TFLers: Need help delivering speech!

K

Knaret

Inactive
Hi all, need to present a pro gun-rights speech in the People's Republic of Boulder :( . Was going over some points with a friend and would like some help directly refuting this claim:

Abolishing guns will drive up the prices of illegal weapons which will make them less appealing to criminals. In addition, much stricter penalties would be enforced on any criminal with possession of a firearm, which would likewise make it less appealing to commit an armed crime.

Any statistics, information that help debunk this would be appreciated. Also, any helpful facts, hints, stories to make my speech more effective would be great as well.
 
"Abolishing guns will drive up the prices of illegal weapons which will make them less appealing to criminals. In addition, much stricter penalties would be enforced on any criminal with possession of a firearm, which would likewise make it less appealing to commit an armed crime."

You have set a hard task for yourself since both these statements are basically true.

Naturally I am not in favor of banning firearms, but it goes without saying that if they *were* banned, and thus became contraband, they would be more expensive to buy on the underground market. We have already seen this to some extent in the prices of "assault rifles".

If penalties for armed crime were substantially stiffer than for unarmed crime, it is reasonable to guess that there would be less armed crime. For this reason the NRA and other gun rights groups have for years tried to get lawmakers and judges to throw the book at criminals who commit crimes with guns. (This might be an opportunity to unexpectedly turn your opponent's argument around and use it against him.)

I would take a different approach in my argument. I would show (using real FBI numbers--do the research) how keeping guns from honest people does not reduce crime and does not reduce the ability of criminals to get guns. Show, perhaps using Britain and Australia as examples, how highly restrictive gun laws have led directly to increased levels of violent crime.

Tim
 
Abolishing guns will drive up the prices of illegal weapons which will make them less appealing to criminals. In addition, much stricter penalties would be enforced on any criminal with possession of a firearm, which would likewise make it less appealing to commit an armed crime.
Click to expand...

Borh of these statements are FALSE. Lets address them one at a time.

First:

Abolishing guns will drive up the prices of illegal weapons which will make them less appealing to criminals.

This has been tried in BOTH AUSTRALIA AND ENGLAND. The net result was crimes commited BY CRIMINALS WITH FIREARMS has spiraled out of control by 400 percent in England alone. Australian crime with firearms has also increased by a HUGE number, but think it's more along the lines of 200 percent. If a criminal needs a 'more expensive gun', he/she just commits MORE CRIMES, which makes the crime rate go up. IF guns were abolished, then ONLY CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS, giving them a huge advantage to those whom they wish to visit their sort of CRIME ON. Robbery is up in such huge numbers in BOTH places, even the citizens are starting to complain and in England, they has taken the FIRST STEP at getting their rights back on track.

Second:

In addition, much stricter penalties would be enforced on any criminal with possession of a firearm, which would likewise make it less appealing to commit an armed crime.

THE ONLY PEOPLE EFFECTED BY STRICTER PENALTYS are people who DON'T break the law in the first place. A CRIMINAL HAS NEITHER RESPECT FOR THE LAW nor cares about penalties when they get caught. Most know that of all crimes commited, only twenty percent ever end up 'solved', ie the police 'know' who did what. OF that twenty percent, less than half of those EVER actually go to court. OF THAT HALF (now down to 5 percent) are actually found guilty. From there, sentences range from PROBATION to LIFE IN PRISON. Yet criminals still persist.

WHY? Because the rewards are great.

They will still have guns.

Why? Because the advantage it gives them in THEIR LINE OF WORK (breaking the law) is worth almost ANY RISK that most normal people would avoid. That does NOT EVEN get into the fact that LOTS of criminals believe they WON'T get caught, regardless, or WORSE, go down fighting (think the LA SHOOTOUT with bank robbers using automatic weapons and wearing body armor).

So, unless your friends 'STRICTER PENALTY' is to KILL ALL ARMED CRIMINALS, ain't gonna really make a big dent in crime here or elsewhere.
 
