frame

Name me one U.S. Gun Control Law that lowered the rate of crimes committed with a Firearm

Opening Argument

Right into the meat and potatoes:  Just one, name me one Gun Control Law that was passed in the United States that brought about restrictions for gun purchases and/or gun ownership, that brought a noticeable drop in crimes committed with a Firearm.

I'm sure the supporters of Gun Control have hundreds if not thousands of examples...I will accept just one example along with the proof (Mere evidence will not suffice) that the Law itself was responsible for lowering crimes committed with a Firearm.  Circumstantial evidence will not be accepted, subjective ideas/opinions will not serve in lieu of facts.  

Go.
joecavalry
"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

«1

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Permit to Purchase laws.

    Many people who commit homicide have criminal records that would prohibit them from purchasing firearms, such as convictions for prior federal crimes. Federal law requires federally licensed gun sellers to conduct background checks but this doesn't apply to unlicensed sellers. Quite a few states have their own laws to cover this gap in legal requirements but not all.

    When Missouri repealed their PTP law in 2007, studies have shown that it lead to an increased homicide rate as well as other issues like " a twofold increase in the percentage of guns that had unusually short intervals between the retail sale and the recovery by police, an indicator of firearm diversion or trafficking"
    Vaulk
  • NightwingNightwing 49 Pts
    edited November 6
    Why would a criminal bother with a background check (unless he is really stupid)?

    Why not just steal one or get one from the black market? Why not just MAKE one?


    Vaulk
  • edited November 7
    All of these major "attacks" are all perpetuated in order to push gun control. Orlando, Las Vegas, Paris, Sandy Hook, etc, they're all faked.  But those who go with the intended flow don't realize that if these attacks really were happening, then criminals wouldn't abide by new gun laws.
    VaulkDrCereal
     
  • @Nightwing

    They wouldn't, bother if they can help it, hence why requiring them to have a background check and allowing them no way to purchase a gun without one is a good idea.


    Vaulk
  • Ampersand said:
    Permit to Purchase laws.

    Many people who commit homicide have criminal records that would prohibit them from purchasing firearms, such as convictions for prior federal crimes. Federal law requires federally licensed gun sellers to conduct background checks but this doesn't apply to unlicensed sellers. Quite a few states have their own laws to cover this gap in legal requirements but not all.

    When Missouri repealed their PTP law in 2007, studies have shown that it lead to an increased homicide rate as well as other issues like " a twofold increase in the percentage of guns that had unusually short intervals between the retail sale and the recovery by police, an indicator of firearm diversion or trafficking"
    The validity of the single study you referenced has been questioned;

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/21/media-cherry-picks-missouri-gun-data-to-make-misleading-case-for-more-control.html
    http://www.gunfacts.info/blog/missouri-misstep/


    Vaulk
  • VaulkVaulk 289 Pts
    edited November 7
    While the statements so far are fairly good points, none of them yet serve as proof that there is one single Gun Control Law that has been passed that lowered the rate of crimes committed with a Firearm.  On a side note, the supposition that laws can inhibit a criminal from obtaining a firearm is flawed right down to the bone.  Criminals have been and are currently more than capable of obtaining firearms illegally.  Tens of thousands of illegally imported Firearms enter the country every week and are commonly referred to as "Ghost guns".  They have serial numbers (None of which will actually trace to anything), cost less than 25% of the retail cost of their legitimate counterpart, and can actually be sold back to a buyer for a fraction of what the gun initially cost them.  Illegal gun trafficking is no secret, the evidence mounted decades ago and still sits as a mountain of proof yet the influx still flows today like a raging river.  After "Ghost Guns" comes stolen firearms.  Sure they're traceable...but only to the legitimate buyer who's already reported the weapon stolen...so the trail ends there.  

    In short, Gun Control Laws are a surefire way to stop crimes with a firearm...just like Drug Control Laws are a surefire way to stop Drug Crimes.  I mean...if you make it illegal...then criminals can't use it anymore right? -_-
    SilverishGoldNova
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • The idea that every single high-risk individual has black market connections and knows where to pick up a gun is flawed logic (federal criminals is just one example of high risk individuals and even they wouldn't all have black market connections).

    Equally, thinking of it as risk free is equally incorrect. Someone buying an illegal gun has to commit a crime before they can commit their other criminal act, which opens the possibility of them being arrested in advance.

