Stricter Gun Control

Thanks for your round!Rebuttals- It's true that I've given only one example so far, hence "my first case study"! Still a whole debate to go!- Your assertion that home invasion is up 21% because of laws and that "there never were any [home invasions]" is obviously a decent into absurdity. Of course there have always been home invasions. More over, there are STILL no laws regarding home invasion; it's still just "Robbery from Residential Dwelling". (9)- Aggravated Assaults and rape: While it's true that these numbers have increasd, it is for two seperate reasons. Firstly, the definition of assault changed (and the apparatus for dealing with it was overhauled)(8) and became more inclusive. Secondly, after an aggressive ad campagin by the federal government ("Violence Against Women: Australia Says No") as well as the domestically viral White Ribbon campaign(6), sexual assualts saw an enormous spike in the incidence of reporting; sexual assault itself barely increased with population. - The statistics cited by Malcolm are not reflective of actual Australian statistics not just because of definitions and more reporting, but they also don't reflect the real crime rates: in the period from 2008 to now, assault fell in all categories(1).- You say guns can and are used to defend people from crime. This is obviously irrelevant, because they are used to purpetrate crime far more than prevent it. - As demonstrated, citizens become safer when everyone doesn't have free access to guns. You guarantee criminals access, not just the potential for them to get them on the black market. Black market weapons are so prohibitavely expensive that it's just not worth the while of the average criminal. - The average cost of a black market handgun in Australia is $15 000. This is for one handgun, with no rounds. Your average rapist, thief etc simply cannot afford this(2). Australia vs. UKFirstly, your premise is incorrect. The UK has had gun bans for much longer than Australia(3). In addition, it's not a true ban. There is far more access to weapons in the UK than in Australia.Secondly, the absolute vast majority of gun crimes committed in the UK are by air guns and replica guns, which are legalthere. If they were banned, there would be far fewer gun crimes(4). Thirdly, because the crime of possessing a gun carries such heavy penalties in the UK (often resulting in Life sentences) it's not worth the time for the criminal; any whif of firearm possession and they are up for ridiculous sentences(5). This is a good exmaple of a situation where onlookers didn't have guns, but neither did the robbers (UK). The man had a machete, but didn't feel the need to use it on the man who tackled him because he knew nobody would have guns; no need to actually hurt anyone. Of course, I submit this as anecdotal, however it illustrates the point that a gun wasn't necessary here because the robber was later apprehended and given a fair trial and a sentence (13 years): [http://www.standard.co.uk...]Closer analysisYour assertions are all spearheadded by cherry-picked statistics and twisted into a suitably-presented argument. However, when we examine a statistical analysis conducted by the University of Sydney and funded by the National Institute of Health, we can see that the academic consenus on the Australian ban is clear: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]. Your argument largely consists of the contention that the trends were going at the same pace before and after the ban so realistically the ban did nothing because it was declining anyway. This just isn't true. I agree that it had started declining; the point is that the astronomically rapid decrease was only visible after the ban, indicating that hundreds, if not thousands of lives were saved earlier than they otherwise would have been. Its title concurs that it had already begun decreasing but that the ban sped this up to a statistically significant level. Once appropriate controls and measures have been conducted, there's no point left to argue; we must go with the evidence. This concerns assualts, suicides and homicides, though it does exclude specific crime variatns like bank robberies etc."Statistically speaking, car accidents kill more people than guns do. So according to my opponent's logic, we might as well ban cars too."This is obviously an absured statement. Vehicular accidents are an unfortunate consequence of our economic and social dependence on the ability to travel and trade. Guns are not a requirement for day-to-day living. Cars serve a function other than to kill people. Guns do not. This is called a false equivalency, and is also an extended Nirvana Fallacy; because we cannot completely eliminate the risk, we shouldn't bother trying. Obviously absurd. Does this mean we should not ban drugs because some people still take drugs even though they're illegal? The US has the 13th highest gun death rate in the world. Australia, Japan, Singapore and the UK all rank within bottom 17 of all countries(7). 11 500 people died in 2013 from guns. That's 500 000 life years lost. Dynamic infographic: [http://guns.periscopic.com...]. Nearly fifty percent were under 30. Almost all victims were male. Gun deaths increase as a proportion of gun ownershipOf course, there are always exceptions to policy rules. In this case, they include the oft-cited New York and Chicago examples. However, when we analyse the larger picutre, there is a clear statistical relationship: places with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths. Mass ShootingsPopulation is irrelevant when you know that in the preceding 18 years there had been 13 mass shootings. Then they suddenly stopped the exact year that the gun laws were implemented. And I'm not simply conflating correlation and causation; in the NIH report I posted previously, it was concluded that the stopping of the mass shootings was statistically significant. As we can see from the empirical data, where there are more guns, there is more violent crime. Where there are fewer guns, fewer people are killed and assaulted. It's that simple.Gun control works.(1) [http://www.abs.gov.au...](2) [http://www.smh.com.au...](3) [http://en.wikipedia.org...](4) Ibid.(5) Ibid. (6) [http://www.whiteribbon.org.au...] (7) [http://en.wikipedia.org...](8) [http://www.aifs.gov.au...] (9) [http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au...]