Instigator / Pro
4
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#2170
USA needs to tighten Gun laws
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Dr.Franklin
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
US's gun laws have been a reason for debate across the west with the news of US school shooting causing a global concern on the safety of school children, in this debate PRO will try to prove a stricter gun law will help the US populace in several ways.
BOP
1.Current Gun deaths:- Reports suggest that 64% percent of the Gun deaths about (24,000) were suicides rest were homicides. This gives a fair bit of the actual reality of Guns in the US. PRO will not stoop to trying to conclusively say that US school shootings or mass shootings occupy a considerable fraction of Gun deaths in US because they dont. PRO gun lobbyist can often point out that Mass shootings related deaths occupy only a small fraction of the victims killed in the shootings. PRO will try to highlight that justifying a small number of lives are lost for an unknown benefit of gun lobbyists is condemnable. Any loss of human live is not justifiable when the loss could have been prevented by reformative action.US gun laws are very lenient, with ammunition as available as candy. US is by every means a developed country so comparison to any developing country say South Sudan will be unfair. We can compare Gun deaths in US from Gun deaths from developed countries statistics. This leads us to ask the pertinent questions.
Why do mass shootings only happen in the US among all developed countries?
Why do they keep happening often ?
Compare US gun deaths to that of UK (per 100,000) people :
1.UK deaths :- (0.23) (Homisides-0.06,suicides-0.15)
2.US deaths :- ( 12.21) (Homisides- 4.46,suicides- 7.32)
The only difference was that UK and most recently New Zealand and Canada were quick to amend their Gun laws after Mass shootings.
2.Police training and expenses: 115 billion is the amount spend on police training and expenses in US. Most of the training and expenses are justified in the current scenario since the police in US have the most difficult jobs among the developed countries, because gun yielding criminals are also very common curtsy of the current gun laws. The police in other countries are also competent in handling such situations,by designating special wings to deal with such scenarios. Then why train the entire police force to be expert fire-arm wielders when, the need for such training can be simply reduced by reducing the number of Guns and the varieties available to the common populace. With so many jobs lost due to the corona- virus pandemic, it becomes even more pertinent that US cuts its police budget and focus on other sectors such as public housing to accommodate the struggling lower middle class.
3.Co-relation between Strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths: It can be easily observed that countries with the strictest Gun carrying policies have the lowest Gun related deaths: -
Numbers indicate Gun deaths per 100,000 people
South Korea(0.08)
Japan(0.06)
Hong Kong(0.03)
Singapore(0.025)
Now compare these deaths to the US statistic 12.1 , the drastic difference speaks for itself.
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK would reduce police expenditures and reduce gun crime by a substantial rate as seen by the fall in gun crime in UK after the implementation of strict gun law. Thus making the need for Strict Gun law a valid resolution.
Thx for the debate
Framework
Due to the nature of the gun control debate, My rounds will be mainly focused on rebuttalling my opponents round beforehand, I will make an argument and then focus on rebuttals. Next, I will define gun control and laws for this debate. My opponent has said:
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK
This means that this debates gun control reforms is defined on UK laws, therefore we will define terms based off of these laws which can be found here:LINK
Argument
1.Violation of Second Amendment-In order for British gun laws to work, the Second Amendment of the Constitution must be repealed.Where as the British law in 1689 does not guarantee a right to keep and bear arms,the second amendment of the USA does allow it under the second amendment which reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.{LINK}
in order for guns to be banned similar to the UK, such as banning handguns will be a direct violation of the second amendment of the Constitution of the USA.Until Pro argues for the repeal of the Second Amendment, simply put-these gun laws are impossible to be put in place.
2.USA is a lot different-USA has 120.5 guns per 100 civilians. That is a massive number of guns compared to any other sizable developed country in the world.Combined with a culture built on revolution,democracy, and anti-tyranny, it is easy to see why it wouldnt work. Historical trends show that Americans would resist gun confiscation. New Zealands gun confiscation law saw a compliance of 10%, in America that would leave still 14 million Assault Rifles and AK;s in circulation. The guns would still be there. And due to the difference of gun culture, Americans would be even less compliant to turn in guns as the NationalReview reports
New Jersey’s recent ban on the possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds is instructive. In April, New Jersey State Police told Ammoland.com that not a single magazine had been surrendered to them.{LINK}
Simply put, there are too many guns in circulation for the process to work and the compliance rate of citizens would be low, even if the laws did pass, there would still be guns!
Rebuttal
1.Current Gun Deaths-The UK and USA figure is hard to compare for a couple reasons. First if it can be proved that even before the UK gun law reforms from 1968 onwards that their crime rates was just as low compared to the US than the gun legislation would be proven ineffective.This seems to be the case-while the UK may have lower crime, even before all gun control legislation, UK crime rates in 1919 was 8% of the US rate, after gun control laws, in 1986, it was 9%,gun control laws had no effect on the US VS UK comparison of gun crime.UK has always have lower firearm crime rates.These laws have therefore been ineffective{LINK}
This chart successfully shows the UK VS comparison has always been that lopsided even with gun laws-LINK
Next, CON asserts that Pro's figure is inflated
1.UK deaths :- (0.23) (Homisides-0.06,suicides-0.15)2.US deaths :- ( 12.21) (Homisides- 4.46,suicides- 7.32)
He is using suicide statistics although previously said he will not use it.Suicides have no effect on guns as Lithuania, who has a suicide rate of 25.7{LINK} also has a low gun ownership rate of 13.6 compared to 120 to America. Zero correlation
Third,violent crime has been up while gun control laws have passed and have gotten more strict in the UK,there has been several jumps in crime since the 1997 gun ban on handguns including one where BBC reports terrible statistics after the gun law:
Soliciting up 60%{LINK}
Last, there is a severe lack of correlations between gun laws, gun ownership and crime rates. Scotland for example has the highest rate of violence in the developed world despite gun laws{LINK}As well as Switzerland where virtually every household owns a gun, the homicide rate is extremely low compared to any other European country with 0.54 compared to UK's 1.20(lax vs strict gun laws).The rape rate of Sweden is 6th in world, which beats out some of the most undeveloped nations, and have been rising.{LINK} Lastly, the white gun ownership rate is 27% compared to 16% of blacks and 11% for hispanics, yet hispanic and black crime and homicide rates in significantly higher than whites, these two charts perfectly show that there is no correlation of gun ownership and crime-LINK and LINK as well as the simple fact that while handgun use is at an all time high, crime rates are not even close to it.
source link:LINK
2.Police-This point rests on the case that less guns in the population means that less crime rates and less police expenses. However this has been deemed untrue-LINK and LINK
Also,as proven in my argument, compliance rates would be severely low in the US meaning there will always be guns around and there will always be criminals around. And even if we got rid of guns, police would still be ineffective in stopping crime as they arrive late(naturally) 95% of the time. They are there to police and arrest.{LINK}
And even if we were able to get rid of all legal guns which CON has proved would be a near impossible task, firearm smuggling would continue to be the most prevalent factor of gun crime as 5 out of 6 criminals get their guns from illegal sources and the secondary market{LINK}
3.co-relation between strict gun laws and gun related deaths
all of pros examples are from east asia, countries where even if guns were completely eliminated would STILL have a murder rate less than the US, this is because the murder rate in Japan is 1, the us murder rate without firearms is 3.2. even if we got rid of all firearms, it would still be lower.{LINK}
East Asian countries/areas are also highly economically developed and have cultures that are superior to America. Business insider reports that economic equality significantly adds to the lowering of Japans and south koreas crime rate as well as a cultural rejection of violence seen after ww2 not present in USA, it is also important to know that PRO is cherry picking 4 examples, I can just as easily point out low ownership countries and high rates of crime. As well as the 12.1 bloated figure that includes suicides.
