more guns means more overall homicide
Debate Rounds (3)
duly noted. i posted my evidence above. how do you rebut it and present your own?
Homicide: 1. The killing of one human being by another. 2. A person who kills another; murderer.
-Point 1- STATISTICS HAVE SHOWN THAT LESS GUNS MEAN MORE HOMICIDE
In 1996, the UK banned handguns. The homicide rate right before the ban was 10.9-13 homicides per million people. In 2003, immediately after the ban was enacted, the rates shot up to 18.0 per million. The government had to bring in about 20,000 more cops to keep up with all the murders for the rates to finally slow down to about 11.1 per million in 2010.
In the same year, 1996, Australia took away all guns. The murder rate was pretty low, and it didn't fluctuate between numbers that often. When the ban was enacted, there was a small peak in homicide rates, but then it dropped back down to its normal numbers.
In 1972, Ireland banned all guns. The murder rates sat at about 0.1 and 0.6 murders per 100,000 civilians. Right after their ban was enacted, rates flew all the way up to 1.6 per 100,000 for three years. It dropped back down to 0.4 out of 100,000, but in 2007 it went up again to 1.4 per 100,000.
- Point 2 - LESS GUNS MEAN LESS DEFENSE
If more guns mean more overall homicide, then less guns must mean less homicide, right? This is false. Less guns means taking away guns, and when we do that, we take away our freedom and defense. Our government is hostile. When we take away guns from people, bad things always happen. Germany, Uganda, Guatemala, and the Soviet Union, to name a few, rounded up everyone's guns. What was the result? The result was around 20 million political dissidents in the Soviet Union, 100,000 Mayan Indians in Guatemala, 300,000 Christians, and 13 million jews and other categories of different people in Germany were all murdered in the different time periods gun control was established. Germany is the most popular because of Hitler's plan to murder all the Jews. When he took away the people's guns, no one could stop him, because they had nothing to even defend themselves with. Gun control might seem like a good idea, but history has proven that a hostile government and a defenseless nation always results in mass murdering of innocent people.
- Point 3 - WE CAN'T STOP HOMICIDE RATES BY TAKING AWAY GUNS
We have over 200 million guns in our nation that are owned by just normal civilians. If a you were to take two people, a criminal and a regular, law-abiding citizen, which one is most likely to murder someone in their life? I'm going to go with the criminal. When we take away guns, we can't stop criminals and murderers from breaking the law. We can only take away the defenses of innocent people. I am going to use an analogy here. Let's say a small child was walking down the block, and he saw a small coin lying on the sidewalk. What would be the child's next action? Would it be to immediately try to figure out how to return the coin to it's careless owner, or would it be to simply pick up the coin, put it in his pocket and claim it his own? A little kid's natural instinct is to claim whatever he wants when it is that easy to get and no one can reprimand him. When we apply this analogy to criminals, it makes sense to say that banning guns won't stop them from doing whatever it takes to get what they want. If they are already criminals, how can we assume that they won't break the law to get their hands on a gun? Their natural instinct is already that they can break the law, so they won't hesitate to do it again to get what they want. Only now we can't defend ourselves. When we take away guns, we aren't punishing murderers. We are punishing the innocent people who haven't done anything by taking away their defenses against the bad people.
Thanks again to my opponent for this debate and I look forward to hearing her rebuttal for Round 3. Sources do not count, because debate is all about putting what you believe into your own words.
a lot of his points are off, but con is pretty smart for a 14 year old.
the main point is that your examples are bans, not ban and confiscation or that less guns means more homicide. if you dont remove the guns a ban might not be all that effective. and, you've basically given three anecdotal evidences, but ive given worldwide studies, and multiple studies at that. on the australia point, they never saw their rate increase even temporarily,,,, it went down to half of what it used to be, and their mass shootings have stopped when they were every year before that. that can't be a statistical anamoly.
im not going to look into the other two countires cause they are anecdotes at best.
all i'm arguing is more guns mean more homicide. i'm not trying to argue about if it's a good idea or not to take away guns. but i will say we need to be worried about the actual present day threats than far fetched possibilities of a government take over.
Thanks so much for this debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CJames 1 year 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:||2||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to dairygirl for the simple reason that she provided them. However she only provided sources, and limited commentary on the topic while Con argued each point. Con was also apparently paying better attention to grammar.
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.