More Gun Control Data

[Skm1091]

I'm making a speech against gun control in my speech class. I've covered black market manufacture but do you know of any criminologists, stats or studies(peer reviewed etc) that shows crime increasing after gun control is enacted?

Do you also have any data that can show that the murder rate might be underestimated in countries that have enacted gun control like the UK and Australia?

and do you know any rebuttals these arguments.

1.So what if the violent crime rate goes up gun murders and murders in general are down.

2. you are more likely to injure yourself with guns etc.

3.I would rather be stabbed /raped etc then shot

4.Police will protect us.

5. guns are deadlier than knives/etc.

6. little to no school shootings in places with gun control

I am also considering using government crimes vs civilian crimes. And the Hypocrisy of gun control advocates support for these candidates

For example Castro, Pol Pot, Clinton's Sanctions, Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Drone Strikes etc.

They will most likely respond with that Saddam could have keep them fed or Clinton could not do anything about it because he has to go through a committee or the Republicans stopped him blah blah blah. They will also say bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to end war

Any rebuttals for these? I am not gonna give my opponents even a fraction of an inch.

I would appreciate it

[AnCap Dave]

4.Police will protect us

Police hold no obligation to protect anyone. Courts have made that ruling on more than one occasion.

[Skm1091]

1.So what if the violent crime rate goes up gun murders and murders in general are down.

2. you are more likely to injure yourself with guns etc.

3.I would rather be stabbed /raped etc then shot

4.Police will protect us.

5. guns are deadlier than knives/etc.

6. little to no school shootings in places with gun control

My responses

1. What the hell makes you so sure that murder is correlated with guns. UKs murder rate 1920 was 0.08/100000 today it's 1.2/100000

2. That stat does not even ask what injured the gun owner.

3. You can still die from being stabbed you know, This is like saying I would rather be abused for the rest of my life then be killed by my abusive husband. It is a Disgusting argument

4. Just as D said

5. And the knife is deadlier than a rock. Rocks can still kill!!

6. If your taking about Australia. All I have to do is point to New Zealand, which has looser gun laws and they only had ONE school shooting in it's history. And anyone can just point to Switzerland. If they point to the UK all I have to do is point to all the BOMBINGS they had through out twentieth century, like the Omagh Bombing

I think I should add this as well

7. guns serve no other purpose but to kill

My response. SO WHAT. Same could be said for bows and Arrows and Swords. You plan on banning archery and swordsmanship too?

[Goaticus]

1."So what if the violent crime rate goes up gun murders and murders in general are down."

Yeah, violent crime, big deal.

2. Less likely than with cars.

3. I wouldn't.

4. Yes, after you're raped and robbed the police can shoot your dog.

5. People tend to flee after someone makes a single noisy shot. With a knife you can finish what you started.

6. Not true.

[Skm1091]

I am also considering using government crimes vs civilian crimes. And the Hypocrisy of gun control advocates support for these candidates

For example Castro, Pol Pot, Clinton's Sanctions, Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Drone Strikes etc.

They will most likely respond with that Saddam could have keep them fed or Clinton could not do anything about it because he has to go through a committee or the Republicans stopped him blah blah blah. They will also say bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to end war

My response to this bit:

Castro, Pol Pot should be pretty obvious

Some guy told me when I brought up Clintons sanction is that he would have need to gone to a community to lift the sanctions or saddam could have fed his people instead of his troops. I told him that Clinton is commander and chief meaning he has 100 percent control of the military. Saddam could have fed his people for a while but what about when the food runs out?

Japan was trying to surrender for MONTHS before the bombings. They bombed them anyways.

They also told me that those children were not innocent. All I can say to this is OMG. The Obama administration does not even know who they are targeting and sometimes even bombed funerals. If you still support this you are a murderer supporter in my opinion

Before they say it was the republicans fault all I can say is what stopped Obama from passing the TSA through executive order? Or how about going against the supreme court with the ruling against the westboro baptist church several podcasts ago. And again He is COMMANDER AND CHIEF.

[dallen68]

My major concern with the gun control issue, especially in it's current run through is I'm not a fan of legislation that makes nothing different.

1. At least in the county I live in, you are already supposed to get a license to buy a gun at a gun show, or buy one from a neighbor, or even receive one as a gift from a family member living in the same house. (No idea whether this is enforced at all; or if anyone follows it if it is, but on paper, anyways...). Moving it to the state or federal level isn't going to make a bit of difference.

2. Assuming the studies showing it to be X many more times likely that (insert catastrophic result here) will happen than stopping a crime have some element of truth; more background checks won't help. More training and education will. I'm under the impression there are courses you can take offered by gun clubs and such.

3. In 3 out of the last 5 major news catching gun related incidences, the gun(s) did not belong to the person that committed the crime. It was a parent's gun, or a friends gun, or some other thing. Is the background check going to be extended to everyone you may have contact with?