Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

New York city is safe because it has strict gun laws

Finished

The voting period has ended

After not so many votes, surprise surprise...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
New York city could not be as safe as it is without strict gun laws
Round 1
Published:
I'm going to make this simple because I'm a simple kind of man just like the Lynyrd Skynyrd song , Crime in New York is at an all time low 
1) " New York City Achieves Record-Breaking Low Crime in 2018. 1,207 Fewer Incidents in 2018 versus 2017 Marking the Lowest Number of Index Crimes, Robberies, Burglaries and Shootings in Modern Era.Jan 3, 2019
New York City Achieves Record-Breaking Low Crime in 2018 ..."

https://www1.nyc.gov › site › nypd › news › new-york-city-achieves-record...
2) In fact it is so low for two straight months the homicide rate dropped below that of London's "Was The Claim True?
In the narrowest sense, the claim was actually true for a short period of time. There was a short stretch in early 2018 in which there were fewer than expected murders in New York City and an unusually high number of murders in London.  This occurred in February and March of 2018.  However, even during that quarter-year, there were more murders in New York City than London due to a great disparity in January of 2018." https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/03/20/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-why-londons-murder-rate-is-not-higher-than-nycs/
3) My main point is this strict guns laws had a lot to do with this low rate of crime, not 100% but a lot https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/#NY thats my argument in a nutshell
thanks for playin 
Published:
I’d like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate, and hope it concludes with both parties having presented well-structured, interesting and polite arguments for the enjoyment of our readers.
 
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 [1]. 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 [2], yet our major cities – London, Birmingham and my own Manchester – are currently subject to a widely reported and empirically verified increase in violent crime [3]. 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 [4], 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 [5].
 
Thank you. I await my opponent’s response.
 
[1] https://dataunodc.un.org/GSH_app
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46984559
[4] https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/reports_publications/when_death_is_sought/chap4.htm
[5] https://medium.com/@tgof137/gun-ownership-rates-do-not-predict-gun-violence-rates-dafbc8984ce1

Round 2
Published:
cONSERVATIVES  always used to complain about strict gun laws in new york, notice they dont do that any more ? thats because new york is a success story on so many levels including gun control https://buffalonews.com/2019/08/05/how-new-yorks-red-flag-gun-law-is-supposed-to-work/
Published:
I thank my opponent for keeping his response brief.
 
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.
 
Thank you.

Round 3
Published:
My opponent alligator dude seems to have one main beef that i have failed to show a co relation between strict gun laws and low crime rates.. co relation does not prove causation they say. okay fair point fair point.. so i guess i have to find some evidence that there is a co relation.. wait a minute.. just a minute , almost there.. okay i found over 130 studies that prove my point here we go.. ready?


"But in 2016, researchers took a broader view - the team reviewed 130 high-quality studies conducted in 10 countries over the past 60 years. And while they stopped short of saying they've conclusively proved that gun restrictions equal fewer deaths, the research provides pretty powerful evidence to suggest that it's the case."

and more?
Published:
I thank my opponent for identifying the crux of my ‘main beef’ with his arguments in this debate, namely that he has so far failed to either explain (through logical sequencing) or demonstrate (through empirical evidence) that there is any significant causative correlation between the two phenomena embedded in the motion.
 
If I could remind my opponent, the motion is “New York City is safe because of strict gun laws.” As I elucidated in my opening remarks, this motion, alongside my opponent’s framing of this debate as relating to public safety, thus crime, means my opponents needs to demonstrate that New York’s strict gun laws are the primary consequential factor in the reduction of gun crime. The evidence presented so far does not meet this criteria, for several reasons:
 
The first (and perhaps most pedantic) reason is that neither of my opponent’s sources – the Giffords study and the Santaella-Tenorio study – use localized data analysis of the direct, thus causative effect of New York’s gun control legislation within New York, city or state. This happens to be a pretty glaring omission considering that’s the topic we’re debating.
 
The second reason, which again applies to both sources, is that the studies do demonstrate a correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer gun deaths generally, but both include successful suicide attempts in those figures, which renders them inadmissible. As mentioned, this debate relates to public safety and crime, and suicide is not a crime in the state of New York, nor is it strictly a public safety, nor even a public health concern if my opponent wishes to stretch our definitions. Indeed, I have already demonstrated in Round 2 that if you factor this in to my opponent’s Gifford data, the trend line risk actually reverses, which suggests (though not conclusively) the complete opposite of what my opponent is trying to claim in general.
 
Third, it would be worth highlighting that the summary of the Santaella-Tenorio study actually supports the point I made in Round 1 of this debate. Quote:
 
“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.”
As I said in Round 1, global data on violent crime, including gun crime has shown a precipitous decline across the world for decades, especially in nations with advanced economies, and similar reductions in New York City are not a notable exception. The study provided as evidence supports this point by acknowledging the lack of control variables as of significant detriment to any conclusive claim of causality.
 
