The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
pioneer_colonel
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

Gun control lowers 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 6 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,918 times Debate No: 28477
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

16kadams

Con

First round pro states case.
Second round con refutes, presents case. Pro defends case and refutes.
Third round rebuttals and defense.
Final round rebuttals, defense, closing. Pro (as he started first) can only conclude (no rebuttals or defense for pro).

Gun control - efforts to regulate, ban, or control gun sales and possession.

Good luck
pioneer_colonel

Pro

1) introduction: In this debate we discuss "gun control lowers crime"
In this debate I will stand on the pro side and I offer my arguments in favor of the pro side.
2) definition:
2-1)Gun control: governmental control over the ownership of arms, whether through passing legislation on prohibition or imposing limitations on who and under what conditions is entitled to posses, store, carry and use weapons.
2-2) public: Anywhere that is not a private property and is accessible to people without legal restrictions. by this definition a venue such as a shooting club which demands a membership for entrance does not fall into the public category.
2-3) private: anywhere that is not public.

I begin my argument by referring to the following census:

http://news.nationalpost.com...

I proceed with comparing an instance of a country,
United States of America:
accepts unrestricted access to guns ranging from handguns up to semi-automatic assault rifles under the soul condition that the owner be firstly a citizen and secondly older than 21 years with 2 other countries.

against,

firstly: Canada:
allows ownership of weapons under the following conditions.

1) The owner must acquire the gun ownership license
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca...
through a process resembling the driver's license acquisition.
2) Any long Gun must be registered
3) access to ammunition is restricted
4) The Gun must not be carried in public areas.
5) The owner is legally assumed to make every measure that the gun remains inaccessible to non license holders, which includes,criminals, friends, minors... under the owner's responsibility.

secondly Switzerland:

Every able male is enlisted in the Swiss militia
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con


Rebuttals

My opponent makes a single comparison: Canada vs. US crime rates. However, the problem with his source is that is only measures gun crime, not overall crime. Now, when looking at a mere comparison of rates, the only country that should be compared with the US is Canada—sociologists have argued our societies are very similar—however the way my opponent does it is very flawed. Comparing a mere rate of these two nations is illogical due to the fact Canada has the same population as California, and the only way that would be valid to measure the effect of Canada’s gun laws is two fold:

1) Compare the crime trends of the USA and Canada, far different from the rate. Ask which country had larger drops in crime.

2) See if Canada’s crime rate dropped

One, although is semi-credible, is still flawed as comparing statistics may fall into endogenous factors among other problems, however is much more credible then comparing the rate. Number two is the most credible way to measure the effects of gun control. This erases any problems of comparing societies and are much more specific, and can tell us how the law affected the crime in Canada that a mere comparison would fail to accomplish. I will now use both of these methods and prove Canada’s gun laws have been a failure.

1) Comparing the crime trends of the USA and Canada

Starting with their 1970’s laws, these restrictions have been a failure. Interestingly, although gun crime fell overall crime rose. (my opponents source only measures gun crime. If gun crime decreases but overall crime increases, this would prove gun control cost lives). David Kopel Notes in his 1991 law review, “{Criminologist] Blackman observes that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, while Canada was enforcing its new strict controls, America added no new federal control and relaxed control at the state level. Nevertheless, northern-tier American states (arguably the most comparable to Canada) saw a much slower rise in the robbery rate than did Canada. … Only 13% of United States residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. Most Canadian residential burglaries occur in the nighttime, while American burglars prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of a confrontation. When an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is at least equal to his chance of being sent to jail.” The first emphasis (mine) showed although both saw increases in crime (the 80’s was a time of increased crime for unknown reasons) the USA had less of an increase. Using Criminologists Blackman’s study, who controls for many variables, found Canada had a larger increase in crime, meaning Canada’s gun control has little effect (or an effect that increases crime) on their crime rates. The second emphasis (mine) shows American robbers are shot fairly often. In the words before that, it shows robbers in the US are deterred by people in the home, likely because people can shoot back, whereas in Canada there is no such deterrent effect and robbing homes with occupants with no means to defend themselves is not “scary”. That basic comparison shows guns have a capability to deter criminals and, therefore, save lives. Kopel further points out “Domestic homicide fell in Canada, and dropped even more sharply in the United States.”[1] As we can see, as the US loosened gun laws and Canada made them more strict, the USA experienced a larger drop in crime, giving more data for the deterrence hypothesis and the Canadian gun control failure.

