• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down

gfm7175 said:
Well, "accurate scholarly research" sure as heck ain't gonna be on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc...
Click to expand...

It sure ain't Breitbart, Fox or the NRA either. LOL
 
DebateChallenge said:
Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDu0YDeqNk
Click to expand...


Wow, how surprising, posting a youtube clip as an argument., Let me guess, its full of all the idiotic talking points and no actual substance like most pro gun people post

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

(source)
Click to expand...

Thanks for actually taking the time even though the hacks don't care about actual facts and logical arguments. Without even watching I could tell you it would be complete crap, given what serves as arguments from right wingers on this forum.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Thanks for actually taking the time even though the hacks don't care about actual facts and logical arguments. Without even watching I could tell you it would be complete crap, given what serves as arguments from right wingers on this forum.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that constant citing of Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano just lends no credence to a logical argument.
 
DebateChallenge said:
In the USA we've got the 2nd Amendment which means ordinary citizens should have access to the same weapons an individual soldier uses.
Nukes are not used by individual soldiers but post-86 FA weapons are which means as of right now ordinary citizens, even those who haven't committed crimes, are being treated like criminals. Another words our system is corrupt and needs to be fixed. To outlaw semi automatic "assault weapons" would introduce even more corruption.
Click to expand...

2A says nothing of the kind. Just to remind you, it says "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." It clearly talks about weaponry being available for security of a free state (against federal government) and to be used by militia to fight the government. Well, the Feds have nukes. So should militia!

There is nothing there about having weapons comparable to individual soldiers.

DebateChallenge said:
1. Stealing would be harder if lawful owners would properly secure their weapons. As for lending, anybody who lends weapons to criminals is breaking the law thus its not something a law abiding person would do. Most gun owners in the USA are law abiding.
2. Even if guns were more scarce it would only be a matter of time for criminals to find other means to harm and kill, or for criminals to find ways to get guns anyway. Adding more gun restrictions and bans might bring about a temporary drop in violent crime but soon we would be just back where we were, except that law abiding citizens would have a harder time getting guns and thus it would be harder for them to protect themselves against criminals.
Click to expand...

" if lawful owners would properly secure their weapons ". "IF" is the key word there. It does not happen. Guns are stolen all over the place. Theft of gun is prevelant and theives usually steal guns over anything else. Stats are overwhelming on gun stealing. The less guns are out there to be used for criminals, the harder it is for them to kill people. It's not complicated. And yes, people can borrow guns just as easily from friends and family (not to mention steal from friends and family!!).

DebateChallenge said:
Its not widespread and available to everybody. By law criminals can't have access to guns. As for me and others like me, I've got good training, Im good at handling guns, and I don't commit violent crimes so I should have access to guns and so should others who meet those criteria.
Click to expand...

Guns are not widespread?! I don't know what you call wide spread but by almost any definition, in US, they ARE wide spread!

DebateChallenge said:
But they're less likely to kill. If you've ever noticed in mass shootings most if not all of the killing is usually done with long guns. The bad guy might be carrying handguns as backup weapons but their primary weapon is usually if not always a long gun. You don't need to sneak or carry around a long gun as much as you do a handgun because you can hit and kill somebody from much further away. Obviously handguns can and do kill but most of the time handgun shots just injure whereas most of the time rifle and shotgun shots kill. I would be more concerned with somebody carrying around a bomb than a handgun. A bomb can be just as concealable as a handgun but if set off in a crowd can kill more people. And bombs are often homemade.
Click to expand...

Bombs are harder to make and more dangerous (for killers) to handle. Guns are much easier. Your argument that long guns are involved in more crimes than handguns is dead wrong. "Handguns are used in about nine times as many murders and eight times as many nonfatal violent crimes than rifles, shotguns, and other firearms combined." (source)
 
DebateChallenge said:
At Front Sight in Pahrump, NV just about everybody has guns and there's no crime there.
Click to expand...

So, you'd rather be in a restaurant or a movie theater where everyone has a gun rather than noone?