Switzerland has high gun ownership-0.54 rate of homicide.
Austria has a high rate of gun ownership-0.66 rate of homicide
Iceland has a high rate of gun ownership-0.30 rate of homicide*Japan is slightly lower at 0.28
these statistically anomalies can go back and forth but it has been proven that there is NO correlation between gun ownership and gun crime and that PRO cherry picked 4 international examples where has CON has proven in USA, that gun ownership != gun crime rates -LINK and LINK source link:LINK
Over to Pro!
Round 2
PRO will further continue this debate by reaffirming his points and refuting fresh arguments presented by CON
1.Current Gun deaths:- As previously stated PRO has refrained from using suicide deaths and merely stated total figures to show a co-relation between Gun related deaths in UK and USA and to ascertain the fact that in both countries suicide count are closely 60% of the gun deaths, Had PRO any desire to bloat figures , it would have been done by simply stating the 12.1 deaths per 100,000 people. But PRO clearly mentions the real figures :
1.UK deaths :- (0.23) (Homisides-0.06,suicides-0.15)
2.US deaths :- ( 12.21) (Homisides- 4.46,suicides- 7.32)
He is using suicide statistics although previously said he will not use it.Suicides have no effect on guns as Lithuania, who has a suicide rate of 25.7{LINK} also has a low gun ownership rate of 13.6 compared to 120 to America. Zero correlation
PRO has not used suicide statistic will only focus on the 4.46 deaths per 100,000 people which is a lot, considering other developed countries.
CON claims that crime rate in the UK has been low forever but fails to mention crime rate and violent crimes need not necessarily translate to loss of lives. What crimes are we talking about monetary embezzlement? tax fraud? theft ? or the more violent- murder? rape? extortion? .
Increase of just 1 percent over a span of 1919 to 1986 is actually a decrease as there is a difference between total crime and crime per 100,000 people, CON fails to mention that, so PRO is assuming he is talking about total crime, if that being the case it is favourable for UK since we adjust for growth in population the crime rate decreased substantially.
Again all increases mentioned by CON are refuted and these facts are unsourced and CON fails to detail them within given level of detail, is he talking about total crime or crime per 100,000 people.
Scotland for example has the highest rate of violence in the developed world despite gun laws
assaulting somone is a minor crime, a couple of school boys beating a fellow school boy can be charged with assault, assaults have no or minimal relation to guns.
Lastly, the white gun ownership rate is 27% compared to 16% of blacks and 11% for hispanics, yet hispanic and black crime and homicide rates in significantly higher than whites, these two charts perfectly show that there is no correlation of gun ownership and crime
Please refrain from entering communal politics, it is an codemned across democracies around the world. In India such statistics are not even available, shows in US there has been attempt to devide people along communal and racial lines.
2. Constitutional claim put forth by CON:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The pretext of the same amendment clearly says -" a well regulated militia", it is by PRO's understanding that USA already has excess of 800,000 reserve personnel, and the again the same argument will be used that the right is not absolute and was upheld by the Supreme Court of USA in 2008.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[6][7][8][9] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"
It is safe to say that it is the characteristic of a mentally ill person to start shooting people from his apartment building in Vegas killing more than 50 people. Stating that the administration failed to act according to the guidelines stated by the Supreme Court of USA. It is to be further concluded that people bearing assault rifles are therefore neither well- regulated nor a militia.
Defiance of the Amendment: CON mis-stated PRO by assuming UK laws as the basis of the debate, while PRO definitively stated that a proposed amendment such as curtailment of carrying of assault rifles can be made " in lines of UK laws" , PRO feels that stating in lines of a law does not equate to the proposed amendment being identical to the laws present in USA. Again stating the same example it would have been impossible to carry out the mass shooting in vegas had the culprit only access to a hand gun.
Thus without agruing against 2nd amendment, a resolution can be passed to curtail gun availability in USA.
3.US is a lot different argument by CON: The argument is easily refutable, it is one thing to own an assault rifle, it is completely different to own an assault rifle by violating the law and facing criminal proceedings for it. Crime rate can be high in US but it is safe to say majority of the population is law abiding and would not want to serve prison or have an official criminal record of themselves for owning an illegal weapon. Changes are not brought about instantly, a great deal of change can be brought about by effectively taken a huge number of small steps in the right direction. A resolution can start by banning the most deadly category of weapons say: 7.62 or 5.56 calibre guns and then can eventually be extended to other guns.
How is US different? are lives lost in mass shooting any different whether it happened it Singapore or New Zealand or USA.
A life is life, any loss of innocent life is condemnable when a government fails to protect its citizens, it is sad no matter where is happens on Earth.
4.Police:
This point rests on the case that less guns in the population means that less crime rates and less police expenses. However this has been deemed untrue
The source mentioned with the statement is just a graph with no relation to police activity. CON claims police are just there to arrest people and persecute criminals.
Which is categorically wrong it can be easily demonstrated by terror attacks:
Police dying as first responders to 9/11 attacks in America.
The fund spend by America in Police expenditure is more than the defense budget of all countries except China and USA, with the third biggest spender in defense eqipment spends only 70 billion. Compare 70 billion to 110 billion spent by American Police, Police justify their heavy armament by stating Gun available to civilian population and the results compiled by ex-veteran and former police officer for VOX itself states:
Note: the facts are published by a research done by Oxford University, and thus can be treated as having no bias.
- 94% of police in USA dont have a problem with them carrying military grade equipment.
- 77% agree the equipment makes them more aggressive.
- 83% stated the euipment and their presence scares them.
3.Co-relation between Strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths:
Swiss rules are easily avaiable: Gun owernship is high, but the ownership is of a very different kind, mostly pistols and bolt action loading rifles, the type of guns PRO is talking about are already prohibited even in Switzerland. Gun laws are comprehensive.
Austria : Same laws, bolt action and handguns with automatic guns only handed to experts, even while handing a gun there is a 3 day background check.
Iceland has very strict laws in lines of Japan:
Icelandic law places strict limits on gun ownership. To get a gun, you must be at least 20 years old, pass a mental and physical assessment, and you can’t have a criminal record. Applicants must then get recommendations from two people to attend a course on guns, gun safety, and gun and hunting laws. Only after passing a written test can you get a license for smaller shotguns and rifles. To get a permit for larger rifles and semi-automatic shotguns, you must wait an additional year.
PRO thanks CON for not straying away from the topic and including developing and destabalized countries in comparison. Hope this discussion continues to stay in the lines of apple to another apple comparison.
Homocide comparison by firearm: (Wikipedia)
PRO refuses allegation that PRO has cherry picked particular countries:
Lets examine a more comprehensive list
Guns per 100 people //Deaths( murder) per 100,000 people
Belgium - 6.86// 0.14
Ireland- 7.2//0.21
Denmark- 9.90//0.11
Finland- 27.5//0.32
Canada- 34.70//0.75
Whenever PRO found a country with high gun ownership and low crime mostly a strict background check and mental health evaluation was involved,(Eg: Germany, Iceland) since CON supporting background check would intern mean advocating for PRO's resolution- stricter gun laws, the countries stated as examples mostly help PRO's case instead of weakening it.
