Gun Control

Italicised font is from Pro's previous arguments.Gun control is intended to increase overall safety by targeting gun violence specifically. Exactly my point. If overall safety doesn’t decrease, even with reducing the amount of guns, or by making more means of controlling them, then you didn’t really make anyone more safe. Therefore overall homicides do actually show effectiveness. If you reduce guns, but have no impact, or even increase overall homicides, most people would say that was not a benefit to society. First I'd like to point out this statistic has no source and a statistical deviation of %600. The commonly used pro-gun statistic is 2.5 million, a number from the Kleck study published in 1994 that has been widely discredited by the likes of the Department of Justice… Actually this was a study by the CDC in 2013 after Pres.Obama via executive order had them study gun violence in America. He was hoping it would help push his gun control narrative, however it did the opposite. Yes it does say 500,000 to 3,000,000 self defense actions with a gun are used each year. [1] "Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense." Intimidation with a firearm is an excellent form of self-defense. If you don’t have to shoot someone, however you diffused the situation with a gun none the less, than you successfully defended yourself the best way possible. Saying self-defense only applies to an incident where a firearm is discharged is misleading. This is inconvenient because this shows how guns actually do keep you safer. The massive damage from the Mexican Drug War undoubtedly amplifies homicide numbers, nothing to do with gun control unless of course you bring up the source of the cartels' weapons: the U.S. Selling weapons across the border unlicensed is illegal. In other words laws aren’t working to keep weapons out of the criminals hands in Mexico. Not to mention this is scary stuff. Our own government illegally allowed the purchase of firearms by Mexican Cartels. Our own government is conducting an illegal gun trade, which has cost multiple lives, including police officers cited by your reference, yet wants to put more laws on it’s own citizens. This is the sort of tyranny I was talking about before that we have to be prepared to stand up against....only falling behind South American and African countries that have very low HDIs and are embroiled in armed conflicts, drug wars, crime wars, etc. that are vastly more deadly than those of the U.S.... Ok… you are missing my entire argument here. Also note that your lists are gun deaths, not overall homicide rates, or violent crime. Let me explain it in a more linear sense. 1. Countries have vast difference in culture, demographics, populations, gang violence, religion, historical traditions etc… Therefore crime rates are expected to be different across countries. For example Canada has more land than we do, but has a population smaller than that of California.2. An effective tool therefore to judge effectiveness of policy or law, is to watch trends.3. Since 1993 the number of privately owned firearms have increased two-fold (+56%)...conversely the number of firearm related crimes have decreased two-fold (-49%). [2]4. Cities with traditionally higher gun control laws, have higher violent crime with guns being involved. [3]5. Therefore:a. Less laws restricting citizens of gun rights results in them being safer.b. More laws may actually be the cause of higher violent crime.c.More guns held by law abiding citizens actually reduce crime. Now to look at this from another angle. Blacks are 1/7th of our population, but account for ½ of our murders. Hispanics account for 15% of the population, but account for another 25% of the murders. We have deeply seeded racial wars / gang violence in this country that is near non-existent in the European countries due to their racial demographics. If we subtract those factors to give a more similar base for comparison, we fall right in the middle of all the OECD countries. [4] Now another angle: Only 16% of crimes where a gun was in possession of the criminal was the gun owned legally. You simply aren’t going to curb crime with gun legislation. The most effective way to decrease crime is by a well funded, and less restricted police force. [5, 6] The states with lax gun control have a firearm homicide rate that nearly doubles that of the stricter states. Again, if you look at the states, or the cities, and you look at murder rates, even if with a gun and not some other means, you will see differences widely ranging [7]: New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower gun murder rates than California, Illinois, and Maryland, the latter three here having much more strict gun control. So it’s not the static number, it's the trend before or after gun control. The Bipartisan Amendment to the No Fly, No Buy Bill accounted for due process: I was assuming you were backing the harder left bill proposed. Even though I thought the republican bill was still not completely cohesive with our constitution, I actually did support it. Show me how Omar could have legally bought a bomb. Just google how to make a bomb and I’m sure there will be a hundred “recipes.” I didn’t do it and cite because I have a fear of getting “red flagged” by a watch group looking for trigger words in search engines - and restricting my ability to buy a gun. There's a reason he used a gun: it's easier. Maybe, but I really don’t think that was the deciding factor in him killing 49 people. As if laziness will circumvent terrorists from committing mass murder for ideological purposes. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that "Having the most guns in the world has failed to deal with mass shootings." Considering that the deciding factor for the FBI was a shooter who was identified as having an intent to kill multiple people in a highly populated area, as well as these are only reported incidents of an active shooter which disregards incidents that were handled by civilians before police were notified, gives them a narrow view. They completely leave out gang related mass shootings, or self-defense situations where multiple people were being threatened. Still it is for consideration. Your numbers only talk about incidents resolved before police arrive (with guns) but were called. The majority of these cases end with the murderer either surrendering or killing himself (about 67%). Incidents were stopped by armed citizens 3 out of the remaining 17 cases, and the other 14 of the 17 were stopped by unarmed citizens. I would argue that if those citizens were armed the first number would rise proportionately. Only 32 of 53 cases where police arrived and the murder was still at large did they neutralize the person. Because of these statistics the FBI they gave a statement at the end of their report that comes as close to a government agency saying they want armed good guys as you can get: “Clearly, fast and effective police response comprises only part of the answer to limiting the damage done during these attacks. Also important are the actions that civilians take to protect themselves during the 3 or more minutes that it takes the police to arrive.” My claim was that the mass shooting epidemic is unprecedented in U.S.'s own history, not the world. I will address your comparison next round though. The Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that between 2002 and 2011 0.02 homicides were a part of mass shootings. Another study from 1976 to 2005 showed similar results (less than 1/5th of 1 percent). Even still, if it were on the rise, blaming guns vs the world’s growing problems with ideological radicals is not addressing the true problem. [8]Sources in comments.