Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Gun Control: How it doesn't lower Crime

Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 9:43:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Got this one from a friend. It's a really good one too.

Gun Control: How it doesn't lower Crime

After the Sandy Hook Massacre in Connecticut, there has been a debate across America on whether or not we should ban certain weapons. This essay will explain why that is not the way to go - and how guns make people safer.

Gun control leads to more crime. An example of this is in Washington DC. In 1976, the city council in Washington DC banned ownership of handguns. During the ban, the murder rate was on average 73% higher. It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme court ended it as unconstitutional. This proves that gun control only puts law-abiding citizens at greater risk. In Texas, ever since they were allowed to carry weapons, their murder rate has been, on average, 30% lower. In England and Wales there has been a ban on handguns starting in 1997 and since then the murder rate has been on average 15% higher and it has been even higher (52% higher) since the gun law in 1968. Other examples also exist. Michigan has had 4% less murders, while Florida has had 36% less murders. All this data shows one obvious thing: when gun control is in effect, murder rates appear to almost always be higher. Let"s move away from data and use our brains for a second. Liberals: who do you think a criminal is more likely to target? Someone with a gun or someone without a gun? What would you do? If you have common sense, you go after the unarmed victim. Criminals don"t obey laws, that"s why they"re known as criminals, right guys? So when a gun control law is passed, and the law-abiding citizens are turning in their firearms, clearly the criminals aren"t going to turn in their guns, because they don"t obey the law! I"m sure liberals claim that you can use martial arts or knives to defend yourself, but that is irrelevant for 2 reasons. Number one, someone who knows martial arts is clearly no match for an armed criminal. Number two, criminals can also use knives and martial arts to harm people, and we must remember that a lot of criminals are mentally unstable. We can"t predict what they will do to unarmed victims. But, if you are armed with a gun, you can defend yourself against armed criminals and scare off or drive away unarmed criminals. Guns are more powerful than any knife and any karate kick or taekwondo punch. Don"t take this the wrong way. I"m not saying that it"s bad to know martial arts. I did karate for a few years myself and it can be useful to know if someone attacks you, unarmed. But thinking you can use martial arts to defend yourself when a burglar armed with an AK-47 is coming up the stairs at night is a mistake.

In conclusion, gun control is a horrible idea. It deprives people of their god-given right to defend themselves. Murder rates tend to go up and people feel less safe when they don"t have guns and criminals do.

Bibliography:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Cri, . "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." 15 June 2010. Web. 6 May 2013. <http://www.justfacts.com...#[36]>.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Cri, . "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Texas, 1960-2008." 15 June 2010. Web. 6 May 2013. <http://www.justfacts.com...#[36]>.
http://www.justfacts.com...
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 10:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
After reading the first article, I would argue that if gun control were national, it would have a much different affect than only in a city or two.

However, all of this is stupid. It's about society, not the guns.
There are more murders than America in places with fewer guns, and less murders than us with more.
My work here is, finally, done.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 11:04:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 9:43:53 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
Got this one from a friend. It's a really good one too.

Gun Control: How it doesn't lower Crime

After the Sandy Hook Massacre in Connecticut, there has been a debate across America on whether or not we should ban certain weapons. This essay will explain why that is not the way to go - and how guns make people safer.

Gun control leads to more crime. An example of this is in Washington DC. In 1976, the city council in Washington DC banned ownership of handguns. During the ban, the murder rate was on average 73% higher.

Looking at raw data can be misleading. Should one wish to prove causation, one would have to control for natural fluctuations in the crime rate. When one controls for these factors, we see a decrease in the murder rate, not an increase (http://www.nejm.org...).

In Texas, ever since they were allowed to carry weapons, their murder rate has been, on average, 30% lower.

See above. We must look at how their crime rate changes compared to surrounding communities that have no change. This is basic science.

In England and Wales there has been a ban on handguns starting in 1997 and since then the murder rate has been on average 15% higher and it has been even higher (52% higher) since the gun law in 1968.

False. The police of the UK changed their reporting system, so what you are seeing is an increased in /reported/ crimes. The British National Crime Survey, which did not change its methods, has shown a decrease in crimes (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...).

Liberals: who do you think a criminal is more likely to target? Someone with a gun or someone without a gun? What would you do? If you have common sense, you go after the unarmed victim.

1. Logically, in such a case one would then wish to make carrying weapons openly mandatory, rather than allowing concealed weapons.
2. You cannot simultaneously argue that criminals are mentally unpredictable and then argue that they will follow common sense.

Criminals don"t obey laws, that"s why they"re known as criminals, right guys?

1. This completely ignores crimes of passion, and presumes that every criminal is an evil genius carefully plotting out crimes in advance.
2. Every criminal was, at some point, a law-abiding citizen.

So when a gun control law is passed, and the law-abiding citizens are turning in their firearms, clearly the criminals aren"t going to turn in their guns, because they don"t obey the law!

If these people are career criminals, that might be a valid argument. However, most murders are not committed by career criminals, they are committed by ordinary people. This is why you are more likely to get killed by someone you know than a total stranger.

By dividing the world into something so polarized, you are obscuring the truth--people are not easily classified into "law-abiding" and "criminal." A person may commit murder in a fit of passion, and turn themselves in the next day. Alternatively, that same person may not turn themselves in, but not go on to commit any more murders and feel guilty about the one they did commit. A mugger may rob a person out of desperation, but avoid killing unless their life is directly threatened due to a desire to avoid getting charged with murder--or even ethical reasons.

The world is painted in shades of gray, and all people are, to some extent, both evil and good. None of us are pure, whether pure evil or pure good, and I am often disappointed in the rhetoric of gun advocates when they completely ignore larger societal issues, and the variance in individual humans who commit crimes, in favor of painting all criminals as chaotic evil demons who mug people and then kill them.

I"m sure liberals claim that you can use martial arts or knives to defend yourself, but that is irrelevant for 2 reasons. Number one, someone who knows martial arts is clearly no match for an armed criminal.

Actually, that depends on what they're using.

Number two, criminals can also use knives and martial arts to harm people

Yes, and I'd rather get stabbed with a knife than shot with a gun.

But thinking you can use martial arts to defend yourself when a burglar armed with an AK-47 is coming up the stairs at night is a mistake.

This is classic pro-gun hysteria. Burglars creeping up with an AK-47 is ridiculously rare--I would imagine that it's never actually happened. If you are going to rob someone's home, you are going to do so when they are not around, and if they are around you are generally going to get the hell out of there.

In conclusion, gun control is a horrible idea. It deprives people of their god-given right to defend themselves.

Well I happen not to believe in any deity, nor in "rights" that exist as abstract principles, separate from the effects of enacting them.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 11:13:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Kaoss says: "There are more murders than America in places with fewer guns, and less murders than us with more."

My best guess is that he's trying to say that some countries have more gun murders than the US and have fewer guns. A ridiculous idea of course unless he's trying to justify the US by comparing it to a third world country in the midst of a civil war.

If we consider handguns then there most likely isn't a country with more per capita and even if there were they wouldn't have less gun violence.

But really, who cares if Americans continue to blow each other away? Americans themselves don't care or they would do something about it.

The best they can do is suggest that they have to place armed guards around their schools to keep the little children from getting shot!