friend that has every right to have a gun. So why are we cutting off the tail of the snake instead of the head? We think we are stopping gun violence by getting ride of the product, but if we get ride of the source, the idea that breeds the thought of pulling the trigger. You think gun violence is bad now? Wait till guns are illegal. Why do we need gun laws to keep the mentally ill from using gun? What wrong with putting them away so they don't even walk into the store? Again. We are only cutting off the tail on this one because we think guns are killing people but they are not. I know its clique but: guns don't kill people. People kill people. The real threat is us. We choose to buy the guns; our brain does. Guns just don't pop up on someone's front porch and scream "USE ME!". To your point about common sense: common sense is irrelevant to both mental and gun laws. Gun laws will not make someone say "hmmmm he says he's hearing voices and yet he has a gun. Oh well." Now before you say anything about more gun laws. Before you say that more gun restrictions would keep a person like Aaron Alexis from getting a gun. The place he goes to buy the guns knows NOTHING about his mental status. Why? Because he never went to a therapist, so there are not records of him showing signs of schizophrenia. Crazy people never tell other people they are crazy. WE have to determine that so they don't buy a gun, not through laws, but by plain, old, underrated common sense.

Title: A Gun Tax Content: The shooting in Las Vegas left 59 dead and over 500 injured. It's been deemed one of the most devastating and deadly shootings in America. In response, many politicians have called for more gun control. This is a debate about what actions should be taken to reduce the amount of shooting deaths in America. I, pro, will be arguing for a tax on guns. My opponent, con, has the freedom to argue any other action to reduce shooting deaths, or advocate for the current laws being enough for gun control.

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: 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: Gun Laws Content: So I think I am supposed to say why gun laws should be in place because that is what my opponent told me in a message. Contention 1: Not all guns should be restrictedBy all means we should have tighter gun control. But I am not referring to taking away our guns. Access to, and the types of guns that we have, should be more closely regulated. Guns for hunting and sport shooting and even for one's personal defense could be allowed. But no one outside of the military or the police needs a semi-automatic rifle or heavier guns. Contention 2: Recent ShootingsI'm sure you have seen the news lately. Schools, movie theatres, former police officers, teens, and a former sniper. Why? Because all of these people have managed to get their hands on any type of guns because the law permits them to. But if these laws were stricter, then they wouldn't be able to get their hands on ALL these heavy guns used in the military, police, and other government related departments. I am not saying to ban all guns to citizens. I know that we need them. Contention 3: Mental PersonsWe cannot control a mental person's action. Sometimes not even they know what they are going to do. Like the one in Aurora, Colorado. The man had some type of mental illness. If the government enforced that the person to own the gun wasn't having mental related issues, then the citizens of the United States would be a little safer. Additional Info: An average of 83 Americans die every day from firearms in the United States. And the U. S. has the highest firearm homicide rates in the developed world. In 33 of the 50 states, criminals can buy military-style weapons from "private dealers" on the internet without any ID or background check. This can be very dangerous. Each year in the US, there are 30,000 deaths related to guns. This is a hot topic in the media, but the presidential and congressional candidates do nothing about it. Once again, I am not saying to ban all guns. I am saying to enfore some stricter laws on guns so that the US citizens are safer in their homes and evironments. Sorry for the short round; if I had posted it earlier, I would have been able to make it longer. Thank You and Enjoy!

Title: Gun rights. Content: Wait. I read your entire round 1 debate. Nowhere does it say that the feasibility of gun control is what we're discussing. The debate itself was only ever over gun rights. You treated this debate as if were pro gun control, but i'm simply con gun rights. You took away philosophy and replaced with politics. Now I shall use the UK as a case study to tear your argument apart.In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law In England & Wales in 2009 there were 0.073 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the USA was 3.0, about 40x higher, and for Germany 0.2.[2]In 2006, writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis[3] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall"[4]. Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences.Possession of a live firearms round can lead to severe penalties. Shotgun cartridges can be possessed by anybody over the age of 17 but a Shotgun Licence is required for purchase.While Scotland has had its own parliament (Holyrood) since the Scotland Act 1998, power to legislate on firearms was reserved to the UK Parliament, which led to tensions between the British and Scottish parliaments, with the Scottish government wanting to enact still stricter laws.[5]A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare, with fewer than 3% of offences resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[6] The number of homicides per year committed with firearms remained between 49-97 in the eight years to 2006. There were two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period, and 107 non-fatal shootings.[6] In 2005/06 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.[6]For international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[7] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[8] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average.[9]While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[10] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[10]Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[11] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (they did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[12][13] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."This is proof of the fact that gun control can be successfully implemented. Solid, undeniable, unquestionable proof. You wanted to talk pure statistics? You got it. I look forward to seeing how you counter this.Sources:[1] Malcolm, p. 91-98[2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicides by firearm statistics. Total 2009 firearms homicides for the England & Wales are given as 41, which equates to 0.073 per 100,000 of the 56 million inhabitants; this figure is rounded to one decimal place in the table, i.e. 0.1.[3] http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org...[4] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[6] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[7] http://www.fbi.gov...[8] http://www.unodc.org...[9] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[10] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[12] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...[13] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

