Do Gun Restrictions/Bans Reduce Violent Crime?

  • Thread starter DeletedUser8396
  • Start date

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Topic: Do Gun Restrictions/Bans Reduce Violent Crime? If So, Is This Reason Enough to Ban Them entirely?

Motion: This house believes that Gun Restrictions/Bans does reduce violent crime.

Details: A rather heated debate (at least in the U.S.) encircles the issue of whether or not citizens should be allowed to use firearms and, if so, which firearms the citizens should be allowed to use as well how regulated they can be used. An extremely brief overlook:

Proponents of the motion: Reducing the usage and levels of possession citizens have naturally reduces the amount of violent crimes which occur by limiting the means to access weapons. If criminals cannot obtain these weapons, the crimes are less likely to be violent or as violent. If force is necessary, the police still have weapons to protect the public.

Opponents of the motion: Increasing gun control removes the guns only from law-abiding citizens. Criminals already break the law, so making laws to prevent the law-breakers from obtaining weapons is hardly going to be effective. This then allows the criminals to have force against the public and the public be defenseless (should police not be present).

These are certainly not the only arguments that can be made, so be creative and, preferably, use statistics. Remember, you aren't in the only country - some have stricter laws than others so may have more data to look to!
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
Opponents of the motion: Increasing gun control removes the guns only from law-abiding citizens. Criminals already break the law, so making laws to prevent the law-breakers from obtaining weapons is hardly going to be effective. This then allows the criminals to have force against the public and the public be defenseless (should police not be present).
Never understood this part because most of the school shootings aren't done by criminals with priors, they're done by previously law abiding citizens in poor mental state and guns themselves are pointless, they're made to kill so I don't see why a healthy person would need assault rifles etc.
Of course an American is going to post "4th Amendment, Government might try taking over the country, need weapons, guns don't kill people, people kill people, MURICAH!!"
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
I'm pretty sure studies have been done that show laws on gun restriction don't actually reduce the amount of gun related crimes but don't quote me on that, I do know however that stricter laws on gun control does reduce the number of suicides so there's that but not exactly on topic for this debate.

Of course an American is going to post "4th Amendment, Government might try taking over the country, need weapons, guns don't kill people, people kill people, MURICAH!!"

Please don't generalize all Americans into one opinion and there are plenty of legitimate reasons for Americans wanting to keep their firearms such as self protection. If a person wanted to they would still easily be able to obtain fire arms regardless of gun control laws or not, if they truly intented to use them to kill people or for violent crimes. However, those gun control laws will make it difficult for regular non-law breaking citizens to have them for their own protection, which creates a situation where the person robbing you at night has a huge upper hand (there's a reason why killing an intruder on your property is considered self defense and not a criminal offense).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser39031

Guest
Please don't generalize all Americans into one opinion and there are plenty of legitimate reasons for Americans wanting to keep their firearms such as self protection. If a person will still easily be able to obtain fire arms regardless of gun control laws or not if they truly intent to use them to kill people or for violent crimes, however those gun control laws will make it difficult for regular non-law breaking citizens to have them for their own protection, which creates a situation where they person robbing you at night has a huge upper hand (there's a reason why killing an intruder on your property is considered self defense and not a criminal offense).
Not all Americans are like that, but bringing up gun debates always brings out the those types. I was mainly talking about how gun control laws would stop lunatics from committing school shootings etc. because the majority of those aren't done by people with priors.

When you look at America from an outsiders perspective , the problem is either the guns or the people. I'd like to believe it's the guns.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Not all Americans are like that, but bringing up gun debates always brings out the those types. I was mainly talking about how gun control laws would stop lunatics from committing school shootings etc. because the majority of those aren't done by people with priors.

When you look at America from an outsiders perspective , the problem is either the guns or the people. I'd like to believe it's the guns.
oh it's the people. The people letting the lunatics get gun.
 

