More Guns, More Problems.

The Myth - Increase in guns, Increase in crime.

Counter-Argument

X & Y : Increase in guns, Decrease in crime.

2004 Florida Crime Rate Statistics

Per 100,000 Persons

- 711 Violent Crimes

- 5 Homicides

- 38 Rapes

- 172 Robberies

- 495 Assaults

- 956 Burglaries

- 450 Car Thefts

Source : US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004

Over time, many bills have been proposed in the ban of firearms for the average citizen, justified by the idea that by banning guns, crime will most certainly decrease. I cannot say that I agree with this statement for the following reasons. Crimes are committed by criminals, not by citizens who live day by day in order to support themselves and/or their families. It is not safe to assume that gun banishment will solve anything, crime will always exist. So why remove one of the most prominent defenses an average person has over a criminal? A criminal's job is simple, regardless of what type of crime they are committing, and that is dominance. Dominance is the one thing that allows a criminal to gain control of someone, whether it be a bank robbery or a back alley mugging. This dominance is usually gained by the use of deadly weapons, ie: guns, knives, blunt objects, etc. Why use such things? Because a criminal knows that 9/10 people are not carrying some sort of defense, and the use of something other than their physical being really helps them gain dominance very quickly. Now imagine a community where it is the complete opposite, where 9/10 people are carrying some sort of defense. Where does the incentive stand for a criminal to approach these people to perform an act of crime? When he knows, that he can no longer gain instant dominance forcing the person to cower, but now he has a situation where neither the predator nor the prey have been established. I feel that encouraging citizens to arm themselves in order to protect themselves from being victims of crime.

-vic

Ians Group

I am a firm believer that it's not the gun, but the person in control of it to blame. Don't blame the gun, blame the human holding it. More people, less laws and inexperience equals fatalities with firearms.

Ksaun

I understand and respect a persons right to own and carry a firearm, however i don't think that by increasing firearms we will decrease crimes, because a gun in the hands of an untrained person is more dangerous to the people he is protecting than the criminal. The gun activists have their right to try and increase the amount of guns in our society, but i don't think it is a wise decision. Also a line must be drawn as to where a person can have a gun. One state senator is trying to pass a bill that would allow a person to carry a gun in a bar.

Yeah, I agree with you guys. When I proposed my argument I swayed extremely one way, which I thought would help with the discussion. I can see where inexperience in handling firearms would become a serious problem, and another whole I found in my argument was simply way to many variables. But on the other hand I think we can come to a median with this situation, I would say something more a long the lines of self defense with non fatal weapons. I mean we can't say how many rapes, muggings, etc would have been prevented if the target was armed with some sort of defense, but we can show the general public that by arming themselves with knowledge and defense that crimes of that sort can be potentially prevented. I see it just like argument about wearing a seatbelt in a car, it takes a matter of seconds to increase your chance of living if you just so happened to get in to a car accident. Same thing with non fatal weapons, pepper spray, stun guns, even a whistle again not occupying to much space in your purse, pocket, or somewhere in your car can increase your chances of surviving an attack. But like you said moving to a state where self defense is fatal, it would take a lot of cooperation and training to get an entire community to live that way. Also, I'm just a hard head, and when normally you should try to lessen the situation, for example being mugged; by just letting the person take it, I would build it up far more than it should have ever been.

- v

Emilyyyyy, Sara and Allie's Opinion!

I don't really know where I stand on this one because you could easily make the argument both ways. I mean whos to say what would happen if guns were outlawed. People are still going to find way to get a hold of them. But then you could say make it legal for everyone to have one. In order for that to happen everyone would need to want a gun and that might not be the case. You could make the argument that if everyone owns a firearm the world would be much safer because an unarmed person makes an easy target for a criminal. Although that crimianl doesn't need a gun to attack an unarmed person they could use a knife or anything. Maybe if criminals knew everyone were protected they would be a little more hesitant about attacking civilians. If you dont have any means of protecting yourself you would be at the criminals mercy. Even if you were procted with any type of concealed weapon there is no way of knowing when an unsuspecting criminal while try something. If they sneak up behind you and stick you up they'll probably make sure you drop of any means you have of protecting yourself and you most certainly won't have time to draw your gun if you are already being held up. Even so there is still no evidence that firearms increase crimes and violence.

Dontae

I don't think we should be able to obtain guns, but I know we can't really do anything about it since it is one of our amendments. I also agree with Dontae that people will always find a way to get a gun even if the law was that we are not allowed to have guns. I believe without firearms in our homes then our world would be safer. Those families who have guns in their homes make it easy for children to get a hold of it and accidentally pull the trigger or take it to school and threaten someone. Schools would be safer and neighborhoods would be safer. Crimes would decrease because it makes it harder to rob a bank, or even murder someone if they don't have a gun.

I agree with you in terms of the schools and homes, I mean how many times have we seen on the news some kid playing with their parent's gun and shooting his friend? Or stealing their parent's gun and bringing it to school. The crime I see there is the responsibility the parent should have had to make sure that the gun was way out of reach of anyone but his/herself. I find it very hard to believe that if the parent went through the precautions of, trigger locks, safetys, case locks, and gun safe locks that their kids could some how manage to still get a hold of the gun.

In terms of murders, bank robberies, etc I don't think that any average civilian goes about these things. For example, if you look at murders in terms of homicide and "crimes of passion" homicide is usually premeditated, ie; drive-bys, gang wars, hits, etc. I don't think any of the people who take part in anything of that would pass the backround check for purchasing a gun legally. Then, you have the "crimes of passion", where it's 9/10 times not premeditated but just simply acting on impulse and on the spot. In these crimes you usually see like stabbings, blunt objects used, usually things that are available right away.

So with that said, I agree with you that they can be very dangerous in a normal household but that depends on the acting adult with the gun. Higher level crimes require real criminals that will find a way to get a gun regardless. So I really don't see the murder rate going down to much, but on the other hand I do see school shootings (except colleges) to go drastically down as well as accidental home shootings.

-vic

There was an article in the Local & State section of the St. Pete Times today called "The guns in their lives." It tells 3 different Tampa Bay Residents perspectives and why they think the way they do. So Check it out

-Emilyyyy

In class on Tuesday we covered the pro's of having the availability of guns being issued. As a class we came up with all these rules and regulations that would benefit and protect the whole community, but little did we think of all the negatives/cons. I think it was Drew that said that the only thing worse than a criminal with a gun is an inexperience citizen with a gun,how wrong you are my friend. I pose the question to you once again, What's worse than a criminal with a gun, besides your regular everyday citizens? I'll tell you, something that's worse than a criminal is a TRAINED criminal!!! Let's be honest, half of the guys out there trying to knock over a liquor store are inexperience in the art of weaponry. If we train and educate people as if its just a driving liscence, there could be hell to pay. In PERFECT EARTH, everyone gets along and everyone wants to earn a honest living.. But in REALITY if we put guns into trained hands of the modern day thugs, then gang warfare could escalate to a whole new level.

I don't want to seem one sided, I understand the positives of more people feeling safer in knowing that they can protect themselves. But is that sense of safety worth the lives that will be lost and the crimes that will inevitably take place. I'm not saying that evryone who will have a gun will automatically be violent or break the law, but certain people are already going to break the law, and a possible bad situation could escalate to a worse situation if that potential criminal is trained.

Joshua Garner

Well, like we talked about in our group the average criminal wouldn't be able to attend these types of course, unless of course they are a first time offender. I think what Drew means is the general population of current gun buyers and potential gun buyers should have to obtain training and receive gun education to lower the rate of accidental gun deaths.

-vic