Further study by Gary Mauser finds the Canadian gun control had, at best, no effect on crime. He further noted the US had extremely faster rates of crime decline, and in cases when crime increased, a slower increase. His basic comparison proves the Canadian gun control has failed and that these comparisons prove gun control has had no success [2].

2. Looking at Canada itself

Canadian crime rates have remained fairly stable before and after their gun laws were passed, proving their gun laws have been ineffective. After the 1977 law, homicide did drop BUT homicide was dropping since 1975, and actually stabled the year after, and as stated above its drops in crime were negligible compared to other countries. Canada’s gun control has been a failure [3].

Case

Is it possible that more guns causes less crime? Interestingly, many studies believe this is so. According to the most credible studies, gun defensive usage (DGU’s) range from 1.5 million through 2.5 million, but other small studies have actually reached the number of 4.5 million DGU’s per year. A 1999 study by Lawrence Southwick, using measurements from deterrence studies done on the death penalty and other crimes (which is a good proxy when measuring if criminals can be deterred, and by how much), finding that the 299 justified civilian killings of criminals would have prevented 2,200 murders that year. However, when you add in the fact criminals often thwart criminals without killing them, often through injury, and other numbers provided by Kleck 1991, the number increases to 8,900 murders deterred. When going through every single variable, study, and violent crime, Southwick concludes 800,000 crimes deterred each year by gun owners, merely by them being there (no confrontation of anyone), and 400,000 would be a lower estimate (using NCVS data). If Klecks study is preferred, the number becomes 1,700,000 – 3,300,000 violent crimes deterred by gun owners, meaning with guns existing crime is hugely decreased [4].

Some more facts:

--In the UK, murder was 52% higher after the 1968 ban and 15% higher after the 1997 ban.

--In Chicago, handgun crime increased (but depending on the data I use, the data either claims an increase in crime or a slight decrease. But all of the data agreed initial after the law crime increased).

--In Washington DC, the homicide rate was 73% higher after their gun ban.

--In all of the conceal carry states listed, crime decreased.

All from [5].

Conclusion:

Here is a fact: Gun control does not decrease crime

Here is a data point: there is some evidence that gun control increases crime

The resolution is negated.

1. http://www.guncite.com...

2. http://www.fraserinstitute.org...

3. http://www.saf.org...

4. http://saf.org...

5. http://www.justfacts.com...

pioneer_colonel

Pro

I should thank my opponent for his detailed answer.

I must maintain that through an accidental submission in the first round I was deprived from extending and fortifying my case, still seeing as the things have gone I shall proceed with whatever is available at hand.

I start my round with rebutting my opponent's arguments.

I agree with my opponent on the fact that direct comparison without considering sociological considerations sheds little light on the matter, still the reason of my insistence on comparing USA and Canada is disregarding the minute differences that separate the two nations, such as Canadian more natural tendency towards European socialism rather than American self centered capitalism, in essence the two nations are quite similar. This being suggested one might assume that a simple extrapolation of the census offered in

http://news.nationalpost.com...

by balancing the populations with a mere 1 to 10 ratio one would reach a strong comparison between the firearms related crimes in the two countries. That still shows a substantial surplus of Gun related crimes in US in comparison to Canada.

My opponent maintains that less strict control in gun ownership results in smaller rate of petty crimes. May be so. Since on a Canadian street I am not allowed to carry a Gun with me, a pick pocket may feel safer, robbing my pocket than in US. But that is small price that we have to pay in exchange for the ease of mind that we enjoy on our streets. In order not to confuse my statement with personal etiquette I again refer the audience to the census I've offered:
http://news.nationalpost.com...
Now under the line "Homicide by firearm per 100.000 citizens.
What my opponent fails to see is that if I carry a gun in my pocket, so can the pick pocket, or the burglar, or the car thief, thus the above census. It would have a good world if only the law abiding citizens had access to the guns. It is not however the case. So better it is that except for an elected body of law enforcement, none else does.


