Crazed Rabbit vs. Waldinger [legality of handguns]

[Sigurd]

Greetings dear Backroomers,

This will be the first of hopefully many debates that will be run here in the Backroom.
I advice that you do not post anything here as it is reserved CR and Waldinger only.
This thread will be locked and opened at my word.

This thread is dedicated to the debate between Crazed Rabbit and Waldinger. They are debating the legality of hand guns.
Upon a toss of a coin Waldinger goes first.


Sigurd

[Sigurd]

Opening statement by Waldinger

The best away to lower the crime rate in the United States is to make the possession or sale of all handguns illegal.

The United States has more murders per person than any country in Western Europe or Canada. Ineffective legislation against handguns is a major component of why the United States has such a high crime rate. In 2007 90 guns were owned for every 100 U.S. Citizens. Canadians posses 31.5 guns for every 100 Canadians. The United States has 5.9 murders every year for every 100,000 citizens. Canada has a murder rate of 2.01 murders for every 100,000 citizens. The Canadians own one third as many guns per person as the U.S. and their murder rate is also one third of the U.S.

While those figures show a correlation between number of guns per person and number of murders per person they fail to show the disproportianate affect that handguns have on crime. The Homicide rate in the United States was in a state of rapid increase during the 1980s and into the early 1990s. While homicides involving handguns resulted almost entirely in this increase most homicides involving other murder weapons actually experienced a decline in prevalence. With homicides involving firearms handguns were by far the most prevalent. In fact, 75% of firearm related homicides involved a handgun. This compares to 4% with rifles and 5% with shotguns. The rest of the percent was where the type of firearm was unknown.

Like the U.S., the Swiss have a high rate of gun ownership. In fact, all male Swiss citizens between the ages of 21 and 50 are issued fully automatic weapons and ammunitition so that they may perform there annual military obligations. However, unlike the United States, the Swiss have strict laws against the possesion of handguns. Also unlike the U.S., the Swiss have a fairly low crime rate.

Handguns are used almost entirely for self defense. Unfortunately they fail miserably at their one task and in fact significantly contribute to the problem which they try to prevent. For the betterment of the peoples the possesion and/or sale of handguns in the United States should be made illegal with strict punishment for people who break this law.

Note: Source is Wikipedia and the sources provided by Wikipedia.

[Sigurd]

Opening statement by Crazed Rabbit

Handguns: A Tool for Self Defense

“The right of self defense,” said St George Tucker, Revolutionary War veteran and legal scholar, “is the first law of nature.”

This idea was not new even in the time of Mr. Tucker. This basic concept has been around for thousands of years, and set forth in documents such as the English Bill of Rights and the American Constitution. This right is universal, supported by leaders of great religions; the Dalai Lama said it would be reasonable to shoot back at someone who is shooting at you. Pope John Paul II spoke of “the right to self defense” and how “'legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State'." Restrictions on self defense run against this natural right, this basic freedom.

It is reasonable for people to desire to use self defense effectively, that its practice may be useful to them. For self defense that is not effectual is of no worth. And the best way to increase the effectiveness of self defense is by using tools, specifically firearms. Indeed, research has shown that resisting crimes with a weapon leads to less injury than not resisting at all.

And of all firearms, handguns are uniquely suited for self defense. They are not big or cumbersome, come in a variety of sizes and models, and can be easier to use for some people. Perhaps most importantly, they are easier to carry around.

For criminals strive to strike their victims when they are at their weakest. And if people are forbidden from carrying arms with them criminals will know no-one can resist them with great force in the streets of a city. So handguns are necessary that people may practice this natural right in all places. Logic tells us that good people will not misuse weapons, and that people who will misuse them will pay no heed to laws. Research tells us that neither the proliferation of handguns in a society nor the ability of people to carry handguns increases the crime rate.

[Sigurd]

First rebuttal by Waldinger

“This basic concept has been around for thousands of years,”

Slavery has also been around for thousands of years. Age is not always proof of wisdom.