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: We Should Have Stricter Gun Control Content: I agree with the definitions and parameters for this debate, though I will add that this debate should be localized in the legal context of the United Stated. This might be irrelevant, but I want to avoid any possible discrepancies. I will argue that we should have stricter gun control - but first, it is my opponent's turn to argue.

Title: The Second Amendment should be repealed Content: It is a pleasure to be debating you and I am glad we can debate this topic. FrameworkIn this debate, I will attempt to show three things: 1) That gun control is effective; 2) That the 2A restricts any meaningful gun legislation; and 3) That the current gun culture is out of control and that the 2A only contributes to this issue. For those reasons, the 2A should be repealed. Gun control is effective Research has shown time and time again that gun control measures are effective. For example, a paper that was published in 2015 in Epidemiological Review found “Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e. g. , background checks) and access to (e. g. , safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. ” [1] According to a report by The Lancet, universal background checks will reduce firearm deaths from 10.3 to 4.6 per 100,000 people; Background checks for ammunition purchases, which could reduce the mortality rate to 1.99 deaths per 100,000 people; and Firearm identification, by either microstamping or ballistic fingerprinting, which could reduce the death rate to 1.81 per 100,000 people. [2] After Australia passed sweeping gun control legislation in 1999, studies show that there has been a significant decrease in crimes and homicides [3, 4, and 5]. Fiona MacDonald notes: “ [R]eview of gun control laws in more than 10 countries over the past 60 years, published back in March, showed compelling evidence that the tighter legislation reduced firearm deaths. ” [5] Rights are not absolute The United States is the one of a handful of countries in the entire world that etches the right to own guns in its Constitution (the others being Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala [6] ) As Rolling Stones noted: “The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more. ” [7] My right to life and to be safe trumps any right to own a firearm. 2A Impedes Progress The main problem with the 2A is that it impedes any progress on mass shootings and violence in the United States. In fact, more people have died of gun violence since 1968 than than on battlefields of all the wars in American history combined. [8, 9] The 2A impedes progress by limiting what, if anything, that the Government can do to help curb gun violence. Furthermore, because of the long history of the 2A, guns have become part of the American psyche and American culture. In order to make any substantial progress, we must eliminate the culture of guns. Repealing the 2A would be a helpful start. Conclusion In summary, the second amendment should be repealed if we want to make progress on curbing gun violence in the USA. The United States is the one of two countries in the world that etches the right to own firearms into its constitution (the other being Mexico). Gun control is an effective way to reduce violence and crime. The 2A impedes on any meaningful gun legislation. Therefore, the 2A should be repealed. The right to life and the right to safety trumps any right to own firearms. I now turn it over to con. 1. (. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org.secure.sci-hub.cc...)2. (. http://www.thelancet.com...(15)01026-0/abstract)3. (. http://www.snopes.com...)4. (. http://www.reuters.com...)5.(http://www.sciencealert.com...)6. (. http://www.slate.com...)7. (. http://www.rollingstone.com...)8. (. http://www.bbc.com...)9. (. http://www.politifact.com...)

Title: DDO Champions League Debate: Gun Ban Content: Sure as shooting, it's time to debate.Gun Control Increases CrimeFor 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." s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="427" height="332" />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. 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.ca...The Reason why Gun Control Does not Deter Crime 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 still manage to use weapons like guns, 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. Researchers 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 slightIn 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...Americans Have a Justifiable Right to own GunsThe above evidence goes to show how banning ownership of guns will have a negative effect on crime. Now how will it affect the people who rely on guns in everyday living? The people living in the mountains,forests, anywhere where hunting with guns is an essential part of life. People rely on guns not only for a feeling of security and protection but to hunt for food. Guns are essential in those “neck of the woods” and taking the food and protection away from them is unconstitutional.Next the fact of the matter is, guns save more people than they kill. Research shows that law abiding citizens use guns up to 2.5million times in a year for self defense. [Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)]That makes it, give or take, 80 times more likely for a gun to defend lives than take lives. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org...The state of Vermont and Mexico; Undeniable evidence on how Gun bans have a negative effect on crimeYou can see evidence that gun control laws either have no effect or cause more crime when you look at the state of Vermont which has one of the most permissive gun laws in North America. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...Yet Vermont is the safest state to live in.https://www.google.ca...Next take a look at the country of Mexico which has some of the strickest gun laws in the world which has one of the highest crime rates in the world. http://www.theblaze.com...It is obvious that criminals will always find ways to keep guns and a gun ban although may be great theoretically, the only people that will give them up are the law abiding citizens and the criminals will keep their guns leaving everybody else defenseless. In conclusion...My whole argument is to prove that guns keep people safe and gun bans are a danger to society. And since I have shown this, gun bans should not be implemented in the United States of America. I look forward to my opponants response.

