"Gun Control Equals Crime Control"

[txhoghunter]

I say slap them in the face with the data, but softly. Pointing out the fallacy that less guns equals less crime is pretty easily backed by facts from all over the world where the government has taken away the right of a citizen to protect one's person

The reason I disagree with this is because teenagers just know what their parents and the news tell them. Much of which is not based on fact or, in the case of the news, is manipulated to make an opposite opinion sound true.

Just give them the TRUE facts and they will understand. (yes there will be those that don't want believe the facts, but there will never be help for them anyways)

 

[stogiegila]

Two simple concepts:

1) Taking away a person's ability to defend himself makes him more vulnerable.

2) Creating a law against having a gun does little to prevent a person who does not obey laws from owning a gun.

Simple questions to pose:

Since people who dislike guns would tend to be in favor of gun control, is there not some risk that the gun control movement is based upon emotion rather than fact?

Is it reasonable to take away something useful to others because you don't like it?

Perhaps some simple logic and soul searching would add impact to the statistics.

The above is what I believe needs to be stressed as gun control advocates will never agree to or believe the statistics presented to them. However, if we look at criminals and criminal behavior by definition laws will not prevent them.

A criminal by definition is

1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime
3: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>

So if a criminal willingly breaks the law, then what good would gun control laws do if criminals by definition will break them anyway. Guns can easily be purchased on the black market or stolen. Gun laws will only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens thereby empowering the criminals even further.

Then there is the whole constitutional argument and how this country was founded in the first place.

 

[9mm+]

@ Youngda9 -- No worries...my son does most of the heavy lifting. I am helping gather some of the starting points for his research, because...well, it's just fun to do!

Again, excellent comments, everyone, and many thanks. The best approach as others have said is to stick with the facts. The anti's rely mostly on emotion in their arguments which ultimately falls apart in a debate when contrasted with factual data.

 

[MikeNice]

Make them prove the point. Then when the anti-gun crowd starts talking about accidental shootings hit them with the facts. According to the CDC only 617 people are killed annually by firearms accidents. You are more likely to die due to an accident related to bicycling, malpractice, poisoining, overexertion, or riding in a vehicle. Emergency room visits for accidental gun shots make up about 0.04% of all emergency room visits. They only make up 0.5% of hospitalizations from the emergency room.

I agree that to be the most effective in the debate your son needs to check out the common talking points of the opposition. Then he can anticipate what to bring to the debate. There is no use in getting caught completely off guard. Then he'll just stand there floundering with statistics that don't matter.

One of my favorite questions for anti-gunners, If gun control makes you safer why did the UN declare Scotland the most dangerous "developed nation" in the world in 2005? Why are you more than twice as likely to be violently assaulted in gun free Scotland than in the United States?

If banning guns ends gun related crime why are there over 7,000 firearms offences every year in England?

The best one, the one that no anti-gun proponet has even attempted to answer after I ask, When has prohibition ever worked in America? Can you tell me why gun prohibition will work out any better than alcohol, pornography, or drug prohibition?

 

[TX1911fan]

If that is correct, why are prisons so dangerous? The only guns there are those in the hands of the corrections officers, and even THEY won't walk through the yard alone and unarmed. Criminals will use any weapon available to commit crimes.

 

[MikeNice]

You could just tell them that constitutionally the issue has been settled by the supreme court in DC V Heller.

According to the majority opinion:

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition ... would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right.

He can also take the words from Justice Thomas in the McDonald v Chicago case.

[An 1876 decision by the Supreme Court] holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.

Then be sure to make the point that because African-Americans were denied their second amendment rights they were also denied their fourteenth amendment rights to citizenship. They were denied the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness because the were denied their second amendment rights.

 

[txhoghunter]

The only guns there are those in the hands of the corrections officers, and even THEY won't walk through the yard alone and unarmed. Criminals will use any weapon available to commit crimes.

Actually most guards are NOT armed because of the guard-to-prisoner ratio. If one had a gun in the yard they would be killed when one of the many criminals wrestled it away from them.

The guards that are armed on a daily basis are usually in the guard towers. Out of the reach of prisoners.

 

[Panzercat]

Fun note... The middle ages sans firearms of any sort were the most violent periods in European history. Likewise, these periods usually featured extended periods where the government was the sole purveyor of said arms.

Feudal Japan had a policy banning civilians from owning blades which in turn promoted their wholesale slaughter as per the whim of any passing samurai- ie, a government offical -often without any crime being commited.

So, I guess your teacher needs to clarify who's crime is being controlled, assuming one buys into the falicy to begin with. In lieu of guns, any sharp pointy object will do.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

1) If gun control equals crime control, then why do countries with such restrictive gun control laws like Russia and Mexico have such a high violent crime rate per capita? By this argument, wouldn't Russia and Mexico be some of the safest places in the world?

There are a couple of reasons. First, not all violent crime is with guns. Second, actual gun control is never achieved. The true myth is that gun control will be achieved and that has yet to ever be proven true.

2) Conversely, why is it that Switzerland, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, has one of the lowest violent crime rates? Shouldn't the opposite be true?

Ah, I see you have bought into the equally biased and incorrect pro-gun arguments without equally critical evaluation of the data. It is problematic when a point of error is argued with another erred point. Switzerland doesn't have one of the lowest violent crime rates. It is lower than the US, but of the countries studied, falls pretty much in the middle of the entire pack. Simple assaults are low. Kidnappings are high. Murders are smack dab in the middle. Rape is 28ths of 50, so about in the middle. Switzerland does rank as one of the countries with the highest overall suicide rate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime

In general for crime including violent crime, Switzerland is somewhat better off than we are in the US. However, it isn't some sort of Utopian Haven because of the presence of guns.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I saw a great article this weekend, England is now the most 'Violent' developed country in the world, surpassing even South Africa.

