args

Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

1) Main Argument Re -I never contested the legitimacy that not registering a gun is always illegal. I am well aware that not all guns must be registered, but that's not the question today we are suppose to be facing. The question is --hypothetically speaking -- if the US senate were to make universal background checks today it would not have an effect on crime. My BOP is to show it would prevent crime instead. Indeed, the main issue here then is what should the law ought to be? And I showed through the examples of Canada, Findland, Switzerland, and Australia that statistically speaking the results overwhelmingly favor background checks and heavy gun regulation to prevention of crime. -Secondly, it is enforceable, the problem is the NRA striking down such bills in which enable the law enforcers to uphold the law. For instance, http://www.bloomberg.com...; This bill would have regulated the private transactions between buyer and seller, espescially in the loop-holes of the law, so places like the internet would have had to adhere to the same regulations of reporting like any other gun salesman. Sounds equitible no? Well, looks like only business are subjected to giving background checks, meaning that a loophole is in place, and is the only reason why the law does not work. In fact, the Colombine shooters did the same thing as previously noted. http://thinkprogress.org... 80% of guns used in crimes are done through private sales such as person to person rather than business to person, because that's the only way criminals can get their guns. If the law ought to regulate that, crime would certainly decrease, and the studies I used from Harvard health clearly show this data is solid as well. 2) Senarios Re: - Even if assuming those guns are not registered, all guns manufactured in the US do have a serial number, and the data is easy to obtain via a database when looking up the serial number. Why can we not do this with purchasers of weapons as well? The info often gives the manufacturer, and the seller, from there the seller may identify who the buyer is. This does not require a registry, though a registry would make this process far easier and a lot more cheaper. 3) Incon. vs Saftey Re - I never asked for the law to create a morality, only to regulate the consuming of that in which can be fatal to one's self and/or to others. And while I agree that laws need an enforcement mechanism, that mechanism was stopped by --once again the NRA -- from allowing that to happen in the first place. One example is the gun segment on the Jon Stewart Daily Show in which showed a leader from the NRA going aginst the Brady Bill as "unconstitutional" even though it has been shown to prevent suicides, and delay shootings. Furthermore, if my opponent is correct and those criminals simply have no fear, this is not an argument for more gun freedom, but rather less. If criminals do not fear anything, then why fear a gun? That would create more crime not less, as the lack of fear makes perfectly good citizens culpible for man-slaughter upon shooting a criminal. 4) Stats Re -Which is why I noted that a strong correlation exists with increase gun control and less crime. However as a matter of fact, the Harvard Studies I used were done with cross-sectional data, showing a distinct long-term pattern for more gun control within a controlled experiement as a result http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Indeed, the stats seem to imply that an indirect systemic causation is in place and in favor of more gun regulation. 5) What About Other Countries Re - ....Sir, apples are comparable to oranges! They're both fruit, round, warm in colors, ... Mexico does NOT have full gun regulation, actually it's a constitutional right to all, and again with how bad their laws are you've proven my point http://en.wikipedia.org... Same as Brazil, heavy gun regulation is a new thing just coming in http://en.wikipedia.org... clearly on this small amount of data (5 years) it would be a hasty conclusion to decide that gun control has failed Brazil, we need at least 10 -15 years to see a long-term trend in Gun regulation's success or failures. Even then the results of Brazil is also in favor of my argument, as Brazil is one of the largest arms dealers in the world, earlier studies I posted clearly showed more guns equates to more crimes. Furthermore, it is applicable, Canada, and Swtizerland are both incredibly differing countries. Yet they both had the same results on gun regulations, same as Findland and Australia. This idea that somehow the US is the only exception is outright wrong. The fact of the matter is, is that gun regulation simply works. It knows no differing countries! Background checks show that preventing everyone from having a gun decreases crime. 6) Self -Defence - No it does not. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Guns are used more often to intimidate than that for self-defence, and are only used in cases of escallating arguments more commonly. Which is still socially undesireable. Guns do not deter crime. They escallate them. - Furthermore, if my opponent conceeds to my point about the second amendment being violated due to background checks, then legally, there is no reason for my opponent to oppose background checks. He indirectly conceeds to the fact that it's not an inconviencne to gun owners as well, because nothing of these checks is harmful to the person, they're justa precaution. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... -And it's not that simple, State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759,769 (Md. 1984) is an example of a man being charged with involuntary manslaughter because he incorrectly thought he had the right to kill someone, but that use of force was unreasonable, but what exactly is reasonable the courts never actually define, making it difficult to tell. 7) Home Run Indeed I think we should, as Somalia isn't the only country with this issue, South Africa also has this problem of people arming themselves, which escallates the issue not defuses it! http://www.guardian.co.uk...; This is also an issue in Afghanistan, where purchasing an AK-47 goes for US $150 Again, a strong correlation to gun ownership follows with higher amounts of crime, likewise the opposite is true as well, that less guns = less crimes. Thank you! Over to my opponent!