“Pope John Paul II spoke of “the right to self defense” and how “'legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State'."”

While we’re quoting famous people, Jesus preached non-violence. The words of Jesus should carry more weight than the words of the Pope who is merely representing Jesus. Gandhi also preached non-violence. So did Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

“And of all firearms, handguns are uniquely suited for CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES. They are not big or cumbersome, come in a variety of sizes and models, and can be easier to use for some people. Perhaps most importantly, they are easier to carry around.”

Fixed that paragraph for you.

“And if people are forbidden from carrying arms with them criminals will know no-one can resist them with great force in the streets of a city.”

There are these people called police officers.

“Research tells us that neither the proliferation of handguns in a society nor the ability of people to carry handguns increases the crime rate.”

I’m sure that you have a source but I would like to see it.

[Sigurd]

Crazed Rabbit's first rebuttal

The best away to lower the crime rate in the United States is to make the possession or sale of all handguns illegal.
The United States has more murders per person than any country in Western Europe or Canada. Ineffective legislation against handguns is a major component of why the United States has such a high crime rate. In 2007 90 guns were owned for every 100 U.S. Citizens. Canadians posses 31.5 guns for every 100 Canadians. The United States has 5.9 murders every year for every 100,000 citizens. Canada has a murder rate of 2.01 murders for every 100,000 citizens. The Canadians own one third as many guns per person as the U.S. and their murder rate is also one third of the U.S.

This is an interesting assertion by Mr. Waldinger. He seems to imply that gun availability causes crime. However, he only quotes a few select statistics to show this. Showing the whole picture, of course, would paint quite a different picture. The USA has traditionally had a higher murder rate than countries like Canada and Britain. But, more importantly, it has a violent crime rate that is near the lowest it’s been since the Justice Department first reported rates in 1973. This is while handgun and firearm ownership in the US was increasing. Homicides are around the lowest rate since the 1960s USA, again with increasing handgun ownership. If anything, this suggests the very opposite; crime decreases with more firearms.
( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/na...=1&oref=slogin )
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. The claim that handguns cause crime just doesn’t stand up to the facts.
( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm )

While those figures show a correlation between number of guns per person and number of murders per person they fail to show the disproportianate affect that handguns have on crime. The Homicide rate in the United States was in a state of rapid increase during the 1980s and into the early 1990s. While homicides involving handguns resulted almost entirely in this increase most homicides involving other murder weapons actually experienced a decline in prevalence. With homicides involving firearms handguns were by far the most prevalent. In fact, 75% of firearm related homicides involved a handgun. This compares to 4% with rifles and 5% with shotguns. The rest of the percent was where the type of firearm was unknown.

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.
(National Institute of Justice http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/lrstlupl.htm )

Like the U.S., the Swiss have a high rate of gun ownership. In fact, all male Swiss citizens between the ages of 21 and 50 are issued fully automatic weapons and ammunitition so that they may perform there annual military obligations. However, unlike the United States, the Swiss have strict laws against the possesion of handguns. Also unlike the U.S., the Swiss have a fairly low crime rate.

Yet Switzerland has more lenient handgun laws than Canada and Australia, but a lower homicide rate than both those countries.
( http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/lrstlupl.htm )

Handguns are used almost entirely for self defense. Unfortunately they fail miserably at their one task and in fact significantly contribute to the problem which they try to prevent. For the betterment of the peoples the possesion and/or sale of handguns in the United States should be made illegal with strict punishment for people who break this law.

That is an interesting definition of failing miserably. Multiple studies have shown there are over 2 million defensive uses of a gun per year in the United States (far more than illegal uses of guns). Clearly, the use of a gun to defend yourself is no myth or exaggeration; the effects of handgun ownership by the population are real and beneficial.
Using a gun in self defense is very effective, according to studies.
( http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html )
( http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html )

********

“This basic concept has been around for thousands of years,”

Slavery has also been around for thousands of years. Age is not always proof of wisdom.

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

“Pope John Paul II spoke of “the right to self defense” and how “'legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State'.