" In the words before that, it shows robbers in the US are deterred by people in the home, likely because people can shoot back, whereas in Canada there is no such deterrent"

Wrong, whoever produced this data failed to see that in Canada as well as US it is possible that one provides his household with a means of protection, that is a handgun. Only unlike US in Canada one has to go in the steps that I mentioned in the first round that effectively prevents a criminal or a mentally unstable person from acquiring firearms.

"Canadian crime rates have remained fairly stable before and after their gun laws were passed,"

The reference to the above sentence promptly refused to see the point that even before the introduction of the gun registry laws, Canadians were never gun fanatics such as US are or have been. The law was rectified rather as a future measure than to address a problem. No wonder that the crime rate did not show a sharp change, since the law was not there to address an immediate problem.
Exception of course being the province of Quebec, however there is a consensus among Canadians and Quebeckers alike, there is a sociological wedge between Quebec and rest of Canada.

However in the troublesome province of Quebec alone that had in times resembled the very encarnation of wild wild west, with incidents such as polytechnique massacare or octoboer crisis and PLQ attacks, ever since the introduction of the gun laws, there hasn't been a single major gun related incidence such as mentioned.

The problem with my opponent's argument on top of all is that he puts the same weight on petty crimes and the major crimes alike. In his argument, homicide as a crime, whether it's opening fire in a crowd of teenagers sitting in a cinema, or opening fire in the middle of an elementary school filled with helpless kids, bears the same meaning as a homeless man breaking into one's backdoor to get some food from the fridge or some cache from one's pocket. I maintain the previous examples, pointing out again that Gun control is not there to prevent you from protecting your household, it is there to lower the gun related crimes.


Based on the above refutes and my original case, I maintain that Gun control by lowering the number of serious first hand gun related crimes, whether it being, homicide, massacare... and the second hand gun related crimes such as Armed rubbery, gang crimes, etc. Lowers the crime rate.

As the conclusion I would like to refer the audience to the following census:
http://www.nationmaster.com...

to make a comparison between the rate of crimes in different countries and make their own conclusion about the correct stand.











Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con


I thank my opponents dedication to this debate, however I remain unconvinced.

“still the reason of my insistence on comparing USA and Canada is disregarding the minute differences that separate the two nations”

Interestingly, Canada and the US are far from similar and the differences not “minute”. Interestingly, although parts of the Northeast are similar to Canada, much of the West and south comes from Spanish decent, not Western European or Britain. Further, before the revolution many criminals were sent to the Americas via exile. Canadian immigrants are mainly French and English, whereas American immigrants are mostly of some Hispanic decent. The majority of American settlers did not conform to British laws. But is non-conformity indicative of crime? Not necessarily, however criminals by their nature do not conform to laws. As much of the US crime comes from the south and west, and these are the areas very different from Canada, comparing an overall rate would be illogical and very flawed [1].

My opponent may point out the Northeast is very similar to Canada, however Hispanic immigration is beginning to touch these regions and the Northeast has a much higher population (and population density). Comparing to the US simple does not work.

“by balancing the populations with a mere 1 to 10 ratio one would reach a strong comparison between the firearms related crimes in the two countries”

US POP. 311,000,000

CANADA POP. 34 million

Yes, a 1 – 10 ratio. However, the crime difference is about a 3-8 ratio. Using this, we can see the ratio then becomes 3.75 – 10. Therefore, using this data Canada actually has a higher crime rate when population is controlled for.

My opponent cites the same source multiple times, but as stated above his whole ratio argument is defeated.

“What my opponent fails to see is that if I carry a gun in my pocket, so can the pick pocket, or the burglar, or the car thief, thus the above census. It would have a good world if only the law abiding citizens had access to the guns. It is not however the case. So better it is that except for an elected body of law enforcement, none else does.”

