Instigator / Pro

billbatard

1294

rating

debates

18.0%

won

Topic

#1484

Science has proven stricter gun laws can reduce crime

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

OoDart

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 10.03.2019 05:20PM
Last updated date: 10.15.2019 05:31PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

OoDart

1518

rating

debates

57.14%

won

Description

https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2 Science is how you prove truth and scientific study is fool proof and honest, not always right not always honest but the thing is if one study is wrong peer reviewed studies will point it out

Round 1

billbatard

10.04.2019 09:08PM

Pro

1) Science has shown time and again that it can prevent mass shootings and save lives. What science has demonstrated, however, is that the number of gun deaths in the US is much higher than in other nations with similar rates of gun ownership (like Switzerland), and that certain policies can help prevent these fatalities. Studies have linked stricter background checks, rules prohibiting domestic abusers from owning weapons, and secure locks on firearms in the home with decreased rates of gun-related deaths. https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-research-how-policies-can-reduce-deaths-2019-8

2) Researchers have clear policy suggestions on how to see fewer gun deaths. They'd have many more, if they weren't starved for funding and data. Scientists have found many statistics and policy to reduce gun deaths , and would find more if the pro gun lobby had not sabotaged the truth by cutting off funding to important research This is where the science should come in. A straight-up restriction on gun ownership would work, yes, but that’s politically—constitutionally—untenable, at least as the current Supreme Court would have it. But other, more subtle options and interventions are out there. Work on reducing deaths in car crashes doesn’t demand banning all cars; requiring seat belts made a huge difference. So what’s the gun policy equivalent of a seat belt?https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-reduce-gun-violence-ask-some-scientists/

3) Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives

this is not one study or even two or three hundred of peer reviewed studies indicate the obvious you make guns harder to access especially to the undesirable element and crime goes down as does violence https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives

OoDart

10.05.2019 10:23PM

Con

Thank you for creating this debate.

You claimed the following:

Using the scientific method and objective investigation it can be proven as a fact that strict gun laws reduce crime

This is not true, nor did you provide any evidence to suggest that it is true. In fact, we can view the crime rates and other statistics of many countries on a website called NationMaster. The crime rate per 1000 people page can be found here: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

We see that the United States of America, which has little to no gun laws, ranks as the 22nd country for most crimes per 1000 people, having 41.29 crimes per 1000 people. Canada, which has very strict gun laws, ranks 10th with 80.25 crimes per 1000 people. The United Kingdom, where guns are completely illegal, ranks 4th with 109.96 crimes per 1000 people. If strict gun laws lowered the crime rate, the U.K. and Canada would have lower crime rates than the U.S.A.

The remainder of your points only suggest that strict gun laws save lives and/or lower the amount of gun-related deaths, which I will happily concede to you because this debate is about whether or not strict gun laws reduce crime. In regards to this debate, the amount of deaths caused is irrelevant.

Round 2

billbatard

10.05.2019 10:51PM

Pro

the data you provide is inaccurate its wrong irrlevant and not pertainant to the qustion at hand

1)comparing nations is like comparing apples and oranges most undeveloped nations have higher crime rates due to corrution and mass povery, also you forget to take into consideration that diffeent nations define and report crime differently

2) if you must compare nations the pertainanet comparisons logically would be to nations with similar charactoristics as far as per capita income and industrial development comparing this antion to mexico or angola is pointless

