Instigator
Points: 0

There is scientific proof strict gun laws will reduce crime

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
OoDart
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender
Points: 42
Description
There is scientific proof strict gun laws work and do what they are intended to . https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2
Round 1
Published:
Using the scientific method and objective investigation it can be proven as a fact that strict gun laws reduce crime What science has demonstrated, however, is that the number of gun deaths in the US is much higher than in other nations with similar rates of gun ownership (like Switzerland), and that certain policies can help prevent these fatalities. Studies have linked stricter background checks, rules prohibiting domestic abusers from owning weapons, and secure locks on firearms in the home with decreased rates of gun-related deaths.   https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-research-how-policies-can-reduce-deaths-2019-8#in-2017-the-most-recent-year-for-which-data-is-available-39773-people-in-the-us-died-from-firearms-according-to-the-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-cdc-1
Published:
Thank you for creating this debate.

First, for the sake of the discourse, I ask that you separate your thoughts and double check your punctuation. Having these things done make it much easier to read.

Now, to the topic at hand.

You claimed the following:
Using the scientific method and objective investigation it can be proven as a fact that strict gun laws reduce crime
This is not true, nor did you provide any evidence to suggest that it is true. In fact, we can view the crime rates and other statistics of many countries on a website called NationMaster. The crime rate per 1000 people page can be found here: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

We see that the United States of America, which has little to no gun laws, ranks as the 22nd country for most crimes per 1000 people, having 41.29 crimes per 1000 people. Canada, which has very strict gun laws, ranks 10th with 80.25 crimes per 1000 people. The United Kingdom, where guns are completely illegal, ranks 4th with 109.96 crimes per 1000 people. I would not argue that a lack of guns does not necessarily cause crime, as correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but this is sufficient evidence to prove that removing guns does not lower crime rates (if it did, the U.K. and Canada would have lower crime rates than the U.S.A).


Regarding what you said here:
What science has demonstrated, however, is that the number of gun deaths in the US is much higher than in other nations with similar rates of gun ownership (like Switzerland), and that certain policies can help prevent these fatalities. Studies have linked stricter background checks, rules prohibiting domestic abusers from owning weapons, and secure locks on firearms in the home with decreased rates of gun-related deaths.  
I would not say that science has demonstrated this, but I would am perfectly happy to concede this to you, as it doesn't prove the point that stricter gun laws actually lower the crime rate, only the amount of gun-related deaths.
Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
My opponent has forfeited the round. No rebuttals are needed.

I extend my previous argument, regarding the statistics suggesting that gun laws do not reduce crime.

Back to you, billbatard.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
My opponent has yet again forfeited the round.

Let us review the occurrences of this debate.

Round 1:
My opponent provided their stance (strict gun laws reduce crime) as well as some evidence that did not actually support their claim.

I called them out on that and provided evidence showing that strict gun laws do not reduce crime.

Round 2:
My opponent forfeited, and I extended my arguments.

Round 3:
My opponent forfeited again.

On to the voting period.
Added:
oh tay
Instigator
#3
Added:
Put spaces between your thoughts. Don't put it in one giant mass of words, it's hard to follow @billbatard
#2
Added:
--> @billbatard
I look forward to debating with you.
Contender
#1
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
jegh Hom neb!
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
утрачивать
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
提案は没収されました
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FoRfEiT
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF.