Instigator / Pro
6
1337
rating
26
debates
9.62%
won
Topic

the safest nations all have strict gun laws

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
2
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...

MisterChris
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1718
rating
34
debates
86.76%
won
Description
~ 106 / 5,000

Strict gun laws make nations safest https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/safest-countries-in-the-world.html

Round 1
Pro
If you look at places like Singapore, Iceland , or Japan they are the safest on earth there is no fear of crime or harm. Either guns are all but banned or strictly regulated and only used to hunt . And so it should be here
Con
Thanks PaulVerliane for the debate!

This is the resolution: "the safest nations all have strict gun laws"

In order to affirm, you must prove that the safest nations consistently have strict gun laws.

You give several isolated examples of nations with strict gun laws who also have low crime, but there are also many examples of nations with lax gun laws and similar, if not lower crime rates.

Here are a small list of examples:


By the requirements of the resolution, you cannot affirm because the correlation between safety and gun laws has not been proven by Pro. Further, a correlation still is not enough for this resolution, because Pro must prove that "all" of the safest nations have strict gun laws. 

Thank you. 
Round 2
Pro
We need to define what strict gun laws mean , because all the place you mention require backround chcks red flag laws require a doctors exam police vetting strict back round checks even Switzerland has strict aspects to their allegeley 'lax" laws Laws governing the private ownership of firearms are equally strict. In 1999, a federal law on arms, arms accessories, and ammunition (the Arms Act) came into effect. The Arms Act requires a permit for each transaction involving firearms or relevant parts of firearms purchased from an authorized dealer’s shop. Permits for purchasing firearms are issued by the cantons. Buyers are carefully screened and have to meet a number of requirements (i.e., minimum 18 years of age, absence of any apparent risk to the buyer or third persons, no entry in the Register of Convictions for violent crimes and/or misdemeanors, etc.). Subsequent transfers of firearms among private individuals have to be documented through a written contract, which must be kept for at least ten years. Additionally, several cantons require citizens to register firearms.

i would ask you to please define what you mean by strict guns laws and the i will describe what i mean


what i mean by strict guns laws are laws stricter than gun laws in the strictest us state which is California  and many agree as onerous as California is they wont confiscate your guns if you don't pay your speeding tickets , In Switzerland if you don't pay your traffic and speeding tickets? They suspend all your gun permits and confiscate your guns, no thats true , gun ownership is based on good conduct https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYJ5V2HYy4
Con
Thanks PaulVerliane for the speedy response!

Firstly, addressing the countries I listed:

My opponent points out that the countries I listed have certain restrictions on gun ownership that are more strict than California. Yet, what my opponent does not recognize is that the US is a big outlier. The US gun laws are so lax that no other country really compares. In other words, when you compare from the subjective stance of the United States, every nation appears strict when it comes to gun law. 

As my opponent would probably agree, this is like using the Soviet Union as the universal standard of left-wing policy. 

When we look at the world on balance, these nations have objectively lax gun regulations.

Further, my opponent still abstains from fulfilling his burden of proof. In order to affirm, he must prove that the safest nations consistently have strict gun laws. He has not properly done this, nor has he defended against my criticisms. A few isolated examples is not enough, even if he refutes all my counter-examples. Pro needs to show us that ALL nations with gun laws that are, on balance, very strict, are safer than those with lax gun laws. 

By the requirements of the resolution, you cannot affirm because the correlation between safety and gun laws STILL has not been proven by Pro.

The reality is, though, Pro can not do this. Compare, for example, the extremely lax gun laws of the US vs the rest of the world.
Even though the US is an outlier when it comes to gun laws, it does not have a significant difference in crime rates.


This chart is all that it takes to show that even the US is comparable to Europe in terms of crime, enough so that any differences could be attributed to a multitude of factors other than gun laws. 

Thank you. 




Round 3
Pro
"The US gun laws are so lax that no other country really compares. In other words, when you compare from the subjective stance of the United States, every nation appears strict when it comes to gun law. "  THIS IS MY POINT EXACTLY thank you for making my case
Con
Thank you, PaulVerliane, for the response!

I will now begin to rebut the final argument made by my opponent and give some closing thoughts.

Rebuttal:

"The US gun laws are so lax that no other country really compares. In other words, when you compare from the subjective stance of the United States, every nation appears strict when it comes to gun law. "  THIS IS MY POINT EXACTLY thank you for making my case
My opponent seems to have read this sentence without reading the rest of my argument, nor misunderstanding its meaning. Clearly I am not saying the US is less safe, I even make a point to prove the opposite:
Even though the US is an outlier when it comes to gun laws, it does not have a significant difference in crime rates.

http://chartsbin.com/view/39717

This chart is all that it takes to show that even the US is comparable to Europe in terms of crime, enough so that any differences could be attributed to a multitude of factors other than gun laws. 
This in of itself helps disprove the resolution, because if the US has completely lax gun laws and yet is safe, then that refutes the resolution. However, I also gave several examples of other nations that have objectively lax laws and are yet quite safe. 

In order to refute my argument, my opponent decided to say that these nations have strict laws instead of lax. To do this, my opponent is using California as a basis of strict gun laws. Yet, the US is clearly not any basis for telling which laws are lax or strict as they are an outlier. In other words, by establishing the US as an outlier, I defend my evidence. I do NOT support my opponent in any way. 

In other words, I have effectively proven that the nations of the US, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, and Italy all have objectively lax gun laws and are considered quite safe, effectively refuting the resolution. 

Closing:

But to close, let me quote a section of my argument that went entirely unresponded to:
...my opponent still abstains from fulfilling his burden of proof. In order to affirm, he must prove that the safest nations consistently have strict gun laws. He has not properly done this, nor has he defended against my criticisms. A few isolated examples is not enough, even if he refutes all my counter-examples. Pro needs to show us that ALL nations with gun laws that are, on balance, very strict, are safer than those with lax gun laws. 

By the requirements of the resolution, you cannot affirm because the correlation between safety and gun laws STILL has not been proven by Pro. 
Thank you.