Crazed Rabbit vs. Waldinger [legality of handguns]

[Sigurd]

Waldinger's second rebuttal

“The USA has traditionally had a higher murder rate than countries like Canada and Britain.”

The USA has also traditionally had a higher supply of handguns then those two countries.

“If anything, this suggests the very opposite; crime decreases with more firearms.”

That is incorrect. A closer look at the graph you provided will show a more complicated picture. Handgun ownership only began to have a significant increase in the 60s and from the early 60s until about 1973 total homicide and handgun homicide rose accordingly. The rise in homicide from the mid 80s until the early 90s can be attributed to the rise in popularity of crack cocaine. The subsequent decrease in homicide during the 1990s can actually be explained by the legalization of abortion 20 years earlier. Less poor and unwanted babies in the 70s means less violent 18-24 year olds (the statistically most violent age group) in the 1990s. So as you can see there are more important factors in the crime rate then the number of handguns available. Except, of course the increase homicide rate during the late 60s and early 70s which corresponds with the boom in handgun ownership.

(http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/)

“The US Center for Disease Control recently did a study on various gun laws and found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude a single law or combination of gun control laws worked to lower crime.”

Insufficient evidence does not mean that they don’t work. It means that the CDC doesn’t have the resources to make a conclusion about whether or not they work. I have insufficient evidence to determine whether or not you are a human. For all I know you could be a robot or you could in fact be a highly intelligent rabbit.

“Studies suggest around three quarters of criminals would switch to using sawed off shotguns if they could not obtain handguns, which result in more people being killed by criminals due to the increased lethality of shotguns.”

If shotguns were better than the criminals would have already switched to them.

“Are you arguing that self defense is not a natural human right?”

You were attempting to back up your assertion by giving it credibility through age. I was merely pointing out that old ideas aren’t always wise. I am arguing that making handguns illegal would lead to less case where self defense was even needed.

Fixed that paragraph for you.

”Do you have anything of substance or evidence to dispute my version?”

The reasons you gave as to why a handgun was ideally suited to self defense was also why they are ideally suited to criminal activities.

“Ghandi had this to say, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” That statement seems to lament rendering a people defenseless.

MLK preached non violent protest against the government to affect change, which is not the same as preaching against self defense.”

Yes, I admit that MLK was taking about protesting against the government. What do you think that Gandhi wanted those guns for? He would have wanted them to overthrow the British, not to defend himself from criminals. Besides, the nonviolent revolution that resulted partly because of the lack of guns resulted in many fewer deaths than if it was an insurgency with firearms.

“In countries like Britain with low firearm ownership, the rate of “hot” burglaries is much higher than in the US”

But the murder rate in Britain is much lower. I would rather be robbed than dead.