In keeping with what Wallew said, its also important for them to understand the interstate nature of the illegal gun trade. Criminals will not be affected - they will merely have to go on a little road trip to a neighboring state or municipality to acquire their weapons. Whether by straw-man sale, theft, or other illicit means they will still have access to guns if they want them. And to be sure, if guns are made illegal it will help increase prices on the black market through a slightly decreased supply, but it will be for the increase in demand as a gun will quickly become even more of a status symbol for the criminal. Additionally while the gun toting criminal may know of the increased penalties, chances are they won't. Criminals rarely know all the legal ramifications of their actions, and moreover they geneally don't care. If they thought they'd be caught, they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. Ask any public defender if their clients for violent crimes have given much thought to their legal defense prior to committing their crime. Prohibition does not work as is evident by the 21st Amendment of the US Constitution and the current state of the "war on drugs".
 
IIRC the most recent edition of the NRA magazine American Rifleman has some statistics on Englands' crime rates. A statistic that really impressed me was the "unarmed" robbery rate was going through the roof. Without the potential equalizing power of a weapon, the law of nature(strongest survive) takes over.

If guns were outlawed the price would rise because their value as a force multiplier would rise. As a financial planner friend of mine says "in the abscence of value, price becomes an issue". As the value rises, market forces of supply and demand will adjust until there is an equalibrium of quantity desired by potential purchasers to inventory kept on hand by merchants unless some external force is applied to change the dynamics. We recenlty saw a good example of this with the AWB. The price of preban weapons and regular capacity magazines rose until an equalibrium of "X" dollars was reached for a given product. Once the artificial scarcity was ended, the price again adjusted to roughly pre-ban levels.

An unexpected by-product was the veritable explosion of the 1911 market throughout those years. The need for quality defensive products was still there it just needed to be satisfied some other way. In the same way, the "need" for a thief to have an overwhelming advantage will remain. If they are not able to use firearms we will see an increase in less-lethal force multipliers from OC to knives to baseball bats. The perpetrators will still be perpetrators and the victims will still be victims. Only now they will be more vulnerable.

The argument to have stronger punishment is a seperate issue which can and has been very effective in fighting gun crime. Philadelphia turns many of their gun cases over to the Federal judicial system because of their more stringent sentencing guidelines. As a result, both of fear of proscecution andfewer criminals on the street while serving their prison sentence, the number of gun crimes has decreased. These are effective, but are a seperate issue from bans.

Good Luck
 
the argument is a tough one to refute logically. however, the second amendment and gun rights in america based on the constitution are less about personal crime and more about government crime.
 
Slightly Different Approach

Knaret,

How about taking a slightly different angle:

Gun legislation, including gun bans, does not reduce violent crime. The National Academy of Sciences just issued a 328-page report on gun control laws in the United States. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and its own research, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. Since over 20,000 gun-related laws have been passed at the Federal, state, and local levels, this is quite a waste of taxpayer money and politician time.

Then follow up with the info about Canada, the UK, and Australia that others have mentioned here.

Good luck!
 
much stricter penalties would be enforced on any criminal with possession of a firearm, which would likewise make it less appealing to commit an armed crime
Click to expand...

That's why people still murder, even though there is the death penalty and life sentences.
 
If it were possible to abolish guns, the arguments might have some validity. However, it is simply not possible to abolish guns anymore than it's possible to abolish cocaine or heroin. And a thirty-some year long effort to abolish drugs has resulted in more drug use, not less.

The first major piece of gun control legislation, the Gun Control Act of 1968, placed more restrictions on gun purchases than had ever existed in the US. Previously, getting a gun was as easy as going to the local hardware store or filling out a coupon in a magazine. It was even legal for felons to buy guns.

What was the effect of the GCA of 1968? The homicide rate rose from 4.5 per 100,000 population in 1967 to 11 per 100,000 in 1973.

Another major piece of legislation--the Brady Law--was supposed to reduce the number of criminals getting guns. Yet, according to a BATF study, the number of criminals who got guns following the enactment of the Brady Law rose 16%.

Abolishing anything the public demands--booze, drugs, cigarettes, or even guns--has always resulted in organized crime stepping in to fill the vacuum. Already, gangs in New York City are engaging in bootleg cigarette turf wars, with the resultant increase in killings.

Trying to abolish guns will only create new "gun gangs" whose efforts will be directed toward smuggling them in from other countries or killing rival gang members to steal their guns.

The Law of Unintended Consequences sometimes works very predictably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top