The problem with his argument has been refuted last round. I have proven guns used in defense are far more common than it is used in crime. And the problem with this logic is simple: he assumes gun registry and other controls would stop criminals from crime, which is not the case. Criminals would not follow the law and could obtain weapons without permission via black market. So, to rephrase what actually happens: wouldn’t it be nice if criminals could have guns but we couldn’t. As stated, handgun crime has remained unchanged and resilient through gun control. Criminals keep the guns; law-abiding citizens lose them [2]. Further, the police have slow response times and could not defend everyone. Controlling guns means criminals have easy pickings.

“Wrong, whoever produced this data failed to see that in Canada as well as US it is possible that one provides his household with a means of protection, that is a handgun.”

Listen to this: My opponent has admitted guns deter crime. I have proven guns reduce crime, he says in Canada guns are still allowed. That was his rebuttal. Meaning he argues guns reduce crime… Read his quote and response, it is essentially a concession of ground he needed to have to win the debate.

“The law was rectified rather as a future measure than to address a problem. No wonder that the crime rate did not show a sharp change, since the law was not there to address an immediate problem.”

False, Canadian crime rate [3]:


Violent crime was increasing, fast, and increased much faster after the 1977 and 1991 laws. The second one was in response to crime, and there would be no other reason for these laws other than to decrease crime (they don’t, but that is the intention). So yes, they were trying to decrease crime. Further, the government posited 10 main reasons for their gun registry, and 6 of those reasons are crime related, from solving crimes to smuggling [4].

“ever since the introduction of the gun laws, there hasn't been a single major gun related incidence such as mentioned.”

He assumes two things, 1) gun control reduced these crimes. Which is unlikely, almost all guns used in crimes weren’t registered, if they are dodging the law how is it affecting them? Further, many law abiding citizens do not even follow the law. Lastly, no studies have proven the law has lowered Canadian crime [5]. 2) this is a lie. And mass shootings have actually become more common since the 1970s [6].

The problem with my opponent's argument on top of all is that he puts the same weight on petty crimes and the major crimes alike.”

This is also a lie. When looking at Europe all of my numbers involved violent crime, and I proved gun bans increased violent crime. The 1999 study only measured violent crimes. None of my case used petty crimes, rendering my opponents rebuttal useless.

“I maintain the previous examples, pointing out again that Gun control is not there to prevent you from protecting your household, it is there to lower the gun related crimes.”

My opponent fails if I prove gun control increases any crime, as the resolution does not say “gun crime”. So this is a red herring. Further, I have proven gun crime is increased by gun bans in Europe. Further, gun control in Canada has not prevented gun crime.

“To repeat, during these seven years, there were only 62 cases — nine a year — where it was even conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.”[7]

And “This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.”(Canadian data)[7].

Again, the effects and the intentions of the law are two separate things. And if non gun crime rises, and more lives lost, then there is a net increase in crime – meaning we should oppose the laws. However, my opponent seems to ignore any increase in non-gun crimes no matter how large.

“Based on the above refutes and my original case, I maintain that Gun control by lowering the number of serious first hand gun related crimes”

I have proven Canadian gun control has not reduced handgun crime [2], rifle crime [5], and has not decreased overall crime [7]. My opponent gives no valid data on the subject, rendering his case useless.

I reiterate: gun related crime increases always after a gun ban [8]. My opponents case is factually false.

CONCLUSION:

I have refuted my opponents case. My opponent has the majority of the BOP being pro, and has failed to fufill it. All of his case relies on cross sectional data which is highly unreliable. All of his data relies on one country: Canada. I use the US, proving guns save lives, Canada, proving gun control is ineffective, and Europe, proving it may increase crime. My case is far superior to that of my opponents, and it is impossible to support the less guns less crime hypothesis. Vote con.

  1. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com...
  2. http://www.guncite.com...
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  4. http://www.guncite.com...
  5. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...;
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  7. http://www.nationalreview.com...#
  8. http://www.justfacts.com...
pioneer_colonel

Pro

I must thank my opponent again for his full dedication to this debate.