Thx
1.Current Gun Deaths
Pro has used the suicide statistic to argue for this figure:
1.UK deaths :- (0.23) (Homisides-0.06,suicides-0.15)2.US deaths :- ( 12.21) (Homisides- 4.46,suicides- 7.32)
perhaps Pro should have left out the suicide figure as he later says in R1
Now compare these deaths to the US statistic 12.1 , the drastic difference speaks for itself.
it is a fact that he used the bloated number of 12.1 to argue for his position even though he promised not too
Next, I can understand why Pro's confusion about crime rates but it is indeed homicide rates that have consistently been lower than the US's even before the ban on machine guns was introduced!-this chart from my source perfectly analyses the disparity that has always been there between UK and USA. This again, means that gun control legislation in the UK has had negative or neutral effects on the relation compared the USA.-LINK
Assaults and other nun-gun related violent crimes do have a relationship with guns. For one,Guns stop around 2.5-3 million violent crimes or 6,849 everyday. Another fact to note is that 600k felons admitted they would not attack someone who was armed.Clearly, there is a relationship between law abiding gun owners and stopping of violent crime. Once again, the BBC reports of rise in violent crimes ONLY after the 1997 handgun ban
Soliciting up 60%{LINK}
Pro has dropped these statistics and avoided debating them, claiming that "a couple of school boys beating a fellow school boy can be charged with assault" which is clearly not the case.
Please refrain from entering communal politics, it is an codemned across democracies around the world. In India such statistics are not even available, shows in US there has been attempt to devide people along communal and racial lines.
This is not a rebuttal, it perfectly shows how gun ownership has no correlation with homicide rates.The fact is that black and Hispanic communities are less economically developed, less educated and have a single mother epidemic which is not found in white communities as fathers and brookings states
As supported by the data below, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional problems. Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.LINKSnce 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.LINK
These are the main factors of gun violence, not the fact that they exist and you can obtain a gun.It has nothing to do with racial politics either.
2.Second Amendment
DC VS Heller ensures protection from UK gun laws. UK gun laws include banning hand guns which is not a "unusual or strange weapon" neither is a semi automatic rifle, and DC vs Heller has firmly stated that the 2A was a individual right you have, while no law In Britain has ever said this, simply put, you must be against the 2A if you want to push the same gun laws in the UK which has banned handguns.
Next,the phrase "well regulated" was not a phrase describing order in the 18th century but rather a phrase describing something that works,as Gunfacts.info reports
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”LINK
It is illegal in the US for felons and the mentally ill to acquire firearms.LINK and LINK, the exceptions in link 2 are either a pardon or after a 10 to 15 year break between release.
Semi automatic assault rifles are not a strange nor unusual weapon.They have multiple purposes including defending property as seen in the 1992 la riots, koreatown was one of the most affected regions of the riot and the businesses that were protected by assault rifles did not burn down.LINK
As well as the light weight,durability,accuracy and outdoor use make it a very common choice for Americans to use Assualt Rifles meaning it is NOT a unusual nor strange weapons.
Pro claims
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK
but then turns around and says
while PRO definitively stated that a proposed amendment such as curtailment of carrying of assault rifles can be made " in lines of UK laws"
Nowhere in PRO's R1 was assault rifles mentioned,Pro has made a false statement. nor the Las Vegas massacre.Pro is trying to move the goal posts by first saying the USA needs gun laws JUST LIKE the UK but then turns around and says only the ban of Assault Rifles was the supposed "lines like the UK" while not mentioning the ban of handguns,something that America can not perform without the repeal of the 2A.
3.US is a lot different
Pro's case is assured that people would just give up their guns to avoid being a criminal.This is has been proven to be untrue by Con. Con's points have also been dropped by PRO has has not addressed the issue of how New Jersey's ban on ammunition magazines saw a 0% compliance rate or how New Zealand saw a a 10% compliance rate.Pro has dropped these points of evidence and blindly states that people would comply while all evidence shows otherwise.
The US is different with their gun culture and an abnormal amount of firearms in circulation at 120 per 100 people.Guns are and have always been a massive part of USA's culture. It wont go away after a law that millions of americans dont like.There will still be guns and people will not comply.
4.Police
While the Police obviously helped with 9/11.In relation to gun crime and crime in general, they arrive late 95% of the time,its just the nature of policing.
Next Pro discusses police spending and why its so high but drops my points on why gun control would not lower the costs, there is simply no correlation between what PRO is making a case for and crime rates.This point has been dropped and disguised as "dividing and communal politics" which is not a rebuttal.
Last he mentions a poll and a video about the militaristic rise in police. He claims that the availability of ar-15's make this possible. However this is not the case. First of all, the militaristic rise of police is due to a rise in crime seen in the 60's and 70's. And as mentioned, only 1.4% of all national crime is committed by assault rifles so the heavy majority of the time, police would not respond to calls about crime committed by AR's.And if we did ban AR's,it would still be in circulation as previously proven.It's one thing to be against the militaristic rise of police forces but there is simply no evidence to show that Assault Rifles would be a factor in the rise.The police also use it for criminals in most situations and it would only be aggressive and make people more scared if it was more public like in a protest/riot.
5.Co-relation between Strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths
Switzerland has high gun ownership and has a military grade rifle in virtually every closet due to militiamen keeping it at the end of their service.If criminals want to disobey the law with a military grade weapon, they can! LINK This proves that why virtually everyone has access to a assault rifle and a handgun which is not hard to get, yet the crime rate is still so low.
Automatic guns arent given to any US citizen yet they can be given to Austrian citizens in category C and they still have lower crime rates.And US code already calls for background checks on gun sales like Austria.It is not an example of gun control no matter how you slice it.LINK
Iceland does not have strict gun control laws either. Age 20 is a perfectly reasonable age to acquire a gun and a mental and physical assessment is also required in the US.LINK.Tests are common across many states to ensure good guys get guns.This also wouldn't be along the lines of the UK. They do not allow guns used for self defense and ban gun sports, something found all across Europe but the UK.
Next, the comparison with developed countries and crime rates is apparent but also shows the root cause of gun crime. It isnt the strict laws or gun ownership why these countries are sow high. Its the economic development.Brazil and Mexico both have strict gun lawsLINK and LINK yet see an incredibly higher homicide rate due to the economic factors.This is seen in the USA as well as these two pictures prove-LINK and LINK as well as the economic
disparity between blacks,Hispanics and whites seen in the US being a bigger factor than gun control and ownership.
Next, Pro claims he has not cherry picked but goes on to list 5 countries without conclusive data and the are still outliers with Denmark owning more guns than Ireland and Belgium and having a lower murder rate.Pro's countries with high gun ownership has seen the same types of laws the US has seen with mandatory background checks and banning selling guns to the mentally unfit.This does not support PRO's case as seeing that countries like Austria where you can legally buy machine guns have lower crime rates than the UK and other countries with strict gun laws.A comprehensive study, not a cherry pick proves that gun control laws has not worked in other countries.-LINK
Over to Pro!
Round 3
I will begin by refuting CON's arguments in and then publishing fresh arguments
Firstly homisides have a tangential relation with Gun deaths , i.e, some section of Gun deaths( murder) and homiside cases intersect. But a homiside case need not necessarily translate to use of Gun so the graph furnished by CON is flawed. CON has used the graph that there is no effect or neutral effect of a gun control on crimes, which happens to be untrue. A single act of mass murder reverberates more than numerous singular acts, for example 9/11 attacks are more remembered than the 10000+ murders by guns that take place in the US. That happens to be true for all countries.
1. India- 2008 terror attacks
2. Israel and Germany -Munich Olymics terror attack
3. UK - Dunblane massacre
I have not dropped the points, the statistics detail a single year in which crime was apparently up, in the UK . It does not entail the possibility of a trend, nor does it take into consideration what were the the crime reports the subsequent year or the year after that. CON has used the statistics of a single year as a trend that is wrong.
Actaully asking CON to not use origin or colour of the communities is a decent request, it constitutes ground that CON is indulging in identity politics. Identity politics is wrong because, white, black or hispanic all of them are Americans, there are no seperate laws for them. If a legislature would be passed it would be on every community.
CON argument is based on the fatherless children cannot be relied upon, he has not used statistics or statements from Government of USA. Indepedent data collection cannot convince people not willing to participate to reveal their data. Only data released by Government of USA can be relied upon, just talking on an equivalent scale Government of India( my country) does it on a decade to decade basis. If we wants this argument to be taken seriously he should furnish official statistics.