DeletedUser40768

Guest
I'm pretty sure studies have been done that show laws on gun restriction don't actually reduce the amount of gun related crimes but don't quote me on that, I do know however that stricter laws on gun control does reduce the number of suicides so there's that but not exactly on topic for this debate.



Please don't generalize all Americans into one opinion and there are plenty of legitimate reasons for Americans wanting to keep their firearms such as self protection. If a person will still easily be able to obtain fire arms regardless of gun control laws or not if they truly intent to use them to kill people or for violent crimes, however those gun control laws will make it difficult for regular non-law breaking citizens to have them for their own protection, which creates a situation where they person robbing you at night has a huge upper hand (there's a reason why killing an intruder on your property is considered self defense and not a criminal offense).

Yeah pretty much what Slim said, it doesn't affect the people the law would be intending to stop. To think gangs and other criminals couldn't obtain guns illegally is just underestimating what they are capable of doing.

Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."

I think the interesting thing about the website I am reading is how many criminals don't even use guns to commit their crimes, that would make a gun ban unnecessary then as guns aren't the problem to reducing violent crimes. Those are just some facts that caught the eye when I started reading the beginning, there are many more studies this site cites.
 

DeletedUser27700

Guest
Never understood this part because most of the school shootings aren't done by criminals with priors, they're done by previously law abiding citizens in poor mental state and guns themselves are pointless, they're made to kill so I don't see why a healthy person would need assault rifles etc.
Of course an American is going to post "4th Amendment, Government might try taking over the country, need weapons, guns don't kill people, people kill people, MURICAH!!"

2nd amendment*
Mentally disabled or unhealthy people are not allowed to purchase guns, therefore they are already breaking the law by having obtained them to begin with. If they are getting them from their parents or friends, then those people are breaking the law by not locking them up properly.
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
Example:
Gary is a mentally healthy kid, Gary buys a gun, Gary's girlfriend breaks up with him, he loses is mental health, Gary already has a gun, Gary uses the gun.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Example:
Gary is a mentally healthy kid, Gary buys a gun, Gary's girlfriend breaks up with him, he loses is mental health, Gary already has a gun, Gary uses the gun.

I prefer children not to be able to buy guns as well.

Assuming you meant man instead of kid, such a scenario (to my knowledge) has never occurred. More frequently a lunatic buys a gun or recieves a gun and then proceeds to kill with said gun.

Off the top of my head my ideal gun control rules would be as follows.
1. 30 or older
2. You are deemed mentally stable (with yearly tests)
3. Complete a gun safety course
4. No criminal record
5. No automatics guns for sale
6. If you give a gun to someone other than yourself you are no longer allowed to own a gun
7. All current ID regulations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser39031

Guest
I prefer children not to be able to buy guns as well.

Assuming you meant man instead of kid, such a scenario (to my knowledge) has never occurred. More frequently a lunatic buys a gun or recieves a gun and then proceeds to kill with said gun.

Off the top of my head my ideal gun control rules would be as follows.
1. 30 or older
2. You are deemed mentally stable
3. Complete a gun safety course
4. No criminal record
5. No automatics guns for sale
6. If you give a gun to someone other than yourself you are no longer allowed to own a gun
7. All current ID regulations.
Isn't the age to own a gun 12 or something? Plus the stories of kids accidentally shooting their parents/gun instructors with automatic weapons.

I'd add yearly health tests etc. once you have the gun to your restrictions
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Isn't the age to own a gun 12 or something? Plus the stories of kids accidentally shooting their parents/gun instructors with automatic weapons.

I'd add yearly health tests etc. once you have the gun to your restrictions
the lowest age is 16 in Vermont i believe.

yeah thanks for that
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
Isn't the age to own a gun 12 or something? Plus the stories of kids accidentally shooting their parents/gun instructors with automatic weapons.

