Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban

Second of all, your source from Gunstocarry.com does not cite any sources on this topic. You could say that this is because it’s independent research, but it still must cite its sources because it has to look at crime rates from each year to confirm its data.

¨For the second quote, I am explaining that correlation does not equal causation in my statistic, because I was trying to prove that a "3-5% increase in aggravated assault" is an example of this.  This is very inconclusive with such a minute percentage. Also, notice how the study fails to mention murder, rape, battery, etc.¨

But the study does account for all of these things. Does Con really think that they would do studies just on aggravated assault?

Also, can Con explain why exactly minute percentages don´t matter?  

A study by John. J Donahue and Alexandria Zhang showed that not only did concealed carry permits increase the murder rate by 2%, but they also had an over 9% increase in aggravated assault, robbery, rape, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. [1]

Another study by John J. Donahue, who you may notice is pretty much the John Lott of the opposite side of this debate, gave similar results as my original study. Concealed carry significantly increased aggravated assaults. [2]

Donahue also did this one which found a significant 10% correlation between concealed carry and violent crime. For some reason though, I posted this in my first argument, and Con continues to ignore it. [3]

This next one, a study by Charles Branas, is interesting because it actually doesn't even work against the opposing side. Even if assault weapons do have a deterrent effect, which I assume they do not, people with concealed carry are much more likely to die during these assaults. [4]

Con also mentions that concealed carry owners are far more law abiding than non-concealed carry owners. Although there may be research on this, it is far from a consensus. According to the Violence Policy Center, they are, in Texas, 81% (81%!) more likely to kill than the average citizen. [5] Speaking of them, they did another study that showed that of the 544 concealed carry shootings, only 16 were self-defense. [7]

“After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below. After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below.  Many more stats are expressed in my source.[1]”

I’ve done some research on some of the pro-gun study guys, and a lot of them seem like they’re politically motivated frauds. For example, Dave Kopel - who is the co-author of this study that Con cites in his gun graph numbers. He’s practically drowning in NRA money. He used NRA money that he told no one about to try to change state laws. [6] Needless to say, TIME magazine got rid of the so-called “independent” researcher. [8] This fraudulence and inconsistency puts into question his entire body of work, and makes it practically untrustable.

“Many more stats are expressed in my source.”

I don’t understand why Con included this. For the record, I am not going to debunk every study that is in his source, I am going to debunk every study that he cites. Consequently, the voters should only look at the studies he mentions, not the ones that he didn’t mention that happen to be in the source.

We can attribute the “sudden spike” to Harold Shipman, a guy who committed 172 murders in the months immediately after the ban was instituted [11].

It is true that crime did continue to rise after the gun ban, but according to independant.co.uk, we can also attribute that to other things.

“Perhaps not necessarily at first,” he says. “In fact, for the next four years gun crime continued to increase, by about 105 per cent over that period.”

But that doesn’t mean it was a failure. The reason gun crime continued to rise was because the definition was too wide-ranging; it included everything and anything, every single report where a victim reported that a gun was used, even if that gun was never fired, even if it was a replica, or a fake, or even a toy. So by 2003, the laws were refined.” [12]

Now that that’s happened, gun homicide rate seems to have gone down [12] as has the general homicide rate.

“I also don't think we should just look at mass shootings, but the overall murder rate.  During the ban, murder rate per capita seemed to drop by 3 people, but after the ban did not get renewed, the rate remained the same, indicating the ban had no real effect on the murder rate.[2]”

Con’s statistics here seem to accidentally help my case. It seems to make sense that the murder rates wouldn’t rise after the ban did not get renewed, doesn’t it? Not everyone who had a semi-automatic rifle before the ban would get it after the ban. The immediate effect of the ban seems too coincidental with it’s time.

“What I do not understand about these arguments, is that, in America, there are less than 400 rifle murders of ANY KIND per year.  There are over 4x knife murders than there are rifle murders. My question to pro would be, if you are looking to decrease crime, why wouldn't you be in favor of banning handguns or knives, because they account for far more murder than rifles?”

This claim has no source whatsoever. Can pro provide one so I can look at it? I think a handgun ban would be too extreme, and people would generally not comply. Although they may account for more mass shootings, I doubt that banning them would decrease mass shootings.

“The data is very unsure of the percentage of guns in America, there is no definitive answer.  However, this source shows AR-15 type rifles and handguns are about a 50-50 split of all gun sales.[3]”

Yes, an amateur Quora source from a user with questionable credentials. These really don’t have any intellectual validity whatsoever.