Title: Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind Content: I understand and fully respect the principles and rights outlined in the Second Amendment - as a matter of fact, I support them. I accepted the debate as I believe there is more that could be done to further lessen the casualties due to gun-related violence; for example, longer waiting periods for certain makes of assault rifles (maybe 3-5 days for more high-powered weapons, lesser waiting times for those which aren't as robust), yearly (or at least, on a regular scale i.e. every three/four years) training courses, and higher standards for the keeping of these weapons (under lock and key, or with a fingerprint scanner or input code - something that, in the event of an emergency, wouldn't significantly impact upon the time taken to protect yourself but also adds preventive strategy from mentally-ill people from hijacking your weapons and doing dangerous, unruly things - similar to the way you unlock your iPhone). All of these factors can allow authorities to more properly vet those people who are a genuine threat to society, whilst also allowing those who are responsible gun owners to continue to live their lives. What I'm trying to do here is find some middle-ground; a compromise. I am aware that there are already similar measures in place, such as background checks, waiting periods, and training courses - what I am proposing are just some more measures to spot the potential people who misuse these weapons and villainise the law-abiding citizens who use them properly; for self-defense, sport, hunting, and more. What we are seeing today happen in America is a significant increase in mass shootings - which, no matter what side of politics you are on, you can definitely agree is a bad thing. And because of strict rules on research and general toxicity around the gun-control debate in the U.S., we simply don't know whether or not it will truly help bring down mass murder and crime statistics. Other countries would point to tighter gun control rules as being able to help more than hinder, but until it is actually tested in the United States, we simply won't know. What this solution proposes is a system that allows law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, to play sports, and go hunting - whilst also decreasing the safety risk for everyone in the general public form lunatics who misuse guns and commit terrible acts of violence and hatred. The government should absolutely not interfere with the Second Amendment by banning all guns; because then, as you said, tyranny could take over - which is why the 2nd Amendment was established in the first place (you know, with the higher tea price and all :P). But what they also shouldn't do is do nothing; because standing by when clearly there is a problem (the problem may not be guns themselves, but how easy it is for mentally ill people to access them) is most certainly not the right answer. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I'd be interested to see what you think of the points I've made; whether you agree or disagree, what you would change, or anything. (TL;DR: Guns should be able to be owned by law-abiding citizens, but there needs to be higher restriction to stop them from falling into the wrong hands.) :)

Title: the USA should have universal background checks Content: con posits we need stricter enforcement of current laws to reduce violence. well, then let's do that. but there is no reason we can't have more checks and such. in fact, it would be completely arbitrary to just say we are at the magic spot restriction wise, and background check wise. if checks work, why not have more? con posits that criminals would just go get guns illegally. problem is, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at othing to get a gun. does con posit that one hundred percent of people denied a gun will go get one? no that would be ridiculous. and thus the stats that say the more a person state o nation has of guns increases murders, means there would be less murders. the people who most should not have them, to a large degee won't have them. con says most guns are used for good purposes. that is true, but it doesn't mean we can't try to regulate when people who have a bad past have access to guns. no one wants to take hunting guns away. his point is here basically pointless. gun murders increase with more guns a person state or nation has. and overall murders do too. that's what i said, and co is just misinformed. at best con's example of russian is an outlier. my studies were comprehensive con argues that it isn't more likely for there to be a murder if a person has a gun, as he posits that the guns are used for hunting and such. this first of all defies the studies i showed, that said the more likely person is to have a gun, the more likely they are to have problems with it. and, it defies common sense. like the anaology that says the more likely tehre are to be pools in backgyards, the more likelty there are to be drownings...... and by analogy the more likely there are to be guns, the more likely there is to be gun problems. con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave.

Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: con gives some anecdotal evidence for defying the proposition that the more guns a country has the more overall homidide it has. to be sure, there are exceptions. but the studies i showed illustrate that the norm is as i stated. background checks or resonable regulateions do not contradict the 2nd amendment. they just add some reason around the edges. and this isn't without precedent. even the 1st amendment has some well known exceptions. con argues an invasion could occur. this is true, but is a far fetched scenario such that hte only way you could side with con is to engage in radical thought. besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns, at most have more background checks. this would mean more regulation and my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns.