3) many ofthe crime figure you site are just plain wrong, crime in sweden is not higher than here, different defintions and reporting procedures exist https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/ the uk's notorios crime statistics ar bogus and experts know this the defintion of violent crime in the uk is totally different comparisons are completely meaningless "– The question posed on sexual crimes in NTU includes a wide range of crimes. It can range from minor events [like] flashing and groping, to very serious incidents of rape. Those who say they suffered must therefore answer questions about the severity of the crime. The responses show that in 29 percent of cases [have been] a more serious form of sexual crimes, says Emelie Hambrook, investigator at the National Council."https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/"Has anybody stopped to even figure out why that may be? How that can be possible? How the UK defines violent crime? That what may constitute “rape” in the UK does not in the US and vice versa? Well, I have. And here are my findings.".... interestingly, this suggests that the actual violent crime rate for the US is 4.81x higher than reported (NCVS 5.800.000 / 1,203,564 FBI – CUS = 4.81) and 2.6x higher than reported than in the UK. (CBS 2,203,000 / 821,957 THOSB – CEW = 2.6)https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

and more importantly none of this matters it compares the usa to other nations, what doesthat prove? the definitionm of crime is different, mathods of reporting are different, in the uk they log every crime we ignoe many because there is so much crime, and also conditions from one nation to the other? appleas and oragnes its absurd to even try

also look at homicide rates and serious crimes the usa has a murder rate 5 times that of the uk https://time.com/4206484/america-violent-death-rate-higher/

and i dont know where you get your info but my site says both violent crime and homicide are 5 times hghers in the usa than the uk https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime this directly refutes you point

STAT

United Kingdom

United States

HISTORY

Believes crime increasing in the past 3 years

53.35

Ranked 75th.

65.22

Ranked 44th. 22% more than United Kingdom

Crime levels

Ranked 42nd.

55.84

Ranked 30th. 16% more than United Kingdom

Drugs > Opiates use

0.9%

Ranked 1st. 58% more than United States

0.57%

Ranked 3rd.

Fear of crime > Feels safe walking alone > At night

50.72

Ranked 47th. 21% more than United States

41.84

Ranked 60th.

Fear of crime > Violent hate crime

27.22

Ranked 49th.

32.55

Ranked 31st. 20% more than United Kingdom

Justice system > Punishment > Capital punishment (last execution year)

1,953

Ranked 1st.

2,014

Ranked 1st. 3% more than United Kingdom

Murders with firearms

Ranked 39th.

9,369

Ranked 4th. 669 times more than United Kingdom

Murders with firearms per million

0.236

Ranked 44th.

32.57

Ranked 10th. 138 times more than United Kingdom

Total crimes

6.52 million

Ranked 2nd.

11.88 million

Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom

Total crimes per 1000

109.96

Ranked 4th. 3 times more than United States

41.29

Ranked 22nd.

Violent crime > Intentional homicide rate

1.17

Ranked 74th.

4.7

Ranked 7th. 4 times more than United Kingdom

Violent crime > Murder rate

722

Ranked 34th.

12,996

Ranked 9th. 18 times more than United Kingdom

Violent crime > Murder rate per million people

11.68

Ranked 94th.

42.01

Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom

Violent crime > Murders

722

Ranked 34th.

12,996

Ranked 9th. 18 times more than United Kingdom

Violent crime > Murders per million people

11.68

Ranked 94th.

42.01

Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom

you have not even refuted my assertion that scientists have discovered that within the USA states and locals that impliment stricter gun laws have much less crime,

Southern states along the Mississippi River have consistently reported some of the highest rates of firearm deaths. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas currently fall within the top 10 for firearm deaths. One legislative similarity that all of these states share is that none of them require license, registration or permit to buy a gun, though there are dozens of other states with the same regulations. Still, the states surrounding the Mississippi River Delta were rated as some of the most lenient in terms of gun law stringency, according to Crimadvisor. https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

OoDart

10.08.2019 02:34PM

Con

Thanks for replying.

The data I provided is completely relevant. It was 100% related to crime rates and guns. You proceeded to provide irrelevant information including the following statistics:

1. Fear of Crime (Irrelevant because the measure of fear is not directly related to the actual amount)

2. Belief of Increasing Crime (Again, not directly related to the actual amount)

3. Crime Levels (Ignores population)

4. Opiates Use (One specific type of crime is not ALL crime)

5. Capital Punishment (Not a crime)

6. Murders (Again, one specific type of crime is not ALL crime)

7. Total Crimes (Again, ignores population)

8. Various Violent Crime Rates (Again, one specific type of crime is not ALL crime)

You also provided statistics that prove my point, specifically Crimes per 1000.

