Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down

[DebateChallenge]

Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDu0YDeqNk

 

[vegas giants]

Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDu0YDeqNk

I don't get my information from youtube.

 

[Maccabee]

I don't get my information from youtube.

well then, you're missing a lot.

 

[vegas giants]

well then, you're missing a lot.

Yes its very scholarly. LOL

 

[jet57]

well then, you're missing a lot.

Ya' mean like THIS kind of information??

 

[Chillfolks]

YouTube is what you make of it. It's possible to find accurate fact based informative videos by certified experts. You can also find farts being light or dogs purring like cats. The ultimate viewers choice.

 

[zsu2357]

Ya' mean like THIS kind of information??

Yeah. It shows that some people can be dumb asses. Flash. Not all people are even close.

 

[zsu2357]

I don't get my information from youtube.

No,you would rather get it from MSNBC and the like. You might try you tube,why hell you might even learn something.

 

[vegas giants]

No,you would rather get it from MSNBC and the like. You might try you tube,why hell you might even learn something.

YouTube........your source for accurate scholarly research. Lol

 

[Maccabee]

Yes its very scholarly. LOL

If you don't accept it as an argument then go knock yourself out. Don't claim that he didn't provide evidence, though.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Ya' mean like THIS kind of information??

Well yes, and there's also this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI9tov6A2DI

 

[Slavister]

Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDu0YDeqNk

Ok, I'll bite. Point by point break down between Fox's Tucker Carlson (blah! not surprising) and "firearms attorney":

1. Ban of ar-15/semi-automatic rifles would not stop shootings

Evidence exhibit A: "criminals don't obey laws"
What he got wrong:
- some shooters were NOT criminals PRIOR to these acts.
- criminals would have harder time getting mass killing machines.

Evidence exhibit B: 4 example crimes (one was not even a shooting) that did not involve AR-15/SA weapons.
What he got wrong:
- there are plenty of the examples that DID involve these weapons
- use of less powerful weapons in such mass shootings would have likely resulted in less fatalities

2. Banning high-capacity magazines would not help stop the carnage

Evidence exhibit C: 1994 ban did not work
What he got wrong: noone knows if it actually would have worked. It was too small of a ban and grandfathered too many guns already in circulation. Fact check:
"Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004."

3. Places with stricter gun conrol laws are NOT safer.
Evidence exhibit D: Chicago has string laws and high crime
What he got wrong: While Chicago & Illinois have strict laws, neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana) have very weak gun control laws and state lines of course don't have any kind of real border control. Unsurprisingly, this study found that a ton of new guns in Chicago come from other states. Most come from Indiana. To compare, 82% of guns recovered in crimes in Indiana itself came from Indiana itself. Chances are it would be even worse in Chicago if it weren't for the gun control laws.

4. You should try to stop all violence not just gun violence.
What he got wrong: Violence without guns is not as deadly as gun violence.

5. Yes, maybe use of guns will go down in crimes if you ban them.
Oh look, he got this one right!

6. In Australia, violent crimes went up after a ban.
What he got wrong: More importantly, number of people killed did not really go up but instead went down over time. Effect of enacted laws takes time, even years indeed. There is nothing wrong with that. Guns won't just disappear the next morning after the law is passed. Overall effect in Australia clearly supports gun control side of the argument: overall homicides were about the same for a few years and then have come down, as one would expect. Further, firearm related deaths in Australia dropped faster, in part because suicides have come down a lot (in other words, a lawful citizen returning their gun is less likely to shoot themselves in moment of despair). Yes, it takes longer for criminal activity to curtail than for suicides but both benefit from gun control, just at different rates.

7. Increasing age of gun purchase to 21 won't make a difference
Evidence exhibit E: Democrats want younger voters
What he got wrong: How does that even make sense? If 18 year olds cannot buy guns they will start voting for Democrats? If anything, that should help Republicans!

