It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
”When the law passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime…and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then,” said police Lt. Craig Graydon.
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
On average, 4 children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents from 1999-2002.
Socratic Question #1 – How do you explain the drop in the crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia after the mandatory gun ownership law was passed?
As of now, the regulations for this vary state to state, but in order for this law to work we would need a national standard.
During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.(1)
Why do you think Kennesaw's suicide rate is so hard to find?
Would you feel comfortable knowing that there are more guns out there?
More firearms equals more accidents and more incidents involving firearms.
Other countries' experience shows that more restrictions on firearms ownership decreased homicides and suicides in those countries; the more available firearms are, the higher a country's incidence of violence.
Ownership of handguns by private citizens for self-protection against crime appears to provide more of a psychological belief in safety than actual deterrence to criminal behavior. Indeed, when the final irony occurs and a citizen’s handgun is either stolen or used against him or her in the commission of a crime, the source of the victim’s security is instantly transformed into the source of his or her terror. And possible death.
On average, 3 children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents from 2000-2005.
The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined
Knowing that there were many more law abiding citizens like myself out there ready to protect and defend their fellow man would be a huge comfort.
Police say Williams reportedly cut the Reeds off in traffic when they caught up to him. Detectives say Marcus Reed started shooting and Williams fired back
The rumors of gun violence came after a murder last Friday in Lake Waccamaw after the Whiteville at East Columbus football game.
I had honestly hoped that I would be able to spend more time discussing the topic itself than I would in response to my opponent.
In 2005, 69 preschoolers were killed by firearms compared to 53 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.
Firearms are the cause of death of more children between the ages of 10 and 19 than any other cause except car accidents.
In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available) there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S. 12,352 homicides (40% of U.S. gun deaths) 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S. gun deaths) 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent. (5% of all U.S. gun deaths combined.
The number of new guns rises by about 4.5 million every year. There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.
Since 1991, the nation’s total violent crime rate is down 38 percent. (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.) Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low.
States with RTC laws (Right-To-Carry), compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.
At first I felt nyk537’s opening statement took a weak stance, almost agreeing with the negative of such a law, but it was actually quite effective because after wormwood13’s “fear mongering” approach, nyk537’s objective responsible one gave the argument a more balanced, safer, educative feel. nyk537’s first example provided a calming effect by showing an example of how the law has worked in a small town. The unavailability of the data from that town is suspicious though, but nyk537 provided later sources that back it up.
With an all around more polished debate I give the win to the fighter Nyk537.
It also worked because it had another great source to back it up. The use of Lotts as a source cancelled many of wormwood13’s claims. Especially the claim that there needs to be more study. 18 years is a lot of study which included a large portion of the US counties. Also including;
wormwood13 said “Some people are responsible but many aren’t” Lotts said “People with permits are more responsible”
wormwood13 said “More is not the answer” and Lotts described how it has been shown to be true.
The source said 90% of crimes occur by those who had criminal records. That 58% of Worms 66% of murders caused by firearms is by known aquaintances or relatives consists in part of that 90% criminal class. Some of these people are not to be included in such a law.
wormwood13 suggested a small town’s statistics don’t apply to a large city, but Lotts suggested it does.
In terms of wormwood13’s stance that the proposed law must be taken literally and not to generalize did not sit well with me. I had to ask myself “Is is bad to consider amendments involved with such a law?” My answer is most definitely no. I agree very much with the idea of national standards, and guidelines, and special case allowances. As well as penalties and laws governing the availability of guns to children within the home. Something that was not addressed, but makes common sense.
wormwood13 stressed the dangers to children, which is a very big concern,
and that guns are not an efficient means of self defense, which I find arguable.
That the homeowner is not proficient, which could involve training as is seen in Swiss examples should a law be instigated.
And that it is a psychological illusion of safety. Something that may well work both ways. Especially, when a criminal has a false illusion of safety.
Also that guns=death, but I would ask if all guns have caused death?
All of these concerns have merit, but I felt nyk537’s arguments and sources provided a much better education in favor of such a law.
This debate is an interesting one as I thought that there was a lot of ground to be covered yet both debaters didn't come even close to fleshing out the various directions that they could have. Especially disappointing was the showing of nyk537 as he is a seasoned debater but never seemed to 'show up' this roud. His sourcing was weak, as the use of Kennesaw as an example is very poor considering the fact that smaller towns/cities will invariably have a different socio-economic atmosphere then a metropolis and thusly the motivations and behavior of its' citizens will differ greatly.
Who here will attribute a gang environment found in say Los Angeles to be similar to a Kentucky rural area?
That said, wormwood13 didn't refute that point as effectivily as he could/should have. I would have liked to have seen greater attention and detail in the refuting of not only that example but the other as well because it does not necessitate that successful programs in one country, considering cultural differences, will be mirrored by another.
wormwood13 brings up some valid points regarding the veracity of giving all able citizen a gun citing the fact that people will react and some reactions in some instances could result in the use of guns if they are mandatory. While I do not agree that this is the case soley based on the "Law of Averages" argument he seemed to employ, I do not disagree with it. Nyk537's dismissal of such claims as 'fear-mongering' is a wholey inadequate strategy as there is no substance to the argument. Indeed, the reasonings for a mandatory gun law to be implemented could very well be predicated on fearmongering as the term/concept is subjective.
While both Fighters proved to be very minimal in their presentations and efforts, I have to give the debate to wormwood13.
Round 1: nyk537 vs wormwood13: "Please Don't Shoot"
Let’s do this by the numbers…
Much more information was departed in the opening post by Nyk537. The direction he was going, his outline and intentions were made clear and left the reader with no doubt as to what to expect.
Wormwood13 just did not seem to put his heart in the opening and left the reader wondering what to expect.
Bothe Fighters used the Kennesaw, Georgia issue to their advantage. This makes one wonder if nyk537 was wise in referencing it. We shall see as this progresses.
While wormwood13 gave a good accounting, his post was far too short and so did not really “nail down” the issue he was presenting. Also starting a post off with sources is a gamble at best and this one did not pay off. Too much outside information and too little substance.
Goes to … wormwood13
Disappointing post from both fighters actually; short and simply rehashing old material. Yet this one time wormwood13 did in fact use source material to his advantage and took the round.
Goes to … Tie
While both fighters tried to “tie up” their debates in their closing, the brevity and lack of interesting material was disappointing to say the least.
Debate goes to nyk537