DebateChallenge said:
That study is flawed. It only takes into account justified shootings. It does not take into account the fact that most of the time when guns are used to stop criminals a shot is not fired. Usually when a criminal is confronted by a citizen with a gun the criminal will give up. Notice that police carry guns but rarely ever use them in the line of duty. That's because they usually don't need to, the mere fact that police have guns which they can use is enough to keep most situations from escalating to the point where they have to use them.
Click to expand...

I see your point here but it's very hard if not impossible to find reliable statistics on that deterrant effect. Surveys play on biases and tend to overexaggurate the effect by way too much (in part because it's a small percentage of cases, so small errors extrapolate to large meaningless numbers too easily). Also, how do you account for the opposite effect, where if someone did NOT say they had a gun, they'd be just robbed, but threatening with a gun got them into a shootout and got them killed or injured?

DebateChallenge said:
On the contrary as much as 70 percent of violent crime in the USA is hand to hand, which means the criminal is not using a gun but rather using weapons that require them to get close to their victims such as knives, clubs, bare hands ect.
Click to expand...

Nice try to change subject. I did not say violent crimes. We were talking specifically about killings. You know, just those crimes where outcome = death. Sure, there could be a lot more bar fights that don't involve a gun but that's not relevant to the point you and I were discussing and it does not seem very important. *You* were talking about killings. And I was responding about killings. Most kills (in US) happen with a gun, not with all those other things you were talking about.

DebateChallenge said:
Alright, that being the case than its culture that leads to high suicide rates not the availability of guns.
Click to expand...

No, it's a combination. If you have culture "fixed", easily available gun ownership makes it much more likely within that culture. There are plenty of studies showing suicide rates higher in states with more guns. (And states are much closer to each other in their suicide culture vs comparing USA with Japan)

DebateChallenge said:
How am I comparing things in vacuum?
Click to expand...

Japan has strong cultural reasons for suicide. Since you don't account for huge different in culture when it comes to suicide, you are comparing things in vacuum.

DebateChallenge said:
Usually its going to take much longer than 5 minutes to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

Yes, but most suicides by gun are not because people decide to commit suicide and then go to buy a gun. Mostly they are already owners of guns and have guns in home. That's why suicides are so affected by high ownership of guns. That's where 5 minutes comes in.

DebateChallenge said:
I've known many many 18-24 year olds and the vast vast majority of the 18-24 year olds I've know or know are not dangerous and are not criminals.
Click to expand...

Your anecdotal personal evidence is a meaningless response to clear overall statistics.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Guns are not widespread?! I don't know what you call wide spread but by almost any definition, in US, they ARE wide spread!
Click to expand...
Considering the millions of law abiding gun owners in the USA I would say you're right about guns being widespread among that crowd, and its quite a large crowd, but what I was saying is that guns are not by law available to criminals so its at least not legally widespread to criminals. As for guns being illegally widespread to criminals, I would say we should fix that by working more on enforcing existing gun laws that say criminals can't have guns, and criminals should also be doing longer prison sentences instead of being paroled out or let off on plea bargains.

Slavister said:
Bombs are harder to make and more dangerous (for killers) to handle. Guns are much easier. Your argument that long guns are involved in more crimes than handguns is dead wrong. "Handguns are used in about nine times as many murders and eight times as many nonfatal violent crimes than rifles, shotguns, and other firearms combined." (source)
Click to expand...
Its possible to make a bomb that could blow up a building with materials you can get at a hardware store or supermarket. As for bombs being more dangerous for killers to handle, often the killers don't care. Ever notice that with mass shootings the shooters often kill themselves? Mass killers just want to kill as many innocent people as possible and they don't care if they get killed in the process, as a matter of fact some of them consider it an honor.

As for handguns being used in more violent crime than other guns, perhaps, but handguns are also used the most for upholding the law and for lawful self defense.
 
Slavister said:
So, you'd rather be in a restaurant or a movie theater where everyone has a gun rather than noone?
Click to expand...
Considering the fact that I've been in rooms with over a hundred people where everybody has a gun I would say yes.

