All Guns Should Not Be Banned
Debate Rounds (3)
To the acceptor: Please reply with a short paragraph stating your position. I look forward to your reply.
Firstly violent crime rates are decreasing slowly and have been for at least 5 years. ( https://www.fbi.gov...)
"This latest report reveals that the estimated number of violent crimes reported by law enforcement to UCR"s Summary Reporting System during 2014 decreased 0.2 percent when compared with 2013 data."
The same report also shows that robberies and aggravated assaults account for 91.6% of all violent crimes in the United States.
"There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement.
Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of the violent crimes reported, while robberies accounted for 28.0 percent, rape 7.2 percent, and murders 1.2 percent."
Now, there is no doubt correlations have been made between gun ownership and gun related injury and death. I do not deny that many gun statistics out there in favor of gun ownership often have poorly interpreted data to back their claims. However, I still believe there is a need for some type of gun ownership today. Obviously violent crime is slowly decreasing, but what if we look closer at the more violent areas of America.
In Chicago: chances of a person becoming a victim of a crime" is 1 in 113 (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...)
In Detroit: "Detroit's 14,504 violent crimes " murder, rape, assault and robbery " gave the city the highest per-capita rate in the nation." (http://www.detroitnews.com...)
In L.A.: contrary to the normal trend of violent crimes L.A. actually saw a rise in crime "Violent crime in L.A. climbed 19.9% and property crime increased 10.3%" (http://www.latimes.com...)
In cities and neighborhoods where violence is high there is no question that parents and individuals worry about their safety constantly. I agree that there have been many unfortunate incidents where guns were not given the respect they needed and innocent lives were accidently taken. It would be immoral and unethical of me to disregard these incidents, but what about those who take responsibility for their weapons? What about those who are just looking for a way to stay safe in case crime ever comes into their lives.
Now for the matter of having more guns means more criminals can get guns. This is only true to a point and this is also where gun control and proper background checking needs to come in to play. Even with that though is still not enough, there also needs to be a way to check on a gun owner to insure they haven't sold their weapon off illegally. There are many cases where that happens and legal guns are passed to the black market through legal appearing personal. I do not deny this is a problem. I do however argue that it is a preventable problem. You can never stop it entirely just as you can never stop criminals from obtaining guns (Mexico, Canada, lots of places to smuggle from, criminals are inventive), but if there was a stronger gun control policy focused on preventing legal guns from getting to criminals, then why should a family have to constantly feel threatened and be without proper protection.
Yes, you can get a taser, mace, baton, and many other forms of "non-lethal" weapons, but many of these offer protection only in close range or for one attacker. In multiple attacker situations a gun is really the only effective means, besides running if possible, to handle or scare away the potential attackers. Now let me be clear, I distaste murder and death. I would never want to harm anyone or
see anyone be harmed, but if my life was in danger, or even worse my children's life's were in danger, I'd want to have all the protection I could have to insure we all made it home safely.
Even though the crime rate is slowly dropping it is still a large problem, and many people feel unsafe. How can we deny them the ability to protect themselves. Does the bad really outweigh the good? Does the fight to keep guns out of criminals hands really warrant taking them away from responsible families? If it does then by what means are families meant to protect themselves in the face of a violent criminal?
Because Pro focused majorly on cities with higher rates of violent crime, I will as well. In cities like Chicago, where the chance of falling victim to violent crime is 1:113 (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...), the most common violent crime is aggravated assault while the least common is murder. This trend is actually present in most of the U.S. While the amount of murder in the country is no where near low, murder is still not the most violent crime. I point this out to say that the use of a deadly weapon - a handgun - should only be considered necessary if one is threatened with deadly force.
While mace and a taser are relatively close-range protection when compared to a handgun, not having accidental discharge - possibly killing oneself or another innocent person - is too big of a factor to overlook. "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people" (http://smartgunlaws.org...). The argument could also be made for simply getting better home security rather than a handgun.
In regards to criminals seeking and getting handguns, Pro called for a "stronger gun policy focused on preventing legal guns from getting to criminals..." The strongest gun policy to prevent criminals from getting guns would be to simply get rid of the guns all together. The strongest case has already been made by Australia. Their gun buyback and subsequent gun ban caused "the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia [to fall] by more than 50% -- and stayed there" (http://www.cnn.com...). Their ban made for less reasons to even need a gun for protection. Australia also banned the importation of firearms from other countries (which is easier to do in Australia because they are basically an island, but still possible in the U.S.).
No country will ever be able to fully be rid of guns, the black-market will always exist. However, the less firearms are made readily available, there will be less of a need to use firearms for any reason. I'd also argue that if you keep a gun in your home to protect your child, you significantly increase the risk of your child taking and using your gun. If you keep your gun in a safe or location that is difficult to access in order to keep children from using the gun, then how useful is that gun when you are confronted by an immediate threat or multiple attackers? Handguns in the home present many more cons than pros.
I completely agree with this, but as I'm sure you understand that can be an incredibly tough call. You can't always call 911 as Sarah McKinley had done in Oklahoma( http://www.cnn.com...). What do you do if your trapped somewhere and a robber is approaching you. The uncertainty of their actions may make your life seem like it's at risk. Proper training, would be the only means of preparing for those types of situations. The only bad part is, there arnt a whole lot of programs that teach you when and how you should use a gun. Some times it's enough to just brandish a handgun, but sometimes you'll need to use it. Making that judgment call is hard.
