New York city is safe because it has strict gun laws
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
- Required rating
New York city could not be as safe as it is without strict gun laws
I will, of course, be arguing against the motion, “New York City is safe because it has strict gun laws.” I note that my opponent has framed the debate in relation to crime. It is my contention that New York’s gun control legislation, and indeed gun control legislation more widely is largely inconsequential as a contributing factor in declining rates of violent crime and homicide. Therefore, I will primarily respond to my opponent’s arguments in a series of rebuttals, acknowledging that my opponent bears the burden of proof, but will raise additional and original points if necessary.
Point 1: Record Low Crime in New York
Whilst I acknowledge the accuracy of this claim by my opponent, I take issue with it on technical grounds. I thank him for directly citing crime statistics from his source – which is, if you’ll permit me to say so, lazy debating – but note, as I hope do the voters, that my opponent has presented no accompanying logic pertaining to the motion. Global data on violent crime has shown a precipitous decline across the world for decades, and similar reductions in New York City are not a notable exception . As mentioned, the burden of proof of the motion rests on my opponent; he has identified a trend, but not one which a reasonable assessment can conclude as correlative, much less causative.
Point 2: Comparison between London and New York
Again, I thank my opponent for providing some statistical context. Again, too, do I note the absence of logical causation as it pertains to the motion. Indeed, if one takes that evidence as read, the opposite conclusion could well be drawn to that which my opponent is supposed to be proposing. As we know, firearms legislation in the UK is highly stringent , yet our major cities – London, Birmingham and my own Manchester – are currently subject to a widely reported and empirically verified increase in violent crime . If New York’s increasing levels of safety are to be causatively attributed to strict gun laws merely through correlation, my opponent ought to be able to explain why the UK, whose gun regulations are much more far-reaching should find itself subject to such trends despite apparently having greater correlative cause not to.
Point 3: Gun Laws & Low Crime Rate
In this final point, my opponent simply states the motion. I hope, in the next round, he can expand upon that view with a greater level of description. I will respond, however, to the source provided, as I believe it to be highly misleading. The Giffords study attempts to show the correlation between “weak” gun law climates and higher gun deaths per capita in American states. Indeed, the data does show that in states which have tighter gun laws, there is a general trend of fewer gun deaths per capita. However, I would like to point out that we are not in fact discussing gun deaths in this debate – we are discussing gun crime, as per the framing of my opponent’s introductory case. When looking at the data in the Giffords study, we learn that they have included suicide in their figures; it is not a crime to attempt (or commit) suicide in the United States , nor is suicide strictly a matter of public safety. Thus, we can discard these statistical trends as insufficient causative evidence in support of the motion due to it being an inaccurate data set as it pertains to the motion. Further, we note that the correlation between strict gun laws and lower deaths and vice-versa is driven by the inclusion of suicide; when considering homicide only, as is proper, we find no correlation, and in fact a negative trend line between gun accessibility and gun deaths .
Thank you. I await my opponent’s response.
Response 1: Conservative Complaints
This is pure hyperbole. My opponent has presented no evidence of a decline in criticism of New York’s gun laws, and has proved no link between this alleged decline and the implied implicit acknowledgement of the success of New York’s gun laws.
Response 2: New York is a Success Story
I agree with my opponent that New York is indeed a tremendously successful place, not least as a cultural phenomenon recognised throughout the world. This point, however, is largely conjectural, and my opponent has provided no evidence of success as it pertains to the motion.
Response 3: Red Flag Laws
I thank my opponent for keeping us up to date with developments in firearm legislation. The source he provided is an interesting read for those who wish to know the process behind New York’s recent instantiated Red Flag laws. That said, the source contains no data related to efficacy of that particular law, or indeed gun control regulations in general, and can and should be dismissed as irrelevant. It should also be noted that any data my opponent may subsequently provide as evidence of the success of this particular law will be dismissed as premature, as the law itself was only passed three months ago, an insufficient period in which to gather and assess relevant data.
“There are limitations to the studies being analysed here. For starters, all of them were observational, which meant that researchers couldn't control for variables. That's a problem, because there are a whole lot of other factors in society that influence gun deaths outside of gun law, and by simply looking at the data after the fact, those patterns aren't always obvious.”
Israel has a lower gun-related homicide rate — and that’s not because it’s an intrinsically peaceful society.
In fact, public health literature suggests that if Israel had more guns, it would have more firearm deaths.
Even those Israelis who pass through extensive hoops to get a firearm permit can only own one gun. And that’s a handgun — not a semi-automatic rifle capable of rapid fire. There are also limits on ammunition."https://nypost.com/2018/02/15/israels-gun-control-laws-can-make-the-us-safer-too/
Rebuttal 1: Switzerland
We’re not talking about Switzerland.
Rebuttal 2: Israel
Rebuttal 3: 130 Studies
My opponent claims to have provided evidence from 130 studies, and suggests that I ought to refute each and every single one. Both of these propositions are utterly ludicrous.
My opponent did not submit 130 studies for consideration: he submitted one crude data comparison of American states (Giffords), and one crude global aggregate report (Santaella-Tenorio). In both cases, I tackled the sources as presented, and in the particular case of the Santaella-Tenorio, provided compelling evidence from within the report itself that supported an earlier point I’d made. Neither provided any specificity relating to the motion, and my opponent has yet to respond to a single one of my objections about this. I do not have to respond to any or each of 130 studies which were not themselves individually presented as evidence; even if they were presented individually, my opponent has yet to demonstrate why I should respond, for example, to a study about Brazil when we’re debating about New York.
Following a common thread I have repeated on several occasions, my opponent has set both the motion and the framing of this debate, yet seems incapable of abiding by his own engagement rules which I have patiently been reminding him about for four consecutive rounds. I have offered my opponent multiple opportunities to make a point about the motion we’re actually discussing, yet his reticence can only stand as testament to the fact that he is utterly incapable of proving even a tangential link between gun control and public safety in New York City.
New York, in fact, has stricter gun laws on the books than Chicago. And guess what? Its homicide numbers are heading toward historic lows. Los Angeles has some pretty tough gun laws too. Its homicide numbers also pale compared with Chicago's.
New York, in fact, has stricter gun laws on the books than Chicago. And guess what? Its homicide numbers are heading toward historic lows. Los Angeles has some pretty tough gun laws too. Its homicide numbers also pale compared with Chicago's."
Also, it's legal to hunt humans. It makes no sense to me, but Senator Feinstein said it, so it must be true.
Ah, but don't forget, Sir, that they can fire 30 rounds in half a second, and kill 93 million Americans every single day!
"And that’s a handgun — not a semi-automatic rifle capable of rapid fire."
Semiautomatic firearms are not capable of rapid fire. You pull the trigger and you get one shot. The rate of fire is limited by how fast you can pull the trigger. The exact same thing is true of the vast majority of handguns.