Slavister said:
I see your point here but it's very hard if not impossible to find reliable statistics on that deterrant effect. Surveys play on biases and tend to overexaggurate the effect by way too much (in part because it's a small percentage of cases, so small errors extrapolate to large meaningless numbers too easily). Also, how do you account for the opposite effect, where if someone did NOT say they had a gun, they'd be just robbed, but threatening with a gun got them into a shootout and got them killed or injured?
Click to expand...
Look up the Kleck & Gertz study. Lots of people in the anti 2A crowd like to call the Kleck & Gertz study a flawed study but thats only because they can't accept the facts of reality. As for people getting injured or killed instead of just robbed because they used a gun, I doubt that happens that often and even if it did I would rather be able to fight back against a criminal than be at their mercy with the hopes that they might just rob me.

Slavister said:
No, it's a combination. If you have culture "fixed", easily available gun ownership makes it much more likely within that culture. There are plenty of studies showing suicide rates higher in states with more guns. (And states are much closer to each other in their suicide culture vs comparing USA with Japan)

Japan has strong cultural reasons for suicide. Since you don't account for huge different in culture when it comes to suicide, you are comparing things in vacuum.
Click to expand...
The fact that Japan has such a high suicide rate is proof that you can have very restrictive gun laws and still have high suicide rates and whether or not that's because of culture the proof is still there. If its because of culture than as I said suicide rates are the result of culture not the result of the availability of guns. I will also point out that there are other countries with restrictive gun laws that have higher suicide rates than the USA. Sweden has a higher suicide rate than the USA. Austria has a higher suicide rate than the USA. France has a higher suicide rate than the USA. Poland has a higher suicide rate than the USA and even a higher suicide rate than Japan. If its culture that causes suicide, as in the case of Japan, than we should work on changing our culture to make it less suicide oriented. While American culture might not be at the level of Japan in terms of being suicide oriented there certainly is the element of it since suicides do occur in the USA.

Slavister said:
Yes, but most suicides by gun are not because people decide to commit suicide and then go to buy a gun. Mostly they are already owners of guns and have guns in home. That's why suicides are so affected by high ownership of guns. That's where 5 minutes comes in.
Click to expand...
In that case a waiting period with the goal of reducing gun suicides as some people suggested would be pointless.

Slavister said:
Your anecdotal personal evidence is a meaningless response to clear overall statistics.
Click to expand...
Do you really think most 18-24 year olds are dangerous people? Even if most dangerous people fall within that age range I wouldn't say that most 18-24 year olds are dangerous. I would say gender is a much bigger factor when it comes to dangerous people than age. Men are far more dangerous than women.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Considering the millions of law abiding gun owners in the USA I would say you're right about guns being widespread among that crowd, and its quite a large crowd, but what I was saying is that guns are not by law available to criminals so its at least not legally widespread to criminals. As for guns being illegally widespread to criminals, I would say we should fix that by working more on enforcing existing gun laws that say criminals can't have guns, and criminals should also be doing longer prison sentences instead of being paroled out or let off on plea bargains.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with more severe sentences for gun possession by criminals. However this logic is wrong: "guns are not by law available to criminals so its at least not legally widespread to criminals". Just because guns are not lawful for criminals to have, it does not mean they are not widespread among criminals. When general public can get guns easily it makes it very hard to enforce a law preventing criminals from having them. It also makes it much easier for criminals to steal them from so many targets.

DebateChallenge said:
Its possible to make a bomb that could blow up a building with materials you can get at a hardware store or supermarket. As for bombs being more dangerous for killers to handle, often the killers don't care. Ever notice that with mass shootings the shooters often kill themselves? Mass killers just want to kill as many innocent people as possible and they don't care if they get killed in the process, as a matter of fact some of them consider it an honor.
Click to expand...

I never said it's impossible. Yes, bombs are possible to make and all but reason most are choosing guns when given a choice is clear - guns are much easier to use to kill.

DebateChallenge said:
As for handguns being used in more violent crime than other guns, perhaps,
Click to expand...

wait... "perhaps"? there is no perhaps there.