You also provided information about Sweden, but I never compared Sweden to the U.S.A. This was irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You also claimed the following:

Southern states along the Mississippi River have consistently reported some of the highest rates of firearm deaths.

I will gladly concede that to you as it doesn't prove your point. More firearm deaths does not actually mean more crime.

Your statistics and statements have strengthened my arguments.

Over to you.

Round 3

billbatard

10.08.2019 02:57PM

Pro

much of the date you provided was simply incorrect

OoDart

10.08.2019 05:31PM

Con

Let us review the debate.

Round 1:

Pro provided arguments.

I also provided arguments and rebuttals for the pro's arguments.

Round 2:

Pro decided my arguments were false without providing any evidence to suggest this, then gave many unrelated statistics as well as statistics that actually supported my arguments.

I pointed that out.

Round 3:

Pro has just told me that my "date" (which I assume is supposed to be "data") is incorrect, again without showing evidence.

And now we are here.

Thanks for the debate, billbatard. Over to the voters.

OoDart

10.10.2019 02:27PM

My opponent has been banned from DART...

OoDart

10.09.2019 02:22PM

bump for votes

billbatard

10.08.2019 09:26AM

-->

@OoDart

have reduced crime already

OoDart

10.05.2019 10:26PM

-->

@billbatard

My copy/paste did not grab the correct thing. My quote of you should say the following:

Science has proven stricter gun laws can reduce crime

OoDart

10.04.2019 01:15AM

-->

@billbatard

I look forward to debating you.

billbatard

10.03.2019 09:42PM

i dont know what happend i will no fofeit again, its strange, it didnt show up on my radar i was ding too much no excuse, carry on

OoDart

10.03.2019 06:36PM

-->

@billbatard

May I take this debate again, since you gave full forfeiture last time we tried this?

Ramshutu

10.15.2019 12:28PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

To win here, pro must show a clear correlation between crime rate and gun laws. In the first round pro compares countries that suits his conclusion by showing a limit set of correlation. Con counters this by showing clearly indicative examples that show that the relationship is at least more complex than pro gives it credit for.

Pros rebuttal here is basically to double down on what amounts to cherry picking: saying that it’s not valid to compare different countries while, at the same time, basing his argument of comparing countries.

Given that the premise requires the establishment of correlation - pro falls substantially short, and as a result this must go to con.

Barney

10.10.2019 07:26PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

This vote is primarily advice for pro (or anyone wishing to learn from his mistakes).

While I congratulate pro for sweeping improvements (in that he's at least acknowledging the opposing case), a statement like "the data you provide is inaccurate its wrong irrlevant and not pertainant to the qustion at hand" needs to be followed or preceded by strong justification for why it's wrong and irrelevant. Which is a shame, because I actually see the attempt at doing that, but we voters do not quite take everything on face value of all opinions are equal...
"1)comparing nations is like comparing apples and oranges most undeveloped nations..." calling the UK and Canada underdeveloped is laughable (contextually, those were the counter examples con used, so the only ones in need of being challenged). Also trying to refute comparing nations, is to disagree with using social science to draw the conclusion to your case you are trying to support. The next point talks about how wrong it would have been if con compared the USA to countries he or she did not use in the comparison... At that point, you've lost my attention to assume the list of points is more than just a Gish Gallop to be skipped.

Using "much of the date you provided was simply incorrect" as not simply a closing statement, but an entire closing round, is in spirit conceding the absence of supporting evidence for your case.

Con on the other hand pretty well won with the simple statement "this debate is about whether or not strict gun laws reduce crime. In regards to this debate, the amount of deaths caused is irrelevant." He of course preceded it with evidence of the UK and Canada, otherwise it would be a nice reminder but not a game changer.