Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Resolved: More Guns Equals Less Crime

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645

    Resolved: More Guns Equals Less Crime

    I would like to formally debate Doc Jones on the issue of whether more guns equals less crime. I'll take the negative meaning you cannot show more guns equals less crime.

    I think a 5-4 format would be good with three judges whom rarely posted in the gun rights forum and have no personal outrage towards either poster.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Can I get some volunteers for judging by any chance? Symbiote would be a good choice I think...maybe some other folks who don't frequent the Gun Rights forum?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    I have a thing about "there is evidence for X" vs "there is no evidence for X" debates. I'm not sure if it's that I find them uninteresting or lopsided.

    I might agree with the neutral position, but the "There is evidence for X" vs. "There is evidence for Y, which is contradictory to X" arguments are more interesting.

    In this instance I would prefer to see a "Guns cause increased crime" vs. "Guns cause decreased crime" debate, although I know you don't hold either positon.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    I have a thing about "there is evidence for X" vs "there is no evidence for X" debates. I'm not sure if it's that I find them uninteresting or lopsided.

    I might agree with the neutral position, but the "There is evidence for X" vs. "There is evidence for Y, which is contradictory to X" arguments are more interesting.

    In this instance I would prefer to see a "Guns cause increased crime" vs. "Guns cause decreased crime" debate, although I know you don't hold either positon.
    Right, I take the "no effect" position.

    I understand the idea that they would not be interesting...it isn't. I just want fair thinkers to judge

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairview Park, Ohio
    Posts
    2,023
    Steve, do you think this is a fair challenge? You already know that the two most exhaustive studies ever done on gun control as crime control exists! I know that you do, because we already did this on the gun forum.

    Are you trying to pad your position, and make Doc try to prove an unprovable, while you claim neutrality?

    In 2000 to 2002 The CDC conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The systematic review development team identified 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence and met the inclusion criteria for this review. No study was excluded because of limitations in design or execution.

    What did they find?
    “the task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”
    They did suggest more studies. Then a few years later the CDC got a second bite at the apple with The National Academy of Sciences studies. They, along with the Anti-gun Joyce foundation funded, the study. Data on Firearms and Violence Too Weak to Settle Policy Debates; Comprehensive Research Effort Needed

    Here is an article about the study Link who issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.
    In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

    I hope you don't mind me pointing that out! Sorry if you do!
    Last edited by Tither; 09-24-2010 at 11:56 AM.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,931
    There is so little reported by the mdia most people just don't know.
    Media Bias About Guns by John R. Lott, Jr.

    If your anti-gun this is know doubt a four letter word (Lott).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Tither View Post
    Steve, do you think this is a fair challenge?
    Oh it isn't a fair fight at all. I'd easily win. Then again, I'm not the one going around claiming more guns equals less crime. Doc is posting that every chance he gets. All I did was call him on it and everything you've shown only reinforces the fact that he is wrong to make that claim.

    All I'm doing is making a debate challenge for Doc to prove his claim.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairview Park, Ohio
    Posts
    2,023
    What did you mean by this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    and have no personal outrage towards either poster.
    Who is the other poster you are speaking about?

    On the other forum, Doc only tries to cast doubt that CCW has no effect. Heck even the 2 most exhaustive studies ever done on gun control say that much. He is giving his opinion, while others try to build the opposite case! In both cases it is their opinion. The CDC and National Academy of Sciences cannot confirm either position to be a fact.
    Do Firearms Deter Crime?
    Many Americans keep firearms to defend themselves against criminals, but research devoted to understanding the defensive and deterrent effects of guns has resulted in mixed and sometimes widely divergent findings, the report says. In addition, the accuracy of responses in gun-use surveys is a topic that has not been thoroughly investigated. The committee called for systematic research to define what is being measured in studies of defensive and deterrent effects of guns, to reduce reporting errors in national gun-use surveys, and to explore ways that different data sets may be linked to answer complex questions.

    Likewise, new research tools are needed to evaluate right-to-carry laws. Existing studies that use similar methods and data yield very dissimilar findings. Some studies indicate that the laws reduce violent crime. Other studies show negligible effects, while still others suggest that they increase violent crime. It is impossible to draw any strong conclusions about their effects from these studies, the report says.
    However, and I could be wrong, because no one actually knows what is in anther's mind, but, I do think you harbor some animosity towards Doc, or at least it seems that way to me. Otherwise why would not have issued this challenge on this board. What do you care what Doc thinks.

    Personally, if I were Doc, I wouldn't take the challenge because it is a sucker's bet. He would never be able to prove any more than what the CDC and National Academy of Sciences said. Because of the overwhelming power of the names CDC and The National Academy of Sciences, that is going to trump everyone's logic!

    The debate may be interesting to some, but the debate is over until someone comes up with conclusive proof that the NAS and the CDC will accept as conclusive! Or do you dispute that?
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairview Park, Ohio
    Posts
    2,023
    I am a gun owner, and an avid advocate of gun rights. I don't have a CCW permit. So, please understand that I am not trying to make the case for Concealed Carry. Nevertheless, here is why the effects of Concealed Carry are so hard to quantify.