DebateChallenge said:
but handguns are also used the most for upholding the law
Click to expand...

I don't mind law enforcement having guns to uphold the law.

DebateChallenge said:
and for lawful self defense.
Click to expand...

There would be less need for guns in self defense if guns weren't so wide spread and available to criminals. Further, as I mentioned, statistics on this particular point are unreliable and unknown. Yes, that indeed includes pro-gun studies like the one you mentioned in next post. Finally, it's not clear if "lawful self defense" attempts using guns helps or hurts more.
- Jox X might have 3 guns for lawful self defense, and maybe even threaten someone when he thinks they are after him (thus later claiming self defense use), but then one of his other guns gets stolen and used to commit 3 murders.
- Jane Y might be passing by a suspicious guy staring at her on the way to a store and shows she has a gun. Later she claims she used it for self defense, since the felt she might have prevented something (whether or not she really did). Her answer on the survey gets extrapolated to 100,000's of people and pro-gun lobby claims self defense in millions of cases.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Considering the fact that I've been in rooms with over a hundred people where everybody has a gun I would say yes.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between being in a situation and preferring it over another one. If you really prefer to be in a restaurant or a movie theater where everyone has a gun over one where noone does, then you are in quite a minority.

DebateChallenge said:
Look up the Kleck & Gertz study.
Click to expand...

Well aware of it.

DebateChallenge said:
Lots of people in the anti 2A crowd like to call the Kleck & Gertz study a flawed study but thats only because they can't accept the facts of reality.
Click to expand...

Almost... Rather, pro-gunners like to use their survey extrapolation despite its flaws. As you mentioned, plenty of flaws in fact have been pointed out. Here are some:
- Surveys work when you look for something that happens a lot. When instead you look for small number of cases, small errors result in large errors when you extrapolate.
- Say you are looking for something that really happens 1% of the time. You ask 100 people. If out of 99 cases where it DID NOT happen a single person says it did, you just doubled the true number. The mistake in opposite direction is much less likely since that 1 person which HAD this happen would have not reported it.
- Gun owners responding to these surveys would be more prone to claim a defensive gun use, either on purpose or not. This IS the main justification for many people for why they have a gun. So, many people want to instinctively think they've used the gun for self-defense when they may not have.
- Whether use of gun in self defense is benefiting or not is unclear. It's hard to survey DEAD people who tried to use their gun in self defense and died AS A RESULT. It's also hard to survey DEAD people who simply had a gun for self defense but it got used against them (and then stolen of course).

There are a lot more reasons and lots of text has been written on this but pro-gunners just like to stick with this fantasy that 1 out of every 32 gun owners is using gun in self defense each and every year.

DebateChallenge said:
As for people getting injured or killed instead of just robbed because they used a gun, I doubt that happens that often and even if it did I would rather be able to fight back against a criminal than be at their mercy with the hopes that they might just rob me.
Click to expand...

I'd rather drive a car at 250 miles an hour. It does not mean it's wise for population as a whole.

DebateChallenge said:
The fact that Japan has such a high suicide rate is proof that you can have very restrictive gun laws and still have high suicide rates and whether or not that's because of culture the proof is still there. If its because of culture than as I said suicide rates are the result of culture not the result of the availability of guns. I will also point out that there are other countries with restrictive gun laws that have higher suicide rates than the USA. Sweden has a higher suicide rate than the USA. Austria has a higher suicide rate than the USA. France has a higher suicide rate than the USA. Poland has a higher suicide rate than the USA and even a higher suicide rate than Japan. If its culture that causes suicide, as in the case of Japan, than we should work on changing our culture to make it less suicide oriented. While American culture might not be at the level of Japan in terms of being suicide oriented there certainly is the element of it since suicides do occur in the USA.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. Yes, culture may have a lot to do with. So does economy. So do other factors. The point is that you have to FIX all those other variables to see if adding more gun availability increases or decreases suicides. The answers are clear - it INCREASES by a lot. How do we know? By comparing much more alike places where those other variables are not nearly as different. So, for example, comparing states within US. As well as by comparing same place before and after laws change.

