Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned

Dixon 93

Handguns are the weapon of choice for violent criminals.

I have focused on a handgun ban primarily because handguns are the weapon of choice of violent criminals. In 1990 handguns were used in 77.2% of murders involving firearms and 49.5% of all murders in the United States. More recent figures are not available, but in 1967 96% of firearms used in robberies and 86% of those used in aggravated assaults were handguns.5 These numbers are almost certainly attributable to their relative cheapness, their small size (and hence greater concealability), and the fact that they are easy to use. At the same time, long guns (shot guns and rifles) are used more than handguns in recreational pursuits, which, ceteris paribus, it would be desirable to allow to go unhindered. Consequently, and in view of their minimal criminal use, I see no pressing need for a ban on long guns. Because of the high percentage of violent crimes that are committed with handguns, and because they are uniquely suited to such use, a handgun ban will result in a reduction in overall rates of violent crime.6

No link to recreation DA-you don’t need to own the gun.

Dixon 93 Nicholas (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Alma College) “WHY WE SHOULD BAN HANDGUNS IN THE UNITED STATES” 12 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 243 1993 JW

Many recreational uses of handguns are compatible with a ban on private ownership. For instance, target shooting can still be enjoyed at licensed facilities. Shooters would be allowed to own or rent handguns that would be permanently stored at the shooting ranges.7

CP: in the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned EXCEPT for private security guards. This should be a legit exception, reduces violence.

Dixon 93 Nicholas (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Alma College) “WHY WE SHOULD BAN HANDGUNS IN THE UNITED STATES” 12 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 243 1993 JW

Private security guards would be allowed to use handguns while on duty and keep them at home, safely locked and unloaded. The justification for distinguishing between ordinary citizens and private security guards is again the nature of their work. Security guards are entrusted with the protection of large amounts of cash or other valuables, and by virtue of their uniforms and their place of work, they are visible targets for attack. Consequently, they need to be at least as well armed as potential attackers. A further distinction between ordinary citizens and private security guards is the training that the guards would undergo. Furthermore, private security companies would have to be licensed, and a condition of such licenses would be precisely that they give adequate training to their employees.

Weapon substitution doesn’t matter—other weapons are less lethal.

Dixon 93 Nicholas (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Alma College) “WHY WE SHOULD BAN HANDGUNS IN THE UNITED STATES” 12 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 243 1993 JW

Let us suppose that robbers turn to knives, clubs, other instruments, and their hands and feet to threaten and perhaps injure their victims. This is exactly what gun control advocates want, since these weapons are far less lethal than handguns.88 While it is true that stabbings and beatings are horribly lethal in their own right, a crucial difference is that running away will at least sometimes be an option for the victim, whereas this tactic will be of little use in the face of a loaded gun. A reduction in robberies and in their degree of violence is a likely result of such a substitution.

A2 Substitution

Dixon 93 Nicholas (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Alma College) “WHY WE SHOULD BAN HANDGUNS IN THE UNITED STATES” 12 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 243 1993 JW

