Laws Banning Guns for Citizens will Create a Safer Environment
Debate Rounds (3)
Whether you believe civilians need "assault weapons", which is cosmetic term for rifles that simply look a certain way, or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a gun ban would create a safer environment or not. As for the "Assault Rifle" ban, it's already been tried under the Clinton administration and a 2004 National Academy of Sciences review of studies on violence failed to document one gun legislation that reduced violent crime and homicides. Those federal "Assault Weapon" bans expired that year and what followed was a reduction in murder and overall violent crime.
Even a 2013 memo put out by Obama's own Department of Justice (which he ignores), reported negative findings in "Assault Weapon" bans reducing violence or homicides.
But we're talking about overall gun bans here.
Basically the goal of gun bans is to create a safer environment by reducing the rates violent crimes and homicides. If it fails to accomplish this, then it fails to create a safer environment.
The best way to test whether gun bans do indeed reduce rates of violent crimes and homicides is to see where it has been applied before and look at the results.
In both UK and Australia, where gun bans were implemented, violent crime and homicides increased in the years following the ban.
Within the US, in Washington DC, one of the first places to have gun bans, murders within the city have increased, even as the average rate of murder nationwide was decreasing. Interestingly, the Supreme Court, which ruled that the 2nd Amendment covered citizens' rights to bear arms for self-defense, lifted the gun ban in DC, and what resulted was a decrease in murders.
In Kennesaw, Georgia, a law was implemented requiring every household to own a gun. Did the increased presence of guns suddenly create a crime wave? No. The very opposite happened. All crime, but especially violent crime decreased substantially.
There is nothing to suggest that a gun ban would reduce violence and homicides, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that a gun ban would indeed create a safer environment. I believe that guns in the presence of law-abiding citizens reduce violence and murder rates, not only by assisting those citizens to physically stop a criminal in the act, but also because the mere knowledge that law-abiding citizens MIGHT be armed does much cause criminals to act less frequently due to less risk to themselves. When criminals act less frequently, there are fewer cases of violent crime and fewer homicides. This results in a safer environment.
You say that the violent homicide rate increased the years following the ban was because in SANE countries, countries where peoples lives don't revolve around killing machines, homicide rates and violent crime rates fluctuate. Besides, saying that violent crime rates increased the years following the ban doesn't prove anything. 1,000 years later is years following the ban. 5,000,000 years later is the years following the ban. You have to be more specific to prove anything. And where are all your sources? If you are going to provide exact numbers, they you must provide sources.
When criminals act, they don't really think. Unless they have this elaborate plan, their crimes are usually crimes of passion, in-the-moment types of crime. They won't think "Hey, what if this person I'm going to mug has a gun?" They just do it. If they DID think, then we would have substantially less crime. But they don't. They don't usually think about what they are doing, because if they did, then they would see reason.
Since most crimes are crimes of passion, if they have guns easily available, then they will use those guns. Buying guns illegally takes time, thinking. If they have a gun in their house, or in their safe, they will go, grab their gun, and wreak their havoc unto the world.
2013 DOJ Leaked Memo
Australia and UK Crime Statistics from UNODC.
What's funny is that the burden of proof is actually on those who wish to impose gun bans, because they are the one's proposing a new, costly and ongoing program that may not work and diverts resources from things that might work. I've yet to see any proof that a gun ban would create a safer environment.
You have hypothetical and anecdotal situations about individual crimes, but they say nothing as to how much, or even if the absence of gun laws gun laws leads to higher overall murders and violence rates than if a gun ban on citizens were in effect. It says nothing as to whether it saves lives overall. It says nothing as to whether it creates a safer environment or not.
Using the misleading "Gun Violence/Deaths" is an often used statistic used by pro-gun control folks. It's misuse is what made me raise my eyebrow and look into the debate as a whole because I had previously been in the middle about gun control, slightly leaning left on the issue, as I do on many social issues.
The goal of gun-control is to promote a safer environment by reducing violent crime and homicides. Using "Gun Crime" stats begins with the assumption that guns are the problem and excludes any other possible explanations for the problem of violent crime and homicides and therefore it's use is deceptive and misleading. If gun violence/deaths go down, but violence/deaths by other means goes up to make up for the reduction, or even EXCEED the original statistics, the goal of a safer environment is NOT met.
If this is the case, it would mean you're imposing a costly and ongoing program than does not have a positive effect and possibly has a negative effect. This is potentially dangerous and squanders resources that can go toward something that DOES work.
I thought my examples that I gave you made it clear that it WOULD save lives overall. It would stop any amateur murderers, murderers who were normal people until they snapped, since their crimes were crimes of passion, not plan. I think that it is pretty obvious that a gun ban would lessen the amount of guns people have, and therefore prevent people from dying since, without a gun most people suck at killing. I think that is really just simple knowledge, but what I'm interested in is the psychology of it. A lot of people support making marijuana legal, liberals especially, and conservatives argue that if we do that, people will think that it's ok and it's right to do drugs. Well I see the same basic concept here. Guns are dangerous killing machines, but a lot of Americans don't seem to understand that. I've said this before and I'll say it again, children as young as 6 in some places are introduced to guns, how to shoot, how to load, and the glory of being a good shot. Americans are pretty loose with their guns, and I'm almost certain that it is because they are gun-friendly, and they don't realize the magnitude of what a gun really is, and what it's true purpose is. A gun is not meant to be used lightly. I am also horrified that children are given toys like airsoft guns and paintball guns. I am horrified at how guns are being painted in children's minds as toys. I believe that this ban will fix it, because children will reason that the government must have a reason for banning guns.
And how are numbers misleading? I am very confused with that argument of yours. Sure, the context they're in can be misleading, but numbers are not misleading. In the situation you are describing, then they WOULD be misleading, but thankfully, that is not the case here. It just makes it that much simpler to see that guns ARE the problem. You say that if this is the case, but PurpleDrink, it is not, and we should thank whatever deity or deities there are for that. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lizard 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Only con used sources for her argument, and pro called Americans "screwed up", which is uncalled for.
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.