Gun Control should be administered

I'll start with my refutations of the affirmative's two remaining arguments: 1) 'Guns lead to a higher crime rate' The negative side uses the example of Hong Kong to support his claim that a ban of guns would result in lower homicide rates. Though this claim is by no means supported by the source that he has provided. The article concludes with: "Several reasons have been suggested to account for the lower than expected levels of crime in a densely populated urban environment such as Hong Kong. The protective value of cultural and ethnic homogeneity combined with the preservation of traditional Confucionist values and extended kinship structures may be significant but also may be weakening. A compliant pro-social society and a government hostile to crime and corruption13 also favour control over crime even in popular cultures that romanticize Triads. The presence of a large police force with extensive powers of "stop and search" and strict gun laws combined with compulsory identity cards14 also contribute to lower levels of crime. High levels of natural or informal surveillance, substantial investment in private policing and a relatively small enclosed jurisdiction are also highly advantageous." It becomes evident that there are many factors that contribute to the low crime rate in Hong Kong, above all I would like to point out that Hong Kong has more than 50% more police officers per inhabitants than the US (393 vs. 256 policemen per 100,000 inhabitants). [1] Again, there is ample of evidence that gives explanation why a ban of guns doesn't necessarily result in lower crime rates and why in fact crime rates could actually increase instead. According to the Harvard study [2] that I brought up in the last round "One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.” So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross-national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates." 2) Guns have to be banned in order to prevent children to access them The affirmative side gives a statistic of children homicides. I have three objections to it: (i) No sources are provided. (iii) It is misleading, since it only shows the absolute number of homicides, not taking into account the population of the country. The correct statistic would be the homicide rate and not the absolute number. (iii) Above all the statistic is irrelevant, because we both agree that homicides should be prevented, the only question is how. Also the affirmative side fails to respond to my earlier refutation of this argument in which I have given alternative solutions to prevent this problem (training, regulations, etc.). I extend my earlier arguments as the affirmative side did not bring up any refutations in the last round. Therefor these arguments unrefuted: 1) Every citizen should be protected against violent assaults. Since no government can provide perfect protection they should not prevent the citizens to protect themselves. 2) A ban of guns is likely to lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes (e.g. to kill or rob somebody) and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes since the former will be more likely to ignore and circumvent the law than the latter. Thus citizens who want to protect themselves are ultimately the one who would be put in a disadvantaged position. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.law.harvard.edu...