The Instigator
Masonh928
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
michaelperry13
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Crimes

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 3 votes the winner is...
michaelperry13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,012 times Debate No: 44218
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Masonh928

Pro

Rules:
=========
No, Attacking
No, Racism
No, Flaming
No, InValid Info
<<< Civilized Debate >>>
=========
My House Believes that crimes aren't prevented, but increased by gun control. Someone Please accept my challenge!
<<< Starting Argument >>>


First off proven statistics stating that Chicago has the toughest gun control laws state that it has one of the highest crime rates!


Homicide: 15.2
Forcible rape: N/A
Robbery: 501.6
Aggravated assault:485.5
Total Violent crime:N/A
Burglary: 924.7
Larceny-theft: 2,638.4
Motor vehicle theft:673.3

Whereas in Switzerland the ration 1 in every 2 citizens own firearms. Making Switzerland the beholder of the lowest crime rate in the world!












michaelperry13

Con

I believe that you are looking at the situation wrong.

Let's start this debate out with a non-disputable fact.

The United Kingdom, a place much like the US in many ways, has much stricter gun laws than us. Our gun homicide rate is 3 per 100,000, whereas theirs is .07 per 100,000. (1) I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges in your opening argument. The country of Switzerland is not enough like Chicago to make a parallel between them.

I will first refute my opponents arguments, and then state my own.

First, my opponent does not cite any sources for the fact that Chicago "has the toughest gun control laws state that it has one of the highest crime rates," nor the statistics on homicide, forcible rape, robbery, etc. I would also like to see proof that the rate of ownership of guns in Chicago is less than 50%, as that is the rate of ownership in Switzerland. If my opponent fails to do so, the premise of pro's argument is fundamentally flawed.

Second, I'd like to point out that in 2010, Chicago actually LOOSENED its gun laws. Before they were forced to loosen them, (which was based on the unconstitutionality of their laws,) their gun homicide rates were lower. (2)

Next, my opponent is asserting that the reason ONLY reason Chicago has such a high murder rate is because they have stricter gun laws. Pro then compares Chicago to Switzerland, saying that the only reason that Switzerland has lower crime rates is their loose gun laws.

I contend that the reason that Switzerland has such low crime rates is because it has one of the lowest poverty rates in the world. Its poverty rate is 7.9%. (3) When a country has a lower poverty rate, that means that there is less reason for people to commit crimes.

Chicago, on the other hand, has a poverty rate of 27.5% (4). That is almost three and a half times larger than Switzerland. I contend that THIS is the reason that there is more crime in Chicago. You can not say that the only reason that Chicago has more crime is that it has stricter gun laws. There is more reason for a person to commit a crime in Chicago because of the higher poverty rate.

Additionally, Chicago is called "The Gang Capital of The United States" (5). As you probably know, as the number of gangs increases in a place, and the place doesn't get larger, it becomes harder for gangs to control as much territory as they want. Incidentally, because they want to control as much area as possible, territory disputes erupt much easier, and as a result, more shootings happen.

And, as I'm sure you know, Switzerland is NOT the gang capital of anything. As I proved by showing you that their poverty rate is lower than Chicago, they are richer, and therefore have less gangs. Gangs are one of the primary sources of gun violence, and because Chicago has them and Switzerland barely has any, it is unfair to compare the two.

I have refuted my opponent's arguments, so now I will move on to my own.

Australia, a country a lot like the US and the UK, recently underwent the complete destruction of all semiautomatic and automatic weapons in their country. After a massacre in 1996 that killed 35 people, they decided to take action. (6) Since 1979, Australia has gone from a gun homicide rate of 4.71 per 100,000 to 0.86 (2011) (7). 0.86 is only a fraction of what it was before, and it is almost completely attributed to the gun control that was done. Without that gun control, there's no saying whether the number of gun deaths would have steadily declined like it did.