    Lastly it assumes that criminals or other high-risk individuals will decide to get a gun and be driven to get it no matter what, when instead we can assume like most people raising barriers and making things inconvenient will deter some people even if with enoguh work they could find an alternative way to get a gun.

    CYDdhart there are plenty of other studies backing up the research (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516 https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/doi/10.1093/epirev/mxv012/2754868/What-Do-We-Know-About-the-Association-Between http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302617 etc etc). That Gun Facts and Fox News don't like the study is hardly surprising to me. Is there anything about their claims you agree with or think worthwhile?
    Vaulk
  • HankHank 66 Pts
    The argument that gun control doesn't work is such a pathetic one. Australia is the perfect example that gun control is completely effective. 

    In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns.
  • @Hank
    There is a difference between Australia and America. His question was to name one US gun control law. 
  • Nightwing said:
    Why would a criminal bother with a background check (unless he is really stupid)?

    Why not just steal one or get one from the black market? Why not just MAKE one?


    Some people will do just that, if they're absolutely intent on shooting someone.
    There are many more people who would (and do) shoot people on an impulse, either already owning a gun or easily going out and getting one. These are the people who, if they had to wait a day or two for some criminal contact to obtain one for them (or to make one), may have lost that impulse once they finally have a gun.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • Fascism said:
    @Hank
    There is a difference between Australia and America. His question was to name one US gun control law. 
    Magazine capacity restrictions
    (is that the end of the thread now?)
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • edited November 7
    Ampersand said:

    CYDdhart there are plenty of other studies backing up the research (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516 https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/doi/10.1093/epirev/mxv012/2754868/What-Do-We-Know-About-the-Association-Between http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302617 etc etc). That Gun Facts and Fox News don't like the study is hardly surprising to me. Is there anything about their claims you agree with or think worthwhile?
    Likewise, It is no surprise that an organization that received massive donations from gun-banners to produce "research" on the effects of guns would find guns to the source of all ills.  People in the medical field have a long history of churning out "medical literature [that] was biased, riddled with serious errors in facts, logic, and methodology, and thus utterly unreliable".  It is the quintessential junk science.  Not one of the "studies" posted tried to take into account the number of potential crimes, injuries, or deaths that were stopped by armed law-abiding citizens. 
  • VaulkVaulk 289 Pts
    I'm afraid that citing Australia as some sort of evidence isn't going to cut it.  Much like using Iraq to show how Democracy would work isn't effective...but that's why I specified U.S. laws.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • HankHank 66 Pts
    @Fascism That's exactly right - the US has done nothing nearly as substantial as Australia and look at how much of a mess it is. The number of fatal gunshot victims in the US within the last 50 years exceeds all military deaths of US soldiers in WW1 & WW2 combined. The argument 'nothing the USA has implemented has worked so far, therefore nothing else will' is not an argument at all. 

    @Vaulk It's obvious democracy doesn't work to begin with so I don't know what you're trying to prove. The fact is that mass shootings are not a thing in Australia - 115 people have died in mass shootings in the USA in the last 38 days. 2 people have died from 'mass' shootings in Australia in the last 15 years. 
  • Hank said:
    @Fascism That's exactly right - the US has done nothing nearly as substantial as Australia and look at how much of a mess it is. The number of fatal gunshot victims in the US within the last 50 years exceeds all military deaths of US soldiers in WW1 & WW2 combined. The argument 'nothing the USA has implemented has worked so far, therefore nothing else will' is not an argument at all. 

