Instigator / Pro
6
1337
rating
26
debates
9.62%
won
Topic
#1603
the safest nations all have strict gun laws
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
MisterChris
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
14
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description
Strict gun laws make nations safest https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/safest-countries-in-the-world.html
Round 1
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
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
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
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
"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
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/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.
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.
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?