That's not what this source says. Not even close. all this source says is that gun ownership is going down. Which means nothing in this debate. It says nothing about your odds of being harmed in an attack because of the guns in your house.
So I'm going to build my case by attacking my opponents. The problem with the study that makes up the entirety of his case is that it's hot garbage. Its methodology? Garbage. Its conclusion? also garbage. The reason for that is that it only examines three cities. Seattle Washington, Galveston Texas, and Memphis Tennessee. All three of those cities are outliers in terms of there crime rate. It's easy to make guns appear as if they're used more often by criminals than by law-abiding citizens if you only sample the most dangerous cities in the country.
Contrast that with this nationwide study from the CDC which states that guns are used in self-defense upwards of 80 times more often than they're used to inflict harm on a victim. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."
So, the defensive uses of firearms are between 500,000 and 3 million times per annum. But the real number is probably somewhere in between. But even that lowest estimate of 500,000 times per year is still radically larger than the 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms. Also, take note that this statistic can't measure the number of times a firearm was brandished but not actually used in self-defense which likely increases the statistic considerably.
Essentially what my opponent is saying is that those (probably) millions of people who defend themselves every year with guns don't have the right to stay alive. He only has fabricated evidence and a horrifically botched study to support his ideas.
Ok, but should people be able to defend themselves. How do I defend myself from someone much larger who has a knife or crowbar? How do women defend themselves from rapists? They need a gun.
Our problem is obviously gun smuggling. In only 18% of gun crimes, the legal gun owner committed the crime. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/
I was referring to gang violence. The list you showed just includes gang activity. Maybe in Italy, they have more racketeering and property damage?
Oh, the Cartel, eh? "Mexico has extremely restrictive laws regarding gun possession." It is almost like gangs will break the law and get guns illegally even with strict laws.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Mexico
Perhaps you could mention where you disagree with our current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
As for self defense "In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense." http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/
How many people can a criminal kill with a knife before being stopped or getting exhausted? How likely are the victims to be dead instead of injured from a knife? Now compare that to pistols, then clmpare both of those to large clip semi auto. Nothing we do will stop crime completely, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to minimize the body count. What is the fatality count of British stabbings? Point and click killings are the problem. Without guns, killing would be much more difficult, exhausting, and visceral.
As for gangs. 1) you meauring an absolute value rather then per capita. We have the land and population of all of western europe combined. (Italy still beats us on gang violence tho).
2. A bunch of tiny gangs dont hold a candle to something like a single mexican cartle with military weapons and control of of whole towns and provinces. The crime in america is greatly exxagerated by fear mongers like the POTUS. It certainly exists, but it is consistently going down. Economic justice may be a better solution to crime then more armed altercations or police enforcement.
My ineffective self defense and constitutional question were my original points. I feel like both were avoided.
if I didn't have a midterm and a panic attack i would do this
So is that a yea or nay on the Kritik?
Guns aren't the problem. Britain got rid of guns, now they have stabbings. Now they are trying to ban knives. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/
Obviously the tool used is not the problem.
And you will notice that those countries with worse gang problems typically(not always) higher rates of gun violence/homicide. In the EU, there are far less gangs than the US.
We have 33,000 violent street gangs, sir.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/gangs
The rate of defensive gun use is six times larger than that of criminal use. Lots of other good pro-gun facts here as well.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/
Yeah, i highly doubt that gang claim:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/wef-countries-worst-organised-crime-problems-gangs-mafia-2017-11
And gangs would be much less of a problem if they didn't have so many guns. Where do you think they get their guns?
My main point was not the graph but my argument regarding how useless guns are in a self defense situation.
I agree with this resolution.
Which specific graph were you referring to? If it was that we have more homicide per 100,000, that is because we have a lot more gangs. The vast majority of gun crimes aren't committed by legal gun owners. If you need sources, I can grab them.
Technically speaking, most constitutional rights are rights from, not rights to. Like the right from unjust search and seizure, the right from persecution over religion or speech.
Also, most studies show you are in more danger if your armed as your gun is probably holstered with safety on as the mugger points his gun at you... and if its a mass shooting at an *unsuspecting* crowd... the gun wont help you much.
And then there is the question of the wording/meaning of the 2nd ammendement.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17155596/gun-ownership-polls-safety-violence
A debate like this basically demands a Kritik.
They are the same thing. How do you think you enforce your right to live?
:)
Can I Kritik?