Additionally, not all the people that commit mass shootings, (Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc.) were lifetime criminals. They were simply mentally ill. By having universal background checks, or requiring gun owners to go in for screenings of their mental health, we could have prevented these things. Universal background checks are a form of gun control, and they can certainly help. Additionally, 9 in 10 Americans support universal background checks. (8)

Because it is obvious that Switzerland is not a viable comparison to Chicago, and gun control largely has good effects on the gun homicide rates of other countries, I believe that gun control is a good choice for the United States. Therefore, I urge a vote for con.

(1) http://www.theguardian.com...
(2) http://www.justfacts.com...
(3) https://www.cia.gov...
(4) http://www.city-data.com...
(5) http://www.cbsnews.com...
(6) http://www.nytimes.com...
(7) http://www.gunpolicy.org...
(8)http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Masonh928

Pro

I believe that you have a good point, stating that poverty is a main reason at theft and crime. However, not all burlaries and crimes are armed robberies and those that are aren't always with firearms. That doesn't justify the fact for taking guns. My ratio of 1 and 2 citizens of Switzerland Owning firearms also in and of itself would probably scare anybody or pprobably a lot of citizens even thinking let alone attempting to murder, purloin, or anyother crime.

If there were a law saying everyone must own a gun then in the store everyone would have guns. So, if the robber were to come in the store there would be at least 6 guns also pointed him. In all that would solve the problem, because criminals wouldn't even dare to enter the store to steal!

Now that I have rebuked or otherwise gave an argument against your statement,
I'll give my next supporting argument.

By taking firearms you may think the government is taking away it away from the criminals, but how do criminals still get drugs and narcotics? Well, it's the same with guns! Do you honestly think that criminals will follow rules?

You may think that guns kill people. Honestly I've never seen a gun self shoot except for drones, but that's not the point. Guns do not kill people; people kill people. It's like saying forks make people fat.

Gun control also stimulates the idea of just taking amunition. Well basically the same thng. It would also be like taking food from someone. Ofcourse that would prevent someone from getting fat. However inevevatibly they would die. I'm not exactly saying you would die without amunition, but you would no longer be able to protect property, family, your house, animals, etc.

I believe my last staements were in fact valid and indeed viable!
michaelperry13

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for a timely response.

First I will defend my statements, and then I will refute Pro's.

My opponent concedes that poverty is the main reason for crime. This means Switzerland and Chicago are essentially incomparable, because Switzerland has very little poverty compared to Chicago. Because of Switzerland's lack of poverty, they would have less crime, regardless of the amount of guns. In his last statement he states that he believes it is still a viable comparison, but that is disproved by the fact that Switzerland and Chicago are so different.

My opponent says that not all burglaries and crimes involve guns, and that is true. However, a gun's main purpose is to kill. Baseball bats and knives and other things commonly used in burglaries have other uses, and therefore it would be ridiculous to ban them. That fact that we couldn't completely eliminate robberies and burglaries isn't a reason to not try to reduce the number. That would be like saying "only 49% of traffic deaths occur when one or more of the people involved is under the influence, so there's no reason to tighten drunk driving laws."

My opponent still hasn't cited a source for his ratio of "1 in 2 citizens in Switzerland owns a gun." He also hasn't proven that that is more than the gun ownership in Chicago. In order for pro to win this debate, proof is necessary.

In response to my opponents statement about "if there were a law saying everyone must own a gun," I say this. Because we have decided that poverty is a main reason for crime, I would say that criminals would still rob stores, regardless of the fact that everyone in the store would have a gun. They would still need money, and if they really needed it, they would just bring in 5 or 6 people with them to point guns at everyone. It would be better if we could just reduce the amount of guns. Reducing the amount of guns would also prevent shootouts that would happen in stores if everyone had guns.

My opponent did not address my assertion that universal background checks would be beneficial to our society. They are a form of gun control. I ask that he does that in the next round.

Now that I have defended my statements, I shall refute my opponent's.