Evidence exhibit F: Raising age to 21 would not have stopped 29 of the "top 30" shootings.
What he got wrong: There is much more relevant data than cherry-picking 30 shootings. How about looking at all homicides? Here are some examples from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
- "Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000." (source)
- "Young people age 16-24 consistently have the highest violent crime rates." (source)
- "From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide." (source)

 

[DebateChallenge]

Ok, I'll bite. Point by point break down between Fox's Tucker Carlson (blah! not surprising) and "firearms attorney":

1. Ban of ar-15/semi-automatic rifles would not stop shootings

Evidence exhibit A: "criminals don't obey laws"
What he got wrong:
- some shooters were NOT criminals PRIOR to these acts.
- criminals would have harder time getting mass killing machines.

- in this country you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so until and unless a person does commit a crime and its been proven in court they shouldn't be treated like criminals.
- convicted criminals are barred from buying or owning all guns including AR-15/SA weapons so they are not going to have an easier time getting them since to buy guns including those you have to go through a background check to see if you're a criminal.

Evidence exhibit B: 4 example crimes (one was not even a shooting) that did not involve AR-15/SA weapons.
What he got wrong:
- there are plenty of the examples that DID involve these weapons
- use of less powerful weapons in such mass shootings would have likely resulted in less fatalities

- As he said, the tool is not the problem
- If that's the case than handguns should be less regulated since handguns are less powerful weapons. A rifle or shotgun is much more powerful and much more likely to kill than a handgun. And while I don't think any kind of gun on the civilian market should be more restricted, I would be all for having rifles and shotguns more restricted if as a tradeoff handguns became less restricted. Personally I would like it if handguns and long guns swapped restrictions although ideally both would be less restricted.

2. Banning high-capacity magazines would not help stop the carnage

Evidence exhibit C: 1994 ban did not work
What he got wrong: noone knows if it actually would have worked. It was too small of a ban and grandfathered too many guns already in circulation. Fact check:
"Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004."

If you understand how magazines and magazine fed guns work than you should know that banning high capacity magazines would be pointless in stopping or lessoning mass shootings. It takes a split second to slap in a new magazine once you shoot out all the bullets in the first magazine. And besides mass shooters don't use those really high capacity magazines, such as those 100 round drums since they're prone to malfunctions. Banning high capacity magazines will only inconvenience law abiding people that like to use guns for lawful purposes.

3. Places with stricter gun conrol laws are NOT safer.
Evidence exhibit D: Chicago has string laws and high crime
What he got wrong: While Chicago & Illinois have strict laws, neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana) have very weak gun control laws and state lines of course don't have any kind of real border control. Unsurprisingly, this study found that a ton of new guns in Chicago come from other states. Most come from Indiana. To compare, 82% of guns recovered in crimes in Indiana itself came from Indiana itself. Chances are it would be even worse in Chicago if it weren't for the gun control laws.

Most guns used in crime are gotten illegally so whether or not guns used in crimes in Chicago actually came from Chicago doesn't matter since the vast majority of them were illegally obtained anyway whether they were from Chicago or Indiana or anywhere else. So this means we should enforce existing gun laws instead of tightening them. If the gun laws in Indiana were well enforced than the criminals who commit gun crime in Chicago wouldn't be able to get the guns in Indiana that they used to commit the crimes with. On the other hand, if Chicago was more gun friendly like Indiana than that would give law abiding people a good method of fighting back against criminals and so it would cut down on crime in Chicago.

4. You should try to stop all violence not just gun violence.
What he got wrong: Violence without guns is not as deadly as gun violence.

No, violence without guns can sometimes be worse than gun violence and often it is. For instance, bombings kill far more many people than shootings. Arson can kill more people than shootings. Vehicle assaults can kill more people, or at least just as many people, as shootings.

 

[DebateChallenge]

5. Yes, maybe use of guns will go down in crimes if you ban them.
Oh look, he got this one right!

Key word maybe. And violent crime could stay at its same level or most likely it would go up since law abiding people would be disarmed. And as I said before, violent crime without guns can be just as bad or worse as violent crime with guns.

6. In Australia, violent crimes went up after a ban.
What he got wrong: More importantly, number of people killed did not really go up but instead went down over time. Effect of enacted laws takes time, even years indeed. There is nothing wrong with that. Guns won't just disappear the next morning after the law is passed. Overall effect in Australia clearly supports gun control side of the argument: overall homicides were about the same for a few years and then have come down, as one would expect. Further, firearm related deaths in Australia dropped faster, in part because suicides have come down a lot (in other words, a lawful citizen returning their gun is less likely to shoot themselves in moment of despair). Yes, it takes longer for criminal activity to curtail than for suicides but both benefit from gun control, just at different rates.