Rebuttals:

"Yes, a 1 – 10 ratio. However, the crime difference is about a 3-8 ratio. Using this, we can see the ratio then becomes 3.75 – 10."

As I mentioned in the previous round as well, my opponent is the winner of the debate if we assume that petty crimes and major crimes count as equals. If however someone looks at my original reference another time
http://news.nationalpost.com...
and considering the agreed upon 1-10 ration between Canada and USA one can see that the corrected ratio between Canada and USA regarding the gun related crime stands on 1730/10129 a 5.85 ratio in favor of reduced gun related crime in Canada and a .51/2.97 a 5.82 reduced number of homicides with guns. As you can see introduction of gun control has clearly succeeded in controlling its target, that is reducing the major gun related crimes.

" Criminals would not follow the law and could obtain weapons without permission via black market. "

The problem with this statement is self revealing. It is true anyone can have access to guns if he tries really hard. But one has to admit that it is far more risky to get engaged in illegal black market gun trafficking and purchasing than it is when you can simply go to a sport shop and order your weapon of choice. The law enforcement can enact cracking laws which would make life hell for whoever traffics weapons in to the country. In Canada the penalty for possessing illegal arms is heavy and the trafficking of illegal arms is considered a capital crime. The advantage of control is incontrovertibly clear.

"Listen to this: My opponent has admitted guns deter crime."

Now that's a disappointing argument from my opponent. Apparently after 3 rounds of debating my opponent sill has difficulty grasping the idea of the debate and my stand. I need to state it again. The debate is about gun control. not about forbidding the gun ownership. There is no point of argue that in a place where is considered private such as the privacy of one's bedroom and where the law enforcement cannot be trusted to act fast, it is the right of any citizen to defend himself and his family. There is nothing about gun control that prevents one from this. Still gun control proceeds with making clear that if it's about defending your household you won't necessarily need more than a handgun or a shotgun with limited ammunition at most. The lack of gun control on the other hand results in for instance and elderly lady buying the weapons mainly designed for the war zone, with virtually unlimited amount of ammo that her mentally unstable kid can use for committing a carnage in a school or other in a cinema. I hope firstly the audience and secondly my opponent realize the difference of the case and the importance of gun control from this perspective.

"

“The law was rectified rather as a future measure than to address a problem. No wonder that the crime rate did not show a sharp change, since the law was not there to address an immediate problem.”

False, Canadian crime rate [3]:"

Unfortunately either my opponent failed to read or he didn't care to bring the amendment to the above phrase that he copied from my argument. That is the increased terrorist acts committed in the province of Quebec during the peaking intervals. That part of the country at that time was in a state of semi civil war. With military deployed in large cities such as Montreal. Thus the sharp increase in your census. But it wasn't an issue directly related to the public. If the terrorist groups such as FLQ proceeded with bomb terrorizing the country, that cannot be put on the census of the ordinary citizens. It is wrong to count political terrorist activities as ordinary civil gun crimes.


"2) this is a lie. And mass shootings have actually become more common since the 1970s [6]."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Above I've brought the same reference brought by my opponent with which he called my argument a lie!
I request the audience to review the charts again and make a sound comparison to see if one can compare 3-4 shootout incidences with maximum 1 casualties to any of the carnage that one hears coming out of the States on a regular basis? Based on a sound judgment I clearly rest my case!

=========
"The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case."

Considering Canada gun control laws I perceive that my opponent has confused two parts of the gun control. The Canadians do not consider the essence of gun control not to be effective, the part of the gun control law that the Canadians deem to be less effective yet still rows after rows of governments have refused to scrap, even though they keep giving promises to do so, is the long gun registry.
The above phrase to my knowledge refers to the long gun registry problem.
Still it's not hard to see the importance of the above sentence. No registered gun has to our knowledge been used for committing a crime.

In other words no single person has gone to a sports shop, bought a gun and went to a mall for a shoot out! Gun control doesn't elliminate the gun related crime but properly applied and enforced it makes it extremely hard for the criminals and ill minded to exact their plans.