DebateChallenge said:
In that case a waiting period with the goal of reducing gun suicides as some people suggested would be pointless.
Click to expand...

I almost agree. I would guess waiting period over 12 hours will unlikely make a large difference for suicides.

DebateChallenge said:
Do you really think most 18-24 year olds are dangerous people? Even if most dangerous people fall within that age range I wouldn't say that most 18-24 year olds are dangerous. I would say gender is a much bigger factor when it comes to dangerous people than age. Men are far more dangerous than women.
Click to expand...

Noone ever said "most 18-24 year olds are dangerous people". Are you really not following? What all the data shows is that among dangerous people, younger ones are more dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
You missed the point. Yes, culture may have a lot to do with. So does economy. So do other factors. The point is that you have to FIX all those other variables to see if adding more gun availability increases or decreases suicides. The answers are clear - it INCREASES by a lot. How do we know? By comparing much more alike places where those other variables are not nearly as different. So, for example, comparing states within US. As well as by comparing same place before and after laws change.
Click to expand...

The government is not Constitutionally empowered to create laws that are specifically designed to decrease availability of firearms to law abiding citizens.
 
Rucker61 said:
The government is not Constitutionally empowered to create laws that are specifically designed to decrease availability of firearms to law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Well they certainly have done that....or laws that have that effect.
 
Slavister said:
I have no problems with more severe sentences for gun possession by criminals. However this logic is wrong: "guns are not by law available to criminals so its at least not legally widespread to criminals". Just because guns are not lawful for criminals to have, it does not mean they are not widespread among criminals. When general public can get guns easily it makes it very hard to enforce a law preventing criminals from having them. It also makes it much easier for criminals to steal them from so many targets.
Click to expand...
You can make guns accessible to the law abiding public and still enforce laws prohibiting criminals from getting guns. When you buy a gun you have to go through a background check to see if you're a criminal. As for criminals stealing guns, they make stuff such as gun safes that gun owners can use.


Slavister said:
I never said it's impossible. Yes, bombs are possible to make and all but reason most are choosing guns when given a choice is clear - guns are much easier to use to kill.
Click to expand...
On the contrary bombs usually kill more people than guns. The only possible downside is that a bomb will often kill the user as well, but as I said before killers often don't care. I would say its easier to make a bomb than to steal a gun.

Slavister said:
wait... "perhaps"? there is no perhaps there.
Click to expand...
If you're going to quote me you shouldn't take what I say out of context nor should you slice apart what I say. You should take what I say in whole.

Slavister said:
I don't mind law enforcement having guns to uphold the law.
Click to expand...
Citizens should have the option to have guns too, when seconds matter the police are minutes away.
 
Slavister said:
Noone ever said "most 18-24 year olds are dangerous people". Are you really not following? What all the data shows is that among dangerous people, younger ones are more dangerous.
Click to expand...

Also among dangerous people, men are more dangerous. Your point?
 
DebateChallenge said:
You can make guns accessible to the law abiding public and still enforce laws prohibiting criminals from getting guns. When you buy a gun you have to go through a background check to see if you're a criminal. As for criminals stealing guns, they make stuff such as gun safes that gun owners can use.
Click to expand...

Once again, I am all for stricter enforcement and background checks for all private sales and all that (are you?)... but at the end of the day, it's much harder to enforce the laws when there are so many guns around and thus so many opportunities to get the guns. Regarding gun safes - clearly they are not working. Or do you suggest we make it a LAW that all guns must be stored in locked gun safes until a self-defense usage (or training)?

Further, none of these enforcements will do any good for cases of
- increased suicides by gun owners
- law-abiding owners that one day take their gun and BECOME criminals by using it

DebateChallenge said:
On the contrary bombs usually kill more people than guns. The only possible downside is that a bomb will often kill the user as well, but as I said before killers often don't care. I would say its easier to make a bomb than to steal a gun.
Click to expand...

Once again, most deadly crimes are committed with guns, not bombs. People that choose to commit these crimes prefer gun over bombs by far.

