Prove to me guns cause crime
Debate Rounds (5)
If taking it personal and insults and improper conduct do happen you forfeiture the debate entirely.
I say guns dont cause violence for no true facts show it so. If someone wishs to commit a crime they dont really need a gun to commit a crime nor a murder.
Futhermore gun restrictions beyond background checks hold no use. If a criminal wants a illegal or illegal to them gun all they need is the blackmarket. I say we need to focus less on guns (the effect) and more on whatever is the cause in a said case.
I am aware that the example of Harris and Klebold is probably an overused one in the gun debate, but nonetheless I am a little lazy, and so they will suffice. Had they not had guns, they would not have been able to kill 13 people and injure a further 24 more. I realise that they would have wanted to kill their fellow students regardless, indeed, this is obvious, but the fact remains that they would not have been able to do it. It can then be said that the relationship between the guns used and the Columbine shooting was causal, as it cannot be simply correlative if it could not have happened in their abscence. If there is a causal relationship, then guns were a cause.
If someone's house is left unlocked, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that this may be a cause of the subsequent burglary. The financial difficulties of the burglar serve as motivation, of course, but he may not have broken into any houses had not he seen that window left open. The open window was definitely a cause in the burglary, though not the only cause.
Since I do not want to be biased, overtly at least, I shall give a second example illustrating the causal effect guns can have. A man might hear a burglar enter his home. The homeowner is a small man, and he immediately runs downstairs; unfortunately, the burglar is strong, and in the ensuing fight the panicked burglar kills the homeowner. Now consider if the homeowner had a gun: the burglar is confronted, but instead flees at the sight of a weapon. What has caused the different outcomes? The gun. I believe it is not possible to accept that a gun here caused the situation to be for the better, but in the case of Harris and Klebold it was irrelevant.
You also discuss gun regulations - but that is not the debate at hand. I think it is certainly a noble idea to prevent individuals from wanting to kill each other rather than simply preventing them from doing so.
How do Guns = Crime
What you gave is tragic but not proof. A criminal mind causes crime not a gun. For a gun is but a tool and it took a pair hands and a thought to pull the trigger to be the cause.
Also the murder you brought well what about this they could have ran around with knifes or got a glass bottle and a paper towel and gas and arson-ed. So don't give me such a preposterous idea that that was guns and guns alone that caused it.
Also your burglary idea doesn't help you either for the fact is the cause was he wanted to do it, not that she left the window open, yes the window helped. Also gun murders the gun helped, but neither case are they the cause.
Look let me make an example here one regular and one well murderous.
Normal first than murder second
Say I hammer my finger and it busts wide open, it sucks. so I go band aid it.
Murderers gun done innocent people, so the government starts getting rid of guns.
It's the next day and it happens again, I don't know what went wrong.
It's a month later and death rates just as high as murderers and burglars found other means to kill and cause crime, except now no one can defend themselves, damn it what went wrong here.
Well it's simple we went after the effect rather than the cause, I didn't change the hammers trajectory and no one thought about what leads people to cause crime. So there is a new face but everything is the same.
So again guns don't = cause. The criminal does.
So I will ask once again please provide irrefutable cold hard facts that connect crime to guns.
Cause consider this
This article brings up how violent crime is on the decline.
As this article provides gun sales are going ever higher and even after tragedy and a threat of ban.
Here is one on the nation as a whole.
Here is another article on the manner if you want to read.
I would like to rest on that last article for now as it makes a very strong point so I adjurn this round with please provide true evidence that GUNS = VIOLENCE and not just incidents of guns being involved.
You have not defeated any of my examples, and in fact you did not even discuss the example of the gun-wielding homeowner, which I believe proves my case by justifying my other examples. It is indisputable that the cause of the burglar's retreat was the gun, and in a similar vein, it can be established that the cause of mass killings by one or two people is the product of the twin causes of both the possession of a psychopathic disposition and a gun.
