Help me with this debate!

[Kaos]

So i have another forum I visit where I am debating teh usefulness of the second amendment and I asked for his true points on why he doesnt like it.

Id like some help on this one to win it in one go.

Originally Posted by me

We can agree to disagree (ala the first amendment Wink ) about the constitution. The second amendment is there to give the people genuine power if it comes down to it. The UK removed people's right to bare arms and homicide actually increased. If it's not a gun, it's some other thing.

For sake of an interesting conversation, what is your stance on how the 2nd does more harm than good?

Originally Posted by him

The UK's homicide rate didn't go up. They actually have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

The reason is that:

1. With a gun in the house the chance of a suicide in the house rises by 500% over a house without a gun in it
2. 80% of homicides are commited by guns that were legally registered and stolen.
3. If you have a gun in your house, the person it is most likely to kill is the person who owns it.
4. With less access to guns will come a compounded problem in buying a gun. Off the street a 9mm pistol is cheaper than buying one in a shop since the overhead is generally nill, seeing as it was stolen. If there is no longer this source of free weaponry the weapons then available will rise in cost, and therefore fewer people will be buying unlicensed weapons due to economy and that will result in fewer gun related homicides.

I feel that no one outside of the military or police agencies should be allowed to carry or even own arms. I imagine there are some people that there could be exceptions to. One would be retired professional soldiers. No one would ever be able to doubt their knowledge of gun safety and their mental where-with-all around guns.

I know #3 was falsified by including suicides into the firearms used against their owners numbers, but Id like to slam this out of the park.

[billamj]

John Lott's blog.

Lots of good information there including information from all of his books.

[LittleRedToyota]

don't focus on the murder rate (which is calculated differently in england than here anyway), focus on the overall violent crime rate...especially the home invasion and robbery rates.

england's rates are waaaaaayyyyyyy higher than ours. in addition, home invasions in england generally happen while people are home...because the robbers know that this means it is less likely that a security system will actually be turned on. while, here in the USA, very, very few home invasions happen while people are home...because the robbers know they might get shot.

here are some links for the stats to back up these arguments:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/general-2...n-control.html

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/L...nsBurglars.htm

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/ic...000i/index.htm

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/ic...-icvs-app4.pdf

also, australia...which also has gun control to the point of nearly banning guns...has waaaaayyyyy higher violent crime rates than us.

the empiricial evidence is actually overwhelmingly in support of the idea that gun control does not lead to reduction in violent crime, and, in fact, often leads to increases in crime (as criminals know their vicitims will be unable to fight back).

show him some of the empirical evidence in the above links and then ask him to show you any empirical evidence that support his side. then, when he cannot, explain that public policy should be based on a rational and objective analysis of empirical data rather than emotional fantasy.

(ETA: also, ask him for citations to back up the statistical claims he has made that you posted above.

also explain that a 100lb woman should not be forced to try to fight off a 200lb would-be rapist with her bare hands because someone else might be more likely to commit suicide if they are allowed to have a gun in their home.)

[jcabin]

"I feel that no one outside of the military or police agencies should be allowed to carry or even own arms. I imagine there are some people that there could be exceptions to. One would be retired professional soldiers. No one would ever be able to doubt their knowledge of gun safety and their mental where-with-all around guns."

---well thats wrong, there are plenty of military personnel who just get passed quals and arent even allowed a position where they handle fire arms because they are so terrible. I've seen news reports and videos on youtube of military people who have mishandled weapons. Ive got friends in different branches of the service who attest to the fact alot of people are terrible with guns and dont want them watching their back, because they might get shot by their own guy.

Also, i dont know where he got his info from, because the crime rate in Britain has GONE UP. Since gun ban, the homicide rate JUMPED. They dont need guns, they use knives. Guess what, theyre now banning the sale of KITCHEN KNIVES to anyone except for commercial use. What does that say for gun control.

[WhiteFeather]

Changed his quote to show how silly it is.

4. With less access to PRESCIPTION DRUGS will come a compounded problem in buying a DRUG. Off the street a PRESCIPTION DRUG is cheaper than buying one in a shop since the overhead is generally nill, seeing as it was stolen. If there is no longer this source of free PRESCIPTION DRUGS the DRUGS then available will rise in cost, and therefore fewer people will be buying unlicensed DRUGS due to economy and that will result in fewer DRUG related DEATHS.

[PisnNapalm]

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[sluggie24]

I don't know if you realize this but you will never win the arguement with this guy. Just by reading the little bit you posted I can tell he knows nothing about firearms and would be suprised if he has ever even seen a firearm in anything but a movie. The bad part is he THINKS he knows about firearms with all the false facts he has digested. You will not convince him he is wrong. He already has it ingrained in his mind how he feels. He is a lost cause. You should mearly post accurate statistics for others to read(who may be saved) and leave the discussion on an up note.

[Statkowski]

"I feel that no one outside of the military or police agencies should be allowed to carry or even own arms."

In other words, he wants a police state where the government has no fear of its citizens since they've all be subjugated.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

In other words, he wants a police state where the government has no fear of its citizens since they've all be subjugated.

Sounds kinda like COMMUNISM!!!!
Also like some Pres. candidates are wanting!!!!!

[ErSwnn]

Originally Posted by PisnNapalm

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Thanks for the great link....just stayed up 2 hours after my bedtime reading it. I feel better armed now to debate gun issues from my pro perspective.