Conclusion:

Based on my arguments I have shown that gun control succeeds in reducing the crime in the field that is destined for. Gun related crimes. I leave it to the fair judgement of the audience to vote for the side with the stronger argument.


Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

All of my opponent"s case can fall under a few points. 1) Cross-sectional data, 2) Canada"s "success", and 3) gun control actually controls guns and prevent criminals from accessing them.

I will refute his points as follows.

1) Cross sectional data

As I have stated, cross sectional data misses many factors. My opponent"s data fails to control for most factors and merely compares the crime per capita. As stated, Europe and the US are extremely different regions, and comparisons are futile. So my opponent has focused on Canada, but chooses to ignore my main rebuttal: demographics. Although other factors influence crime, this is the largest difference in these two societies. But there are many different factors.

Population, for example. Canada"s population growth has been shrinking at a faster rate and has a much lower fertility rate. This decrease in population, and lower populations overall, partially explain the gap.

Demographics (as in ethnicity) also play a large role. The vast majority of Canadians identify as Canadian or some type of European, whereas in the US there are very large minorities of African Americans and Hispanics [1][2].

Interestingly, using cross sectional data in Illinois gun ownership has a negative correlation (meaning more guns less crime). The gun controlled city versus the rural areas. Now, my opponent will note there are many differences between rural and urban areas, however when the differences are controlled for the results are the same. Whereas in England, urban more controlled cities versus rural cities exhibit no correlation, meaning gun control may have no effect or slightly increase crime. Using international data, as my opponents census did, there is actually no correlation. His census ignored large swaths of the globe. International cross-sectional data exhibits no correlation between gun control and crime [3].

A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy noted:

"If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates."[4]

As we can see, using cross sectional data gun ownership has no effect on crime, and may even reduce crime. Gun control, which disarms citizens may increase crime. These arguments, which I have been pointing out throughout the debate, seems to be ignored by my opponent.

2. Canada"s "success"

PRO argued terrorism was the reason for rising crime and should not be counted. This is a cop-out argument as he is in a bind. Terrorism leads to a loss of life, is an illegal practice, etc. It seems odd that an illegal practice that kills citizens via firearm or bomb would not be counted as a crime. Terrorism is actually a designated crime [5]. Interestingly, Gun laws (gun laws that are lax, not controlled) actually have reduced terrorism in Israel and have forced insurgents to go from machine gun attempts, stopped by conceal carry holders in Israel, to bombings. Lott & Whitley actually find conceal carry forces terrorists to change their methods, and terrorist death tolls decrease because the methods they are forced to adopt are less effective [6].

My opponent claims mass shootings are not very violent, again he has lied. Canada has always had a lower crime rate, meaning it is logical they have had less shootings and less severe ones. However, shootings have occurred with more than one death (like my opponent argued). For example, in 1975 when gun regulations were increasing a shooter killed a student and a teacher, and wounded thirteen others. In 1989, a shooter killed 14 people, injured another 14, shooting 28 (So I guess he didn"t miss) and killed himself. In 1992, a college shooting killed 4 people. In 2006, a shooter killed one person, injured 19, 8 put into critical condition, and 6 requiring surgery [7].

My opponent has chosen to ignore the one peer reviewed study on the issue, he likely ignored it because (as I stated) the conclusions were "This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008." (see round 3, source 7)

A review done by Gary Mauser, I would say other then the study above that proved the Canadian experiment was worthless, this review is the best source on the issue. This review noted there is no convincing link between the crime reduction and the gun control in Canada, and for suicides the reduction in firearm suicide was canceled out by suicide by hanging [8].

Modern gun controls in Canada have had no effect. Looking back upon the earlier gun control in the 70s, I cited David Kopel who proved the gun control has been extremely futile and possibly counterproductive [9].

Further, due to the fact the gun registry has failed to solve any crime or help police track down suspects, the ban has been an utter failure (see source 7, round 3).

