The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

More guns less crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,224 times Debate No: 19905
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

16kadams

Pro

First round acceptance. Any questions? ask in comments. This debate relates to concealed carry, how gun control increases crime, how more guns lower crime on average. Remember acceptance only. This debate is about violent crime, i.e. rape, murder, assult, armed robbery.

Definitions in the comments.

ScarletGhost4396

Con

I accept. This looks like a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

My computer is having a fritz, So I will use graphs, but in link form.

http://t3.gstatic.com...

this graph proves more guns less crime

http://gunsandbullets.files.wordpress.com...

same deal

Now lets look at Kennesaw Georgia

Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. [1]

WHY IS IT BROWN?!?!?!

So after the passing of the gun law crime dropped.

http://www.rense.com... [1]

I am sorry for the short argument, I am fighting a dumb computer, so bear with me, my next round argument WILL be longer.


ScarletGhost4396

Con

I think I'm supposed to post something here supporting my own argument or something, but it looks like my opponent already did so for me. My opponent shows a piece of evidence showing that gun control actually reduced the crime rates of a region, where it went down by 89%. If the judges don't believe me, they should try out looking back at my opponent's evidence and read it for themselves. At this point, it shows that gun control for the motive of deterring criminality can work at some level.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

"I think I'm supposed to post something here supporting my own argument or something, but it looks like my opponent already did so for me. My opponent shows a piece of evidence showing that gun control actually reduced the crime rates of a region, where it went down by 89%."

1. where is it
2. that was when a law made everyone own a gun, not gun control
3. My graphs proved more guns less crime.
4. fail of a rebuttal
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

I will start off demonstrating coneal carry permits lowers crime.

According to a 2000 study by John Lott, PhD, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992.[1]


In 1998, John Lott, PhD, published More Guns, Less Crime which concluded that the "shall-issue" laws correlated with a decrease in violent crime. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992.

Concealed handguns are an effective non-lethal form of self-defense a majority of the time. An Autumn 1995 peer-reviewed study by Gary Kleck, PhD, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found that when someone draws a concealed gun in self-defense, the criminal simply retreats 55.5% of the time.

I like blue leters :P

So much of the time no shot is fired on either side.

Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Texas A&M University, and H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, Policy Analyst at National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote in the Nov. 17, 1997 brief analysis "No Smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws:"
"Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase in gun ownership. Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry firearms for self-protection led to the negative consequences claimed by critics. In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime rates and increased the general level of knowledge concerning the rights, responsibilities and laws of firearm ownership.

Putting unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed and violent criminals was never a good idea. Now that the evidence is in, we know that concealed carry is a social good."[2]

Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, “[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation. [3]

So guns save lives.

In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed. [3]

explains itself.

Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade. [3]

DIfferent numbers, same idea, guns save lives, and lower crime. Instead of the more guns less crime 8% it is 30%. I do not know which is correct, but both show more guns less crime

But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law. [3]

same stuff...

Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders. [3]

so the argument "people with those permits are evil" is false. Both of my parents have these permits and are not evil.

Now an overal more guns less crime:

However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation’s legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation’s murder rate fell to a 45-year low. [4]


So when more people bought guns (gun sales rose) crime ropped.


Back to conceal weapons:

when these laws where passed this happened:

Shall Issue
Conceal Carry
Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggrivated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%.

Numbers from my 5th source.


In short, More Guns Less Crime. A constant drop in crime rate by adapting a concealed carry law is simplistic. The drop actually varies in size depending on how many guns are carried. There is no free lunch. People actually have to protect the community for the community to be protected. [5]

Now back to a , gun control raises crime:

Everyone in DC now knows that murder rates rose after the handgun ban and fell after they were removed. Unfortunately, Chicago never learned that lesson. The forthcoming third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that in the 17 years after its ban on new handguns went into effect, there are only two years where Chicago’s murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. Chicago’s murder rate fell relative to other largest 50 largest cities prior to the ban and rose relative to them afterwards. For example, Chicago’s murder rate went from equalling the average for those other cities in 1982, to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992 and by 68 percent in 2002. There is no year after the ban that Chicago’s murder rate fared as well relative to other cities as it did in 1982.[6]

SO when handguns where banned crime went up.

It shouldn’t be to surprising that Chicago’s murder rates rose after the ban. Every time gun bans have been tried murder rates have risen. In the United States, gun ban proponents have blamed this failure on easy access to guns in nearby states. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give gun control supporters such as Mayor Daley and some of the members of the Supreme Court some pause. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales the experience has been the same. Not only didn’t murder rates decline as promised, but the rates actually increased. [6]

So the chicago murder rates rose after the ban, same with wales and england. And according to this all gun bans! I dissgaree though, I bet a few gun bans have helped but overall they do not.


COnslusion:

more guns less crime, less guns more crime. I hope I have proved this well enough. VOTE PRO



Sources:

more guns less crime by john R Lott [1]
Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Texas A&M University, and H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, [2]
http://www.humanevents.com... [3]
http://prevarication.net... [4]
http://polyticks.com... [5]
http://biggovernment.com... [6]
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16kadams

Pro

um...should I post an argument? Eh no I'm ok, extend all arguments.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
I'll be voting for 16adams. Not only do I agree with him but his sources were golden.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Will respond later today
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I'll respond tomorrow because my computer keeps getting error reports when I submit an argument.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Public Arrest Records
See anyone's past criminal history. Unlimited searches. Peace of mind.
www.instantcheckmate.com
Crime in the News

Crime

noun
1.
an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

Gun:

a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.

less:

to a smaller extent, amount, or degree: less exact.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsScarletGhost4396Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by kyro90 4 years ago
kyro90
16kadamsScarletGhost4396Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: It was kinda obvious....