The semantics conundrum, I try to be very specific about what I say, but for an initial statement's sake I used UK's gun laws as an example as I happen to know they are quite strict. " US needs to tighten Gun laws" , PRO's side needs to demonstrate the need for a tighter Gun policy, CON wins if he can demonstrate the Gun policy as it stands is good enough. It is a game of chess, PRO does not need to conform to only a particular stand or strategy only needs to demonstrate to voters why there is a need for Gun legislation.
If a drug addict were to lessen his consumption from 10 times a week to say 5 times a week, a person says he has shown development in the line of improvement or he has moved in lines of improvement. Whereas we all can easily say 5 times a week is absolutely detrimental to the addict and he is no way near a complete recovery. Similarly if US's Gun laws were to become more strict " in the lines of UK" it does not mean that they have to mirror UK's exact legislature. What is PRO proposing then? If CON states that there will be no compliance in ownership , why not there be a compliance in place of ownership, for instance setting up of a gun ranges where the automatic rifles and semi automatic rifles are permanently stored and guarded at fraction of the police expenditure, any person wanting to use rifles from sport can access his , but after sporting , he or she cannot take the rifles home or any place else , the rifles have to stay at the gun range, that way the guns are out of public spaces but gun owners still get the ownership.
In my country's preamble of the Constitution there is a reference to Abraham Lincoln's gettysburg address" of the people, by the people, for the people" , does not mean my country's constitution mirror's US constitution.
What was the way in which New Jersey's proceeded, was it monetary benifit, outlawing guns, or an exchange of guns? CON does not mention it, how is PRO supposed to know what happened when CON has not painted the full picture , if CON brings up a point it is his reponsibility to showcase it with absolute certainity not mine.
POLICE
PRO has not dropped CON's argument regarding lower crime rate would entail lower police cost because graphs furnished by CON have no economic basis, they just showcase gun ownership and have no relevant backing as to why Police spending has skyrocketed while my report which I used clearly states the reasons,
Police expenditure started skyrocketing only after in 1997 2 men robbed a bank in Los angeles using automatic rifles and body armour, the Police didn't . After 12 policemen injured in the incident , police from across USA started demanding assault rifles and thus began the expenditure. There is truth in CON's argument that police were armed because of crime in the 60s and 70s but the use of force and as well as the purchase of euipment was limited to drug related seizures, meaning a police person with armoured car and carbines cannot approach civilian protestors. After the incident the same year this protection of a citizen of USA was dropped and the requirement of equipment was lifted, Why? because 2 men robbed a bank with automatic rifles.
The documentary also demonstrates how Police pointed sniper rifles at marching protestors in 2014. All started from a single incident of assault rifle usage and now departments buy weapons like military.
Thus the 110 billion dollar police expenditure could have been minimized had assault rifle incident not taken place in 1997. Even if accounting to 1.4% of deaths assualt rifles are reasoned by police as justification for their expenditure.
5.Co-relation between Strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths
Lets assume a swiss can commit a crime , but there has been no recorded instances of a swiss commiting such a mass murder, any person in Switzerland can , lets assume CON's stance, but there have been none, but in the US there have been multiple , the conclusion drawn from the statement is socio-cultural landscape of Switzerland and US are different , whereas there might be no need for gun control in Switzerland but there is certainly a need for Gun legislation in USA. Some countries conform to it some don't.
A co-relation is not established by seeing whether or not there is an absolute certainity of that happening, in that case the co-relation is called a perfect co-relation.
For PRO to demonstrate there is a co-relation exists , PRO only needs to demonstrate that majority of people living in stable world having strict gun laws have low gun related deaths.
CON has submitted a memorandum submitted during parliamentary proceedings, does not take into account who was it submitted to? what was the rebuttal? Report only talks about US and UK comparison ,whereas we are talking about the co-relation on a global level. Please attach the entire parliamentary proceedings , and what the parliament concluded in that session not just a memorandum. Was it accepted? was it rejected ? CON's case is in disarray.
over to CON!
Thx
Homicides and other crimes-Pro claims that while guns and other violent crimes have a connection to guns it doesn't mean that guns were used in all violent crime which is true but ignores the fact that violent crime where the criminal doesn't have a gun can be countered better with someone with a firearm.CDC says that up to 2 million violent crimes are stopped by firearms and they are numerous singular events where guns stop violent criminals such as the shooting in White Settlement,Texas-LINK.Next, he brings up terrorism which such as airplanes crashing on the twin towers,bomb killing an olmypic team are both bomb related islamic terrorist accidents and the dunblame massacre is a mass shooting but UK's crime was not effected by gun control as previously stated.
UK's increasing crime-Pro's claim of it being a singular year trend is false. Mises reports that there was a significant increase in homicides between 1997(the handgun ban) and 2004 where the US has continually declined despite a record number of gun owning Americans.-LINK and LINK.He did drop the point in R2 as it was not mentioned despite PRO claiming otherwise.UK's gun laws have not worked and it was clearly not a singular trend year.
Race and Violent Crime-Pro thinks that I am playing identity politics but this is clearly a red herring.Con's point was to illustrate how economic and family factors are the main reason between the crime disparities among groups/countries and not the gun ownership.While it is true that the law would affect all Americans, it wouldn't help any Americans as already proven.This is also not Identity politics as It is defined As:
"a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics."
By mentioning that black and Hispanic communities have higher crime rates due to other reasons other than gun ownership as they own less guns per capita than whites is not a measure of identity politics as nothing matches in my definition.Dropped
Single parent statistics-Pro claims my statistics are not government backed.The statistics from my source come from the study of "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States" by George A. Akerlof. First, Pro claims that any non-government statistic would be false which isnt the case at all, other researchers can absolutely analyze facts and produce statistics.First, the journal is provided in The Quarterly Journal of Economics by Oxford University.Oxford University is hailed for extremely precise reporting and contributions to the academic community-LINK.Until it is proven that Oxford University can not be used for a reliable citation,my source absolutely stands.
Semantics-Pro is once again turning around from what he originally said about UK gun laws. He originally said
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK
this is very clear-he is advocating for gun laws just like the lines of the UK but then turns around in R2 and this round to say
I happen to know they are quite strict.
so you argued that gun control must be along the lines of the UK which you have defined, it is not any different from the title as "US needs to tighten Gun laws" as UK gun laws would be tightening gun laws in the US.PRO is now trying to get away from the original promise that it would just like the lines of the UK but has now turned around and claimed that the title is the only thing that matters but the title was defined in R1 by pro.
In the next paragraph,he discusses a drug analogy that is not relevant to the debate at hand.A drug addict that uses drugs 5 times a week are still a drug addict while better than before.How does this relate to gun laws and the promise of PRO to argue on the lines of UK's gun laws.I agree that it cant exactly mirror the legislation due to the 2A but it has no relation to the analogy nor is it remotely similar. Last, the indian Constitution analogy has no merit because it was a Lincoln speech, not in the constitution despite the Indian constitution being inspired by the US one anyway-LINK
Compliance-Pro claims that compliance can take over ownership but again, people would not give up ownership of their firearm inside the house no matter what. What evidence is there to conclude or even suggest that this would incentivise gun owners to give up home ownership.Pro also claims that having them stored in a military base or shooting range where owners can pick them up for sporting reasons would be a reliable solution but it would not give 66% of the gun owning population who said their reason to own a gun was protection.Until it can be proven that this would incentivise gun compliance, this argument is without evidence and doenst take into the fact that the majority of gun owners wouldnt want this or comply with it.