Title: Gun Control Content: I accept and look forward to a meaningful debate. Personal beliefs on gun control: I think it is unacceptable that criminals, terrorists, mentally ill, etc. are able to legally and easily access the guns they use for their crimes. I think firearms and the right to bear arms have enjoyed an undue immunity from any sort of regulation and this refusal to give any ground is costing lives. I do believe there are "common sense" gun control measures that will protect responsible gun owners' rights while preventing firearms from getting into the wrong hands. In the wake of acts of terror, natural disasters, and epidemics the U.S. takes drastic response measures, it is time we treat gun violence the same way by enacting gun control legislation.

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: State's Rights Content: By talking about gun control, I once mentioned before that it is very important issue. So that is why I do not see the reasons for not accepting this law by whole country. In my opinion, the states already have enough rights. They have their own laws and rules, what is next? I just do not understand, why and for what reason states should get more rights than they have now. In my own country, we also have a country divided into regions. But all the regions obey to the one legislative branch above, there is one Constitution and laws for whole country. And if the government accepts new law, for instance, about fight against terrorism, all regions accept that, despite for fact that some regions simply "want" it or not. And it also works pretty well.

Title: Should we have Gun Control Content: I'm also very new to this site and I thank you for debating with me, also I do live in the U.S. While its true that criminals break the law stricter laws will make fewer criminals break the law. Also while it is true we have background checks and some limitations on firearms we could still have more. Also with the current laws we have, it is WAY to easy for anyone to get a gun by going to gun shows. Also, the current laws we have don't hold stores to these laws and they can easily break them with no punishment. You said that "We need to protect our second amendment." but here's the thing gun control DOES NOT violate the second amendment. Why is because this is what the second amendment says "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. You see that gun control is not violating that because it is only making more background checks, and to make it as easy to buy a gun. It is not infringing on that right because you can still buy a gun it will just be harder. Please do your rebuttal for your next argument so things can move along smoothly thank you.

Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThe U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that U.S. Congress has the right to pass gun control legislation as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment--but how is this possible? Easy. It's because most people don't truly understand the Second AmendmentBefore we get into the lively discussion of why U.S. Congress should impose sensible, more effective gun control laws than are currently on the books, I'm going to briefly explain that U.S. Congress has this power, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has historically and consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation [1][2]. Furthermore, the implied powers granted to U.S. Congress via Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution--the portion I'm referring to known as the "Necessary and Proper" Clause--give Congress the authority to pass gun control legislation, as long as it does not violate the Second Amendment [3][4].First of all, in order to understand why the U.S. Supreme Court has historically ruled that gun control is not unconstitutional, we have to look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment--which brielfy states the exact motive for having it inserted in the Bill of Rights."Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. [5]"There are actually several ways to interpret this, but the most conservative U.S. Supreme Courts (and by extension, U.S. Congress) have interpretted this to mean that people have the right to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defense--but not necessarily for anything beyond that [3]. In other words, the Second Amendment grants people the right to arm themselves in self-defense--but not to maliciously and criminally injure others, to rob other people's property, or to act against law enforcement or state and federal governments [3]. Of course, this fits in line with the most conservative rulings of the nation's highest court, but historically the Court has also interpretted the Amendment to mean that having arms is only constitutionally protected for military purposes [4]. In fact, this is a position held by several sitting members of the current U.S. Supreme Court, and also the recently retired Justice John Paul Stevens [4].Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about having moderate (conservative rulings) to abundant (liberal rulings) national gun control laws, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee the unrestricted, unconditional right to own firearms [1][3][4].In fact, because of historical U.S. Supreme Court rulings, U.S. Congress has already passed various laws restricting gun ownership or requiring gun registration and background checks on some gun purchases. As early as 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which required certain firearms and destructive devices to be registered with the U.S. government and which imposed a tax on sales of such devices; failure to comply with the act had criminal penalties, including up to 10 years of incarceration and between $10,000 to $100,000 fines for individual violations [6]. Over the years, congressional legislation signed into law has made it a crime for convicted felons, those convicted of certain misdemeanors, and for fugitives of justice to own and use firearms; people who illegally use drugs are prohibited from owning/operating a firearm, as are people who have been committed to a mental institution and who suffer a dangerous mental illness (however, not everyone diagnosed with a severe mental illness is prohibited from owning firearms); others are outlawed from owning and using firearms as well [1].Current Federal Gun Control Laws and Their Limitations In the last paragraph, I explained that certain people are probited from owning/operating firearms under federal law in the U.S. These people include [1]:-convicted felons/people convicted of certain misdemeaners-fugitives of justice-unlawful users of drugs-non U.S. citizens/non-permanent legal residents-people committed to mental institutions and diagnosed with dangerous mental illness-those with a criminal history of domestic violence (a single misdemeaner incident or more/greater)-some othersBut current federal gun control laws also place legal responsibilities (punishable with a fine and/or incarceration for not complying) on people who engage in the business of selling and buying firearms, also known as gun dealers.Current national law requires gun/firearms dealers to be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and federal restrictions make it a crime for them to sell firearms to people under 18 years of age and other people prohibited from owning/using firearms [1]. It is a crime for a gun dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm without the transaction first being approved by a prescribed source, after a background check has been conducted; the dealer is also required to document the sale of the firearm with federal form 4473, which identifies the purchaser's information and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm [1]. However, form 4473 is kept by the dealer, and the ATF is not allowed to put the purchaser's information in an electronic registry that can be later used by law enforcement; furthermore, current laws (the Tiahrt Amendments) require that the ATF destroy records on background checks after 24 hours that it approves a gun sale, and the ATF cannot use tracing data in some legal proceedings to revoke or temporarily suspend a dealer's license [1]. The ATF can only investigate dealers on an individual basis with regards to purchases, and can only collect 4472 forms after a gun dealer goes out of business [1].It's these limitations that place great strain on the ATF and that prevent it from more effectively carrying out its work. Because the ATF cannot create an electronic registry on gun purchases and must destroy information after it approves a gun sale (background checks are performed soley to determine if the gun purchaser is someone prohibited from owning/operating a gun), crimes committed with firearms take longer to investigate and provides the assailant with more time to break the law. The lack of an electronic registry on gun purchases in some cases allows assailants who use guns to avoid ever being detected and be brought to justice.The Bradley Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports that the current weak guns laws in place at the federal level have allowed tens of thousands of guns to leave gun shops without checks or records, one of the reasons being the severe restrictions placed on the ATF's role during transactions and the follow up [7]. Requring gun dealers to better keep records of all firearms in their possession and to register all gun purchases in an electronic registry would allow the ATF and other law enforcement to better track guns in this nation and would vastly reduce gun crimes and violence; it would also shorten the time between an incident of gun crime and apprehension by law enforcement.Gun sales and transactions between individuals is even less strict and unfortuneately a background check and federal form 4473 are not legally required in such sales, which increases the probability that someone prohibited from owning a firearm will obtain one through such a transaction, such as a convicted felon or a minor. It also makes it more difficult for the ATF and other law enforcement to track a gun sold in this way used in a criminal incident [7]. In point of fact, firearms sold by "occassional sellers"--people not required to abide with the federal background check--were used in the Columbine School massacre that killed 12 students and 1 teacher, not including the two young perpetrators [7], who committed multiple felony violations of federal in the days leading up to the school shooting [8].Firearms sold by "occassional sellers" in the U.S. have also found their way into the hands of terrorist organizations in the middle east, including the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, and across the Southern border into Mexico, where rivaling drug gangs have used the weapons to mow down each other and countless innocent bystanders [7].Shockingly, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that more than 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels originate in the U.S; 2000 guns are estimated to cross--illegally--the Southern border into Mexico per day [9]. Mexico, where guns are strictly outlawed, has seen over 100,000 people lose their lives in a drug war partly fueled by illegal firearms being shipped in from the U.S. [10]. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U.S. are made by unlicensed sellers who do not perform background checks, and that this is one major reason why guns are flowing across the Mexican border at such an alarming rate [9].But, as we shall see in the next ROUND, the U.S. is also suffering a major crisis all its own, for its weak/inefficient federal gun control laws currently in place.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://online.wsj.com...)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[4] (http://www.businessweek.com...)[5] (http://www.ushistory.org...)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[7] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: Kind regards for you post.I will now proceed to deliver my final Rebuttals, as well as my final conclusions.Final Rebuttals:I would first of all like to point to the great issue here.Pro has not posted a single argument as to why there should be more gun regulations! In every single round I have commented on this, 3 rounds long, yet Pro was still not able to provide an argument supporting the topic, other than 'sources', that, without an argument, have no context to this debate. Now I would like to comment to Pros statement about 'finding a conflicting study than my links'. Incorrect. I did not use any study, I simply used factual evidence as to firearms per country and homicide rate. Pros sources were exclusively US related, one excluded which factually did not show a link between firearms and homicide rate, which is what Pro seemingly is trying to provide. It does not matter by whom these studies are made, they are not related to what I was talking about, which is that there is no link between firearm availability and homicide rate. Maybe there is a small link on an US level, but the US homicide rate is not as high as people like to make it out to be. This however is not a valid reason for more firearms regulations. As for Pro calling my diagram 'biased' because of the website I have it from, this is absolutely ridiculous. If Pro would have taken one second longer and looked at the diagram and what it says on the lower left side, Pro would have seen why this statement is ridicule. The source for the data is given there. And, surprise surprise, it is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Please tell me again how the UN is biased and Pro guns. I am sorry, but factual, statistical evidence cannot be biased, it is simply true. Statistics can be incorrect as to mistakes in numbers, but statistics cannot be biased. Pros second paragraph is mostly incomprehensible. Thus I will make general assumptions as to what Pro was trying to state. Seemingly Pro is trying to state that it would be absurd to think that regulations would have no effect. I agree. Indeed it would have an effect. The effect that I tried to demonstrate in the first round already with this video..First of all, possession of this firearm is illegal, thus the owner is a criminal. Second of all, no normal resident would need this kind of firearm nor would have such a firearm, other than a person that was trying or wanting to commit crime. This means that criminals will have firearms, while people who abide the law will be regulated. Sure, there will be the odd one who will be stopped, but if you want a firearm you can get one. And that will be whether it is a handgun, sub-machine or machine-gun. Or any other firearm. In fact, as I was mentioning Australia again, a lot of 'shootings' here are committed with bolt action rifles, as these are the most common kind of firearm, but criminals do possess things like military machine guns, as seen sub-machine-guns or handguns. Your standard person who works 8-4 does not possess these kind of things, it is only people with criminal intent. So why would you regulate people who wont break the law? And reward people who do? Criminals do not abide by the law. Otherwise they would not be criminals. The law does not stop them , police does. Pro also seems to think that all criminals have or want firearms. No, that is most definitely incorrect. Only a small number of criminals possess firearms, as only a small number of criminal commit violent crimes or crimes with firearms. The majority of 'crime' committed has nothing to do with firearms. So no, not 100% of all 'would be criminals' would acquire firearms, as not 100% of all 'would be criminals' even need firearms (for their crime). These are criminals such as fraudsters, robbers (non firearm), assault, drugs, vehicle offences and so on. Criminals, such as individuals in gangs, 'big' drug dealers, basically all the individuals who already possess illegal firearms would be the people that would still have access to firearms. And you are making it easier for those people. Now, if they threaten somebody who, unknowingly to them, has a firearm, which is likely, they can be shot. If there are regulations, they can threaten somebody with a firearm and feel really safe, knowing that that person most likely does not have a firearm. Also, as I have already stated, background checks are the first step to taking all weapons. Statistically nearly everyone in the US possesses a firearm. Do you think it would be good if the government would check nearly everybody? Would that not be exactly what Edward Snowden was trying to warn people about? As a final point, yes, gun control may decrease the homicide rate, but the real question is if it is beneficial for the US in so many other factors. I would say no. Simply consult all of Cons arguments that Pro did not (try) to rebut. That should be reason enough. Final Conclusion:Pro, until the end, did not provide an argument as to why there should be more 'gun' regulation. Not a single reason. Pro only 'tried' to rebut 3 of the 7 arguments provided by Con, leaving 4 arguments unchallenged. The 'sources' that were supplied were easily negated through statistical evidence and if connected to Pros argument(s) (that did not exist) out of context. All of Pros 'rebuttals' were negated by Con.Furthermore Pros conduct is more than questionable. First of all, as already stated above, in fact in every single one of my rounds, Pro did not provide any arguments. Second, Pro did not provide any sources to the majority of their theories. Pro called Cons statistical evidence 'anecdotal' and 'biased'. Statistical evidence, here provided by the UN (United Nations) can be neither. Pros last paragraph is not comprehensible and I conceive it as a bad joke that Pro would think that, after no argument from Pros side, Con would "need to concede the debate" if a statistical probability was admitted. Con stated several times that Pro had not provided any arguments, thus easily enabling Pro to state an argument, but Pro seemingly ignored this. Kind regards to Pro, all readers and all voters. Have a good day!