" not having accidental discharge - possibly killing oneself or another innocent person - is too big of a factor to overlook."
This again, is why we need to look to training."I often wonder how many of the children that shot themselves or their parents or their siblings could have been stopped if proper gun awareness and safety was taken into better account. I don't deny the fact that bringing a handgun into a house, especially with children, always leaves a potential for accidents. My heart goes out to the families who lost innocent lives due to guns, but I argue that many of these may have been preventable. You made an argument about the usefulness of a gun that was locked away. It seems counterintuitive. Keeping it locked away is the best way to keep your child safe, but what happens if a robber breaks in and you need it, it's basically useless locked up right? To this however, I would argue it would only take a minute to get to it, and if you need more than that, having it out wouldn't have saved you anyways.
"How hard would it be to have a gun locked in a bed side container, maybe you tape the key underneath your bed so the kids can't grab it. If an assailant is so close that getting to the gun isn't possible, then even if you had the gun out in the open it would be useless. I encourage you to watch this video ( https://m.youtube.com...) it is a slightly different scenario with police officers being attacked by a knife wielder (just in practice), but it shows a good point. If an assailant is already close enough to start and assault whether or not you have a gun in the open isn't going to make a difference I'd the attacker is serious.
My point with this is if guns were kept locked away many of those deaths would have been prevented. I am on the side of keeping handguns away from children, but keeping your child safe from potential threats outside the house is also important. We need to find a situation that is the best of both worlds whenever possible.
"The strongest gun policy to prevent criminals from getting guns would be to simply get rid of the guns all together."
I agree with this. If you could somehow get rid of all the guns then criminals could not get them, but who's going to be the easiest to get the guns away from? If you put a national gun confiscation order what's going to happen is that everyone owning a gun legally will be forced to give theirs up and those who own illegally will just hide theirs. There's no proof that anyone owns guns besides legal owners. I argue it would be an impossible task.
In regards to Australia I would like to note that handguns, such as the 9mm, have not been banned. "In Australia, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotguns, handguns with a calibre in excess of .38in with only narrow exemptions, semi-automatic handguns with a barrel length less than 120mm, and revolvers with a barrel length less than 100mm"(http://www.gunpolicy.org...) Also the data on whether or not the policies have worked are dependent on how your viewing the data. In an article ( http://www.nationalreview.com...) when the data was looked at over a longer timeline there didn't seem to be a large link between banning guns and lessening rates of suicides. They had declined sure, but they declined at the same rate they had been declining previously.
In that same article when looking at homicides they show a chart from 1980 to 2004 of the homicide rates. Again, the data seems to show that although they have decreased it is at a similar rate to what they have been already decreasing at.
I do not deny that the gun bans may have helped continue the decrease in gun related deaths, but I argue that the evidence just simply isn't strong enough to support that relationship.
The United States arguably has looser gun laws than other countries. But how have we been doing as a country? In a study (here: http://www.factcheck.org...) when looking at the statistics across a range of different topics here's what they concluded;
"The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world " by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides among advanced countries. And yet, gun crime has been declining in the U.S. Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence "" even as gun ownership increases."
Does this mean guns are safe? No, of course not. I note the same article shows that increased guns relate to increased gun death. "areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general." The only issue with the data however is that it is impossible to tell that it was purely the increase in guns that caused the relationship. "But studies haven"t been able to show a causal relationship " that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence."
The data is mixed again when you look at the combined relationship between gun violence and gun ownership of the world instead of just the US.
"The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded in its report that studies comparing large geographic areas, what it called "ecological studies," didn"t show a distinct trend, and instead "provide[d] contradictory evidence on violence and firearms."
Yes, there have been many terrible cases of gun related incidents that have lead to deaths of innocent life, but I can bring up hundreds of articles that show when they have saved lives. The point of my argument is that the issues arnt with gun ownership, the issue is with how little people are trained to use them properly.
Yes, people do need training if they are going to own a firearm. Unfortunately, that training is not required. In fact, "If you want to give a gun to your son or daughter or you want to sell it to your neighbors or friends, there is no background check required," and "gun shows are also frequented by private collectors who set up tables to buy, sell and trade guns. These sales do not require a federal license if they're made between two people in the same state. And they don't require a background check" (http://www.usatoday.com...). Basically, anyone can obtain a gun legally.
As for the "gun being locked away" argument, the video you provided in your last post shows that you would need 21 feet and already have your gun in hand to be safe from an attacker with only a knife. The goal of self-defense should be to incapacitate an assailant, not kill them. If you have the time and distance from an intruder to grab a gun from a safe, then you also have the time to grab and use a taser. Also, because the purpose of the taser is purely self-defense, they are not made to be deadly, meaning that the chance of a child killing someone with a taser is much less than of a gun.
Yes, I agree that if using any weapon, one should have the training to be able to use that weapon responsibly. Unfortunately, because receiving training is not greatly enforced, the safest option for self-defense is a non-lethal weapon (preferably a taser). If you are focused on the rights for families, then you also have to hold the safety of the children at the highest level.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.