You do understand the Australia ban, don't you? All they did was ban semi automatic rifles and shotguns as well as pump action shotguns. Im not sure how often such weapons are or were used in violent crime in Australia but if violent crime did decline in Australia it was not because of the ban because if criminals didn't have access to such weapons they would just use other means. Of course criminals would no doubt access such weapons illegally since they're criminals. As for suicide declining, making guns harder to get will not affect the suicide rate since Japan has among the strictest gun controls in the world and also among the highest suicide rate.

7. Increasing age of gun purchase to 21 won't make a difference
Evidence exhibit E: Democrats want younger voters
What he got wrong: How does that even make sense? If 18 year olds cannot buy guns they will start voting for Democrats? If anything, that should help Republicans!

I would have to agree with you about 18 year olds not being able to buy guns voting for Republicans not Democrats since Republicans believe more in gun rights. If you ask me though, at the age of 18 you should be able to buy any kind of gun that you can buy at 21 including handguns since at 18 you can serve in the army.

Evidence exhibit F: Raising age to 21 would not have stopped 29 of the "top 30" shootings.
What he got wrong: There is much more relevant data than cherry-picking 30 shootings. How about looking at all homicides? Here are some examples from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
- "Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000." (source)
- "Young people age 16-24 consistently have the highest violent crime rates." (source)
- "From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide." (source)

If you're going to look at all homicides than you also have to look at the method of homicide. Not all homicides are with guns.

 

[Slavister]

- in this country you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so until and unless a person does commit a crime and its been proven in court they shouldn't be treated like criminals.

Nor would they be. "Gun control" laws, if passed, would not treat anyone like criminals. Just like the law not allowing ownership of pre-86 FA weapons does not treat law-abiding like criminals. Just because you can't own a nuke also does not mean you are treated like a criminal.

- convicted criminals are barred from buying or owning all guns including AR-15/SA weapons so they are not going to have an easier time getting them since to buy guns including those you have to go through a background check to see if you're a criminal.

The more guns are out there the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on them. From stealing to borrowing.

As he said, the tool is not the problem

Tool by itself is not a problem. Its widespread availability to everyone is.

If that's the case than handguns should be less regulated since handguns are less powerful weapons. A rifle or shotgun is much more powerful and much more likely to kill than a handgun. And while I don't think any kind of gun on the civilian market should be more restricted, I would be all for having rifles and shotguns more restricted if as a tradeoff handguns became less restricted. Personally I would like it if handguns and long guns swapped restrictions although ideally both would be less restricted.

I would guess handguns are more dangerous overall because it's much easier to sneak them in or carry around without others noticing. It's not only about power of weapon itself but also about how likely it would be used as deadly force.

If you understand how magazines and magazine fed guns work than you should know that banning high capacity magazines would be pointless in stopping or lessoning mass shootings. It takes a split second to slap in a new magazine once you shoot out all the bullets in the first magazine. And besides mass shooters don't use those really high capacity magazines, such as those 100 round drums since they're prone to malfunctions. Banning high capacity magazines will only inconvenience law abiding people that like to use guns for lawful purposes.

You might be right. I have not looked into what research shows on this particular point, if anything. That's not what the "expert" was talking about though. And I was pointing out what's wrong with the expert opinion expressed.

Most guns used in crime are gotten illegally so whether or not guns used in crimes in Chicago actually came from Chicago doesn't matter since the vast majority of them were illegally obtained anyway whether they were from Chicago or Indiana or anywhere else. So this means we should enforce existing gun laws instead of tightening them. If the gun laws in Indiana were well enforced than the criminals who commit gun crime in Chicago wouldn't be able to get the guns in Indiana that they used to commit the crimes with.

Some laws are simply too hard to enforce. If you allow guns all over the place, it's hard to enforce any kind of illegal ownership of them. That's why Chicago / Illinois are having problems despite themselves restricting the ownership.