3. Gun control keeps criminals away from guns

I would say there is equilibrium with this. Criminals aren"t over-motivated, meaning many will not use guns. However, as described with David Kopel, most criminals switched to knives and other substitutes (when it came to long gun crime which is extremely rare [3]. anyway). When it came to handguns, the rate changed little, handgun crime seemed more resilient to gun control. In other words, in the case of Canada, gun control has not prevented gun crime [9]. Some will keep or get guns, some might shy away. However, this next point will demonstrate the majority will keep their firearms:

Interestingly, though, many citizens and criminals keep their guns, and continue making them. Just like the drug war, controlling these items have been extremely ineffective. In Europe, illegal guns far outnumber the amount of legal ones. As Mr. Tucille notes, in New York City he obtained illegal AK-47"s at1/3 the cost of a pistol, it was only 300 dollars. Unlike my opponent, who argues criminals would shy away from these black markets (odd, as many of them obtain guns from them anyway) it was easier to get a gun via the street than through a legal process. Tucille noted, the illegal dealer was actually much more pleasant than the police you would deal with to obtain a legal weapon. Interestingly, one study argued gun ownership is common in many European countries" illegally. The UK and the Netherlands are the few examples where gun control actually has disarmed the populace, but as I described in round two violent crime there has been increasing since their bans. In France, for example, there are 17 million illegal guns. In Greece 1.5 million illegal weapons. Austrian criminologists have noted non-compliance with these laws is actually a common practice. Australia"s compliance with their bans are only around 20%, according to the study. Many other analyses continue. For example, children in the Middle East construct AK"s with their bare hands in caves. In the Philippines, 20% of the population is involved in the firearm black market, creating "assault weapons" and handguns with ease. All without modern tools or good supplies. In reality, this data refutes my opponents black market contention and gives me an edge [10].

Reiterating my case

I gave evidence that gun control increased crime. I showed the failed experiments in Europe. I proved gun free zones in the US have increased mass shooting; mass shootings in Europe are increasing (Germany " strict gun control " 3/5 worst shootings in recent history). I showed the American "assault weapons" ban has been highly ineffective [11].

David Kopel has noted in a study that these gun free zones have increased the amount of shootings, and that since the gun free zone act acts of shooting have become more common. This gun control is counter-productive [12].

Cross-sectional data proves gun control increases crime [4].

An analysis done by the public safety project documents recent research on the topic, and finds gun ownership reduces crime and gun control increases crime [13].

There are only two valid hypotheses:

One: Guns have no effect on crime, more guns means more guns, less guns means less guns. Guns have positives and negatives, and some data proves guns decrease crime, and some that gun control increases crime, guns likely have no effect [3].

Two: Guns reduce crime, gun control increases crime. Gun control is counterproductive [6].

Bth prove guns do not reduce crime, meaning I win this debate.

Side note: None of my arguments involved petty crime, all involved violent crime. My opponent is strawmanning my position.

Things voters should remember: 1) the only study done on Canada"s gun registration shows their gun control has not reduced crime, 2) Gary Mauser has published reviews that I have cited demonstrating there is no evidence Canadian gun control has reduced gun crime, 3) The Harvard Study finds gun control increases crime, and gun ownership reduces it.

VOTE CON

Sources:

http://tinyurl.com...
pioneer_colonel

Pro

According the the set rule of the debate I'll solely conclude here, though I'm positive that the reader can extract necessary rebuttals to the questions put forward in the last round from my previous arguments.

Conclusion:

Through this debate I used cross-sectional data and comparing two countries, one in which the gun control laws are next to nothing, USA and another one which takes gun control rather seriously, Canada.

I maintain my case showing different comparisons that I offered in the previous rounds that gun control is an effective way for controlling the gun related crimes.

After the exclusion or serious reduction of gun related crimes using gun control laws, it is further the responsibility of a proper body of law enforcement to reduce the other forms of crime and making the society as safe as possible.

In other words gun control is a necessary step but on its own not sufficient. Still combined with other necessary steps its a process that leads to a safer society.


Vote for the side with the better argument.