“Automatic weapons have been banned since 1930.  Con automatically(no pun intended) concedes this point.  Semi-automatic guns are not made for military combat, and I have already explained this in my last argument.  This is simply left-wing false propaganda.”

Yes, but the Supreme Court has ruled that if a gun can be shown to be of no use for self defense, like a sawed-off shotgun, it’s Constitutional to ban it, which you concede. I have shown that semi-automatic rifles are not at all better than pistols/shotguns, and that they increase mass shootings. Thus, they are of no use for self defense!

“America would likely know that the government would go tyrannical, and have time to create a plan with locals.  They could definitely put up a fight and kill many soldiers, and it's not like a thousand soldiers would go at one person.  The U.S. population outweighs military population.”

Yes but the military is trained and organized. Can Con give me an instance where a military dictatorship failed because the citizens had guns? They seem to have a very high success rate, like with Brazil and Chile, and Germany.

Also, even if something improbable like this were to have a semblance of success, you’d have to consider that many, many Americans would die. It wouldn’t just be a net benefit.

“Of course you can try to legally change the document, but what I am saying is that it is still an extremely valid argument.  It is one of the most important, if not THE MOST IMPORTANT freedom in America, which is what separates us from other countries.”

Yes, because it has certain fundamental values that are important. But just like all important documents, some parts of them eventually become outdated because of the times. Does Con not acknowledge this?

"https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/concealed-carry-permit-holders-crime-statistics/"

"Um, well yes, because that is quite literally what the study says…”

“ For the next 2, and the the 1st one, actually, I don't think we are going to get anywhere, because like you said, the two are opposites and have conflicting data, while also trying to debunk each other's faults in the studies.”

"I'm not saying that they always don't matter, but 3%?  This is an example of correlation does not equal causation.  If there were 100 aggravated assaults, and concealed-carry laws were implemented after, and the rate of it went up 3% to 103-105 people, I do not think we can conclusively say concealed-carry causes this.”

“OK, these seem like legit arguments”

“For the first one, 2% is not conclusive.”

“I am also not going to go through 100 pages of a study to find the root source.”

“I tried to go to the study on the NYT article, but it says page not found.”

“You also say "kill,' not murder.  There is a big difference between the two.  Can you clarify this?”

“For your next point, I was showing a study that adheres to many's perception of how to measure whether concealed-carry is effective, which is often GUN murders.  I still think we should look at overall murder rate, though.”

Fair enough for that study, also, I was directing viewers to look at more stats at their pleasure, you didn't have to rebuttal them, of course.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

"This is the source.  The FBI also has statistics on this up to 2014, where there were less than 300 rifle murders.  There are also more blunt object murders than rifle murders, and more personal weapon(body parts) murders than rifle murders.  Why would an SAR ban be the slightest effective when it is an extremely minor cause of gun murders?"

“I do not think gun control is the answer, but rather mental health screening, armed guards, or armed teachers.”

“Um, you have shown nothing of value when it comes to SAR's. “

“Any gun increases mass shootings.  Anything can increase murder. Should fists be banned?  After all, they account for more murders than rifles.”

"Hitler or Stalin, in my opinion, would have approached the situation differently if guns were legal.  However, guns were illegal, and I'm sure they would make guns illegal if they wanted to kill Jews, because armed Jews could interrupt the process of the gather up.  Guns in the hands of civilians would cause more problems for the Hitler administration.”

“Of course some would die, but maybe the government would get the memo that civilians are fighting back and also killing soldiers.  Germany was successful with their tyranny because citizens did not have guns. They were banned. This point from pro is false.”

“Citizens have successfully fought back against tyranny In America 1776. In Russia 1916. Multiple times in England’s history. Israel 1948. Russia 1989. France 1793.”

“ With over 300,000,000 guns in America scattered across cities, the military isn't able to go tyrannical against a mass people.”

“Also, many people would not comply with a ban because military would have to go door by door and get them, and you can't bomb people because some people don't have guns.”

“The problem is, with liberals, once you get started with a certain ban, they'll say "no we're not taking your guns," but in reality they will just keep banning guns until all of them are banned.  The left will never be satisfied with the results until it completes their true agenda(most people[progressives], probably not you), which is to get rid of all guns. With more government power, the more government will rule your life and become corrupt.  The constitution is designed for god-given personal guaranteed rights and freedoms.”