On the other hand, if Chicago was more gun friendly like Indiana than that would give law abiding people a good method of fighting back against criminals and so it would cut down on crime in Chicago.

This directly contradicts research on the subject. Here is just one of many studies: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."

No, violence without guns can sometimes be worse than gun violence and often it is. For instance, bombings kill far more many people than shootings. Arson can kill more people than shootings. Vehicle assaults can kill more people, or at least just as many people, as shootings.

There is a reason why in US, where all those methods are available to killers' disposal, most killers prefer guns to all those other methods... by far... because guns are much more suitable for the purpose.

 

[Slavister]

Key word maybe. And violent crime could stay at its same level or most likely it would go up since law abiding people would be disarmed. And as I said before, violent crime without guns can be just as bad or worse as violent crime with guns.

Most research shows there is no maybe. (and I already responded to your other points in previous post where you made them earlier)

You do understand the Australia ban, don't you? All they did was ban semi automatic rifles and shotguns as well as pump action shotguns.

Do you know what they did? They did quite a bit more than what you just said, including adopting new licensing requirements, establishing a national firearms registry, instituting a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, and purchasing a bunch of firearms to further limit the circulation of available weapons.

Im not sure how often such weapons are or were used in violent crime in Australia but if violent crime did decline in Australia it was not because of the ban because if criminals didn't have access to such weapons they would just use other means. Of course criminals would no doubt access such weapons illegally since they're criminals.

Wishful thinking perhaps? You keep ignoring all the research that says otherwise.

If you want some simple explanations...
Criminals cannot steal guns from someone who does not have them.
Criminals cannot borrow guns from family / friends if they don't have them.
Neighbor's kid cannot become a criminal by getting his parents' gun if they don't have them.
Angry coworker cannot get guns without black market connections and having to meet with criminals and thus is less likely to shoot up an office.
Your law-abiding but disturbed neighbor can't in a fit of anger grab his gun and shoot your son if they don't have a gun handy.

As for suicide declining, making guns harder to get will not affect the suicide rate since Japan has among the strictest gun controls in the world and also among the highest suicide rate.

Japan has cultural reasons for high suicide rate. You cannot compare things in vacuum. A huge number of suicide decisions in US are done within 5 minutes of the suicide attempt. Availability of gun makes suicide that much more likely in such circumstances. People that study this stuff try to avoid exactly the pitfalls like you are falling into, i.e. to control for other variables that you are not aware of or forgot about or dismissed.

I would have to agree with you about 18 year olds not being able to buy guns voting for Republicans not Democrats since Republicans believe more in gun rights.

Glad we agree on something ... that "expert" did not make much sense.

If you're going to look at all homicides than you also have to look at the method of homicide. Not all homicides are with guns.

That does not invalidate the point. Studies show that this age group is dangerous. So it makes sense to limit their access to guns.

 

[jet57]

Yeah. It shows that some people can be dumb asses. Flash. Not all people are even close.

What it shows is exactly why guns need to be heavily regulated: do we need to get into mass shootings perpetrated by law abiding citizens, or are you ready to just stop - now.

 

[jet57]

Ok, I'll bite. Point by point break down between Fox's Tucker Carlson (blah! not surprising) and "firearms attorney":

1. Ban of ar-15/semi-automatic rifles would not stop shootings

Evidence exhibit A: "criminals don't obey laws"
What he got wrong:
- some shooters were NOT criminals PRIOR to these acts.
- criminals would have harder time getting mass killing machines.

Evidence exhibit B: 4 example crimes (one was not even a shooting) that did not involve AR-15/SA weapons.
What he got wrong:
- there are plenty of the examples that DID involve these weapons
- use of less powerful weapons in such mass shootings would have likely resulted in less fatalities

2. Banning high-capacity magazines would not help stop the carnage

Evidence exhibit C: 1994 ban did not work
What he got wrong: noone knows if it actually would have worked. It was too small of a ban and grandfathered too many guns already in circulation. Fact check:
"Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004."