While we’re quoting famous people, Jesus preached non-violence. The words of Jesus should carry more weight than the words of the Pope who is merely representing Jesus. Gandhi also preached non-violence. So did Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Yes, let us quote Jesus [Luke 22:36]: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” That certainly sounds like a suggestion to arm one’s self.
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.

Fixed that paragraph for you.

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

“And if people are forbidden from carrying arms with them criminals will know no-one can resist them with great force in the streets of a city.

There are these people called police officers.

Perhaps that is the reason criminals do not attack police officers; they know they are armed and can be easily identified. However, no police force can be everywhere to stop crimes in progress; nor defend all people. One of the reasons criminals in the US avoid burglarizing homes late at night is because they can’t tell if people are present, and the fear of getting shot. In countries like Britain with low firearm ownership, the rate of “hot” burglaries is much higher than in the US; criminals don’t have nearly as much to fear.
( http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html )

I’m sure that you have a source but I would like to see it.

I’m happy to oblige: http://www.guncite.com/

My position remains true and evident from the facts; Logic tells us that good people will not misuse weapons, and that people who will misuse them will pay no heed to laws. Research tells us that neither the proliferation of handguns in a society nor the ability of people to carry handguns increases the crime rate.

[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.

[Sigurd]

Crazy Rabbit's second rebuttal

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

Can you provide some evidence for this? The US has had a higher rate for many decades, even when gun ownership in Britain was not heavily regulated, as it is now.

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.

What an interesting interpretation. So handgun ownership affects homicide levels when both are increasing, but has no effect when handgun ownership increases while homicides fall? I suppose saying anything else would be admitting that handguns really don’t increase crime. Why, though, do you have such faith a handgun ban will decrease 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.

They researched multiple studies to come to the conclusion they reached. Yes, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, but it does mean you can not claim to have any evidence that handgun bans will work. Your entire premise rests on an illusion.

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

The important point here is that criminals will simply use other weapons if they cannot procure handguns. This study shows that their switching to shotguns would result in even more deaths. Criminals, even without handguns, will always manage to get some weapon. A great flaw in your argument seems to be the idea that criminals only commit crime because they have handguns. Crime, of course, has been around for all of history and with all manner of weapons.

Even if you manage to take the handguns out of criminal hands, they will still arm themselves. But law abiding citizens will be at a much greater disadvantage. Like I said before, the victim is statistically less injured when they fight back with a weapon.

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.

Unless you are attempting to argue against the idea of self defense, I don’t see why you need to devote time to such an effort. Or perhaps it is because your other arguments do not hold water.

How do you come to that conclusion, since murder and other violent crimes have dropped as handgun ownership has increased? The majority of states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons if they are not felons and obtain a permit, yet violence has not increased in those states, directly contrary to the claims of anti-gun organizations.

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.

Disarming a whole nation, as the British did, is a macrocosm of individual self defense, and as such violates that ‘first law of nature’ on a much greater scale. The nonviolent revolution was only possible because the British were reasonable; far different from the type of mentality that leads to invading a country or assaulting a person.

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

I think you’re missing the point of that paragraph; burglars are discouraged by the prospect of running into armed defense and so do not go into houses that are occupied nearly as often as criminals in Britain do. In fact, were the US to have a similar rate of ‘hot’ burglaries, there would be about 450,000 more burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. Now simply apply the logic behind burglars not wanting to rob houses with armed residents to muggers and the like. Would they not wish to avoid robbing armed victims?

Perhaps that’s why criminals favor gun control:

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." (Mobster Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, interviewed by Howard Blum.)

( http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html )

[Sigurd]

Waldinger's last rebuttal and conclusion

" Why, though, do you have such faith a handgun ban will decrease crime?”

