the safest nations all have strict gun laws
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Strict gun laws make nations safest https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/safest-countries-in-the-world.html
"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
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/39717This 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.
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.
...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.
Con's point that pro must show the resolution to consistently be true because of its universal nature went uncontested by pro, and thus severely damaged their case. Although I would say the reliability of the sources provided by both sides was about equal, the quality of the evidence brought forth by con was much more substantial, hence the source reliability point given to con.
Pro's R1 fell flat, merely listing 3 nations with low crime and strict gun laws isn't enough to meet his BoP. Con in R1 was able to establish that nations with very easy gun laws have low crime rates, so at this point Pro is in a bit of a predicament. Pro tries to reflect this by noting how much easier US gun laws are when compared to the nations Con listed. However, con refutes this critique by pointing to America as a massive outlier, so even if Con's examples have stricter gun laws than America, Con's point is still sound. Also, Con's example countries have very easy gun laws on a world wide stage. Con continues by excellently pointing to America which has fairly low levels of crime but loose gun laws. Pro only funnily enough helps Con in R3 by conceding that America has loose gun laws. That wouldn't be too bad for Pro if he refuted Con's point about America's low crime rate, but he fails to do so.
To wrap up, Con gave me examples of nations with easy gun laws and low crime, including America, Pro never refutes this properly, so I'm left with a handful of nations that are safe with loose gun laws, meaning Pro's stance is faulty. Not only isn't their enough evidence to prove that ALL safe nations have strict gun laws, there isn't enough evidence to prove that America isn't safe, which Pro would have to do considering he conceded that America had loose gun laws.
To all potential voters: PaulVerliane is harassing valid voters on his debate, and thus should lose his conduct point.
Well obviously I'd rather be harmed than murdered, but that doesn't mean we don't count assault in crime statistics.
i'm saying its preferable to be attcked and survive the attack than die, i'm saying its prefrable for 3 people to die in a an attck than 63 die
i'm saying an incremental improvement in a situation is preferable to an incremental worsening of a situation
Your saying X is worse than Y, so Y isn't relevant. That's quite faulty.
i'd rather get a punch in the face than a 38 slug in my brain see how that works?
Well maybe a home break isn't as bad as a mass shooting, but a home break is still a big deal.
where in venzuela mexico or in a nation comparable to us like canada or grmany? again stop being so obtuse, Image result for willful blindnesswww.goodreads.com
Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping himself or herself unaware of facts that would ...
Willful blindness - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Willful_blindness
so to you a home break in is as bad as a mass shooting? i dont believe you are stat stupid just unbelievably dishonest
Con's source only looks at rape, theft, and murder, these aren't minor crimes.
homicide and serious injury is one sort of crime , stealing your hand bag is another.. you cant see that one is worse than the other.. really? is that an honest assessment on your part? is it?
http://chartsbin.com/view/39717
This is what Con proposed.
A landmark 1997 study actually tried to answer this question. Its findings — which scholars say still hold up — are that America doesn't really have a significantly higher rate of crime compared to similar countries. But that crime is much likelier to be lethal: American criminals just kill more people than do their counterparts in other developed countries. And guns appear to be a big part of what makes this difference. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
where i dont see it
You do realize that Con actually gave evidence that stated America is safe, so one side gave me evidence, one didn't, how could I side with you?
everyone knows they dont , its just so abud i felt no ned to adress it
He stated America had low crime rates, YOU NEVER REFUTED IT, even if it's obvious that America has a lot of crime, you failed to point that out during the debate.
well i assumes it to be self evident
low crime? must i veven respond to that? if he said the holocaust was a hoax must i respend to that or merely state that it is commonly so acepted it is a fact many nations will jail you for quationing it?
You never said any of this in the debate.
The US continues to be an outlier among high-income countries with respect to firearm deaths. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30817955
Violence is a serious public health issue in the U.S. This research compares the US and other high-income countries in terms of violent death. We used data from the World Health Organization for populous, high-income countries. Data from CDC's WISQARS and WONDER systems were used to assess mortality data among US white and non-white populations and in low-, medium-, and high-gun states in 2015. Death rates per 100,000 populations were calculated overall, by age, and by sex. Poisson and negative binomial regression were used to test for significance. The homicide rate in the US was 7.5 times higher than the homicide rate in the other high-income countries combined, which was largely attributable to a firearm homicide rate that was 24.9 times higher. The overall firearm death rate was 11.4 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries. In this dataset, 83.7% of all firearm deaths, 91.6% of women killed by guns, and 96.7% of all children aged 0-4 years killed by guns were from the US. Firearm homicide rates were 36 times higher in high-gun US states and 13.5 times higher in low-gun US states than the firearm homicide rate in other high-income countries combined. The firearm homicide rate among the US white population was 12 times higher than the firearm homicide rate in other high-income countries. The US firearm death rate increased between 2003 and 2015 and decreased in other high-income countries. The US continues to be an outlier among high-income countries with respect to firearm deaths.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
but it is so obvious hes wrong! its elf evident! self evident! Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015
Grinshteyn E1, Hemenway D2.
Author information
1
Health Professions Department, School of Nursing and Health Professions, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94177, United States of America. Electronic address: [email protected]
2
Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America. Electronic address: [email protected]
Abstract
Okay, Con stated America had loose gun laws and low Crime, if this is true you lose the debate given the resolution. You concede that America has loose gun laws and NEVER touch his point on America having low crime rates world wide.
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 cas
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 cas
if your just going to wright 2 or 3 sentences.You may want to lower the character limit when you initiate debates.
Are you actually going to respond to what the contender says?