Gun Control
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Its time to do something the evidence is overwhelming if we get rid of the guns we get rid of the crime https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/more-guns-more-crime
Its time to do something the evidence is overwhelming
if we get rid of the guns we get rid of the crime
we need to regulate them more strictly not necessarily ban them outright but prohibit military type guns that serve no purpose but mass shootings
you simply cant tell me strict gun laws did not contribute to the safety of that society
when i crossed over in canada from detriot to windsor i noticed a distinct lack of gun fire
all you need to do to buy a gun is go to the suburb or get on a bus and travel to iowa easy as pie IN CANADA THE SAME LAWS EXIST all over canada
homicide rates contined to drop in french canada in anglo canada where the registry was abolished? rates have risen steadily.. again you cant convince me thats a co incidence
when people try to use countries like Australia and Canada don't fall for that. If they want to try and compare you must insist they compare it to itself. Australia for instance never really had a murder problem or a high murder rate. There have been numerous studies about their ban which at best was indeterminate as to any real effect it may have had. Same with Canada, they don't have a constitution or bill of rights like the U.S. they have no right to free speech or anything like the 2a. They are false comparisons.When you look at murder rates in the U.S. look back to the time when guns could be purchased w/o a background check and even mail ordered straight to your house. If guns were the problem should the rates have been much higher back then? And yet they weren't.....
However, challenges remain, such as the over-representation of Indigenous people, and that domestic-related homicides still make up the largest number of homicides.https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-homicide-rates-79654Australia has nearly eliminated mass shootings - here's what the US can learn
New research suggests 1996 law could be behind drastic decrease in firearm mortality
- and try to remember the over all homicide rate from all causes has been cut IN half that is because guns are much more deadly than any other weapon Ms Andreyeva and Ms Ukert say their research shows the US can learn a few things from Australian gun regulation.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gun-laws-australia-lessons-a8426846.html
They never had a problem with high violence rates because they always had strict gun laws
HOWEVER as low as Australias rates were compared to ours lets look at what occured during the years gun laws were made even stricter starting on a state level in 1989 and ending with a federal ban on self loading rifles well almost , there were exceptions allowed for some hunters of dangerous animals The national homicide rate has decreased from 1.8 per 100,000 people in 1989-90 to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-14.In terms of the homicide rate
The outlook for Australia is positive, with a continued reduction in the homicide rate.
However, challenges remain, such as the over-representation of Indigenous people, and that domestic-related homicides still make up the largest number of homicides.https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-homicide-rates-79654Australia has nearly eliminated mass shootings
- here's what the US can learn
New research suggests 1996 law could be behind drastic decrease in firearm mortality
try to remember the over all homicide rate from all causes has been cut IN half that is because guns are much more deadly than any other weapon
the US can learn a few things from Australian gun regulation.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gun-laws-australia-lessons-a8426846.html
Arguments:
In summary, con successfully argues that "Getting rid of the guns does not get rid of crime, especially since people could just switch to knives or something." Pro tries to counter with: "you simply cant tell me strict gun laws did not contribute to the safety of that society" but this ignores that con already successfully did just that.
Not grading this more, due to pro choosing to engage in plagiarism in R5, rather than making his own case, or at least giving proper credit to whoise case he's stealing (not to mention, someone else's case will not be a proper reply to con's specific words).
Sources:
Fantastic work from con, making pro's actual source available... Incidentally, as a voter I am fine with research papers to which only the abstract is accessible (like con, I am not going to read the 50 pages...); however, citing churnalism talking about that same abstract is pointless (why cite the article talking about an article, instead of the real McCoy?).
Otherwise pro had a couple poorly integrated sources, whereas con had about a dozen well integrated ones.
Conduct:
Missed round and plagiarism.
So on the previous site I served on the Vote Review Board, which gave me a very good eye for types of misconduct. Now if anything feels fishy, I copy a snippet or two of their case into Google, and more often then not it turns out they stole the work.
The big giveaways are unusual formatting or word choice, but even a shift in punctuation can do it.
On S&G, I only penalize it if two conditions are met: 1 it was enough of a distraction from the debate, and 2 that I'm in the mood to put in the effort.
You caught Billbatard plagiarising? Impressive. I wouldn't have known, although I suppose it was suspicious that Billbatard's grammar was bad for the first 3 rounds, but then at round 5, his grammar suddenly drastically improved and he was actually using proper punctuation. I guess that alone must have what made you suspicious about potential plagiarism. When you observe how someone writes, whether they have decent grammar or poor grammar, and then suddenly that way of writing drastically changes, that is one of the ways teachers and college professors begin to suspect plagiarism, because it suggests that it may not actually be their own words.
Still, I find it odd that you tied spelling and grammar even though Billbatard's spelling and grammar was like elementary school level or something.
This is a book on Complete English Grammar Rules:
http://93.174.95.29/main/2239000/d97cbedd58c608801e6bff8ed30da269/%28The%20Farlex%20Grammar%20Book%29%20Farlex%20International%20-%20Complete%20English%20Grammar%20Rules_%20Examples%2C%20Exceptions%2C%20Exercises%2C%20and%20Everything%20You%20Need%20to%20Master%20Proper%20Grammar.%201-Farlex%20International%20%282016%29.pdf
Anyone who visits this link will have a 3.47-megabyte PDF file automatically downloaded, which is the book.
It's a good book for those who struggle to have proper spelling and grammar.
when people try to use countries like Australia and Canada don't fall for that. If they want to try and compare you must insist they compare it to itself. Australia for instance never really had a murder problem or a high murder rate. There have been numerous studies about their ban which at best was indeterminate as to any real effect it may have had. Same with Canada, they don't have a constitution or bill of rights like the U.S. they have no right to free speech or anything like the 2a. They are false comparisons.
When you look at murder rates in the U.S. look back to the time when guns could be purchased w/o a background check and even mail ordered straight to your house. If guns were the problem should the rates have been much higher back then? And yet they weren't.....
actually nvm I see you addressed most of that already, good job.
You tagged me, did you delete it?
I appreciate the advice
Great argument. You should attack how guns save lives and the effects on murder rates when guns were banned(England, for ex.). Look back at my debates for some ideas.
I'd be interested in debating when you specify what type of gun control you want to advocate for.