Why do I have faith in a handgun ban? Because countries with strict controls on the sale and possession of handguns have a much lower rate of crime then the United States. I have specifically given examples of the lower violent crime rate in Canada, Britain, and Switzerland. If the control of handguns is not the reason why these countries have lower violent crime rates then what is? Are you saying that Americans are naturally more violent then these counties? You claim that criminals are deterred from committing burglaries when there is a high likelihood that the person they are robbing owns guns. Why can’t that person defend himself with a rifle or a shotgun? We are not discussing the banning of those types of firearms. In fact their larger size makes them much more intimidating than handguns, which is advantageous in a self defense situation. However, a criminal would have a rather hard time walking around with a long gun without drawing suspicion. Criminals prefer handguns because they are easily concealable.

Handguns are used almost solely for two reasons; committing crimes and self defense from those crimes. If we remove a criminal’s ability to commit violent crimes with a handgun then there will be no need for self defense with a handgun. You claim that if handguns were banned then criminals would switch to sawed off shotguns and that this would lead to more deaths. This is simply untrue. If sawed off shotguns were more effective for the criminals then they would have switched already. This obviously has not happened seeing as 75% of homicides are committed with a handgun as opposed to a mere 5% that involved a shotgun. Why would the criminals use handguns if shotguns were better suited for the task? Also, remember your source for that data. These are criminals stating what they would do. Has it occurred to you that perhaps they lied because they in fact want handguns to be legal and easily accessible?

At the end of the day the question of whether or not handguns should be legal depends on another question. Do handguns prevent more crimes than they are involved in? The answer is a resounding no. A number often cited by pro-gunners is the 1993 study by Gary Kleck which states that 2.45 million crimes are stopped every year in the U.S. with the use of a firearm. However, there is a significant problem with the methodology of the Kleck study. To get the number of 2.45 million he used a small sample size and multiplied the data from this sample to what the level would be if he had interviewed the entire country. This is a serious flaw since the crime rate and gun ownership varies drastically between different locales in the U.S. For example the crime rate in Detroit (a city where guns outnumber people) is more than 10 times higher than the crime rate in San Jose. A more accurate study conducted by David McDowell from 1987-1990 places the number of self defense incidents involving firearms at about 65,000 times per year. 20% of these incidents were when the gun was used by a police officer. This places the number at close to 52,000 times per year. In the Kleck study, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by the McDowell study. Victims shot at the attacker 28% of the time. Corrected for this difference in methodology the number should be roughly 186,000 times annualy that a firearm was used in self defense. Over the 3 years that McDowell collected his data there were 46,319 gun homicides and 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns. This means that annualy there were 891,617 crimes commited with the aid of firearms during this time frame. So even after correcting for Kleck’s issues with McDowell’s study the final result is….

186,000 cases of self defense with a firearm
VS.
892,000 cases of crimes commited with firearms(70% of which were handguns)

The case for ownership of handguns is based almost soley off their “ability to protect”. However, one can hardly say that a weapon which is involved in more than 3 times as many crimes as it prevents is effective. For this reason and others already stated handguns should be made illegal in United States.


Linkies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...elf_protection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~sscroggi/Econ1/...EP163_2004.pdf (the link isn’t working right now for some reason but the same ideas can be found in his book Freakonomics. Mostly this was what I used to show that CR's graph did not show what he wanted it to show.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

[Sigurd]

Crazy Rabbit's last rebuttal and conclusion

Why do I have faith in a handgun ban? Because countries with strict controls on the sale and possession of handguns have a much lower rate of crime then the United States. I have specifically given examples of the lower violent crime rate in Canada, Britain, and Switzerland.

These are countries that have had, historically, lower rates of violent crime. Even in the USA, as I have mentioned before, violent crime and homicide rates are at the lowest they have been for decades – this with an increasing proliferation of firearms. That simple fact disproves the basis of your argument.

Over the last two decades, more and more states have allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns if they aren't felons and pass basic requirements. Proponents of gun control insisted this would lead to drastically increased violence and shootouts. But the dozens of states that passed this law provide ample data that crime simply doesn't increase when citizens can carry handguns around for protection.