Consider, for example, the following counter-proposal to my opponent’s gun law thesis, based on the objection of additional variables: crime prevention techniques and modern law enforcement are more operationally, thus psychologically impactful, and this has directly caused a reduction in crime. The psychological literature indicates that while the severity of a consequence has little deterring effect on crime, the likelihood of suffering a consequence does [1]. With the invention of more accurate and remote central deadlocking, tracking and alarm systems in vehicles, better and more widespread home protection technologies, and more CCTV cameras, as well as advancements in forensic and evidence-based policing, it could much more convincingly be suggested that these are of much greater consequence to safety in the modern world (New York City included) than a particular and isolated system of gun control [2]. It would be wrong to attribute primary causation to these developments as a counter-proposal, and I do not seek to present it as such; nevertheless, this small example is greatly more logically and scientifically compelling than any of the unsupported assertions of my opponent.

Thank you.
 




Round 4
Published:
I mentioned 130 studies you tried to tried that is to refute only two 
also i want to do something novel i'm going to make the argument that Switzerland is a good argument to prove stricter gun laws work 

Switzerland? wait hear me out .. the Swiss are always used as an argument to prove that gun control laws are unnecessary , Israel is too both societies have populations that are heavily armed
however that is because guns are given to military people and both societies have a lot of people in militias, both are in fact excellent examples of what a well regulated militia SHOULD look like instead of a rabble of drunk red necks that were useless from the start   
"In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”"https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-blames-militia-for-problems


"Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region, known as a canton, though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement.
But cantonal police don't take their duty dolling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived before to vet the person."https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2#gun-sellers-follow-strict-licensing-procedures-7

"srael exists under constant threat of attack — and requires citizens to serve in the military — but still has much stricter gun laws than the United States.
And those laws limit violence.
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/

Published:
I thank my opponent for educating me about firearms legislation around the world. I am already familiar with the Swiss system, though I am as yet unfamiliar with Israeli practices. I will endeavour to research that particular country.
 
Rebuttal 1: Switzerland
 
We’re not talking about Switzerland.
 
Rebuttal 2: Israel

We’re not talking about 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.

I suspect my opponent will break with convention in the final round and introduce a new line of argumentation. I hope he will use the opportunity to finally present something substantive.

Round 5
Published:
We are talking about Switzerland and we are talking about Israel we are talking about every place where strict gun laws work
including Singapore

Cities in the USA with stricter gun laws on average have lower crime rates simple as thatRemember that old requirement that gun owners in Chicago register their firearms with the city and obtain a permit? Well, that's gone too.
And thanks to the Illinois General Assembly, which was pressured by the federal courts to pass a concealed carry law in 2013, people can walk the streets of Chicago with a gun attached to their waist and another strapped to their ankle.
Sorry, gun lovers, your attempts to use Chicago as a prop to bolster your claims that gun control laws do nothing to curb gun violence just don't hold up.Chicago does not have the strictest gun laws in the country. It's time for gun lovers to stop spreading that lie.A decade ago that was indeed a title Chicago wore proudly. We were the only major city that still had an ordinance banning residents from keeping a handgun in their home.

manuvering to keep gun stores and shooting ranges from opening in the city limits. But the courts have ruled against us on that, too, so we know it's just a matter of time.
  Remember that old requirement that gun owners in Chicago register their firearms with the city and obtain a permit? Well, that's gone too.
And thanks to the Illinois General Assembly, which was pressured by the federal courts to pass a concealed carry law in 2013, people can walk the streets of Chicago with a gun attached to their waist and another strapped to their ankle.
Sorry, gun lovers, your attempts to use Chicago as a prop to bolster your claims that gun control laws do nothing to curb gun violence just don't hold up.

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."

Chicago with much laxer gun laws Chicago's homicide rate had surpassed that of Los Angeles by 2010 (16.02 per 100,000), and was more than twice that of New York City (7.0 per 100,000) in the same year. By the end of 2015, Chicago's homicide rate would rise to 18.6 per 100,000. as Chicago's gun control laws were eliminated their crime rate soared
Forfeited
Added:
please consider my good conduct in not forfieting
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @Harleygator
Also, it's legal to hunt humans. It makes no sense to me, but Senator Feinstein said it, so it must be true.
#4
Added:
--> @SirAnonymous
Ah, but don't forget, Sir, that they can fire 30 rounds in half a second, and kill 93 million Americans every single day!
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
"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.
#2
Added:
--> @Harleygator, @PaulVerliane
I'm more inclined to agree with PRO's position but they just don't have a good case.
CON seems to have a much better argument.
#1
No votes yet