DeletedUser8396
Guest
Topic: Do Gun Restrictions/Bans Reduce Violent Crime? If So, Is This Reason Enough to Ban Them entirely?
Motion: This house believes that Gun Restrictions/Bans does reduce violent crime.
Details: A rather heated debate (at least in the U.S.) encircles the issue of whether or not citizens should be allowed to use firearms and, if so, which firearms the citizens should be allowed to use as well how regulated they can be used. An extremely brief overlook:
Proponents of the motion: Reducing the usage and levels of possession citizens have naturally reduces the amount of violent crimes which occur by limiting the means to access weapons. If criminals cannot obtain these weapons, the crimes are less likely to be violent or as violent. If force is necessary, the police still have weapons to protect the public.
Opponents of the motion: Increasing gun control removes the guns only from law-abiding citizens. Criminals already break the law, so making laws to prevent the law-breakers from obtaining weapons is hardly going to be effective. This then allows the criminals to have force against the public and the public be defenseless (should police not be present).
These are certainly not the only arguments that can be made, so be creative and, preferably, use statistics. Remember, you aren't in the only country - some have stricter laws than others so may have more data to look to!
Motion: This house believes that Gun Restrictions/Bans does reduce violent crime.
Details: A rather heated debate (at least in the U.S.) encircles the issue of whether or not citizens should be allowed to use firearms and, if so, which firearms the citizens should be allowed to use as well how regulated they can be used. An extremely brief overlook:
Proponents of the motion: Reducing the usage and levels of possession citizens have naturally reduces the amount of violent crimes which occur by limiting the means to access weapons. If criminals cannot obtain these weapons, the crimes are less likely to be violent or as violent. If force is necessary, the police still have weapons to protect the public.
Opponents of the motion: Increasing gun control removes the guns only from law-abiding citizens. Criminals already break the law, so making laws to prevent the law-breakers from obtaining weapons is hardly going to be effective. This then allows the criminals to have force against the public and the public be defenseless (should police not be present).
These are certainly not the only arguments that can be made, so be creative and, preferably, use statistics. Remember, you aren't in the only country - some have stricter laws than others so may have more data to look to!