The Instigator
CaptainMorkunas
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
aulover79
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Banning guns in the U.S. will not reduce crime.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 354 times Debate No: 82279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

CaptainMorkunas

Pro

I will be arguing that banning guns will NOT reduce crime rates in the US.
Whoever accepts will argue that it WILL.
aulover79

Con

Ok I just want to make this clear that I am a large gun lover. I am an eagle scout that has gone to scoot a bunch, and on arguments like this, I fall in between. So this time I am going to argue for the idea that banning guns in the US will reduce crime rates. Also, don't forget to have fun, mate. And good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
CaptainMorkunas

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge!

I'm arguing that banning guns will not reduce crime rates in the US. My reasons for believing this are as follows:

1. Russia and Mexico's gun ban

Homicide Rates for Developed Countries OECD 2011 or latest year

[See source 2 for graph]

In Russia and Mexico firearms are banned, and the murder rate is significantly higher than the US in comparison [2].
A study from 2007 published by Harvard University claimed that more control over firearems doesn't necessarily mean fewer serious crimes. The Harvard authors of the study wrote: "If more guns equal more death and few guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevailes" [1].
The research published by Harvard shows a direct correlation between lower gun-related incidents and less stringent laws.


2. Australia's gun ban
In 1996, following a mass shooting that resulted in 35 dead, Australia applied a gun ban. Following this, there was a small spike in murder that then leveled out to what it was before the gun ban [refer to source 4 for the graph].

Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)


3. The United Kingdom's gun ban
Also in 1996, the UK enacted its gun ban. Prior to this ban, "the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18 in 2003" [3] [refer to source 3 for graph].



4. Guns are often used for defense.
Research has shown that guns are used thousands of times each year to prevent crimes [5].

For example:
  • "In October, a man walking in Westlake Plaza used a gun to defend himself against a violent assailant who had punched andkicked him to the sidewalk. Only the fact that the victim carried a handgun saved him from serious injury or death (SeattleTimes, October 10th).
  • "Also in October, an intruder forced his way into a Texas home and tied up a mother and her 14-year-old son, threatening to kill them. The son was able to get free, retrieve a handgun in the home and shoot the intruder (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, October 9th).
  • "In Denver, a man with a long history of violent crime forced entry into the home of a local schoolteacher by prying loose a window air conditioner. The teacher, using a shotgun, fired on the man and ended the attack (Denver Post, July 20th).
  • "In 2002, a West Seattle man used his roommate’s handgun to end a violent assault by an intruder who had broken into his home (Seattle P.I., April 26th)."
[Refer to source 5]

With as often as guns are being used as self-defense, banning them would only result in 37% of the American public [6] being made defenseless.


5. Criminals don't follow laws.
A crime can be defined as: "an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited" [7]. As such, a criminal is someone who is "guilty of crime" [8].
Criminals don't buy their guns legally or through the government, but rather thorugh unregulated ways. At the Chicago Crime Lab, private interviews took place with select inmates who had criminal records involving gun crimes. "Most said they’d put their hands on a gun within 6 months or less of their release from jail and that they would most certainly not get their guns through legal channels...About 70 percent said they got their guns from family, fellow gang members, or through other social connections. Only two said they bought a gun at a store" [9].


Thank you for reading.


aulover79

Con

aulover79 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CaptainMorkunas

Pro

CaptainMorkunas forfeited this round.
aulover79

Con

aulover79 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CaptainMorkunas 1 year ago
CaptainMorkunas
thanks for accepting! but remember the time for responding is only 24 hours. please don't forfeit!
Posted by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
I wouldn't say that, Retributionist, Pro has a lot of good points that they can bring up that advocates it doesn't in fact reduce crime regardless of Con's situation.
Let us see first and judge later m8 >.>
Meow
Posted by Retributionist 1 year ago
Retributionist
I'm pretty sure Con is going to win. Odds are large in his favour.

Good luck, Pro.
Posted by aulover79 1 year ago
aulover79
Good luck, and have fun.
No votes have been placed for this debate.