I'd add yearly health tests etc. once you have the gun to your restrictions

You make it sound like its the wild west in the U.S. and that everyone is just going out for walks with their trusty colt looking for someone to shoot. Even if gun control laws are passed there will still be gun related deaths 100% along with gun related accidents, cars kill people far more often than guns do yet you can still drive at the age of 16 and they aren't any yearly tests given to people with who drive and lets not forget about the idiots that drink and drive similar to your mentally unstable argument, should we outlaw driving because of the possibility of that?

Guns are a lot like cars, they are available to the general public and are to be used responsibly but sometimes aren't, outlawing driving wont get rid of the thousands of cars that are owned by people and neither will passing gun control laws.
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
I'm not saying outlawing all guns should be done, just automatic/semi automatic. Cars sure so kill a lot more people than guns do in all countries, but they don't get used in school/church massacres.

And with the driving, in most countries I believe they do Random Breath Testing/Speed Cameras/Unmarked Police Cars and have strong campaigns against drink driving. From my time in the U.S and from what I've heard from Fox News (I know Fox is a joke :) ) guns are often seen as they way to stop gun violence. I remember reporters suggesting giving teachers guns after one of the shootings. :/
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Adding onto the upon post. Guns are also made to kill people unlike cars.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I have just spent 4 months in the USA and these are my musings on the issue.

The right is based on the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution which states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In its full context, the 'Founding Fathers' were simply ensuring that when needed, they could call up a militia and it was within the rights of US citizens to bear arms to defend the 'Free State' of America, rather than the subjugated state as it was under the UK's rule.

This right has then been twisted into "Everyone has the right to carry guns in the streets" (Or some variation upon this, I know it varies state to state).

Obviously in a world in which the people breaking into your house will probably have a gun, it is understandable why home owners would want to be able to also have a gun with which to defend themselves and their property. It also therefore makes sense for the police to also carry guns as without them, they would simply not be able to do their jobs.

My inclination is to therefore say that it is simply too late to be having this discussion. As you stated, a ban would simply have all law-abiding citizens hand in their weapons and have the law-breakers keep them.

If, by some miracle, it could be done, I'd say that the best way forward would be to go in increments. Ban assault rifles, who needs one of those to defend their lives and property? Allow each home to have one handgun for self defence. Punish those who break the rules severely, with long jail time, to dissuade anyone from disobeying.

I am entirely anti-gun. In the UK, the police fired a weapon just 6-7 times last year. That's 6-7 times total, despite the armed units being called out over 12,000 times. Every time they do there is a full investigation, it makes the news every time, and their actions are scrutinised to establish whether it was justifiable. They are trained to fire when they absolutely have to, the gun is the last thing they go to, not the first.

bialik-datalab-ukshooting-1.png


Obviously, when criminals are not armed with guns themselves, it is easier to avoid using theirs, however I cannot see any argument that would make me believe that having guns is a positive. Clearly police killing possibly 4-5 people per year is better than 1000+ in the USA. The police are essentially taking over responsibility for the justice process, assuming someone is such a threat that they are to be instantly found guilty and executed.

In the Uk, there is never a scenario in which there is one armed police officer talking to one individual criminal. When the armed units are called they are like a SWAT team, the use of force has to be approved by a senior officer rather than by the individuals on the ground (unless it is in clear self defence of course).

I just cannot stomach the idea of walking down the street, an officer sees me and thinks he sees a gun in my wasteband, he shouts for me to stop but I have earplugs in and don't hear him, I eventually do and reach to turn off my music, he thinks i'm going for my gun and instantly goes for his and shoots. Entirely hypothetical, but given what we read in the news, does it really seem that unlikely? Would you be totally shocked if this appeared in the news? I'd think not, I certainly wouldn't.

One person should not have that level of responsibility.

People don't need guns if other people don't have guns and if the population don't, then it is certainly unnecessary for most officers to carry them.
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
I rarely agree with CoD, but I think Thomas has put it very neatly.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Thomas pretty much covered it there.

Murica is a lost cause. Tow it out into the atlantic and sink it.

Oh wait, he forgot that bit :x

/on a roll
 
Top