3. Places with stricter gun conrol laws are NOT safer.
Evidence exhibit D: Chicago has string laws and high crime
What he got wrong: While Chicago & Illinois have strict laws, neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana) have very weak gun control laws and state lines of course don't have any kind of real border control. Unsurprisingly, this study found that a ton of new guns in Chicago come from other states. Most come from Indiana. To compare, 82% of guns recovered in crimes in Indiana itself came from Indiana itself. Chances are it would be even worse in Chicago if it weren't for the gun control laws.

4. You should try to stop all violence not just gun violence.
What he got wrong: Violence without guns is not as deadly as gun violence.

5. Yes, maybe use of guns will go down in crimes if you ban them.
Oh look, he got this one right!

6. In Australia, violent crimes went up after a ban.
What he got wrong: More importantly, number of people killed did not really go up but instead went down over time. Effect of enacted laws takes time, even years indeed. There is nothing wrong with that. Guns won't just disappear the next morning after the law is passed. Overall effect in Australia clearly supports gun control side of the argument: overall homicides were about the same for a few years and then have come down, as one would expect. Further, firearm related deaths in Australia dropped faster, in part because suicides have come down a lot (in other words, a lawful citizen returning their gun is less likely to shoot themselves in moment of despair). Yes, it takes longer for criminal activity to curtail than for suicides but both benefit from gun control, just at different rates.

7. Increasing age of gun purchase to 21 won't make a difference
Evidence exhibit E: Democrats want younger voters
What he got wrong: How does that even make sense? If 18 year olds cannot buy guns they will start voting for Democrats? If anything, that should help Republicans!

Evidence exhibit F: Raising age to 21 would not have stopped 29 of the "top 30" shootings.
What he got wrong: There is much more relevant data than cherry-picking 30 shootings. How about looking at all homicides? Here are some examples from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
- "Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000." (source)
- "Young people age 16-24 consistently have the highest violent crime rates." (source)
- "From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide." (source)

Very well done. The only problem is - you're confusing 'em with facts.

 

[jet57]

Well yes, and there's also this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI9tov6A2DI

Shall I whip out the video wherein a small women working behind a liquor store counter beats an armed robber and chases him away? Or maybe the story wherein a lone unarmed guy wrestles an AR15 out of the hands of a maniac in fast food restaurant saving everybody's lives?

Your logic is failed and flawed.

 

[TurtleDude]

What it shows is exactly why guns need to be heavily regulated: do we need to get into mass shootings perpetrated by law abiding citizens, or are you ready to just stop - now.

jet wants to ban guns from honest people before they do anything wrong even though the percentages of honest legal gun owners using a gun to murder is statistically non-existent. in reality-jet's main goal is to prevent those of us who live in non-banner states from owning guns his masters in California don't trust him to own

 

[TurtleDude]

Shall I whip out the video wherein a small women working behind a liquor store counter beats an armed robber and chases him away? Or maybe the story wherein a lone unarmed guy wrestles an AR15 out of the hands of a maniac in fast food restaurant saving everybody's lives?

Your logic is failed and flawed.

You should go bear hunting with your bare hands-I heard a report that some guy managed to kill a grizzly unarmed. Since he could do it-you can too. Picking aberrant actions to apply to everyone else is just plain stupid. we get the fact you are mad other people can own AR 15s with 30 round NORMAL capacity mags.

 

[MACS-24]

What it shows is exactly why guns need to be heavily regulated: do we need to get into mass shootings perpetrated by law abiding citizens, or are you ready to just stop - now.

How are law abiding citizens perpetrating mass shootings?

 

[TurtleDude]

How are law abiding citizens perpetrating mass shootings?

jet has claimed "we need to ban AR 15s until we get a handle on mass shootings"

talk about a fraudulent argument. tire irons are used to kill more americans than AR 15s

 

[MACS-24]

jet has claimed "we need to ban AR 15s until we get a handle on mass shootings"

talk about a fraudulent argument. tire irons are used to kill more americans than AR 15s

I'm quite baffled how jet thinks "mass shootings" (murders?) is a lawful activity.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm quite baffled how jet thinks "mass shootings" (murders?) is a lawful activity.

gun banners think supporting gun rights is the real crime so they tend to be rather silly on actually understanding what is lawful