New Jersey's compliance strategy was used by police to turn in the ammunition that was banned-LINK
Police-Pro's case of automatic rifles bring up the rise of police costs would mean that the banning of Automatic Rifles would thus get rid of the threat of Automatic Rifles.What PRO got wrong was that these guns were already illegal!-LINK. This shows that no matter the fact that these guns were illegal, criminals still got their hands on them and how it takes a good guy with a gun to stop them instead of "gun free zones" or gun laws.This would actually show that this supports CON's case as even if these gun laws were in place,it would not stop a criminal from obtaining it.
The documentary also talks about public appearance of these rifles and weapons,while responding to a armed robbery would be different.For example, in case of a riot, it has been proved to be effective as Officer Jon Belmar in Ferguson explains:
Had we not had the ability to protect officers with those vehicles, I am afraid that we would have to engage people with our own gun fire. I really think having the armor gave us the ability not to have pulled one trigger… I think the military uses armor to be able to provide an offensive force, and police departments use trucks like that so they don’t have to.{LINK}
While they are some downsides to wide spread militarization, the fact that the leading factor to militarization was an already illegal gun should demonstrate that Gun laws do not work in letting criminals not getting their hands on firearms.Until it can be proven that PRO's gun control legislation would somehow get the new illegal weapons out of criminals hands,there is no conclusion that legal firearms brought up the cost of police and the militarization of police.
Co-relation between Strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths-In regards to Switzerland, this proves that economic and cultural factors have more of an effect than gun laws or gun ownership. As PRO stated that Switzerland doenst need gun control because of other factors and not gun control, why cant we focus on these factors instead of banning guns and getting them out of civilian hands? This means that this confirms CON's point about economic and cultural factors outweighing gun ownership and gun laws.
Next,While PRO is correct about the study analyzing the angloshpere, this covered all of the US states and UK countries in depth.To focus on the angloshpere only is important as global factors would such as wealth and culture would not be in play.Globally, it is very hard to make a connection with gun laws and the USA and the UK.
Last, it doesn't matter whether the UK legislation was passed or denied. what matters in this debate are the premises, arguments,facts and sources.The fact is that PRO has not found any correlation between strict gun laws and crime ownership in the angloshpere and even Globally although they have some issues as proven before.
PRO has also dropped countries like Iceland and Austria
Over to PRO!
Round 4
[I am not able to access all of CON sources of R3, It is a request to attach weblinks at the bottom, apparently his hyperlinks are not working]
Homicides and other crimes: PRO used more memorable acts of violence to make a point, that violence has a huge detrimental effect on general public. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting was done by a rifle which was legally owned, the attacker had 14 AR15 rifles, 8 AR 10 rifles, all legally owned. Videos showed the horror of the people at that concert. Such incidents have not occurred in any part of the developed world, or developing world, excluding terrorist prone areas like Afghanistan and countries engulfed in Civil war like South Sudan. Lets exclude the bump stocks banned after the attack, even if in the current scenario such an incident were to take place, by the time police vacate the premises of a building, cover all the exits and prepare for a takedown of the attacker, he or she can cause a similar loss of life, because range of the weapons is still the same, even in a semi-automatic mode the attacker can fire at targets situated at very long distances. In the Vegas incident the attacker stopped firing at 10:15 PM but Police were only able to breach the doors at 11:20 PM , imagine if he had kept firing till 11:20 PM. Using CON's own words against him " the police arrive late".
UK's crime rate: UK gun laws have worked well, Gun laws are in place to protect the public from vicious hate crimes here are two examples, both are terror attacks in 2019 and 2020. Both times the aim was to harm as many people as possible, but because of the tough on crime stance of the gun laws the assailant was only able to knife fellow bystanders, mitigating the loss of life.
Race and Violent crime:
Lastly, the white gun ownership rate is 27% compared to 16% of blacks and 11% for hispanics, yet hispanic and black crime and homicide rates in significantly higher than whites, these two charts perfectly show that there is no correlation of gun ownership and crime.
This statement seems as an active attempt to marginalize two communities, above statement is from R1 of CON. Lets assume this statement came at a public debate forum, in a college or even a legislative assembly. CON substantiates his claim fatherless children are more likely to be violent and a problem that has been predominantly the case in Black community. How much more violent? 1.5 times more likely? twice more likely? when the extent is not known how can CON claim this as a sole reason. When the claim was made no supporting facts or arguments were provided in R2, reading the claim as it is the message is clear, an attempt has been made to portray people of white ancestry as ideal citizens since they own more guns but commit less crime, but blacks and hispanics have been spoken about in poor light devoid of any other factors that CON provides in later arguments, their race was the sole factor when CON stated this claim. I will leave the Voters decide whether or not it is a case of identity politics.
Single parent statistics: Oxford is one of the premier institutions of education, but the point still stands unless Oxford has the power to enforce data collection for the entire population, when a government does a census, it is compulsory for the participants to provide information. Lets assume a family where the parent left, when Oxford individuals try to get that statistic obviously a grieved family will be reluctant to divulge information or refuse to take part in the survey,in that case the data entry will remain unmarked. Whereas a family will no such history would likely be more forthright. The variance is always there, because private entities cannot ask about personal information that is the reason to conduct census by governments across the world in the first place.
Semantics: Pro can claim will a good degree of confidence that, the title was obviously self explanatory, only for argument's sake even if there has been change in stance, how does it overmines PRO's case or undermine CON's case?
Analogies are not judged by relevance to the situation at hand but by appropriateness of describing the situation. I gave a more cogent example of the Indian constituition , being "in lines of" Constitution of USA but very different from USA. It adopted a number of features from different countries. Main contributor was constition of France not USA. Simiarly PRO's case is also now in lines of UK.
Compliance: Whereas UK bans guns in totality, PRO argues why not only limit assualt and other rifles from owners but allow them to have hand guns, since they are far less deadly. CON has argued that home owners would feel more safe with rifles, this happens to be false, even most close quarter based Special Forces or Anti terrorism units around the world use sub-machineguns for easy manoeurverability, not rifles. Handguns thus would be much more effective for home protection, why would a person want to "protect" his home with a weapon capable of killing a target 500 or 1km away?.
Be it a store or home handguns are far more effective, that defeats the purpose of protection. This video effectively portrays my point, attacker was not even to draw his weapon, but a handgun was pointed at his face by the defendant. There is no delay in acquiring guns, documentary effectively demonstrates delaying acquisition helps lower crime.
Unless people living in USA are being attacked by an invading force, which I surely know they are not, there is no reason to refuse compliance by rusing protection.
CON has argued compliance, for argument's sake lets consider there is zero compliance currently, but people will be stopped from buying weapons further but the situation will only improve, it does not has to improve immediately, it can happen over a long period of time.
The checking system by USA is also outdated and does not work, because a background check is only required when buying from store, not from private vendor, and the data base is not properly updated, here is proof.
Police: PRO's case is not deterred by automatic weapons being illegal, a legal channel to acquire something provides for smuggling of illegal items by mixing them with legal ones. Money laundering works on the exact same basis. Rifles are allowed in USA, that provides for channels to smuggle automatic weapons, because such weapons dont pop-up where these are fully banned. Even to smuggle something fully banned one has to employ very intense effort to cross international border. For example: Meth is banned in US, so now smugglers are trying to smuggle it in submarines, even with using submarines, they are still able to catch them.
Same example: Gun ownership is almost banned in my country, so entire South India was put on high alert when few Pakistanis (supposedly armed) crossed by sea into India . I remember the day because streets were looming with Cops and a terror alert was sounded.
Point made is clear, countries are able to ward off external supplies, it is the internal supplies or internal threats that pose greater threat in 21 st century. If guns in circulation were far lesser, more and more criminals will be prevented from getting access to firearms.
Point made by CON is also relating to gun crimes, my country is also democracy and believe me people here protest far more often than in USA, but police mostly use water cannons or baton charge if crowds get violent. I have never seen police pointing guns or even carrying guns towards protestors, that was the whole reason for me to instigate such a debate.