    States that allow lawful Concealed Carry have been increasing dramatically, adding states, year by year. Now all but two states have legalized at least some form of concealed carry.

    There is a general acceptance of Concealed Carry by police officers, and they believe it is OK. In fact, when asked about accepting other states CCW licenses.
    Survey Shows Police Support General Recognition of State Issued CCW Permits,
    When the officers were asked if general recognition throughout the states of ccw permits issued by a state, in the way drivers' licenses are recognized throughout the country, would facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community, 77 percent said yes.
    Record numbers licensed to pack heat
    From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research. And while hotly debated, the effect of this dramatic increase is largely unknown.
    Looking at the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, here are the violent crime and murder rates figures from 1991 till now. Although this says nothing about causation from a ccw prospective, what we can see from these numbers, despite the dramatic increase in the number of concealed carry numbers all throughout our nation, this has NOT lead to an increase in crime figures in our nation. In fact, while Concealed Carry has increased dramatically, both Violent crime and murder has dropped dramatically, to record lows.

    Crime in the United States -- by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990–2009
    Violent crime -- Murder rate
    1991 = 758.2 -- 1991 = 9.8
    1995 = 684.5 -- 1995 = 8.2
    2000 = 506.5 -- 2000 = 5.5
    2005 = 469.0 -- 2005 = 5.6
    2009 = 429.4 -- 2009 = 5.0
    To add even more facts, while crime has dropped dramatically, our nations stock of firearms has also increased dramatically. The NICS background check system started November 30, 1998. Since then there have been more than 119 million request for background checks.
    Total NICS Background Checks -- November 30, 1998 - August 31, 2010
    Total = 119,096,051
    with about one half of one percent denials.

    Are most of these Concealed Carry permit holders just walking around safe neighborhoods carrying their guns in a safe manner, and having little to no impact on crime? For the most part, that is likely the case, because they live in crime free neighborhoods. However who can actually say if a criminal is swayed by the fact their chosen victim might be armed? How can such a thing even be quantified?

    One thing can be said by those who carry, at least they have the means to defend themselves of something bad happens. To them, that security and peace of mind is priceless.

    That is enough for me.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Tither View Post
    On the other forum, Doc only tries to cast doubt that CCW has no effect. Heck even the 2 most exhaustive studies ever done on gun control say that much. He is giving his opinion, while others try to build the opposite case! In both cases it is their opinion. The CDC and National Academy of Sciences cannot confirm either position to be a fact.
    You lie. You know darn well Doc's position is "more guns equals less crime". I can post where he has said exactly that. It is ME who casts doubt on that and shows that position is not accurate.

    I do think you harbor some animosity towards Doc, or at least it seems that way to me.
    Well this should be obvious by now. He is a dishonest poster who is often extremely ignorant on many issues. Time and time again I prove him wrong and this looked on as either an accidentally mistake by his part, is completely ignored, or one of you guys modify his position for him so it doesn't sound idiotic.

    Personally, if I were Doc, I wouldn't take the challenge because it is a sucker's bet. He would never be able to prove any more than what the CDC and National Academy of Sciences said. Because of the overwhelming power of the names CDC and The National Academy of Sciences, that is going to trump everyone's logic!
    Than tell him that. He is the one that refuses to look at the evidence. I mean you are almost proving what I said above here.

    The debate may be interesting to some, but the debate is over until someone comes up with conclusive proof that the NAS and the CDC will accept as conclusive! Or do you dispute that?
    Oh, this is more than obvious. There is no proof for Doc's claim. That is the point.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairview Park, Ohio
    Posts
    2,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    You lie. You know darn well Doc's position is "more guns equals less crime".
    I Lie? I never said he was not a believer! Heck even the police believe that Concealed Carry will reduce crime. Police officers
    Survey Shows Police Support General Recognition of State Issued CCW Permits
    would facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community, 77 percent said yes.
    And now Police Chiefs.
    18th Annual National Survey Results of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs
    8. Will a national concealed handgun permit reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected? Yes = 59.9%
    But what do they know?
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Time and time again I prove him wrong..
    That would be your opinion. Don't you think that is a bit arrogant as you proving him wrong would be for others to say, not you. Ooooor would I be mistaken about that?
    Last edited by Tither; 09-27-2010 at 03:47 AM.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Tither View Post
    But what do they know?
    nothing about the subject apparently.

    [qupte] Don't you think that is a bit arrogant as you proving him wrong would be for others to say, not you. Ooooor would I be mistaken about that? [/QUOTE]Another example of you defending Doc when he does the very same thing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    6

    Guns equal less crime

    Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!
    It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by dadnova View Post
    Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!
    It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target.
    Switzerlands takes to heart the idea of a well regulated militia:

    BBC News | EUROPE | Switzerland and the gun
    Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.
    So, as usual, the right-wing's version of the facts and reality don't match up too well.
    He Lived in the Perfect Midfield Time

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
    Posts
    85
    LOL!

    Who cares if more guns equals more, less or the same amount of crime?

    We have a Second Amendment I a fully intend to avail myself of my rights.

    I opine that more freedom is always a good thing. Be it the freedom of speech, the press, to assemble or to own a gun. It's all good.
    "If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist.....
    ....you'll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •