Gun Control

My opponents primary point is that banning a powerful gun (I'm going to assume an AR-15 until he says decides to say something more specific.) would reduce the impact that a shooter can cause. I am going to show that not only would banning a gun not reduce gun violence but that it may even make it worse. First, according to the National institute of justice and affirmed by the ATF, the black market for guns is extensive and easily accessible which shows that banning firearms would only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens tipping the scales against the assaulted and towards the assailant. Just as the United States learned during prohibition and is relearning during the war on drugs, when you ban something that people want a black market will form. In 1994, Australia passed huge firearm legislation that banned huge numbers of semi-automatic firearms and created a buyback program that was intended to get them out of the hands of civilians. The buyback was not optional of course. If you refused to sell your firearm then you would be arrested and tried for possession of an illegal weapon. The intention of these laws was to reduce the crime rate within the country. Instead, the laws paved the way for an illegal gun trade to form in Australia that "Police admit they cannot eradicate"" as mentioned by the south Australian newspaper the Adelaide Advertiser. Many of the people that are being supplied these weapons are not even criminals. According to The Sporting Shooters" Association of Australia and Franz Csaszar"a professor at the University of Vienna"the buyback program saw a compliance level of around 19-20 percent. So people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens were made criminals by a law passed that was intended to target criminals.Australia saw almost no decrease in its homicide rate. Gun control will never be effective in the U.S. and here's why.There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown. Reason #2: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship. Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people"s rights being removed little by little. You can"t carry your guns around in public. Now you can"t own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can"t have any guns at all"time to amend the Constitution. That"s an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile. Reason #3: Mass shooters don"t follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation"s most strict gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course. But that didn"t stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. in the end, it's only the law abiding citizen that would be harmed by gun control. However, if there had been someone in the classroom that was armed themselves, they may have been able to stop the shooting before it became as deadly as it was. Furthermore, Guns are a necessary part of self defense. I completely respect our police force, but they can't always be there. When seconds count, the police arrive in minutes. Individual citizens have the right and responsibility to be armed in order to defend themselves and their families. It is also no coincidence that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones. After all, an unarmed man can be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.