I notice your argument hinges upon the idea that 'more guns does not lead to more violent crime'. For the moment I will not accept or deny that statement; however, I put it to you that 'guns in the hands of murderous psychopaths causes more violent crime', because guns may facilitate murder exceptionally, as seen at Columbine, and I believe 'more murders' qualifies as 'more violent crime'. These are "cold hard facts", if not the largely irrelevant statistics you seem to desire.
You said yourself and I quote that the gun was essential to the crime.
So if that was true (which it is not) but if it was than you yourself have admitted it wasn't the cause. I still await the mere proving of it being the cause which you have completely failed in which to do. Sorry but many a thing can be used for murder beyond simple guns when a person truly means to cause crime or violence, they may prefer a gun but in no way is it either essential nor the cause.
These twins could have bombed it or arson-ed it or for the love a God stole a car and simply go mad with running people over. Yes the guns were their choices but that doesn't make them essential or the cause, it took their want and their drive to do it to make it a issue at all.
Also I didn't argue your house case? Wasn't my second paragraph for that?
In any case let me rephrase.
If someone intrudes in my house and intends me harm and I shoot them well the gun wasn't the cause their trespassing was, or lets flip it. If he has the gun and I resist or get in the way and I get shot, well it's because I got in the way not because he had a gun.
I could have defended my home many other ways, a bat as an example, so the gun was neither essential nor the cause. Or in his case he could just simply over power me or use a knife as a few examples, so again neither essential nor the cause.
Also I have provided strong argument.
I have clearly shown how gun sales have sky rocketed and yet crime has dropped.
So let's look at it like this.
Gun = Crime
More guns should = more crime
But wait crime has been on the drop even though there is more guns so it only leaves one conclusion.
Guns do not = crime what so ever.
My proof to back it up, the first on gun sales the later on decline of crime.
Also look to the true cause of a crime as you said psychopaths, well in a way you prove me right.
For last I checked when gun murder happens don't they always point to a mental issue or maybe on drugs. Not once have I heard "Well he got a hold of a new M-4 Carbine and thought, hey lets try her out.". Sorry but this has never been the case even in the cases people use so often like yours they were mental, and that was the cause. While say what happened to Connecticut well he was on drugs.
Also if I must prove guns are neither the cause or essential to crime/violence/murder. Then lets remember the Boston marathon bombs. Were those guns? Nope they were bombs.
You know this incident.
So I rest my case in showing that my opponent has although supplied a good effort, he has failed to prove that guns lead to any crime or violence or murder of any kind, nor has he proven their essential to it either.
Now, on causes themselves.
Necessary causes are such that the prescence of y necessitates the prescence of x, even if x does not necessitate y. [ibid. 'Logic']
The murder of someone by gunshot is y. Clearly, murder by gunshot (which is x) necessitates the prescence of a gun; however, the prescence of a gun does not necessitate a murder by gunshot. If this reasoning cannot be defeated, then I have established that guns are a necessary cause of murder by gunshot, and therefore that guns can cause some crime.
Hopefully, this appeal to pure reason will be more successful where my many analogies and examples have failed, and yes, murder by gunshot is a crime. Also, please cease your cries that 'something else could have been used to commit murder'. Yes, there are many different ways to cause murder, but guns are definitely one of them. In boxing, you might defeat your opponent through possessing more stamina, more skill, or you might take performance-enhancing drugs, or you might give slip him some attenuating drugs, or you could land one lucky blow which alters the course of the entire fight. All of these things can cause victories in boxing, and so too are there many causes of crime.
(ibid. 'Logic' refers to the section of the article above titled 'Logic')
Now let me say this you tell me to cease the cries that other things can cause crime. I am sorry pro but that has done little more then prove me indeed correct. What you showed is a gun crime needed the gun to be a gun crime. Sadly you still failed to show how the crime needed the gun to be a crime. You supplied little more than a oxymoron my friend. The cause for the murder such as drugs as example is the y the crime could come to be through many different variants as towards an x. Sorry but you still didn't show that crime needs a gun or that a gun Leeds to crime.
