The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

you can't find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
dairygirl4u2c has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 93995
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




you can't find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide

more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions. you have to compare developed nations against each other, and control for variables such as poverty v violence v guns.

Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates."

states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies.


The basis of this argument is the following: "more guns correlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide"

Is this true? I think not.

"Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it"s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland."
The handgun ban went into effect in 1997. Here are the statistics.
In 1997 there were 11.8 homicides per million. This peaked at 17.8 in 2002/03 with the lowest rate being the recent 09/10 of 11.1
The lowest number prior to the ban was in 1970 in which there were 7 homicides per million peaking to 13 in 1995. (pg 32.)
"The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002"
"The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate."

"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead. "

"The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession. Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime. And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average."

Homicide rate goes as follows per 100,000
2015: 41.019
2013: 44.0020
2012: 40.5920 21 29
2011: 41.9720 21 22 23 24
2010: 53.7820 21 22 23
2009: 62.7720 21 22 23 25 26
2008: 60.5920 21 22 23 25
2007: 59.49
2006: 50.51
2005: 62.92
2004: 55.55
2003: 37.03
2002: 39.86
2001: 43.71
2000: 34.15
1999: 33.422 30
1998: 33.922 30 28
1997: 41.422 28
1996: 37.222 30 28
1995: 31.722
1994: 28.329
1993: 27.17
1992: 26.45
1991: 23.79
1990: 23.09
The rate around the gun ban sat around 10 per 100,000 people by the way in 1974.

"June 1976: Eighteen months after Congress established home rule for the District, the D.C. Council votes 12 to 1 in favor of a bill restricting city residents from acquiring handguns. The law exempts guards, police officers and owners who had registered their handguns before it took effect. Under the bill, all firearms (including rifles and shotguns, which were not restricted by the law) must be kept unloaded and disassembled, except those in business establishments."

"June 26, 2008: Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. ban on handguns. "

Prior to 1976 (no ban) the highest amount of murder were 281 and lowest 81.

in-between then and 2008 (ban) the highest amount of murder were 482 with the lowest being 180.

since 2008 (lifted ban) the highest amount of murder were 145 though if we include 2008 itself it would be 186. The lowest being 88.

These are just a few instances.
The statement made : "more guns correlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide" is dispelled by finding even simply 1 instance in which the above is not true.
Debate Round No. 1


con hasnt even attempted to negate the resolution, he finds zero academic support for his position. if his position were true, he'd be able to find something. what he does show is one form of gun control, which could be effective or not, who knows, but it's irrelevant to this debate. i do know that washington DC has been shown to be no effect from the ban on guns, not a negative effect but this is getting beside the point.


Pro has taken the lazy route. Rather than directly addressing the data presented before him of showing that more guns did not equal more crime, hes chosen to rely on a copy and paste method of providing links and referencing not 1 of these links individually. The information I have provided yet to be addressed or dispelled with other data has shown cases in Ireland, Jamaica, the U.K. and DC where an absence of guns and gun control measures, has only seen homicide rates rise during various years and in general. Keep in mind pro specifically stated: "gun control correlates with less homicide" if this statement were true, there would be 3 countries I could pull from where after gun control measures were taken, homicide rates went up as well as my mention of the D.C. area.

Pro is so lazy with his argument it didn't seem they even read their own articles
In pro's harvard study it is stated:
"found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide"
a risk factor. keep in mind pros original contention is that
"more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide". This source fails to mention anything about homicide rates being on the rise but that death by gun is more likely in an area where guns are owned. This is like saying death by the sword is more likely in places where all citizens own swords. naturally it will be the tool of choice.

pro did not mention in his Harvard link that "After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
pro never made any statement that any kinds of controls were necessary to make the data look the way he wants it to. However Harvard not being dishonest about their methods makes this quite clear. If more guns in an area automatically always means more homicides then why do they need to control for poverty and urbanization pro?

Again we see that "after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty)."
why would one need to account for these variables and remove these homicide figures? Its probably because your case would fail. apart. Homicide rates are still prone to rise guns or no guns.

pros American Journal of Medicine citation:
"Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths "
Again we have firearm related deaths cited. This has nothing to do with an overall homicide rate. Specifics are not even mentioned.

Vox citation

"There is actually no simple correlation between states' homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws," VerBruggen wrote. "This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets."

In fact there is a rather brilliant chart here contained in pros own article that disproves pro's assertion. It is located just below the 2nd paragraph of this very article. No correlation whatsoever.

In pros thinkprogress article again it is stated that controls must be used. Even race...
"age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate"
I find it interesting that race/ethnicity would have anything to do with more guns=more homicide. Or any of these other cases for that manner. Again Pro went out of his way to specifically state: "more guns corerlates to more homicide" yet as mentioned before pro never took the position there would be a need to account for any variables. Pro wants you to just think its a simple equation where more guns = more homicide.
Guess what the study is based on by the way?
"No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA"s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be."

Now if by the authors admittance there is no good data on national rates of gun ownership, how can anyone claim to know if there is a higher rate of gun ownership in this place as to that place? This theory that is in place is to use suicides as a proxy. I thought this debate was about homicide rates? Care to mention any at all?

I find this particular chart interesting that pro posted:
Not only is it a scatter plot some random individual just chose to draw a nonsensical line through that hits almost no data points but also in it you will find for example that South Dakoda has a 60% gun ownership and roughly 9 gun deaths per 100,000
Yet in the same chart Maryland with its 23% gun ownership has roughly 10 gun deaths per 100,000
Now the chart itself has nothing to do with the debate as this is about homicide rates however whatever point pro was trying to make and I'm interested in hearing it, We have a clear example of a state having about 3 times the ownership and 10% less gun deaths per 100,000. But again pro stated "more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide"

Maryland had 33.8 per 100,000 and South Dakota had 2.3

It would appear either pro was hoping to cover this fact up, or was simply too lazy to actually investigate the rates of all 50 states and rather chose to paint everything with a broad brush. South Dakota has about 3 times the amount of gun ownership and about 15 times less murders. Again I remind everyone what pro said: "more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide"

again pro's link does nothing in the way of showing an increase in the homicide rate
"it was found that states with a greater availability of firearms had higher firearm suicide rates and higher firearm homicide rates."

In this link yet again we find the suicide rate with guns being used to determine gun ownership which has no proven value

In this link hunting licenses are used to determine gun ownership. Did they ever stop to think that most people who own guns don't go hunting?

Another link that has nothing to do with Pros original statement:
"We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates"

Here we find nothing of value AGAIN

In this very link again nothing is talked about except gun related homicides.
would pro like to explain what those 9 other countries with about 1/10th the guns are doing with far more deaths?

As I said Pro took the lazy route and got caught. Pro still needs to find any evidence this statement is true in every case: "more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide"
Also pro still has not elaborated a word on all the data presented in my original argument...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bigotry 2 years ago
well that was fun
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.