 

[browneu]

A criminal by definition is

1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime
3: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>

So if a criminal willingly breaks the law, then what good would gun control laws do if criminals by definition will break them anyway. Guns can easily be purchased on the black market or stolen. Gun laws will only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens thereby empowering the criminals even further.

This is the meat of the argument. The anti's can counter many of our arguments with other reasons. For example someone stated that DC has the highest crime rate per capita and the strictest gun laws. An anti can counter by saying that the amount of urban sprawl contributes to the crime rate.

I would make them prove their statement. It assumes that someone will not commit a crime if they do not have access to a gun. They need to give examples of where someone was going to commit rape, burglary, murder but stopped because they didn't have a gun.

They should also argue for capital punishment. If laws truly deter someone from committing a crime then death should be the ultimate deterrant. However, most in the class would agree that the statement is probably not true.

They put it out there and they need to prove it. The teacher's sentence wasn't "why we need guns" it's "more gun contorl equals crime control."

 

[Remo223]

I think you are going about this the wrong way. There is no provision in the constitution for government to control my firearms. There is a provision in the constitution for government to LEAVE MY FIREARMS ALONE.

whether or not crime is affected by gun control is not relevant.

 

[Calibre44]

I saw a great article this weekend, England is now the most 'Violent' developed country in the world, surpassing even South Africa.

of all the nonsense I read on THR about my country this has got to be the best ... do you have a link to the article so I can print it off and use it as toilet paper? ... no stop it ... I'm creasing up ... that's a good one

 

[DeepSouth]

Again, excellent comments, everyone, and many thanks. The best approach as others have said is to stick with the facts. The anti's rely mostly on emotion in their arguments which ultimately falls apart in a debate when contrasted with factual data.

Use their cards against them mix the emotion they love with facts.

Near the end of the video there is some inappropriate language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Could also look into "Mass Shootings" and see how many were in "gun free zones" vs legal carry locations, the results would very lopsided.

 

[browneu]

I think you are going about this the wrong way. There is no provision in the constitution for government to control my firearms. There is a provision in the constitution for government to LEAVE MY FIREARMS ALONE.

whether or not crime is affected by gun control is not relevant.

I agree with you 100% however; I would be afraid that the antis would state that the pros are avoiding the argument by taking this route.

No one can argue that the second amendment exists but someone can argue a hypothetical situation where eliminating the second amendment or controling firearms will control crime.

Please keep us posted. I'm surprised and dismayed that the students didn't have time to prepare for this debate. They needed time to research and develop a strategy. Arguing without doing proper research doesn't teach anything.

 

[youngda9]

of all the nonsense I read on THR about my country this has got to be the best ... do you have a link to the article so I can print it off and use it as toilet paper? ... no stop it ... I'm creasing up ... that's a good one

I Googled "england most violent" and it was the 3rd on the list.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

England is the most violent "civilized" country on the planet. The US is not even in the top ten. Even Canada is more violent than the US. What is really funny about the article is that while it does mention that the rates began climbing in 1997 when the Labour Party took over, it fails to mention that that political upheaval was accompanied by a complete ban on handguns throughout the entire nation.

So the most gun restrictive country in the world has the highest rate of violence and the newspaper that writes about it is too dense to mention the most probable cause- because unless they laid off half the police force and cut every single social service in 1997, I'm not sure how a shift in political leadership can result in a 77% jump in violent crime in a single year.

 

[spazzymcgee]

A High Schooler's Opinion

I, personally am a High School Student, and more than likely the only one of my kind on this forum. So I figured I'd put in my $.02. I've actually had a debate very, very similar to this one in my school. My side won because I was placed in this school of mostly niave, stupid children, and my side was filled with the four in the classroom that had some sense. I won with facts, and simply making the other side explain to me what correlation Gun control and crime reduction had, With facts. They were completely unable to do so. Though that was a battle of wits against unarmed people.

 

[Zanad]

you weren't/aren't the only high school student in this forum, but we are few and far found.

 

[9mm+]

Ah, I see you have bought into the equally biased and incorrect pro-gun arguments without equally critical evaluation of the data. It is problematic when a point of error is argued with another erred point. Switzerland doesn't have one of the lowest violent crime rates. It is lower than the US, but of the countries studied, falls pretty much in the middle of the entire pack. Simple assaults are low. Kidnappings are high. Murders are smack dab in the middle. Rape is 28ths of 50, so about in the middle. Switzerland does rank as one of the countries with the highest overall suicide rate.

I stand by my assertion that Switzerland has one of the lowest violent crime rates, especially murder, in the world (not THE lowest, just one of the lowest). Per the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention) -- also quoted in the Nationmaster.com site -- Switzerland ranked #56 out of the 62 countries surveyed (or, 0.00921351 murders per 1,000 people). Suicides *ARE* high, but not murder. The point here, though, was the correlation of the data per the anti's argument. If gun control equals crime control, then the converse must also be true, and by that argument, Switzerland would have one of the highest violent crime rates (especially murder) in the world. Clearly, this is not the case.

 

[mnrivrat]

Mandatory reading for all who want to discuss this type issue is the report of the Juditial subcommitee of the 97th congress - 2nd session, 1982 . It was our tax dollars that funded this government study - take the time to look it up and read it folks.

 

[happygeek]

Nobody else seems to have mentioned the CDC study attempting to find a crime reduction benefit to any of the various gun control schemes that have been tried in various parts of this country over the years, so I will:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Bolding done by me. The CDC is hardly the NRA or John Lott, some might even say they're a tad anti-gun. For them to be unable to find any benefit from any gun control scheme, well I'd say that means something.