Gun Control Debate: Affirmative Constructive
In the words of the 54th governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, “Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror.” Good morning judges and opponents. Today my colleague, Delaney, and I are firmly in favor of the resolution that: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. We adamantly believe this because the right for an average person to own a gun is not stated in The Constitution. Additionally, the ban of guns has been proven to result in less violence in other countries, and guns could cause destruction if and when fallen into the wrong hands. Therefore, with the weighted evidence the audience will support …show more content…
For instance in 2008, The United States faced over 12,000 gun related homicides; while Japan only had 11. This is all due to the gun laws in Japan and the lack of gun laws in America. Moreover, regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership. If the U.S. jumped on the banning guns band wagon this would no longer be an issue. To put into perspective, “Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period” (Smart Gun Laws). Moreover, the government also imposed a mandatory gun buyback that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.The effect was that both gun suicides and homicide fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense. Earlier mentioned this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that crime must now be down in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, is roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 is over four times as
In the words of the 54th governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, “Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror.” Good morning judges and opponents. Today my colleague, Delaney, and I are firmly in favor of the resolution that: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. We adamantly believe this because the right for an average person to own a gun is not stated in The Constitution. Additionally, the ban of guns has been proven to result in less violence in other countries, and guns could cause destruction if and when fallen into the wrong hands. Therefore, with the weighted evidence the audience will support …show more content…
For instance in 2008, The United States faced over 12,000 gun related homicides; while Japan only had 11. This is all due to the gun laws in Japan and the lack of gun laws in America. Moreover, regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership. If the U.S. jumped on the banning guns band wagon this would no longer be an issue. To put into perspective, “Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period” (Smart Gun Laws). Moreover, the government also imposed a mandatory gun buyback that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.The effect was that both gun suicides and homicide fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense. Earlier mentioned this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that crime must now be down in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, is roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 is over four times as