Co-relation between Strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths:
Laws are country specific, changing socio-economic standing is much more difficult than putting laws in place, that is the whole laws are brought in place to enforce such changes. News channels have been covering reluctance of many people in USA to wear masks, CON want to focus on socio-economic change in USA where people are refusing to wear masks despite many health experts and doctors urging them to. USA does not have a law banning sex determination, because selective girl child abortion is not a problem in USA but is a huge problem in India, China. India has a law in place so some improvement has taken place, but China has none resulting in a ratio of 141 men to 100 women in some places. Laws are needed in countries where there is a problem. Switzerland does not have a problem, USA does. USA gets many things right like education, living standards, safety of it's people from outside threats, industries and job prospects, development, it is one of the best nations to live in but PRO can say in light of above arguments that Guns is where a need for reform is needed.
How does it not matter? a legislative proposal without the full authencity certified cannot be trusted. It is an unverified document, many times in parliaments bills are tabled with false or incorrect information, that is the part of the reason why members debate on bills.
Here is the full list of Wikipedia, every user can check and verify the co-relation between guns in circulation and crime is pretty obvious with some exceptions, but exceptions never harm a trend line. Please only value developed countries, we might to declare the debate as equivocal if we start to consider countries like Columbia or Mexico.
Resolution by PRO: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores.
[I will change the way sources are linked but in order to access them in the previous rounds for voters and my opponent, you have to click the link, then copy and paste the top bar into google and it will show up]
Homicides and Other Crimes-While I did bring up a singular accident, it is a stretch to claim that I only brought up one point of evidence for the point that guns stop crime.Pro's entire argument for this point was about the Las Vegas shooting.First, the mass shooting violence does not have a serious detrimental effect on American society,it is nowhere near an epidemic of violence and it is an overblown panic[1]Next,PRO dropped the fact that up to 2 million violent crimes is stopped by guns and that these citizens would no longer have the choice to defend themselves.Last, the Las Vegas shooting and other mass shootings are not prevented by gun laws.1/3 of mass shooters were not even able to obtain a firearm in the first place with gun laws[2]and if you exclude mass shootings that take place in homes,94% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones[3]This means that forms of gun control such as gun-free zones and banning guns would not stop mass shootings.
UK's Crime Rate-UK's gun laws have not worked.Pro has dropped the point that UK's gun laws increased and so did violent crime as well as the connection with US's crime stayed consistent despite UK ramping up gun control legislation.He then points to two incidents where there was a knife crime accident.However, if these civilians had guns, they would be able to protect themselves, the fact that violent crime is still prevalent in the UK despite gun laws actually show it is not effective no matter the tally dead.
Race and Violent Crime-It does not marginalize any community to state facts about their crime rates.PRO himself has compared communities and nations so this would be a hypocritical claim.Would saying that a nation having a higher crime rate is marginalizing against them?This is not marginalizing anybody to state facts about gun ownership and crime rates and pointing out why it is.PRO claims
their race was the sole factor when CON stated this claim.
This is demonstrability false.In every RD i mentioned why there was a disparity to prove the real reason of crime in USA was other factors and not gun ownership nor gun laws.This is also not portraying black and Hispanics in a poor light as I said nothing about ideal citizens or how one race is better than the other.this is PRO putting words in my mouth.I stated many times:
Con's point was to illustrate how economic and family factors are the main reason between the crime disparities among groups/countries and not the gun ownership.it perfectly shows how gun ownership has no correlation with homicide rates.Last, there is a severe lack of correlations between gun laws, gun ownership and crime rates.
I'm not quite sure if PRO thinks i am saying that because of racial factors but i am saying that to make a case of truly WHY there is high gun crime here and in other communities.Last,this is not a rebuttal and nowhere in what I said was poor conduct nor identity politics.
Single Parent Statistics-Oxford's statistics do not show any flaws in them contrary to what PRO claims-The government statistics of the CDC[4]and my source both see a general increase of 60% in the black community in out-of-wedlock births.He then argues about polling for single motherhood as the census demands the number of people in the house and it is required.My source and the gov. are the same statistics. For example, the number of out-of-wedlock births are the same between 1980-1984 at 715.This can be seen with all trends with oxford and the official CDC statistics.It is reasonable to conclude that the Oxford analysis is based off of government statistics, it is a fact that single motherhood and out-of-wedlock births have increased over the few decades and have been worse in minority communities and have increased crime and violence being a factor on why crimes are so high up in the USA. This is a fact and PRO's attempt to attack the credible source of Oxford and other non-related points are without merit.
Semantics-The title of the debate matches with PRO's PROMISE to debate just along the lines of UK's gun laws.While this doesn't undermine PRO's case too much it just shows that PRO's case is defined along the lines of the UK's gun control legislation.That is all.
the Indian Constitution analogy is without merit.First he talks about Lincolns speech and the constitution despite Lincolns speech having no connection to the USA constitution.Next, he talks about the connections with him talking about UK's laws and how it doesn't mean he is necessary arguing for it despite saying he will argue for it in R1.Now the Indian constitution is somewhat in line with the US but the Constitution never admits that it it will be totally in line with the US one as PRO did in the debate in regards to UK gun laws and that is why it isnt similar.
Compliance-Handguns are effective but so are AR's.They are plenty of uses for AR's that include defending businesses in riots such as the LA one in 92 which was described in R2. As well as it is a common weapon for hunting and helps with animal attacks[5].Counterterrorism is a lot different from civilian needs so it would be without merit to compare the two.
Next,PRO links a video of a person defending his store with a handgun, this is great but it doesn't take away the uses of AR's that i described lat paragraph.
Next,he talks about how there is no reason to comply but this is a personal reason despite the facts that I presented where 0% of the population complied.People would still be able to buy AR's as the black market[6] would explode just like prohibition in the 1920's ban of alcohol.There is no solid evidence that banning AR's would be effective.This was tried in 1994 under the Assault Weapon Ban and was found ineffective by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service:
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”“The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms … prior to the law’s implementation,”[7]
Until PRO can demonstrate how these bans would work,his argument is without merit.
Last, he link a VOX video about the background check system.It talks about how it isnt updated.This wouldnt support PRO's case however as tightening means "make or become tight or tighter."Simply updating a background check system wouldnt tighten any laws.Last, Less than 1% of criminals buy guns at gun shows where there is no background checks.There is no problem nor a loophole.[8]
Police-It is already proven that when an AR or gun ban is in law,the illegal production of the weapon and the sale of it only increases like what we saw in 1994 ban.This means that no matter the ban or not, the choice to illegally modify the weapon will always be there.As the NCJRS explains
The research shows that the ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation, followed by a substantial postban drop in prices to levels of previous years[8]
Last, the point about Indian riots is without merit as it is different from the USA one.In America, the riots and protests are directly against the police so they need more protection while in India, for example the North Delhi riots, was religiously motivated and wasn't targeted at police, it was extremely deadly at 53 dead.Protests against the government or the police do not result in extreme violence against them
Co-relation between Strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths-While Laws do vary based off the economy, it is clear that laws do not work so the best thing is to improve the economy and ensure that "criminals" do not resort to crime and are raised in homes with both parents.The Mask analogy is without merit as it is proven that masks work and gun laws dont.People dont wear masks here because of rampant Individualism.Now if theres an issue and theres need to be a solution, many times a law dont always work-the US banned child in the 1930's at a time where the economy developed that less than 6% of boys needed to work and there was a sharp decline.This shows that economic progress ended child labor and not the 1930's laws.[9]
Next,whether or not the bill passed is irrelevant as that would be an appeal to popularity.If it didnt pass because people didnt vote on it doesnt mean it is wrong or not relevant for the debate depsite me proving how it is[10]
Last,the Wikipedia never shows a trend line.It is nowhere obvious on the page and actually shows countries with high gun ownership like Finland beat low ones like Bulgaria,Italy,Croatia, and Portugal.As well as Iceland with 30 guns per capita and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. There is no correlation.