Title: Gun control lowers crime Content: According the the set rule of the debate I'll solely conclude here, though I'm positive that the reader can extract necessary rebuttals to the questions put forward in the last round from my previous arguments. Conclusion:Through this debate I used cross-sectional data and comparing two countries, one in which the gun control laws are next to nothing, USA and another one which takes gun control rather seriously, Canada.I maintain my case showing different comparisons that I offered in the previous rounds that gun control is an effective way for controlling the gun related crimes. After the exclusion or serious reduction of gun related crimes using gun control laws, it is further the responsibility of a proper body of law enforcement to reduce the other forms of crime and making the society as safe as possible. In other words gun control is a necessary step but on its own not sufficient. Still combined with other necessary steps its a process that leads to a safer society.Vote for the side with the better argument. Cheers

Title: The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control Content: Rebuttal That the source is poor (it is – it’s a person’s blog) and the author known for basis (he is [1]) I am inclined to listen to my own advice, and not bicker about the statics. It is incumbent on me to provide a rebuttal, so I must give it due attrition. 1) The stats referenced only discuss criminal activity, not touching on any other problem associated with guns. Societal problems with guns run deeper than simple criminality. 2) The study cited attempts to connect more gun ownership with crime. As someone has come before me has done to the work to eviscerate the poor work of Lott, I will quote from Tim Lambert’s rebuttal. “Even if we decide that there were more guns and less crime it is wrong to conclude that ‘more guns caused less crime’. The mechanism for causation proposed by Lott is not consistent with the empirical evidence on how often criminals encounter armed permit holders. The observed changes in crime rates are consistent with past changes in crime rates caused by factors other than concealed weapons…” [1] “No matter how you interpret the phrase “more guns”, it remains true that there were not a significant number of “more guns”. This fact alone is sufficient to destroy Lott’s case” [1]. [1] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au... Conclusion and summary. All the gun statists aside. All the bickering over validity of one data set or another. All the disagreements over interpretation of data. All of it can and should be ignored for the answer to the question of this debate. Congress, and in specific “the peoples house” has a responsibility. Written by our founding fathers “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” The congress enacts laws that the governed request. The limit to the laws they wright is the constitution. Provided there is will, and the proposed law fits within the constraints of the constitution, it is the responsibility of the legislative making body to reflect the will of the governed. State by state, support for additional gun control is supported, with few exceptions. It is subversive for our representatives to ignore our will. It is un-American. My thanks to my opponent for this debate is more than just opponent perfunctory. The passions run high on both sides of the debate. I acknowledge and respect his thoughtful debate.

Title: Guns should be banned Content: I believe that gun laws are already just and that no major changes should be made to gun laws in America. If you accept, please state your claim (including specifically what guns should be banned/held restrictions on and/or how the process of obtaining a gun should be changed.) Thank you.

Title: Guns should be more regulated in the United States Content: I look forward to arguing this topic. I assume that my opponent will be arguing that guns should not be regulated to any greater of an extent than that to which they are currently regulated. I, on the other hand, will argue that guns should be regulated more than they are now ( but not banned outright.)

Title: Gun Control Content: First, my name is 100% ORIGINAL! Second of all, even if we have gun control, Violent individuals can just rob the gun stores, and repeat the Las Vegas massacres anyway. What we really need is a better law enforcement. If there were more police, the Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have been as bloody. I affirm that stricter gun control doesn't need to happen, as it would be futile.

Title: Gun Rights Content: First off, I am sorry for my mass listing of statistics, but they do help my point in a way, which I will elaborate on later. Instead of blurbing out statistics, I will largely focus on points 1Aa, as well as my opponent's contentions in this round. A1) While some statistics may not be directly impacted by gun control laws (or the lack thereof), and it may be impossible to truly know whether or not gun control laws cause spikes or drops in crime rates, they do go to show the general trend. After all, in most countries with gun control, there is more overall crime rate than in countries without gun control. However, there is one major point that you did not address. It is point 1Aa. Americans using guns for good. This statistic really goes to show the effectiveness of gun rights. 11,000 people are killed with guns a year, while 162,000 households think someone would have died without a gun. That means that even if 140,000 households were wrong, there would be DOUBLE the lives saved by guns than killed by guns. This alone should be enough to implement right to carry laws and significantly reduce gun control. If gun rights save 150,000 more lives than deaths they cause, or save approximately 15 times more people than they kill, then gun rights seem like the obvious choice. There is no real reason to implement gun control laws when faced with this fact. A2) Let's continue with my opponent's example. Canada has double the crime rate of the US[1]! This just goes to prove my point. Yes, there is more gun crime, but the crime rate is lower overall. However, this point doesn't even matter much when faced with contention 1Aa, and my opponent would probably refer me to his correlation-causation argument. A3)Actually, the reason I chose London and NYC was because that was the only comparison of Britain and America I could find. If I could have found a overall comparison of Britain and America, I would have used that. However, I now have a better comparison of Canada and America. As for sites with bias, all of my facts came off a site known as justfacts.com, which is hardly a biased site. I cannot really reply to statistical overload except with my argument 1Aa. B1) I will concede that gun control does have some effect on criminal ownership, but it saves so many lives that it makes it worth it. Not only that, with gun control, it is now some hardened criminal with a knife versus say... your grandma. Your grandma would have a much better chance with a gun than without. As for points 2,3, and parts of 4,5 and 6, part of my opening argument in 1Ae. was that some gun control laws should be common sense, and that citizens should have access to firearms. B2) The "and now that your average citizen can't obtain guns" was talking about a hypothetical example of what would happen if gun control laws were implemented. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. Your second point says that there is other self defense options. While I will concede that they can be effective, the links talk about putting up lights to deter crime and taking self defense and rape prevention classes. If you suddenly meet with a hardened criminal, it won't matter how many karate classes you took or how many lights you put up, as they won't exactly save your life like the round the clock protection of a handgun. Could being a karate expert or surrounding your house with light really have the same chance of saving you as something that can instantly deter a criminal if you brandish it or they think you have it? After all, 34% of criminals 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". I'm sure the numbers of criminals deterred by light fixtures or karate wouldn't be anywhere near that of guns. a) Yes, but there is no real way you can disprove argument 1Aa. There is 11,000 people killed by guns a year in the US., and in a survey 162,000 households believed someone would have died if there wasn't a gun. There is no claims that one causes the other. All there is in that statement is two hard facts. b) But can gun control ever have the effect of something which can give any citizen something that instantly deters criminals? It can prevent some crime, but it mostly causes other crimes when criminals are no longer as scared of assaulting/killing/stealing from others. c)You aren't helpless without a gun, but you are a lot more helpless without a gun than if you do have a gun. After all, if a hardened criminal confronts you, you'd much rather have gun than 20 years of karate under your belt. Conclusion Though some statistics may or may not support gun control, there is one statistic that cannot be refuted. Gun rights save 15 times more lives than it ends. Without gun rights, you are a lot more helpless than you would be with gun rights. Obviously, gun rights is the way to go. Sources [1] http://archive.newsmax.com...