    @Vaulk It's obvious democracy doesn't work to begin with so I don't know what you're trying to prove. The fact is that mass shootings are not a thing in Australia - 115 people have died in mass shootings in the USA in the last 38 days. 2 people have died from 'mass' shootings in Australia in the last 15 years. 
    The argument "it worked over there so it's sure to work here" isn't a valid argument either.  It becomes a non-argument when what you say worked over there really didn't work over there.  As you pointed out, mass shootings aren't an Australian thing, and never have been.  That's why studies of Australia's National Firearms Agreement gun ban have found the laws have had no effect on crime.
    MissDMeanor
  • FascismFascism 230 Pts
    edited November 8
    @Hank
    Yes I agree. However, I was pointing out that your argument that it worked over there so therefore it will work here is not an argument at all either. This argument is about the US. 
  • HankHank 66 Pts
    @CYDdharta Ever heard of the Port Arthur massacre? Mass shootings were becoming a thing but Australia immediately put a stop to it. Gun control clearly has a potent influence in reducing gun related violence in every country where it is implemented. It is just common sense - what is the reason for being able to walk into a Walmart and buy a semi-automatic rifle? There is none. 
  • edited November 8
    Hank said:
    @CYDdharta Ever heard of the Port Arthur massacre? Mass shootings were becoming a thing but Australia immediately put a stop to it. Gun control clearly has a potent influence in reducing gun related violence in every country where it is implemented. It is just common sense - what is the reason for being able to walk into a Walmart and buy a semi-automatic rifle? There is none. 
    Of course I've heard of the Port Arthur shooting, I just haven't heard of any other similar shootings, before or after, in Australia.  Of course that only makes sense, because gun violence in Australia was always pretty rare and dropping before and after the Port Arthur shooting.  Gun control legislation and the gun ban didn't have any effect whatsoever on crime in Australia.
  • HankHank 66 Pts
    @CYDdharta Mass shootings weren't popular to the same capacity before the new millennium. Obviously the current system is deeply failing and has been for several decades. Why not try something else? Something that any person with commonsense can see would have even a slight effect at the least?
  • Hank said:
    @CYDdharta Mass shootings weren't popular to the same capacity before the new millennium. Obviously the current system is deeply failing and has been for several decades. Why not try something else? Something that any person with commonsense can see would have even a slight effect at the least?
    Anyone with commonsense would agree that disarming law abiding citizens is a poor way of reducing crime.  If fact, it's more likely to increase crime.  There's a reason most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.
  • VaulkVaulk 289 Pts
    edited November 8
    Again the confiscation in Australia is irrelevant to the topic at hand.  One: This isn't Australia.  Two: The example of Australia being used isn't even a gun control law, it's a reference to Australia's confiscation.  The Australian government forced the people to relinquish the firearms and forcibly disarmed it's citizens...that's not gun control that's gun confiscation.  This is why Australia is incomparable to the U.S. in this regard as very few (Even on the left) would admit to supporting the disarmament of the U.S. citizens.

    Gun control: Implementing controlling measures and then enforcing them to bring about control over guns and to further control outcomes of the usage of firearms.

    Gun confiscation: The complete and total removal of guns from the civilian population.  No control is needed afterwards.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • VaulkVaulk 289 Pts
    Since Chicago has the strictest and possibly the absolute most gun control in the U.S. in terms of sheer number of laws, codes, penalties and regulations, perhaps someone could use Chicago as an example of how Gun Control laws can work?
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • CYDdharta said:
    Ampersand said:

    CYDdhart there are plenty of other studies backing up the research (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516 https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/doi/10.1093/epirev/mxv012/2754868/What-Do-We-Know-About-the-Association-Between http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302617 etc etc). That Gun Facts and Fox News don't like the study is hardly surprising to me. Is there anything about their claims you agree with or think worthwhile?
    Likewise, It is no surprise that an organization that received massive donations from gun-banners to produce "research" on the effects of guns would find guns to the source of all ills.  People in the medical field have a long history of churning out "medical literature [that] was biased, riddled with serious errors in facts, logic, and methodology, and thus utterly unreliable".  It is the quintessential junk science.  Not one of the "studies" posted tried to take into account the number of potential crimes, injuries, or deaths that were stopped by armed law-abiding citizens. 
    The first half of your argument is a tautology. For the second half, it is poorly supported claims made referencing a referencing a book published over 20 years ago that you are trying to use to smear all research not based on the actual merit of the research done, but on guilt by association based on the word of this article which fails to get even basic facts right. Centerwall's study was only about portions of the US, not the entire US as the article claims.

    Not only that but it makes basic misapprehensions about scientific data, namely that if a study has more data than another study it is automatically better. While all othert things being equal more data is generally better, expanding the area you look at can increase the issues, problems and assumptions that your data relies on. Centerwall for instance looks at several states (which means more data) but also means more differences between the data that he has to try and take into account with a variety of different laws, culture, ethnic and social splits, etc, etc across the expanded range he's looking at all of which could be contributing factors to gun crime. The simplistic assumption of your article shows it isn't to be taken seriously.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch