More Guns are Not the Answer to Stopping Gun Violence
Debate Rounds (3)
Multiple studies have shown this to be true. Before you post any statistics or studies, please make sure they are fair comparisons. For example, in comparing gun violence in two locations, we must account for the differences in amount of poverty, crime trends, drug use and trafficking, etc.
I will cite the following studies that have confirmed that higher gun ownership leads to higher gun violence:
American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 2015: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
American Journal of Public Health, 2013:
Even though some people think owning a gun makes you safer, its not true. First, there are more guns available legally and illegally, thus there is more gun violence. Second, having a gun does very little to protect you against a pre-meditated crime. If a criminal sneaks up behind you, you will not have time to draw your weapon. Third, having a gun emboldens some criminals and makes some crimes easier - such as robbing stores. Finally, with gun ownership comes a certain amount of tragic accidental deaths and many of these are children. More gun ownership will only result in more of these accidents.
These reasons, along with actual data analyzed in the studies I provided, clearly show that higher gun ownership results in more gun-related violence and death.
But to the main point, higher gun ownership (I don't care about the # of guns) is currently associated with higher gun related deaths as documented in the articles I presented. Your point about the criminal not attacking someone because they may own a gun was already addressed in my initial point - it will not stop a criminal because a criminal will just sneak up behind you. Whoever has the gun drawn first wins. The same is true for robbery. Beyond that higher gun ownership makes guns more easier for criminals to get, which empowers them. Even more importantly, accidental and wrongful gun violence is more prevalent with higher gun ownership. Take for example when a woman shot across an department store parking lot in broad daylight because security was chasing a shoplifter. An innocent bystander could easily have been injured or killed. Are we safer in that situation? Would you be safer if you had a gun? No. And we all know about kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally killing themselves or someone else. Responsible gun owners will take all measures to prevent that from happening, but it will still happen and it will happen more when more homes have guns in them.
I think the challenge is this: we feel safer personally when we have a gun. As a father and husband, I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that we are all less safe when more people own guns and the statistics bear that out. Even personally, a gun will only protect you in specific situations. Someone can always get the drop on you, and groups can always target individuals, and criminals can always hold a hostage, or threaten someone else, to get you to do what they originally wanted. But point is, even if you can come up with a few examples of a situation where a gun might prevent a crime, we are all more likely to be subject to gun violence if more guns are available via higher gun ownership. Therefore, to the question posed in the debate, more guns/gun ownership is not the answer to reducing gun violence.
ABeard forfeited this round.
theobjectiveobjective forfeited this round.
http://www.cnsnews.com.... http://dailycaller.com.... https://www.washingtonpost.com.... That was for round two so now lets get to round three. If the government was allowed to restrict or limit a RIGHT that then turns your right into a government PRIVILEGE meaning that the government then gets too decide who can or cannot defend themselves this then gives the government more power. The people own their own rights meaning only we can restrict or limit our rights not the government. What i said about John Locke is true, the right to defend our own life, liberty, and property, is definitely 100% part of constitution principles. go to this website,( http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com....) and you will then find out exactly our principles. in case you didn't know they didn't support government tyranny. This is all I have too say now. I will now leave it to the voters. I will sum up my debate in case the voters didn't read it all. I have based my principles off of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, And George Washington. All of these people understood that government by nature wants too rule over people, they knew if a government was to try to grow in power they will first go for the peoples arms, making people unable to revolt, also if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would then have guns, which would then leave law-abiding citizens no choice but to rely on government safety. My argument for "more guns are not the answer to stopping gun violence" is that neither of them would stop gun violence if you restrict guns, their will still be gun violence, and if you have more guns their will still be gun violence, the only thing is that if we had more people with guns i would still be able to defend myself. Instead of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.