Let me stop there.
Now I thank pro for a strong and fun debate and hope to hear from him more in the future. He did have the harder end as to be the provider of (proof) now I feel he came short. With that said I also feel he put forth a very good effort and his last rebuttals on reasoning where by far his best. So I say a due and thank you for debating with me.
Now, I am afraid I must deploy a disturbing analogy, and please do not take this the wrong way - I am not appealing to emotion, rather, I find it a superb comparison. This analogy is: the paedophile (British English) who wants to work in a school.
Presumably, it is justified to prevent a known paedophile from working in a school: I believe the idea is that the close proximity to children is both tempting to the paedophile and also facilitates paedophilic acts. These reasons seem perfectly valid, and the purpose of preventing paedophiles working in schools is obviously to prevent the rape of children. The direct implication of this is that letting paedophiles have such lose proximity to children would cause, or lead to (in some contributory fashion), the rape and / or molestation of children. I believe you can see where I am going with this.
The possession of a gun by someone with murderous intent, or indeed many other kinds of criminal intent, can be seen similarly as a cause of, or as something leading to (in some contributory fashion), murder or of more murders, because as with the paedophile, the possession of the gun is both tempting the potential murderer and would also facilitate murder. Tempting, because, as I think we can all appreciate, seeing and holding something we want to use will likely make that object even more tempting to use - when one holds a gun, does one not feel a slight desire to pull the trigger? I for one find myself inexplicably desiring to swing an axe every time I handle one, thankfully not into a living creature. Furthermore, it is self-evident how a gun may facilitate crimes, but nonetheless, I will show how... It becomes incredibly easy to rob someone when you need only to point something at them, and similarly it becomes incredibly easy to kill someone when you need only to point something at them and move your finger.
I am not introducing a new argument, rather, I am merely presenting it in a different, and perhaps more convincing, way. My opponent's rebuttal to the similar argument I presented previously can be found in Round 3. I believe the paedophile example fits perfectly, as working in a school is not the only way to gain access to children in order to rape them, and of course the major cause of the rape of a child is the paedophile's desire to do so. Nonetheless, we can see how allowing them access to children in such a way does lead to abuse.
If you disagree with the idea that this analogy proves my case, then you must either think that it is a false analogy, which I think would be a false criticism as the two situations have been demonstrated to be suitably similar in technicality for the purpose of the argument, or, presumably, you think that allowing paedophiles to work in schools is perfectly acceptable, because if this does not lead to more abuse of children, then it is pointless discrimination against paedophiles.
To summarise, if allowing a paedophile close proximity to children daily leads to child abuse, then the possession of guns by people with pre-existent criminal intent leads to crime, as they both tempt and facilitate the potential criminal to act. My opponent's rebuttals that 'they could find another way' and 'they wanted to do it anyway' are true, but they do not refute my case, as we can see that if they do not need to find another way, then the crime becomes easier to commit, and being so close to children / guns further tempts those who want to 'use' them.
I would appreciate it if voters considered the spelling and grammar of my opponent, as well as the fact that although he did use more sources, they were typically not used effectively, and he merely pointed at them to show that 'more guns does not mean more crime' in most cases. I believe I showed that the truth of that conclusion for the whole population was largely irrelevant to the proposition of this debate. If a study found that there was a rise in the consumption of peanuts nationally, but no corresponding rise in allergic reactions, I don't think we could conclude anything more from this other than that peanuts are becoming more popular with the general public, while people who are allergic to them are, rather sensibly, bucking that trend.
Thank you for the debate, damienvox, I too have found it enjoyable.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Pro for grammar and spelling, as Con's was quite poor. Argument to Pro, as Con's arguments relied entirely on Personal Incredulity, and he never refuted any of Pro's causality arguments.
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.