Over to PRO!
Round 5
Homicides and other crimes- CON has argued that gun use is not an epidemic scale so mass shooting don't have an effect on society. CON cited Foundation for Economic Education as a source, it was an opinion piece, which dictates that the writer has no formal knowledge of the field, the article intern cited gunfacts.info as source of information for that astronomical 2.1 million violent crimes being stopped every year.
Origins of the astronomical 2.1 million crime figure: It began with a study by 2 professors of Florida State University, whose study claimed 2.1 million DGU(Defensive guns use) happen in America per year. Immediately after publication it was blown out of proportion by media and writers, whereas in academic circles it is common notion that every aspect of a study is scrutinized before acceptance. The study was defaluting on several key parameters of research, to prove that :
In 1996, Cook and Ludwig reported that based on their analysis of the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, which "incorporated a sequence of DGU questions very similar to that used by Kleck and Gertz," they estimated that 4.7 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States per year. However, they questioned whether this estimate was credible because the same survey suggests that approximately 132,000 perpetrators were either wounded or killed at the hands of armed civilians in 1994. They note that this number is about the same as the number of people hospitalized for gunshot injuries that year, but that "almost all of those are there as a result of criminal assault, suicide attempt, or accident.
Some researchers followed the same procedure and came up with an even higher estimate, just for the sake of proving that the estimate is wrong. The data failed to match up with original estimates on 2 counts :
1. If so, as said an approximate 132,000 people should have been admitted in hospital, after being injured by people in defensive gun use.
2.Official estimate:
An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, drawing its DGU from the NCVS, said: "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft.
83000 defensive gun uses against a staggering 931,000 violent crimes that is Bureau of Justice Statistics under US Department of Justice not some merely gunfacts.info . PRO has unequivocally made his point clear not only do guns enable mass shooting, they play a major role in everyday crime statistics.
CON can argue that things have changed for the better but BJS states otherwise :
The same study reported that "The percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations involving firearm use in self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011.", reporting 235,700 instances of defensive use of a firearm between 2007-2011.
Less than 2% bullet injures are accridited to Self -Defense, less than 2 %.
UK's gun law and crime: I dont know where CON gets these wierd facts from, here is Office of National Statistics statistics most crimes were:
As of 2019, the United Kingdom sits in 174th place for intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants at 1.20.
While US has rate of 4.74 as per United Nations. CON claims people could have defended themselves in terror incidents had they had a firearm, lets assume CON's case both perpetrator and defender have firearms, as a result of linient firearm regulations, before even the defender realizes he or she is under attack pepretator can kill/ injure several people, because it is easier to kill from a gun than a knife.
Race and violent Crimes: When CON made his initial claim in R1, his facts were devoid or any single parent statistic or any other reasoning behind it, it is upon PRO's questioning did CON clarify his claims and changed stance, even if we let that part go which I am unwilling to do so, I can firmly reason CON engaged in identity politics. CON study is not conclusive evidence, study says fatherless children are more likely involved in crime,
How much more likely? twice more likely? thrice more likely? When the statistic itself is not tangible, how can the argument based upon it be considered tangible and valid.
Single Parent Statistics-Since argument itself is not tangible, statistics backing it up are moot.
Semantics:
PRO makes his case very viable a stricter gun law just like the lines of the UK would reduce police expenditures and reduce gun crime by a substantial rate as seen by the fall in gun crime in UK after the implementation of strict gun law
This is what I said in R1, just like in the lines of UK, also suggest that only to a certain degree PRO's case will be built on UK. Thus the analogy is valid.
Compliance: CON dropped my questions, Why do people need a weapon capable of killing more than 1 km away, when even Special forces around the world dont use assualt rifles for close quarters combat, why do people need assault rifles?
I effectively portrayed my point from a video, attacker had a bigger gun, but store clerk was able to draw it faster because it was a handgun.
The video also states to delay acquiring period, so that impulsive crimes can be delayed, here is the video again. If acquisition is delayed it effectively means gun laws are stricter.
PRO has already stated Compliance can be built over generations there is no need for people to have immediate compliance. CON also skips the part about private vendors not requiring a background check when selling guns. This has caused USA to a supply house for gangsters and international illegal activity,
70% of all guns in mexican drug cartels come from US.
553 out of 554 .50 cartel rifles of mexican drug rings came from US.
ATF itself bought 1.5 million dollars worth of firearms to track the buyers and sellers of such guns, ATF lost track of all guns , guns reappered at various crime scenes as well as one of such guns was found in a hideout used by El- Chapo. If even federal agencies cannot keep track of such weapons how can local police do such a job.
Police:CON dropped the money laundering argument, if there will be no or very limited weapons trade, there will also be no space to launder weapons with the legal stream. By what means are Police in USA, justifying pointing sniper rifles at protestors. CON has pointed to a single incident about North Delhi, to make his point. He forgets to mention the US president was in Delhi during that timeframe, his security detail took out a bulk of man-power of Delhi police, it took 3 days for Police to flood the streets with enough man-power. Protests happen across democracies around the world. No one points sniper rifles at protestors. There is a justification of excessive use of force in the name of civilians carrying weapons which I have already pointed out in previous arguments a 115 billion police budget is severely distorted, when housing and healthcare systems are only getting expensive.
Co-relation between strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths: PRO has no way to prove his except his grasp of mathematics,
Pearson's correlation value:
Countries added as input parameters: Australia,Austria,Belgium,Canada, Finland,France,Germany, Ireland,Italy, Japan,USA, UK,Switzerland, Sweden,Spain, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore,Norway,etc. I cannot count Iceland since it's chart was incomplete .
I ran the simulation here of 23 countries and cor-relation was 0.9009 which is a strong positive cor-relation, since value of R is limited within 1 to -1 in case of pearson's correlation.
If anyone wants to crosscheck just insert these numbers copy paste.
Homicide figures:
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.75
0.11
0.32
0.21
0.06
0.11
0.35
0.00
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.42
0.005
0.02
0.10
0.32
0.13
0.06
4.46(USA)
0.21
guns in circulation :
13.7
30.0
6.86
34.70
9.90
27.5
14.96
32.0
5.5
11.9
0.6
2.60
30
31.3
8.5
0.5
1.1
10.4
23.10
27.6
2.8
120.5(USA)
7.20
I ran the numbers between homicides and guns in circulation. If CON invents new forms of mathematics, he may challenge this point as far as accepted academic knowledge goes, data favours my side.
PRO claims victory based on simulation and arguments made.
thx for continuing the debate
Homicides and other crimes-First of all,the source is fine.GunFacts used Crime statistics from the Government.LINK.It is reliable and is provided by the government.
Next,while yes the origins did come from a Florida study, it is a lie that they were problems with the study and the CDC backed up the study as well as the government statistics to show that YES, over 2 million crimes are prevented by Defensive Gun Use.LINK
Next,you claim that the study bloated the 2 million DGU figure but then cite a source claiming that the florida study said DGU was at 4.7 million per year, obviously wrong but 2.1 million is not out of the question as it was confirmed two times over
Next,The 83,000 figure is without merit. First, my opponent copy and pasted his argument from wikipedia and their article on defensive gun use.However, in the same Wikipedia article[3]criticism is mentioned saying that the same NCVS surveys actually find 2.1 million defensive gun use like the 2005 source above and source number 2.Simply put, someone who defended themselves from a crime such as rape isn't a victim nor would identify as one.The next problem is actually identified by the NCVS itself stating
The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.LINK
Meaning most of the respondents in my PRO's cited studies aren't asked whether they used a gun to protect themselves.The Criminal Victimization Data CON cited that DID ask the question such as the victimization survey and clearly stated a different story of DGU being 6 times more likely than a violent crime occurring.