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: there should be more gun regulation Content: con just restates points i responded to without responding to what i posted already as responses. you say they will just find another way to kill. but you didn't respond to the study that says the more guns there are, the more overall homicide there is. that means people don't just find alternative ways. you say they will sneak around to do it. this couldn't be true either, cause if they did there would be just as much homicide with fewer guns. plus it's common sense not everyone will be a black hoodie and go get a gun when denied one. con is arguing like we should get rid of crime laws, cause some crime will occur. you didn't respond to this, you just restated what i responded to. also, im not necessarily saying we take guns way, we should at least have background checks. this doesn't infringe on the second amendment. just like we have certain types of speech that can't be done per the first amendment.... there are just reasonable restrictions.

Title: Gun control in the United States Content: Gun control is a major topic in the US nowadays, so I am pleased that my opponent started this debate. I look forward to hearing new, fresh points. As Pro I will be arguing that gun control should be administered in the US. Con has not mentioned any rules, so let me propose my own. 1. No swearing or calling names 2. Arguments and rebuttals are allowed at all times, but no new arguments should be put forth in the last round. Con has not stated the definition of "gun control" in this debate. Please state it in the next round.

Title: Assault weapons ban in the United States Content: Expiration of the assault weapons ban could enable better gun control laws

Title: Gun control is good. Content: My thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate. One comment pointed out that the term "Gun Control" is not defined in the opening rounds of the debate. As such, I am going to take a controversial approach and argue two different definitions. My opponent can engage which he wishes, and I will drop one if he doesn't address it. Definition 1: Some limitation on access to/ownership of firearms. Under these terms, law-abiding citizens would still have access to guns, therefore law-abiding citizens WOULD have guns, yet law enforcement would have at least SOME tools to restrict the general flow of guns into the hands of the public, some of whom, inevitably would be criminals as pro points out. Definition 2: Complete illegality of firearms. This seems to be the definition my opponent is interested in arguing. To quote The Onion's response to the most recent mass shooting, "This couldn't have been prevented, says only nation where this regularly happens!" To ruin the joke by explaining it, many countries ban firearms and do not see increased rates of gun violence. In fact, in virtually all nations where guns are banned, the overall death toll from firearms every year is miniscule compared rates of gun death in the United States. Despite "gun freedom" advocates' frequent statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns make killing much easier and seem to factor in a huge number of killings when they are available over other alternatives. Let's take my opponent at his hypothetical best, though. Let us assume that *some* number of criminals are repelled by the use of firearms. I would argue that this number is very small over all: Criminals typically have the drop on who they wish to rob or kill and tend to put themselves in a better position to avoid return fire, and the presence of a gun may make a criminal who only wants money feel pressured to kill to protect himself where he otherwise might not have. In essence, the presence of two guns at a robbery raises the chance that SOMEONE is going to die, and the death is still more likely to be in favor of the criminal. It comes down to an interesting ethical question: Is it better to lose 100 lives to gun violence if 10 of those lives lost happen to be the lives of criminals who "deserve it" OR is it better to simply have 10 lives lost to guns overall? I would argue the latter is far more favorable, both from a utilitarian perspective and a moral one. Less death is better without seriously mitigating circumstances, and in this example, the mitigating circumstance is a false sense of safety given by possession of a firearm.

Title: I'm pro gun, change my mind. Content: What gun laws would you pass that don't already exist?