Last year, the Violence Policy Center found that gun owners are 32 times more likely to use their weapon in criminal homicide than in self-defense. Usually, the first reason a gun advocate says there is a need to own guns is the self-protection myth. Now that that myth has been debunked and it has been proven that justifiable homicides are rare, We must move past the old self-defense narrative and think with clearer heads when discussing gun ownership." In other words, Owning a gun DOES NOT protect the gun owner in comparison to protecting the gun owner. It's a myth. "Fear of Other People Is Now the Primary Motivation for American Gun Ownership, A Landmark Survey Finds'' Studies have found that people who live in homes with handguns are twice as likely to take their life compared to those who live in homes with other types of firearms, Such as shotguns and rifles. (Seniors are the population at the highest risk of using a handgun in a fatal suicide attempt.) Research shows that domestic violence victims are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun. The Harvard/Northeastern survey shows a slight increase in the number of gun-owning women" a group that now makes up 12 percent of all gun owners. But while nearly 70 percent of women cited self-protection as one of the primary motivations for owning a gun, Past studies show that a gun in the home is statistically more likely to be used to harm a woman than to help one. "Our survey suggests that many more people believe guns in their home make them safer, When in fact, Epidemiological research suggests precisely the opposite, " Deb Azrael says.In a statement, AMA President Steven J. Stack, MD, Said: "With approximately 30, 000 men, women, and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun in elementary schools, Movie theaters, Workplaces, Houses of worship, and on live television, The United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence. Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, The Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries. An epidemiological analysis of gun violence is vital so physicians and other health providers, Law enforcement, And society at large may be able to prevent injury, death, and other harms to society resulting from firearms. " Continuing" The legislation that the doctors" groups hope to overturn with such money stems from what some refer to as the Dickey Amendment, named after former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark. ). In 1996, Dickey successfully introduced legislation that stripped $2. 6 million from the CDC"s budget"the exact amount the agency used for firearm-related research. While the money was later added back to the CDC"s budget, So was wording in the appropriations bill that stipulated that the agency couldn't"t use federal funds to "advocate or promote gun control. Though that language does"t explicitly ban firearm research, It has effectively done so. "Removing the money from the budget and enacting the Dickey Amendment were the first and second shots across the bow by the NRA, "
Even if one side barely contributes, you still have to at least point to an argument the other side made that upheld their position. It’s not automatic that a contribution is pertinent.
Votes requested.
Con provides absolutely nothing of substance and Pro provides 3 rounds of relative substance.....It's a no brainer, as well you know.
Someone whinges and the vote get's removed.
Is it any wonder that no one bothers to vote.
D******D
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
#1. Instigator Con doesn't seem to know what's what, so should have declined contender Pro's request.
#3. Con gives us a brief intro into life on the streets.
#5 Con unwisely rests upon the strength of #3.
#2.4.6. Pro, at least provides 3 rounds of relative substance, emotion and thoughtfulness. Thereby they should be acknowledged for their effort.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter is kind of specific about what Con said in R2, but doesn't consider specific points made by Pro, nor does he consider how any of these points impact under the resolution. Acknowledging effort is nice, but not sufficient.
impressively diplomatic
why do you hope i win?
I hope you win
i was just wanting to do a debate on gun control and I want people to have a background check before they even set there hands on a gun