Cheers





Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pioneer_colonel 3 years ago
pioneer_colonel
Well apparently you raised a better argument. congratulations on the win though to tell you the truth I only consider the first vote casted by Canadian in Florida to be a worthy one. The rest either to me or to you were prebiased.
Until the next debate.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Three, you are a vote bomber. I cited the best studies on the issue and your whole RFD was basically "you're wrong". I have two things:

First, you can only vote on what has been presented in the debate. Pro never brought any of that up making your vote an invalid ball of assertions.

Second, if you read the debate I showed pros countless Strawmen, red herrings, and showed gun control cannot concur ably lower crime, and his comparisons are totally illogical due to cultural differences. He dropped much of the important case.

My "incorrect facts" are based on peer-reviewed literature.

In response to your comment, I responded to that in length showing Canada's gun laws are nt attributable to their low crime (I used the only two studies on the issue). I also showed comparing the US to canada is illogical because of demographics. Comparing. The mere rate of countries is an invalid assertion.

So your comment is false as is your vote. Look at the Harvard study I cited.

You lose.
Posted by threenorns 3 years ago
threenorns
oy vey. so much blah blah blah - here are the numbers:

canada rate of gun homicide: 0.57
US rate of gun homicide (per the CDC): 3.7

gun control wins.

number of massacres in canada: 14 - since 1689
number of massacres in US: 58 - since 1950 (i got bored counting)
number of massacres in the UK: 20 - since 61BC

gun control wins.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
You can respond one last time, and it seems we mixed our arguments together in the format we wrote the case in.
Posted by pioneer_colonel 3 years ago
pioneer_colonel
Something's a bit odd with your debate proceedings proposal. If I can only conclude in this round, firstly what do you have to refute again? haven't you done that already? secondly wouldn't it give you an extra turn of defense?
Posted by pioneer_colonel 3 years ago
pioneer_colonel
ok in that case proceed. I will add what I missed in the next round.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
No, but its clear you compared crime rates.
Posted by pioneer_colonel 3 years ago
pioneer_colonel
Is there a way that I can finish this argument. It lacks conclusion. is there an edit option?
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Okay
Posted by pioneer_colonel 3 years ago
pioneer_colonel
I don't know why my Argument was submitted half way through. For the sake of the argument let us proceed with assuming that I only offered a one to one comparison between US and Canada.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Chicken 3 years ago
Chicken
16kadamspioneer_colonelTied
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: CVB theenorns... don't judge a debate if your going to bring in personal bias and your own arguments. Look at what's presented in the debate. Also please justify your conduct point.
Vote Placed by threenorns 3 years ago
threenorns
16kadamspioneer_colonelTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con wandered all over the map and used a WHOLE lot of words to present facts that i know for myself were inaccurate. most problematic for me was his lumping of all crime into one big ball - gun control is not going to have an effect on the rate of child abuse or date rape or other violent offences so it's a non-starter.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
16kadamspioneer_colonelTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more sources than Pro and most of Con's sources were more credible than Pro's. Con's arguments stood in the and Pro was unable to refute them.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
16kadamspioneer_colonelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering utah
Vote Placed by utahjoker 3 years ago
utahjoker
16kadamspioneer_colonelTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Great points more reasoning better sources
Vote Placed by Canadian-In-Florida 3 years ago
Canadian-In-Florida
16kadamspioneer_colonelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I read this debate and was very intrigued. I have a unique position in all this being a Canadian but living in Florida and being very pro-gun. This vote was tough but I tied your arguments not because I was swayed by pro to change my views more pro-control but because both o you presented highly credible arguments. In the end I had to give a few points to con though simply due to some spelling and grammar issues in Pros side, and being Canadian I do understand the different spellings so its not mistakes in my interpretations, but also that while to the later rounds things did change in the scope of the debate and sources, the resolution was "gun control lowers crime" not "gun control reduces gun related crime" which pro argued a lot through rounds one and two. This adherence to the resolution is something I criticize often in others and my own debates. Overall though great job on both sides, this why the 3pts stays tied but had to give a slight win to con.