Let us suppose that robbers turn to knives, clubs, other instruments, and their hands and feet to threaten and perhaps injure their victims. This is exactly what gun control advocates want, since these weapons are far less lethal than handguns.88 While it is true that stabbings and beatings are horribly lethal in their own right, a crucial difference is that running away will at least sometimes be an option for the victim, whereas this tactic will be of little use in the face of a loaded gun. A reduction in robberies and in their degree of violence is a likely result of such a substitution. Hardy and Kates deny this conclusion. The destructive power of handguns makes them particularly effective in intimidating robbery victims into handing over their belongings or cash. As a result, robbers with guns only use their weapons to injure their victims in 17% of robberies, and can usually rely on threats alone. In contrast, robbers with knives injure 32% of their victims, and those using clubs and other weapons injure fifty-three percent of their victims." In the case of blunt instruments, a blow is sometimes used to initiate the crime. Another likely consequence of the substitution of non-firearm weapons is, ironically, that there will be more robberies and hence more attendant violence. This follows for the simple reason that handgun robberies are the most efficient. In order to reap the same profits using other weapons, several robberies will be needed.9' If gun control leads to an increase in number of robberies and injuries, one of its main purposes is clearly defeated. However, it is strange logic indeed that would welcome the use of more lethal weapons on the ground that they will reduce the incidence and violence of robberies. This view leads to absurd consequences. If the reduction of the number of robberies is regarded as the summum bonum, then we should distribute not just handguns but assault-style automatic weapons to criminals, who will be able to use them to become rich by means of rare, but highly efficient and relatively bloodless heists. Opponents of a handgun ban are on firmer ground when they discuss the danger that robbers, assaulters, and other criminals will "upgrade" to long guns in the event of a ban on handguns. According to Kates and Benenson, "at a minimum, a shot fired from a long gun is four times as likely to kill as one fired from a handgun."'" Widespread substitution of long guns for handguns in the commission of crimes would dramatically increase the number of homicides and violent crimes. They calculate that if only 30% of those who attempt homicide were to switch from handguns to long guns, while the other 70% "downgrade" to knives, there would still be a "substantial increase" in homicide. If the ratio were instead 50:50, the number of homicides would double, even if none of those who used knives succeeded in killing their victims.' Kleck asserts that an even higher substitution rate is likely. He quotes a survey by Wright and Rossi, in which prisoners who had committed several crimes with guns were asked whether they would carry a sawed-off shotgun (which would be much easier to conceal than a regular shotgun) if they were denied access to handguns. Seventy-two percent said they would, and Kleck feels justified in concluding that such a rate of long gun substitution would in fact occur.93 One has to doubt the reliability of the statements of prisoners as to what firearms they would carry in certain circumstances. Macho bragging and outright lying are very likely in such situations, and relegate Kleck's projections to the status of unsupported conjecture. In view of the fact that such a small percentage of the actual murders in the United States in 1990 were committed with long guns,' the burden on Kleck to prove his hypothetical speculation is even heavier. As for Kates and Benenson, their projections are based on the unsupported assertion that the 70% of handgun killers who do not turn to long guns would instead use knives, the most lethal weapon other than firearms. It is more probable that at least some potential murderers would turn to less lethal weapons or their bare hands, and that some would be deterred from assaults altogether. Since Kates and Benenson ignore these probable scenarios, and since their substitution predictions are in any case purely speculative, it is safe to conclude that their estimate of the increase in the homicide rate in the event of a handgun-only ban is inflated. The conjectures offered in support of the substitution hypothesis are inadequate and fail to meet the burden of proof encumbent on opponents of my proposal. Another reason to doubt that long guns would be used in great numbers to replace handguns in robberies, assaults, and homicides is that long guns are obviously much more difficult to conceal. A potential mugger roaming the streets wielding a long gun will cause everyone in sight to flee, and is likely to be quickly arrested when alarmed people call the police. Similarly, a bank robber carrying a long gun will be immediately detected by security guards, alarm systems will be triggered, and the chances of a successful robbery greatly diminished. Handguns are obviously much more convenient for the commission of such crimes. Kates and Benenson point out that most homicides occur in the home, where concealability is "irrelevant." 95 However, concealability would seem to be an important factor even in the home. Since the victim may well be unaware that the killer is carrying a concealed weapon, the "surprise factor" which is peculiar to handguns can still apply even in the home. In contrast, people can hardly be unaware that the person they are with is carrying a shotgun or rifle. Moreover, in any argument or domestic quarrel, regardless of whether the potential victim knows that the assaulter is carrying a handgun, the ease of pulling out the gun and shooting makes such arguments more likely to spill over into murder. In contrast, by the time the assaulter has gone into another room to retrieve their long gun and loaded it, the potential victim has crucial seconds in which to escape. Another reason that the concealability of handguns is not a good reason for a handgun-only ban is proposed by Hardy and Kates in their discussion of the impact of handgun control on robberies. They point out that "[t]he difference between a long gun and a handgun is ten minutes and a hacksaw."' Even robberies, then, would not be diminished by a handgun ban. However, this contention runs directly counter to the evidence collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' Project Identification. Seventy-one percent, or 7,538, of the handguns submitted for tracing, had a barrel length of 3 inches or less. Sixty-one percent, or 6,476, had a caliber of .32 or less. Since both of these factors relate to the size of the weapon, these figures indicate that concealability is an overriding factor in selecting a handgun for use in crime. 7 Sawed-off shotguns will be much longer and much bulkier than any of these short and small-caliber handguns, especially "Saturday Night Specials," which combine a caliber of .32 or less with a barrel length of three inches or less, comprised 44% of all the weapons successfully traced, and fit into the palm of an average sized hand. We may conclude, then, that because of the difficulty of concealment, neither long guns nor sawed-off versions of the same are likely to be used in great numbers to replace handguns in the commission of crimes. The difficulty of concealment factor will outweigh the greater lethalness of long gun shots. Consequently, a ban on handguns will indeed result in a decrease in firearms-related homicide and other violent crimes. Since firearms are the most lethal weapons, and they were used in 64.1% of homicides in the United States in 1990,98 such a ban is, therefore, likely to result in a reduction in the overall murder rate.'

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.99 Mb.

Share with your friends: