args

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

Thank you for your arguments! Purpose of a Law: I agree with my opponent here on the purpose of a law, and how they work (need enforcement), but I disagree with his conclusion here. If a law is made to detter criminals, and it must be enforceable, then the state must create the law to deter criminal activities and enforce said law. However, the problem with my opponents conclusion is that criminals break the law, and because they break the law (as criminals do not register their guns) we should scrap it. But that is an argument for more gun control not against it. Criminals are exactly criminals by definition because they break the law regardless of what it is. Criminals may also commit a theft, do we say we should scrap theft laws because criminals do not follow them? We do not. Same idea with guns, if we wish to enforce it, the NRA needs to stop lobbying the state to preventing law enforcement officals from posessing the tools they need to enforce the law. Senarios: 1) actually, when the gun is used, all the police would have to do is check the serial number of the weapon to see where it was registered to trace it back to the person who bought the gun, enabling the killer. Now, if my opponent mean't to show something like a private transacton at a gun show for instance, then it stems to reason for more gun control not less. The Colombine shooters were known to ask around at gun shows if the person was private or public sellers, they wanted private because they couldn't pass background checks...if only that loop-hole was fixed... 2) finger prints perhaps? Again this is a claim for more regulation, not less. Selling arms privately was only opposed due to the power of the NRA. They are paranoid about losing their second amendment, but the problem is limiting a right is not the same as eliminating it, and all we want is the ability to track who sells what gun to whom. Inconvienence versus Saftey? While it may be a pain to sell the gun, let's not forget we're talking about a weapon here after-all. Would you sell a 300 HP car to a kid? I know I couldn't! Same idea here, the seller ought to be weary about who he sells his guns too, because if that person was crazy and in turn shoots someone, the seller would have an abundance of guilt hanging on their heads, quite the burden to live with if you ask me. Furthermore, let's look at the statistics shall we? Harvard Health has examined gun control, and found that more guns equates to more crime: {http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...} in fact, even having a gun in a home increases the likelyhood of a child getting hurt: http://childrensnyp.org...;.. could you imagine being a father knowning your gun harmed your child? States with the most amount of guns per capita often have the worst crime rates as well: In fact, a heavy correlation exists between relaxed gun-law states, and increases in violent crime http://247wallst.com...; What about other Countries? Australia ended up having a major gun buy-back, and had drops of crime rates, espescially for mass shootings. The Nordic Countries, (Finland, Switzerland, etc...) have some of the highest gun ownerships per capita of people, yet almost no gang shootings what so ever. Both countries have some of the strictest gun laws in the world; Switzerland does not even have a standing army they have a peoples milita, and don't even get ammo in their guns unless an officer allows them too, you can only purchase ammo at a gun range and you MUST use it there, same as any other nordic state. I live in Canada, where gun laws are incredibly tough, your not even allowed an open-carry here. In comparison to Toronto Chicago was far more violent, despite having similar stats http://www.thestar.com... The list continues ... gun control simply works, so long as the loop holes of the law are closed. Self-Defence: Having a gun in the home does NOT deter crime as noted here: http://www.iansa.org... Furthermore, the law isn't black and white. The second amendment is not inalienable; it can be taken away for legal purposes. http://www.cato.org...; so if someone breaks into your home, although you do have a case for self-defence, you may run into being charged with man-slaughter should you shoot him .. making you the criminal and not him (which is why guns produce more crime, not deter them) The Home Run: One country I can think of in which has some of the freeest gun regulations. Enjoy living in Somalia, where gun control simply doesn't exist (to the best of my knowledge) and where gun violence is rampant. My case is made, Guns are unsafe and need to be controlled. Gun controls, saves lives, and furthermore, lessens crimes. Not the other way around. It also prevents accidents, and finally, I believe my opponents logic is flawed. If criminals do not follow the law and we scrap them, should we also scrap theft because they do not follow it either? No, we keep it. we ought to do the same with Guns, and close the loop-hole. Thank you Over to my opponent!