As I'm sure you know, crime rates vary across the USA. You say that a handgun ban will decrease crime. Yet Washington DC has had a handgun ban for over thirty years and has throughout that time been one of the highest crime rate cities in the nation. In Vermont, where anyone who meets basic requirements can carry a handgun concealed on themselves without any license from the government, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. Even in the large city of Seattle, in a state where concealed pistol permits are issued to everyone of age and not a felon, the murder rate is a fifth of DC's rate.

Gun control proponents will insist that the high crime rate in cities like DC is due to nearby states with less restrictive laws on buying guns. Of course it's illegal for a person to buy a handgun out of their state of residence. But it still makes me want to ask them; if non-restrictive gun laws in nearby states are the reason for high crime in DC, then why don't those nearby states, with 'loose' gun laws, have the same rates of crime? Perhaps because those states do not put limitations on the law abiding owning guns.

http://disastercenter.com/crime/

Since you mentioned it, let's take a closer look at Britain. The flawed British Crime Survey aside, informed opinion is that violent crime has been trending upward over a period of more than ten years. Britain is a country that has had increasingly severe gun control laws for decades. Yet where has that got them? There country seems to become more violent with more gun control laws passed. You support gun control since you allege it will decrease crime. Yet, “Home Office statistics show that, if you exclude air guns (the least dangerous firearms), the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales has risen more than fourfold since 1998-99, from 864 to 3,821. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../31/do3101.xml

Read that again; in the years after a ban on handguns, deaths and injuries by firearms have increased by over 400%. How can you say that gun control has lead to decreased violence?

Recall the study I posted earlier showing there is no evidence gun control -including handgun bans- reduces crime. You give examples of differences in crime rates and laws in several countries; you fail to show statistical causation between the two, instead of mere correlation. It is of vast importance to remember correlation is not causation. Indeed, I have, with various examples, illustrated there is no reason to believe there is causation.

You claim that criminals are deterred from committing burglaries when there is a high likelihood that the person they are robbing owns guns. Why can’t that person defend himself with a rifle or a shotgun? We are not discussing the banning of those types of firearms. In fact their larger size makes them much more intimidating than handguns, which is advantageous in a self defense situation.

Long guns do hold some disadvantages that might not be immediately obvious; hard maneuvering indoors, recoil, and noise. Generally, though, they are useful for self defense. But you ignore the big issue; handguns are ideally suited for use in defending yourself outside the home. And considering the amount of violent crime that occurs outside of the home, it is reasonable people should be allowed to defend themselves adequately. Allowing concealed carry of handguns has not lead to increased crime or violence.

The reason I used that information was to illustrate that when there is a good chance a homeowner will be armed, criminals don't want to burglarize them when they are home. Logically, if there was a good chance the average person walking in the street was armed with a handgun, criminals would be reluctant to assault them.

However, a criminal would have a rather hard time walking around with a long gun without drawing suspicion. Criminals prefer handguns because they are easily concealable.

Handguns are used almost solely for two reasons; committing crimes and self defense from those crimes. If we remove a criminal’s ability to commit violent crimes with a handgun then there will be no need for self defense with a handgun.

Are you stating that people use handguns to defend themselves only from crimes committed with handguns? That makes no logical sense if you did, so I'll continue to your next claim. The need for self defense will not end if you merely take away a tool from a criminal. Britain has banned handguns; has it removed the need for self defense? Not in the least.
That is because of a fundamental truth that must be grasped – criminals will always manage to procure one weapon or another. Of course, seeing as how they would be very unlikely to turn in their handguns due to a ban, not to mention the immense challenges in enforcing a ban and stopping smuggling, they might not even have to acquire other weapons. Consider the effectiveness of the US ban on drugs and the huge federal 'War on Drugs'.

The idea that criminals stop committing crimes just because you take a weapon from their hands is absurd. Criminals are not people who go around minding the law until they touch a weapon and start doing evil. If you somehow do manage to take all the handguns out of the US, they will simply use another weapon.