My opponent says "By taking firearms you may think the government is taking away it away from the criminals, but how do criminals still get drugs and narcotics? Well, it's the same with guns! Do you honestly think that criminals will follow rules?"
To that I respond, when did I ever say I was going to take them away? People will still be able to get guns for self defense reasons. The only guns people would maybe not be allowed to have is semiautomatic and automatic weapons, which have absolutely no function other than being fun to shoot. You can't do anything to defend yourself with one of those weapons that you can't do with a 12 gauge shotgun. And to my opponents statement about drugs and narcotics, I ask him this question.

Are you saying that just because people will be able to get around the rules, that we shouldn't have the rules in the first place?
In that case, why don't we just make cocaine legal, because people can still get it anyway!
The law would still help the country, regardless of whether some people got around the law.

My opponent then says that guns don't kill people. I agree with that, but people kill people with guns. If more people have guns, more people will get killed.

It's like saying "people use forks to get fat." Completely reasonable.

I have never suggested that we take people's ammunition for their guns. Although that may be a form of gun control, this debate is about gun control in general. If one kind of gun control helps, then con is the way to go. And like I have said in the past rounds, people will still be able to get guns for self defense reasons, so no one will die because they won't have ammunition and won't be able to defend their homes.

If you do believe that your statements about homicide rates and gun ownership rates are valid, cite your sources. I don't want to have to take your word for it without evidence. You could just be making up those statistics.

Because of all these reasons, I urge a vote for con.
Debate Round No. 2
Masonh928

Pro

You have good reason for stating that. I've decided to focus my arguments away from the Comparison away from Chicago and Switzerland. However, America is the 1rst wealthiest, or oppulent country (Src: International Monetary Fund statistics at October-2013 ). Whereas that is above Switzerland. Making more feasable to compare to a country rather than a country with a city. I have also gotten a src: http://news.bbc.co.uk... my ratio.

It seems that I've had a misinterpertation or I'm too presumptious. When you agreed to the challenge I thought you were one of those people who believed that ONLY the government and law enforcements should aquire guns.

I disagree with your statement, "The only guns people would maybe not be allowed to have is semiautomatic and automatic weapons, which have absolutely no function other than being fun to shoot,". I happen to disagree with that statement. Where you said, that people could still get guns for self defense. I believe that SEMI-Automatic guns are indeed adequate for self defense. Most home invasions involve more than one Invader and use semi-automatics. Do you think that a little glock 19 could stand against an AK-47 Assault Rifle? No! It's fighting fire with fire! I don't believe in fully-auto just semi-auto. For one they're highly regulated! Hard to get your hands on and jamm; End of point. Here's a little video: (https://www.youtube.com...) involving children using assault rifle against home invasion (With Younger Siblings).

Would you rather be surrounded in in your house with a glock 35 or an AK-47?
The reason I brought up reduced ammo was just in case; that way I don't have to explain it if you ever did bring that up...

I believe that your refutations we're acting out of mis-understanding. That's why I believe a vote for PRO...
michaelperry13

Con

First I will defend my cases, and then I will refute my opponent's.

Like I said in my earlier statement, why would any person REALLY need a semiautomatic rifle? I understand that they might be adequate for self defense, because why wouldn't they be! They shoot off bullets really fast! What I am saying is not they have no functional uses... it's obvious that they could be used to defend homes. However, it would be much better if we discontinued the sale of semiautomatic and automatic weapons, because they are unnecessary.

Like I said before- what can you do with a semiautomatic or automatic weapon that you can't do with a 12 gauge shotgun?

You would still be able to purchase guns other than handguns. A glock 35 is an unfair example, as people would still be able to buy guns more powerful than such a weapon.

I do not understand what you mean that my refutations were "acting out of mis-understanding." You ignored the things that I laid out for you, and they were valid reasons for gun control.

