Arguments Against Background Checks

The affirmative argued that background checks are necessary for welfare in the United States. Their main argument is that gun violence is a major problem because of how easy it is for individuals to obtain weapons. They started off by using the common questions after gun violence tragedy, such as how and why did this happen where I live. They expanded that idea answering that these tragedies will continue if our background check policy is not modified. They had two examples toward their argument. The first is that background checks will mitigate gun violence. They used the example of the church shooting in Texas, saying that a mentally disabled man was able to easily obtain a firearm and shoot a large group of innocent people and an unborn …show more content…
They claimed that we are ranked 103 internationally on the amount of gun violence occurences. They said 200,000 women using guns in self defensed. Number of guns will increaase with incrreased enforcement. They also claim that background checks take guns from good people. Defense is a national right. They had five key points. The first was that the presence of guns does not have a correlation with violence. Individuals are five times less likely to shoot the wrong person than police are. The second was that the affirmative’s plan would be overridden. Criminals will get guns if they want them. In fact, most pruchase them on the black market. The third is the Consitution, claimign that too much gun control will eventually expand and go against the second amendment. The fourth was that a fault could possibly be that more intense background checks they could shun particular demographic groups from having access to guns.The fifth was that guns are necessary for self-defense becuase on average police take 18 minutes to report to a