Gun control will make places safer

Thank you for your prompt response Pro.I.CHILDREN WIELDING GUNSIm afraid your first address was cut off, so I can't watch the video, but it seems you are refering to cases of children carrying around firearms. The reason for penalties on children bringing guns to school are two-fold.1. Minors are not entitled to the same benefits under the law as adults. Legally they are not deemed emotionally developed enough to consider the implications of their actions because your frontal lobe does not fully develop till your twenties. As such, laws often apply differently to minors than adults. See things like drinking age requirements, criminal prosecutions, etc. for evidence of this. Specifically, Child Access Prevention laws exist specifically to address this[1]. Children are barred from the unsupervised posession and operation of firearms. If at a shooting range or hunting ground under the advisment of a legal guardian, they are allowed guns because there is proper instruction.2. Guns in any capacity are not allowed in schools. This is not a policy which needs to be implemented, because it already exists. Any institution, private or government owned, may at its own discretion allow or bar the possession of any object it sees fit. In the same way that you currently are not allowed to bring guns into airports or court houses, you can not bring them into any building that forbids it of its own accord. This is fair because it is the choice of an individual to relinquish their firearm or choose not to enter an establishment, but it is not mandated as a blanket rule across the entire nation.The responsibility is on the actual owners of guns who chose to purchase one to keep theirs secure. Parents should invest in gun lockers, as should all gun owners, to keep them from being easily taken. To ban parents from being allowed guns because their children might take them would be to punish parents for attempting to start a family, which is a cruel policy to implement.II. GUNS AND CRIME RATEThe article on Japan you show brings up the question of correlation but does not prove causation. Crime is a complicated topic of study, and there are many possible socio-economic factors which contribute to it. One country alone does not prove guns are good or bad because Japanese culture is radically different than other nations, so any number of things could be the cause of low crime rates. I direct you instead to a Harvard University study on correlation between Homicide and Suicide rates and gun ownership[2]. The section beginning on page 670, "More guns, LESS crime?" clearly details how on average, increased gun ownership not only fails to cause more crime, but in fact is shown to reduce rates. The reasoning behind this is obvious: Guns are a deterrent. Throughout history we have used the threat of violence to curb people's more selfish tendencies. Capital punishment and in older times corporal punishment are used to scare possible criminals away from their actions. Following World War II America and Russia prevented further outright warfare using the threat of mutual destruction i.e. the Cold War. It could be argued that these were difficult times due to the constant fear of possible war, but the fact is, neither nation was willing to risk their own demise.Guns are a great equilizer because no one is immune. No one can stand against an opponent armed with a gun and not fear he may die. Violent crimes like muggings involve intimidation and the use of force, which leads predators to go after victims they believe defenseless. Even a young 120 lb woman facing a 220 lb attacker can defend herself appropriately if armed. On the flip side however, guns do not ensure victory if both parties are armed. Therefore attackers cannot feel assured of their victory if they are armed. The presence of guns as a factor throws the odds of a confrontation into such uncertainty that no one can safely engage in conflict without risk, which in turn dissuades people from starting such conflicts to begin with.III. RESPONSE TO REBUTTALS1."in the book [Audacity] of Hope by Obama...on chapter for page 383 he tries to make a plan to get rid of black markets." This is INCREDIBLY wishful thinking. The Black Market is not something you can "get rid of" so easily. You may as well just set your goal to stopping all people from committing violent crime, because then you won't need to worry about guns. So long as there exists contraband that is illegal or restricted to trade openly, there will be profiteers willing to subvert the law for profit. Further restricting arms trade only makes that market more profitable and thus incentivizes people to pursue it. The more you restrict legal guns, the more illegal guns will pop up.2. I addressed this earlier but I will reiterate breifly. Children are not to have guns under current law unsupervised. They do not receive full benefits under the law until they are legally deemed adults and capable of both understanding their actions fully and accepting the possible consequences. If you are going to ban Nancy Lanza from owning a gun because of her son's illness, what you are saying is this: You had a child with mental complications, so we are going to punish you for choosing to try to cope with his issues and raise him instead of abandoning him. Because you already have greater issues than most single middle class parents, we are going to further restrict you because of something you had absolutely no choice in". She should have gone to greater lengths to ensure her son couldn't take her guns, but her lapse in judgement there does not justify barring security for everyone else.IV. CONCLUSION AND REFERENCESI've addressed both my opponents major arguments and responded to his criticisms. I await his response.1. http://smartgunlaws.org...;2. http://www.law.harvard.edu...;