The Instigator
Dilara
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
yoyo12
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Gun bans and strict gun control increases crime and homicide rates.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Dilara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,010 times Debate No: 55627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (6)

 

Dilara

Pro

I've heard many people who are in favor of the U.S having a gun ban or stricter gun laws compare us to other places like Britain and Ireland. People (like hmmmmm Piers Morgan) often point out that Britain has between 30-50 gun murderers a year while the U.S has 11,00 gun murderers a year. This is true but does it really matter?. To be frank it doesn't matter how many gun crimes there are or gun murderers there are. It matters how many crimes and murderers that are committed period. People seem to think that gun deaths the only types of death possible and with less guns less people will die. Statistics prove other wise. For example in Britain after the 1997 hand gun ban crime rates immediately went up 70% while murderer rates went up 50%. (Piers Morgan I'm talking to you) it doesn't matter that the countries gun murderers went down when overall the murdeer rate sky rocketed. Now England has the highest murderer rates in Europe. Crime only began to decrease in 2003 when more police officers came into play.
Other countries with increased crime and murderer rates due to gun bans and stricter gun control laws include Ireland and Jamaca. Some American cities with higher crime and homicide rates but very strict gun laws are Chicago and D.C. Those cities saw a dramatic increase in crime rates and homicide rates after gun bans. Even though they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country they still have the highest crime and murderer rates. Does it really make sense to do something knowing it will likely bring crime and homicide rates up?.
Please read Crime Prevention Research Centers article " murderer and homicode rates before and after gun bans". Look up " crime statistics in U.K after gun ban" on google and you'll find the article.
Thanks for whoever debates this with me. Happy summer!.
Debate Round No. 1
Dilara

Pro

Is that all you can come up with?. Please give me something to debate you on.
yoyo12

Con

Okay sure. You provide terrible information and haven't backed up any of it therefore I'm not continuing with this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Dilara

Pro

First of all I gave you the source and second the information is true. You can deny it all you want but these are true statistics. If you didn't want to debate this why did you accept the challenge?.
yoyo12

Con

if you're the same person who said the sandy hook shooting had satanic imagery i can't take you seriously
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
NEWAY: I'm cutting this debate as I've voted, thus over for moi, best of luck with your future debates!
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
Sagey, thank you for sharing some of your story.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Australia as I've been giving the statistics between here and US.
We have strong gun laws, and few gun related crimes.
Though we also have less crime per capita than US so strong gun laws do not produce more crime.
I was raised on a farm where guns were freely allowed to shoot vermin, but the laws have changed there.
That is how I grew up using rifles.
I was also an army cadet and took ex WW1 .303 bolt action rifles home for shooting foxes.
Though my favorite rifle was a .22 semi-automatic without an end sight and we had one with a telescopic sight which my friend often borrowed, but I found using sights was too slow, the rabbits would often move before my friend could get them located in his sights.
I also used a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun for duck shooting, but I was not a fan of shotguns.
Though as a very young child I used an air rifle for shooting rats in the hay shed and chook pen.
I took one of my rifles into the city with me, but the police raided us searching for drugs as I lived with a pusher who was also part of a motorcycle gang.
After we were kicked out, I lived on the streets for a couple of years.
So I've seen a bit.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Saggey. Which country are you from?. BTW I know that crime is more determined by poverty, mental health and greed than guns.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Finally, on this subject, I escaped conviction for possession of an unregistered rifle when I was younger as it was my first offense and so they dropped it. So I've stayed clean ever since then.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Though once a year we have a gun amnesty where nobody gets charged for having illegal firearms if they hand them in and every year they destroy a mountain of guns.
So the number of illegal weapons is gradually diminishing.
Which is a good thing!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ Craighawley215: Yes, I understand the issue, as we still have a lot of unregistered weapons existing here, since farmers were once allowed to own firearms for vermin control without registration.
I'm a crack shot with an automatic rifle and had been using rifles since I was 8 years old.
I can shoot anything I see almost instantly firing without sites as my first rifle had the sight broken and I spent years shooting. An example was rabbit shooting with a friend, we spotted 3 young rabbits sitting on a mound around 500 yards away before my friend could even get a rabbit in his sights, I had taken them all out with a single shot each. Such is the beauty of shooting without needing sights.
Yes as teenager I loved shooting, but as I grew older and became involved with the dark side of city life, it became clear to me that there are thousands of unregistered weapons circulating the underground.
Until recently some were able to order weapons online and get them through customs.
It is much harder now, but I believe that with the right contacts, that is still possible.
Likely there are gangs and crime syndicates that have no problems there.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ Dilara: I know a lot about the criminal minds, having lived with criminals and been involved in some of their activities myself, most carrying illegal firearms and knives. As I have stated, I've personally looked down many barrels and managed to talk them out of shooting me and same with knives.
I'm also studying psychology to understand such psychopathic behavior, but much of psychopathy has to do with poor childhood and some genetic, poor brain development.
Criminal activity has nothing really to with gun laws (I'm repeating myself here) statistics prove that.
The only statistics that have anything to do with gun laws per se are the number of shootings.
Robberies and general criminal activity is a function of general social discontent and poverty.

