Gun Control

The connection that I was making between guns and illegal drugs was the fact that there are strict laws and punishment in place to prevent individuals from acquiring or distributing drugs and yet almost half of all those incarcerated are in prison for drug related crimes. If the anti-drug legislation has been so unsuccessful then how does one expect anti-gun legislation to be successful. When someone wants something like drugs, guns, or other contraband laws won't stop people from getting what they want. There has to be alternate methods of preventing drug abuse or in this case gun related crime. (Removed pasted statement for space- refer to statement #2) Pro seems to put off a majority of arguments made in order to avoid addressing them. The previous statement does not need sources but rather needs to be looked at logically. If a criminal were to seek firearms then they would most likely buy a firearm through illegal trade. I have not ever heard of a gang member have a gun permit and license and walk into a gun store to register his gun and go through a background check. In what world does that make sense? When gun restrictions go past the usual background checks and go into wait periods, ammunition limits, several unnecessary permit requirements, having to report the exact location of where the firearm and ammunition will be located in the house, it not only becomes unnecessary but invasive. "What Con is saying here is that nobody buys guns for anything other than self-defense. This is obviously false. There are many sports that involve guns such as target shooting, skeet shooting, and hunting, [3]. " What I meant by "Individuals who go through the legal process and apply for a gun permit care about their own preservation of life." is the same thing I said in the previous statement. Those who care to acquire guns legally usually are not the ones who intend to use guns for illegal activities. Con's statement: "A lot of non-criminals don't even take gun safety courses which is why there are lots of accidental killings/injuries. [4]. The accidental homicide rate among children is horrifically high. Between 1999 and 2012, 259 children under 15 died because they had careless parents that didn't keep the weapon in a safe place. If Con tries to claim that in a population of 300 Million that isn't a lot, then I will claim that Con is a sociopath." Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Actually the number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58% between 1991 and 2011 even though the population and gun ownership has continued to increase. A major proponent of the anti-gun campaign is unfortunately cases in which children have been involved in an accidental or intentional firearm related death. Although it does not take away from the anguish of such events, it is fortunately much less likely to occur than the media coverage suggests. Twice as many children are killed playing football in school (due to head injuries, heatstroke, etc.) than are murdered by guns. A child is more likely to die in a car crash, choke, or drown. A child is at a 2,000x greater risk from getting hit by a car, 130x greater risk from choking on food, and 7x greater risk of drowning than getting shot. Hopefully you understand that this statement doesn't make me a sociopath as I am only stating the other side of the seemingly biased facts you gave. Con's statement: "This is absolutely not true. Japan has the highest gun restrictions in the developed world, and it had only two gun related deaths in 2006...." If you want to compare gun restriction and gun crime then I think "Wadduphomedawg " in the comments section has taken care of that point but I will expand on that after his statement which I pasted here: "Japan, has no borders. Australia, has no borders. This makes it incredibly difficult to smuggle in firearms. Even though these countries for the most part have always had those statistics. Perhaps looking at this as a cultural issue rather than a gun issue can contextualize it better. Let's look at Germany; a very impressive statistic indeed, but Sweden(i'm sure you're aware) has a very low gun homicide rate also, but they have a very high gun ownership in europe. Why don't they have this issue? Now let's contrast this with brazil. Which has banned firearms but has a higher firearm death rate then both Sweden and America. So let's look at this for what it really is - a cultural issue. It's been proven many times that more guns =/= more death. Rather, it's the culture and people who make up the nation that cause this." In addition to his statement countries that have imposed strict gun legislation such as Australia, United Kingdom, and Germany have rising crime rates and have took a turn for the worse. USA Today reports that since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%. The United Kingdom also has a very strict ban on guns however the overall rate of violent crime is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. The UK has approximately 125% more rape victims and 133% more assault victims per 100,000 people per year than the United States does. Another nation that has very strict laws on gun control that have also failed to prevent crime is Germany. Even with the restrictions a 17 year old German high school student murdered 15 and wounded 9 with a single 9mm pistol. The pistol was owned by his father and was owned illegally proving that even a child was able to acquire a gun in a nation with such strict laws on gun control. On the contrary Iceland has one of the largest gun ownership rates in the world and yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. We must not fall into the trap of restricting guns with the belief that it will lower crime rates. Pro's statement: ", states that have higher restrictions on guns have fewer gun deaths..." Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime and protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives. Guns sales over the past 20 years have sparked, however firearm related homicides are now committed 39% less. People have used their firearms to protect themselves against assailants around 2.5 million times a year. The best example of the correlation of a drop in crime and gun ownership is in the city of Kennesaw, Georgia. Although their approach was a bit extreme in 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes. After the law had passed the crime rate had dropped by more than 50% with 89% decline in burglaries. Con's statements: "I'd like Con to show me where to sign up for this "well regulated militia". " the founders could not have possibly know about fully automatic rifles and high powered sniper rifles. " "Also, it says "right to bear arms". It does not specify which arms." The 2nd amemndment absolutely does not state that there must be a militia for the right of the citizens to bear arms. The constitiuion does not require a militia. Maybe have another read sometime. You are correct the founders could not have possible known about full automatic rifles and high powered sniper rifles which aren't just in the hands of the people, they are in the hands of government agencies. Being that I had stated in the previous argument "The 2nd amendment is in place to ensure that the citizenry of the United States always has the ability to exercise the explicit right to overthrow the elected government by force of arms." Now what sense would it make for the people to have muskets that "could shoot maybe three/four rounds per minute. ". Con's statement: "Have fun taking out an F-32b fighter jet with your shotgun. Also, those tanks might be a little hard to bust with your pistol." " The idea that guns are necessary to overthrow the government is ludicrous. " I don't think you understand how any type of war works. If there ever is a need to overthrow a tyrannical gov't i'm sure a population of unarmed citizens can fix things. We can just blog about it right? Can't fit enough to paste pro's arguments but it's the last two statements: Just cause those countries have recovered doesn't take away from the point. Why should we ever risk the country falling in the first place? No one was talking about the Roman Empire, Aztecs, or ottomans. I specifically stated "Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Read before you reply. No one mentioned traveling overseas to fight people with guns. The statement I made was meant that guns are a cruticial tool in preventing disruption of life at home by settling disputes and securing freedom overseas. I doubt I have to explain that but if you still don't understand the statement then just ask yourself why does the Military need guns; or do you not support our military having firearms either? Sources: (Didn't feel like properly citing all of them so half of them are direct links) Jones, Alex. "18 Little Known Gun Facts That Prove Guns Make Us Safer." N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. 1 Apr. 2014. Gun Control: An Essay Against Additional Gun Laws. N.p., 5 May 2010. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. "Gun control." World of Health. Gale, 2007. Student Resources in Context. Web. 1 Apr. 2014 "Justices deny review of gun-rights appeals." CNN Wire 24 Feb. 2014. Student Resources in Context. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. Draper, Robert. "Inside the Power of the N.R.A." N.p., 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. http://www.cnn.com... http://listverse.com... http://americangunfacts.com... http://gunowners.org... http://topics.nytimes.com...