AND,only 2% of GUN WOUNDS IS completely irrelevant as the the same types of studies in 2000 found that in 92% of the DGU cases, not a single shot was fired and the criminal was stopped from committing the crime.This is from the Department of Justice.LINK
DGU is not a myth.
UK's gun law and crime-PRO's argument is without merit.It has already been proven that UK's gun crime rate has ALWAYS been lower than the US even before their machine gun ban of 67.AND these were the statistics cited in R1 and has YET to be rebuttaled by my opponent and shows that UK's gun laws have not been effective:
Violent crime up 11% to 812,000 incidentsSoliciting up 60%{LINK}
Just comparing the UK to the US is pointless considering that UK's gun ban was not effective as already proven MULTIPLE times throughout this debate yet dropped every round AND The fact that the US homicide rate has gone down 49% since 1993 and in the same period, gun ownership skyrocketed.LINK and LINK-"They are now more guns than people in the US".
Now the knife crime incident.First, Usman Kang would never be able to obtain a gun in America after serving years in prison for conspiring with terrorists and the second incident,the criminal would also not be able to obtain a gun as a non-citizen refugee.This would have been the exact same case in America except a gun to protect themselves saving theirs and many other lives.
Race and Violent Crime-Citing statistics is not marginalizing any communities just like how PRO can compare gun crime rates between countries and that would also be not marginalizing any communities of those nations.
AND, after all this PRO has not rebuttaled my original claim of gun ownership and analyzing homicides among communities.You can not brand a fact and an argument as identity politics and not rebuttal it.
Next, PRO is now trying to dance around single parent statistics.He discusses about how more likely you are to commit crime when you are raised by a single parent.THIS IS A FACT and PRO's constant attempt for all of this debate to undermine this is simply silly.And it is tangible as IT IS conclusive evidence, oxford's statistics was exactly the same of the government and it was 100% factual.
Single Parent Statistics-
State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.[LINK]
Semantics-No, the analogy is not valid because you only reversed your promise AFTER R1. And you did not say to a significant degree but rather just along the line of.
Compliance-I did answer Pro's questions adequately.This is from R3:
They are plenty of uses for AR's that include defending businesses in riots such as the LA one in 92 which was described in R2. As well as it is a common weapon for hunting and helps with animal attacks
I even sourced an article explaining the multiple uses for the Assault Rifles but PRO has ignored it.
Next,while using a handgun to defend themselves is great but why take away many examples of self-defense where the defender used an assault rifle.No,PRO did not effectively use his point by saying that [you can self defend yourself with a handgun but can't with an AR and yet ignoring CON describing assault rifle's usages and then trying to divert it to CON saying i didn't answer his question.[LINK]
Next,while PRO does say it can be used over generations, he doesn't demonstrate HOW it can be done and what length of time.He also dropped the point about how storing Assault Rifles for sporting reasons would negate the massive reason for self protection as i proved.
Next,updating a database for background checks doesn't mean you are tightening any gun laws.And,most criminals get their guns through already illegal sources of purchase like social systems.Most gun crime is between criminals after analyzing cities.[LINK]
Also,illegally smuggling weapons is not the same as legally purchasing the guns.the majority of these smuggles are actually transactions between American drug smugglers who trade weapons for drugs.The key to this is not more gun control but solving the drug and weapon transactions at the Mexico and America border,[LINK] AND as proven last RD, the 1994 gun ban actually lead to an INCREASE in production and sale of the assault rifles so it would only increase the smuggling.
Police-I did not drop the money laundering argument, i rebuttaled it showing that if you do ban assault rifles it would actually increase the sale and production of the assault rifles meaning there is a GREATER chance of money laundering under an assault rifle ban.Next,I agree that there is no justification for a sniper at protesters/rioters in a town of only 20k people but why would the sale of assault rifles justify that?Giving police departments assault rifles to protect themselves against the 1% of cases where they could be is different from camouflaged snipers.the aftermath of the North Hollywood shooting was ONLY to increase the number of Assault Rifles to police departments[.LINK]Snipers, and other large militarization efforts came much later and wasn't available until after the military didn't need them anymore.
Co-relation between strict gun laws and low Gun related deaths-The entire equation is completely offset by just America's figure.If you only remove America's numbers from the equation, you get an R of 0.3833.The correlation is weak and does NOT show that gun ownership correlates with gun crime as well as PRO claims that this is a statement of GUN CONTROL but only compares homicides and gun ownership while dropping my points about gun ownership and gun crime and i even listed the reasons why-single motherhood rates,poverty and other issues.
SO why is America so different in it's gun crime.First, the income inequality in the US is a major factor for it's increased gun crime.[LINK]Next, an analysis of over 3 cities found that most victims are criminals already and that recidivism is the key to lowering violent crime in the US.The US has a special case of gang and drug violence being unprecedented among developed nations.
It has not been proven that the correlation of gun ownership and homicides in the US and actually was found to be the opposite case.
Conclusion-Thank you PRO for the debate opportunity and I appreciate all those who vote on this debate.
I believe in RENA:
R estricted
EN ough
A lready
bump
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: This one is extremely tough to judge.
To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached. "
For Nikunj's first complaint, I think it is alright to say the Resolution is ambiguous. I think Nikunj may have a misunderstanding of what a resolution is. The resolution is the question that must be answered yes (PRO) or no (CON) to. There can be only one resolution, but here there is two:
a. RESOLVED: USA needs to tighten Gun laws (the one Dr. Franklin initially agreed to debate)
b. RESOLVED: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores. (The one Nikunj injected mid-debate.)
A good voter would default to the first and require Nikunj to prove that the US has a need for stricter gun laws.
Here is actually where Seldiora's vote falters. I think it unduly requires Nikunj to define what the "tightening" would be, instead of requiring him to prove that a tightening is required. This implies that the voter weighed the debate on a scale irrelevant to the debate. That said, this falls under the scope of interpretation... Something out of reach of moderation.
As for Nikunj's second complaint, it is valid. Seldiora, whether or not he meant to, makes his conclusion based on a misrepresentation of what transpired in the debate.
I will remove the vote for the second complaint. I can't remove it for the first, but I urge Seldiora to use a more fair interpretation if he wants to resubmit a vote.
"pro advocates for restricting guns due to amount of deaths caused as such, but glances over exactly what restrictions would be made in precise, seeming to mention assault rifles and more dangerous weapons being unallowed, but not entirely pushing for this position. Con points out that the policies in other locations may not be the perfect solution for US, especially trying to take back the weapons already given to all the people. His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end, and I'm not entirely convinced by pro's half ambiguous "tighten gun laws" without true justification upon exactly what should be implemented, as even foreign policies with UK and Swiss differ in details, as con seems to imply."
Seldiora half reads my every debate and casts a vote, I have no problem losing but it should be on merit.
Resolution by PRO: Limit assualt rifles and other rifles to only gun ranges, delay the acquisition period for all firearms, and ban secondary firearm sales. Limit firearms purchase and sale to only stores.
These lines were used by me in R4 , I dont know how is my resolution ambiguous as claimed by the voter. He does not even cover most of the points, main arguments regarding police, budget
". His implication of criminals rarely actually using guns helps solidify his case in the end," This is one more section of his vote, I quoted Department of Justice stating 931000 violent crimes takes place against only 83000 defensive gun uses.
I dont know how any of my statements invite ambiguity.
also to the voters, if you need to access my links, just copy and paste the link
May leave a vote on this one. Problem is 5 rounds is a lot to wade through. But heck, I like gun topics
thank you!
Solid debate!