DebateChallenge said:
If you're going to quote me you shouldn't take what I say out of context nor should you slice apart what I say. You should take what I say in whole.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I changed any meaning of what you said. My point is that you recited a well known fact and added "perhaps" as if there is some doubt there. No, "perhaps" is needed there, even though I know you want to doubt it.

DebateChallenge said:
Citizens should have the option to have guns too, when seconds matter the police are minutes away.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the question... Should they have that option if it means overall more of them will die as a result? (through all those other reasons we had already discussed)
 
Last edited:
DebateChallenge said:
Slavister said:
Noone ever said "most 18-24 year olds are dangerous people". Are you really not following? What all the data shows is that among dangerous people, younger ones are more dangerous.
Click to expand...
Also among dangerous people, men are more dangerous. Your point?
Click to expand...

Ok, since you seem to have forgotten...

The "expert" in your OP video tried to imply that increasing minimum age of obtaining a gun to 21 would not make any difference. As evidence (that I marked as "exhibit F" in my original response), he indicated that 29 of the 30 "top" mass shootings would not have been stopped.

So, to remind you, my point is that his evidence is completely wrong and cherry-picked. The more correct statistic to look at shows that younger offenders ARE more in fact more dangerous, despite him trying to imply otherwise. Therefore, it might indeed make sense to raise the required age for gun ownership.
 
Slavister said:
Ok, since you seem to have forgotten...

The "expert" in your OP video tried to imply that increasing minimum age of obtaining a gun to 21 would not make any difference. As evidence (that I marked as "exhibit F" in my original response), he indicated that 29 of the 30 "top" mass shootings would not have been stopped.

So, to remind you, my point is that his evidence is completely wrong and cherry-picked. The more correct statistic to look at shows that younger offenders ARE more in fact more dangerous, despite him trying to imply otherwise. Therefore, it might indeed make sense to raise the required age for gun ownership.
Click to expand...

If that "most dangerous age group" of 18-20 year old adults are no longer to legally purchase or own firearms, won't that leave the age group of say "21-25" as the new "most dangerous age group", and allow the logic and precedent that allowed government to prevent the previous "most dangerous age group" from owning guns to then be applied to this new "most dangerous age group"? Wasn't just being in the "most dangerous age group" sufficient to allow the loss of a Constitutionally protected right?
 
Rucker61 said:
If that "most dangerous age group" of 18-20 year old adults are no longer to legally purchase or own firearms, won't that leave the age group of say "21-25" as the new "most dangerous age group", and allow the logic and precedent that allowed government to prevent the previous "most dangerous age group" from owning guns to then be applied to this new "most dangerous age group"? Wasn't just being in the "most dangerous age group" sufficient to allow the loss of a Constitutionally protected right?
Click to expand...

The main point is that the "expert's" justification in the OP video is laughable and wrong. He did not make your point above. He made a point that is easily disproved.

As to your point, there is always some balance that people try to find on how to limit the rights of individual so they don't interfere with rights of other individuals. Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or incite violence despite 1st Amendment. That's where all the gun control is coming from. Some of us think most guns should be banned based on available research. Others believe any and all "Arms" should be allowed to be owned by anyone. Overall laws try to balance the two because owning too powerful weapons (all the way to nukes, bazookas, tanks, but also including automatic weapons, and various other modifications and attachments designed to increase killing capabilities) would end up hurting basic rights of others way more than supporting rights of the owners. Where on that spectrum is the age cutoff is questionable, given that the group is more dangerous that the more mature gun owners.
 
Last edited:
vegas giants said:
I don't get my information from youtube.
Click to expand...

Really.There is more information on YouTube than any person can watch and learn. I love browsing the AC/Heating videos put out by the manufacturers. Plus the videos put out by some of the smartest people today are so superior to any book. A picture is worth a thousand words and video is worth thousands if not millions of pictures. You just got to look at the source carefully.
 
