USA needs to tighten Gun laws
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 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
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.{LINK}
New Jersey’s recent ban on the possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds is instructive. In April, New Jersey State Police told Ammoland.com that not a single magazine had been surrendered to them.{LINK}
1.UK deaths :- (0.23) (Homisides-0.06,suicides-0.15)2.US deaths :- ( 12.21) (Homisides- 4.46,suicides- 7.32)
Violent crime up 11% to 812,000 incidents Murders up 4% to 886 and attempted murders up 21% to 858 Robbery up 28% to more than 121,000 incidents, including a 31% rise in robbery of personal property. Rapes up 14%Soliciting up 60%{LINK}
He is using suicide statistics although previously said he will not use it.Suicides have no effect on guns as Lithuania, who has a suicide rate of 25.7{LINK} also has a low gun ownership rate of 13.6 compared to 120 to America. Zero correlation
Scotland for example has the highest rate of violence in the developed world despite gun laws
Lastly, the white gun ownership rate is 27% compared to 16% of blacks and 11% for hispanics, yet hispanic and black crime and homicide rates in significantly higher than whites, these two charts perfectly show that there is no correlation of gun ownership and crime
This point rests on the case that less guns in the population means that less crime rates and less police expenses. However this has been deemed untrue
- 94% of police in USA dont have a problem with them carrying military grade equipment.
- 77% agree the equipment makes them more aggressive.
- 83% stated the euipment and their presence scares them.
1.UK deaths :- (0.23) (Homisides-0.06,suicides-0.15)2.US deaths :- ( 12.21) (Homisides- 4.46,suicides- 7.32)
Now compare these deaths to the US statistic 12.1 , the drastic difference speaks for itself.
Violent crime up 11% to 812,000 incidents Murders up 4% to 886 and attempted murders up 21% to 858 Robbery up 28% to more than 121,000 incidents, including a 31% rise in robbery of personal property. Rapes up 14%Soliciting up 60%{LINK}
Please refrain from entering communal politics, it is an codemned across democracies around the world. In India such statistics are not even available, shows in US there has been attempt to devide people along communal and racial lines.
As supported by the data below, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional problems. Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.LINKSnce 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.LINK
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”LINK
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK
while PRO definitively stated that a proposed amendment such as curtailment of carrying of assault rifles can be made " in lines of UK laws"
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK
I happen to know they are quite strict.
Had we not had the ability to protect officers with those vehicles, I am afraid that we would have to engage people with our own gun fire. I really think having the armor gave us the ability not to have pulled one trigger… I think the military uses armor to be able to provide an offensive force, and police departments use trucks like that so they don’t have to.{LINK}
Lastly, the white gun ownership rate is 27% compared to 16% of blacks and 11% for hispanics, yet hispanic and black crime and homicide rates in significantly higher than whites, these two charts perfectly show that there is no correlation of gun ownership and crime.
their race was the sole factor when CON stated this claim.
Con's point was to illustrate how economic and family factors are the main reason between the crime disparities among groups/countries and not the gun ownership.it perfectly shows how gun ownership has no correlation with homicide rates.Last, there is a severe lack of correlations between gun laws, gun ownership and crime rates.
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”“The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms … prior to the law’s implementation,”[7]
The research shows that the ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation, followed by a substantial postban drop in prices to levels of previous years[8]
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK would reduce police expenditures and reduce gun crime by a substantial rate as seen by the fall in gun crime in UK after the implementation of strict gun law
The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.LINK
Violent crime up 11% to 812,000 incidents Murders up 4% to 886 and attempted murders up 21% to 858 Robbery up 28% to more than 121,000 incidents, including a 31% rise in robbery of personal property. Rapes up 14%Soliciting up 60%{LINK}
State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.[LINK]
They are plenty of uses for AR's that include defending businesses in riots such as the LA one in 92 which was described in R2. As well as it is a common weapon for hunting and helps with animal attacks
pro advocates for restricting guns due to amount of deaths caused as such, but glances over exactly how these precise restrictions would be made, wanting to restrict assault rifles and more dangerous weapons being unallowed (and harder to get), but not entirely pushing for the law's effectiveness and prowess. Con points out that the policies in other locations may not be the perfect solution for US, especially trying to take back the weapons already given to all the people. I'm not entirely convinced by pro's inability to precisely give the reasons WHY the policies would work in the US and the HOW the policies implementation exactly would prevent violent crime, as even foreign policies with UK and Swiss differ in details, as con seems to imply. Con's dropped arguments about illegally created weapons and UK's statistics being doubtful created enough of a hole in Pro's arguments that I feel con holds the edge, especially with US being a massive outlier in terms of gun ownership and violence within statistics. In the end, pro gives a NEED to stop gun-related violence, but fails to provide enough evidence to outwit con's refutation of cherry-picking and how US's case is unique and specific.
If pro wants, I could debate him over whether he lost this debate or not, but I'm pretty sure he lost this debate.
I believe in RENA:
R estricted
EN ough
A lready
bump
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: This one is extremely tough to judge.
To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached. "
For Nikunj's first complaint, I think it is alright to say the Resolution is ambiguous. I think Nikunj may have a misunderstanding of what a resolution is. The resolution is the question that must be answered yes (PRO) or no (CON) to. There can be only one resolution, but here there is two:
a. RESOLVED: USA needs to tighten Gun laws (the one Dr. Franklin initially agreed to debate)
b. RESOLVED: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores. (The one Nikunj injected mid-debate.)
A good voter would default to the first and require Nikunj to prove that the US has a need for stricter gun laws.
Here is actually where Seldiora's vote falters. I think it unduly requires Nikunj to define what the "tightening" would be, instead of requiring him to prove that a tightening is required. This implies that the voter weighed the debate on a scale irrelevant to the debate. That said, this falls under the scope of interpretation... Something out of reach of moderation.
As for Nikunj's second complaint, it is valid. Seldiora, whether or not he meant to, makes his conclusion based on a misrepresentation of what transpired in the debate.
I will remove the vote for the second complaint. I can't remove it for the first, but I urge Seldiora to use a more fair interpretation if he wants to resubmit a vote.
"pro advocates for restricting guns due to amount of deaths caused as such, but glances over exactly what restrictions would be made in precise, seeming to mention assault rifles and more dangerous weapons being unallowed, but not entirely pushing for this position. Con points out that the policies in other locations may not be the perfect solution for US, especially trying to take back the weapons already given to all the people. His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end, and I'm not entirely convinced by pro's half ambiguous "tighten gun laws" without true justification upon exactly what should be implemented, as even foreign policies with UK and Swiss differ in details, as con seems to imply."
Seldiora half reads my every debate and casts a vote, I have no problem losing but it should be on merit.
Resolution by PRO: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores.
These lines were used by me in R4 , I dont know how is my resolution ambiguous as claimed by the voter. He does not even cover most of the points, main arguments regarding police, budget
". His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end," This is one more section of his vote, I quoted Department of Justice stating 931000 violent crimes takes place against only 83000 defensive gun uses.
I dont know how any of my statements invite ambiguity.
also to the voters, if you need to access my links, just copy and paste the link
May leave a vote on this one. Problem is 5 rounds is a lot to wade through. But heck, I like gun topics
thank you!
Solid debate!