In more socially content nations the level of crime plummets and in regions where there are big divisions between the rich and the poor, the discontent of the poor produces criminals who are trying to jump the gap.

Criminal activity is a Social/Domestic problem, which has absolutely nothing to do with Gun Control laws.
Produce a happier, well balanced society with less division between the wealthy and the impoverished and you will see crime rates drop, regardless of any changes in gun laws.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Sagey. Buddy let's be realistic. Criminals don't obey the law. That's what makes them criminals. They won't and don't obey gun laws. There are plenty of convicted criminals who have guns that were purchased illegally and plenty of gangsters with illegal guns (depending on the state or city). If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. Law abiding citizens will obey the laws and turn in their guns but criminals won't. When those criminals go to rape and kill or just steal from these abiding citizens the law abiding citizens will have no way to fight back because they've had their guns taken away. Even if you don't use a gun you can rape or kill someone. A 200 pound 6,4 man can easily assault a 4,9. 100 Pound women with out a gun. Is it ok to deny that petite thin women the right to defend her self from a tall muscular man by taking her gun even she hasn't done anything illegal or morally wrong?.Think buddy think.
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
@Sagey
I will repeat what I said: Comparing America to any other nation regarding gun policies is pointless. We are very unique in our gun culture, and the political arguments for/against guns are always going to be hot issues discussed by politicians who look out for their own interests. In addition, the enforcement system has been so lax for so long, that so many guns have fallen through the legal cracks. Do you suggest that Australia would have successfully been able to transition from a 3 to 1 ratio of guns to people to a fallout ban on all firearms. This would be an arguably impossible feat.

I will concede that the United States has a horrible problem with gun violence, and I do truly wish that the US was a society that had no logical need for guns, but a ban on guns is not the answer. There are so many illegal or unregistered guns floating around the USA, that you could never guarantee an illegal-gun free society. And until I have a guarantee that all illegal and unregistered firearms are accounted for, then the option of legal gun ban has no merit to me.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Dilarayoyo12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting idea for a debate, which con derailed with petty insults. Pro made some strong opening assertions instead of an argument, and the only sources to back them up were basically 'if you do a search, the information is somewhere on the internet.' Next time use links to the articles the statistics are coming from, and the audience is not Piers Morgan, he is in fact unlikely to be reading this.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
Dilarayoyo12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Both parties showed poor conduct, but accepting a challenge just to immediately drop it, is certainly worse. But I don't see why it is necessary to attack a user in the introduction, that does not even participate in this debate. Neither one used any sort of reliable sources (or proper sourcing methods for that matter) nor put effort into a high quality debating style. I am not awarding the argument points because Pro threw in highly statistics based arguments without providing us with the statistic in question. This makes the argument itself irrelevant. No party gave any actual arguments therefore.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Dilarayoyo12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a stupid debate using bad Confirmation biased (fallacious) sources of statistics for evidence, and Con is right, Pro shouldn't be taken seriously! Thus I agree with Con's argument, Pro's argument is fallacious and not worth debating. Besides I live in a gun restricted nation and it totally denies Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by the_unknown_debator 2 years ago
the_unknown_debator
Dilarayoyo12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con put in no effort to debate so Pro wins.
Vote Placed by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
Dilarayoyo12Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro did not, in any sense, make good arguments, Con refused to make ANY arguments. Thus, Pro wins, effectively, by default. Pro should, in the future, cite sources and develop arguments further, as a skilled Con could have put up much stiffer resistance.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Dilarayoyo12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was just insulting and provided no real counter-argument. Just a tip for the future, Pro: you should reference/cite your work properly, Harvard style, instead of getting people to look things up themselves.