Slavister said:
You missed the point. Yes, culture may have a lot to do with. So does economy. So do other factors. The point is that you have to FIX all those other variables to see if adding more gun availability increases or decreases suicides. The answers are clear - it INCREASES by a lot. How do we know? By comparing much more alike places where those other variables are not nearly as different. So, for example, comparing states within US. As well as by comparing same place before and after laws change.
Click to expand...
Do you have any examples of the suicide rate declining as the result of more gun restrictions being put in place? As for comparing states within the USA as you point out there are many factors. Just because a certain state has a higher suicide rate and less gun restrictions the higher suicide rate is not necessarily a result of less gun restrictions. Take for instance Alaska, Alaska has among the least gun restrictions of all the states and also one of the highest suicide rates of all the states. However, that could be a result of the Alaskan environment causing depression. Alaska has long, cold, dark winters which can easily make people very depressed and thus more prone to commit suicide. So, Alaska could be a state with a high suicide rate that just happens to have few gun restrictions. After all, there's also the state of Texas which is very gun friendly but has a much lower suicide rate, that should also be considered.

When you look at other countries you will find there are many countries that have higher suicide rates than the USA even when you exclude Japan which you claim its because of its culture as to why it has a high suicide rate. For instance Finland has a higher suicide rate than the USA and its more restrictive with guns than even the most gun restrictive states in the USA.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Do you have any examples of the suicide rate declining as the result of more gun restrictions being put in place?
Click to expand...

Yes, from around the world:

Australia
we find that the withdrawal of 3500 guns per 100,000 individuals reduced the firearm suicide rate by close to 80 per cent, and had no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates.
Click to expand...

Canada
Analysis showed a significant decreasing trend after passage of Bill C-51 on the firearm suicide rate in Canada and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis supports the position that restricting easy access to lethal methods of suicide may assist in reducing suicide.
Click to expand...

USA (New England Journal of Medicine)
In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns.
Click to expand...



DebateChallenge said:
As for comparing states within the USA as you point out there are many factors. Just because a certain state has a higher suicide rate and less gun restrictions the higher suicide rate is not necessarily a result of less gun restrictions. Take for instance Alaska, Alaska has among the least gun restrictions of all the states and also one of the highest suicide rates of all the states. However, that could be a result of the Alaskan environment causing depression. Alaska has long, cold, dark winters which can easily make people very depressed and thus more prone to commit suicide. So, Alaska could be a state with a high suicide rate that just happens to have few gun restrictions. After all, there's also the state of Texas which is very gun friendly but has a much lower suicide rate, that should also be considered.
Click to expand...

Clearly, to eliminate cultural differences, it makes much more sense to compare states within United States than US vs Japan. Yes, Alaska could be more different from other states due to its unique geography. But studies that look at this, look at all 50 states and results are all the same. For example this study finds

Our results were supportive of a potentially vital role in suicide prevention for state legislation that limits access and exposure to handguns.
Click to expand...



DebateChallenge said:
When you look at other countries you will find there are many countries that have higher suicide rates than the USA even when you exclude Japan which you claim its because of its culture as to why it has a high suicide rate. For instance Finland has a higher suicide rate than the USA and its more restrictive with guns than even the most gun restrictive states in the USA.
Click to expand...

Finland? You keep looking for specific counter examples. Instead, I suggest you look at the overall trends. There will always be counter examples to any overall trend, but the trend is what suggests whether availability of guns causes more suicides or not... And in this case it does. Here is a study looking at this:

11 European countries, Australia, Canada and the United States. Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide [...] There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership
Click to expand...

In case you are wondering, yes, Finland was included among the 11 European countries.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Finland? You keep looking for specific counter examples. Instead, I suggest you look at the overall trends. There will always be counter examples to any overall trend, but the trend is what suggests whether availability of guns causes more suicides or not... And in this case it does. Here is a study looking at this:

'Our results were supportive of a potentially vital role in suicide prevention for state legislation that limits access and exposure to handguns.'
Click to expand...

How does the US Constitutionally limit access and exposure to handguns, and how does the US prevent the substitution effect of other firearms (typically cheaper than handguns)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom