Instigator / Pro
Points: 6

the safest nations all have strict gun laws

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
christopher_best
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 14
Description
Strict gun laws make nations safest https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/safest-countries-in-the-world.html
Round 1
Published:
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
Published:
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
Published:
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
Published:
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
Published:
"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
Published:
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. 
Added:
To all potential voters: PaulVerliane is harassing valid voters on his debate, and thus should lose his conduct point.
Contender
#27
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Well obviously I'd rather be harmed than murdered, but that doesn't mean we don't count assault in crime statistics.
#26
Added:
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
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Your saying X is worse than Y, so Y isn't relevant. That's quite faulty.
#24
Added:
--> @Trent0405
i'd rather get a punch in the face than a 38 slug in my brain see how that works?
Instigator
#23
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Well maybe a home break isn't as bad as a mass shooting, but a home break is still a big deal.
#22
Added:
--> @Trent0405
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
Instigator
#21
Added:
so to you a home break in is as bad as a mass shooting? i dont believe you are stat stupid just unbelievably dishonest
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Con's source only looks at rape, theft, and murder, these aren't minor crimes.
#19
Added:
--> @Trent0405
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?
Instigator
#18
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
http://chartsbin.com/view/39717
This is what Con proposed.
#17
Added:
--> @Trent0405
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
Instigator
#16
Added:
--> @Trent0405
where i dont see it
Instigator
#15
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
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?
#14
Added:
--> @Trent0405
everyone knows they dont , its just so abud i felt no ned to adress it
Instigator
#13
#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:
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.
#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:
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.