I provided sufficient reasoning as to why, even though criminals will get around the law, we should still put the law in place. Just because people can still get their hands on cocaine doesn't mean that America should go ahead and legalize it! I would ask that you respond to this, and the other statements I am going to make, as they are completely valid and relevant to the debate.

I also said that the "guns don't kill people; people kill people" argument is invalid. I am aware that guns don't normally self shoot. However, a gun's main purpose IS to kill something, be it man or animal.

Like I said in my last argument, and I will restate now:

People kill people with guns.

Because people kill people with guns, wouldn't it be logical to make the laws that control the sale of them stricter?

And like I said up there, this argument is like saying "people use forks to get fat." Completely reasonable."

My opponent made NO attempt to respond to my assertion about universal background checks. Because gun control is defined as "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns" (1), and universal background checks do that, they are a kind of gun control. Therefore, unless my opponent has an argument against universal background checks, he concedes this debate.

Now that I have restated my arguments in hopes that they will be respected, and defended my arguments, I shall refute Pro's.

Now that you have shifted away from Chicago to the United States, I'd like to point something out.
The United States is THE MOST ARMED NATION IN THE WORLD. (2)

We have 88.8 guns per 100 people, whereas Switzerland only has 45.7 guns per 100 people. So, when you said that Switzerland has the "lowest crime rate in the world" (no source,) it was not because they have less guns. In fact, our ratio is almost two times theirs. Therefore, I assert that because we have more guns than Switzerland, we have a higher murder rate.

I believe you have misinterpreted my argument, because I have never said anything about only allowing law enforcement to obtain firearms. I have always been clear that I wouldn't be eliminating them from the country necessarily... just making the country safer for our citizens by making the laws stricter.

I am now done both refuting my opponents arguments and stating my own. I await a response, and I hope that pro chooses to address ALL of my arguments.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Masonh928

Pro

Masonh928 forfeited this round.
michaelperry13

Con

I extend all arguments to the next round.
Debate Round No. 4
Masonh928

Pro

I would like to say that this was a very interesting debate. For some reason most of the arguments were based on whether or not Switz. and Chicago were feasable comparisons - Odd. This debate did not change my opinions rather my perspective!
michaelperry13

Con

My opponent does not address my arguments in the last round, so the points go to con.

This was a very interesting debate. However, I do still believe that both universal background checks and the possible elimination of semiautomatic and automatic weapons would benefit our country.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Masonh928 3 years ago
Masonh928
I'm new so, heheh!
Posted by Masonh928 3 years ago
Masonh928
I'm new so, heheh!
Posted by Masonh928 3 years ago
Masonh928
Sorty I was busy!
Posted by Masonh928 3 years ago
Masonh928
hahaha" Debate?
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I'm liberal, but I do know that banning guns in the past has caused even more violence. Yet, these were in times of revolution,upheaval,or war. In times like these though, where many governments are stable, the odds are less likely that someone will need a gun. Perhaps we can find some middle ground solution.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Masonh928michaelperry13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: So I think there was a lot missing from this debate, especially in rebuttal by Pro. I don't see any response on background checks, and, in fact, a concession on the importance of gun control when it comes to automatic weapons. Since these appear to prevent crimes, they automatically win the debate for Con. I don't find all of Con's arguments thoroughly convincing, but these are all I have to buy. I would have liked to see some other reasons why Switzerland's crime rate is so low (very different gun culture than ours, just fyi), but I don't really need that to justify this decision. Pro's posts were often hard to read grammatically, and Pro's relative lack of response just comes off as disrespectful, especially when the last post of the debate is just him stating that his opinion hasn't changed.
Vote Placed by lnhsjayhawk 3 years ago
lnhsjayhawk
Masonh928michaelperry13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I still think gun control is dumb, but based on debating skill, Con had better arguments and sources.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
Masonh928michaelperry13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided the best analysis of the relevant statistics in this debate, and pro failed to refute most of con's contentions.