You claim that if handguns were banned then criminals would switch to sawed off shotguns and that this would lead to more deaths. This is simply untrue. If sawed off shotguns were more effective for the criminals then they would have switched already. This obviously has not happened seeing as 75% of homicides are committed with a handgun as opposed to a mere 5% that involved a shotgun. Why would the criminals use handguns if shotguns were better suited for the task? Also, remember your source for that data. These are criminals stating what they would do. Has it occurred to you that perhaps they lied because they in fact want handguns to be legal and easily accessible?

You are confusing the being deadlier with being a more common weapon for use by criminals. Just because shotguns are deadlier does not mean they are preferred. They are simply what criminals would use if they could not procure handguns, and as it happens they are deadlier than handguns and so would lead to more deaths.

The answer is a resounding no. A number often cited by pro-gunners is the 1993 study by Gary Kleck which states that 2.45 million crimes are stopped every year in the U.S. with the use of a firearm. However, there is a significant problem with the methodology of the Kleck study. To get the number of 2.45 million he used a small sample size and multiplied the data from this sample to what the level would be if he had interviewed the entire country. This is a serious flaw since the crime rate and gun ownership varies drastically between different locales in the U.S.

Say what you will, but I am more inclined to trust the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...
Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. "
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
Many other surveys on the subject show levels of defensive gun use similar to Dr. Kleck's survey, and all much greater than McDowell's figure.

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

A more accurate study conducted by David McDowell from 1987-1990 places the number of self defense incidents involving firearms at about 65,000 times per year. 20% of these incidents were when the gun was used by a police officer. This places the number at close to 52,000 times per year. In the Kleck study, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by the McDowell study. Victims shot at the attacker 28% of the time. Corrected for this difference in methodology the number should be roughly 186,000 times annualy that a firearm was used in self defense.

This is not merely a different method, but a terrible methodology. How is an instance where a woman takes out her gun, points it at her attacker and says 'stop or I'll shoot', and then the attacker flees so the woman doesn't shoot, not using a gun for self defense? Indeed, McDowell probably included crimes where criminals had a gun but did not fire a shot. Such a decision to reduce civilian self defense with guns but leave the similar criminal acts in is not a objective study.

(the link isn’t working right now for some reason but the same ideas can be found in his book Freakonomics. Mostly this was what I used to show that CR's graph did not show what he wanted it to show.)

The authors of the book Freakonomics are an odd choice to support your handgun banning argument, considering that one author writes:
The U.S. reportedly has the highest concentration of private gun ownership in the world. It is estimated that Americans buy more than half of all the guns that are manufactured worldwide each year. We wrote a good bit about guns in Freakonomics — primarily about the lack of efficacy of gun-control laws and gun buybacks on the crime rate.
(Freakonomics Blog)

The case for ownership of handguns is based almost soley off their “ability to protect”. However, one can hardly say that a weapon which is involved in more than 3 times as many crimes as it prevents is effective. For this reason and others already stated handguns should be made illegal in United States.

Your statement on the ratio of handguns used in crime to those used in defense is wrong. But even were it correct, there is no evidence gun control works at reducing crime, and it is proven you can have low crime and high availability of handguns.
The whole premise for banning handgun is based on the falsehood that handguns cause crime. Handguns do not cause crime. Yet people are overcome with blaming the tool so they can ignore the real and complicated reasons behind crime.

I have outlined the numerous examples, studies, and arguments that show that banning handguns will not reduce crime. My opponent's arguments simply can not stand up to the facts.

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." (Mobster Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, interviewed by Howard Blum.)

Crazed Rabbit

[Sigurd]

I would like to thank both Waldinger (Woad & Fangs) and Crazy Rabbit for participating in this debate.
It was important that we could do this first debate as a pilot project. There was a plan and we had to test it to see if it was doable.

What happens now is that three members will have a closer look at this debate and make comments.
I can reveal that I will be one of the three and we will be posting these comments here.
If this debate are going to make the december issue of the Gahzette is yet to be determined. It is rather long.
We will also be considering the suggestions by Myrddraal.