Gun control

Though me and my opponent may not agree on how to control guns for Americas ethics, We both do have 1 goal in common. . . To protect the majority of lives through appropriate gun regulations & laws. 1) I will first address your first seemingly appropriate restriction on gun ownership due to psychological conditions (applying critiqued written tests included). Just because you may have a psychological condition that may impair your decision making capability at times, That should not disqualify you from having guns or being able to protect yourself from those who may try to cause you harm. Only having been committed by the state due to having severe "complications" with your psychiatric health should that disqualify you from having guns (unless you have been cleared by a state psychologist to be competent enough to have your gun rights restored). Taking away an individuals ability to own guns due to "potential" violence that has not occurred is not only unethical as the individual has done nothing wrong, But is discriminatory to those with disabilities due to judging them for actions in which the largest vast majority would never participate in. . . Such as school shootings. I would even argue that school shootings in America are rare due to there being more guns in the country than people (over 300 million) and only having roughly 1, 077 deaths in Mass shootings in over 40 years is negligible. Almost 3, 000 people were killed on 9/11. . . This happened in less than one 24 hour period. As i had stated before, Death by gun violence in America is by no means an epidemic, Just something that people notice much more often than more important situations such as homicide rates dramatically increasing. This leadse into my second argument. 2) More deaths would occur in America as a result of more citizens being less armed with firearms. I will use this study as the handgun ban in Chicago was not a ban on all firearms, Just a "RESTRICTION" on handgun ownership. Individuals could still own various home protection firearms. Thus rationally Chicago would not have resulted in higher homicide rates using similar arguments used above (overall less citizens being armed for public safety concerns). 3) As my most important piece of evidence (and as you requested) I will show in the following link as to what happens to cities & countries when they put into effect gun "RESTRICTIONS". The results not only show more people dying, But show that guns are what keep society safer. . . Not more dangerous. [1]https://crimeresearch. Org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ Keep in mind that England, Wales, And Ireland are European countries and thus much similar to America culturally & economically. They all had dramatically increased homicide rates. . . "MATHMATICALLY", Not how your feelings make you feel, Much more than 1, 076 people were killed in very short amounts of time compared to how long it took for the 1, 076 deaths to happen by school shootings (over 40 years). When you use math & statistics to calculate death rate, The outcome is as shown above in the link is not only not effective at deterring homicide, But counterproductive to stopping homicide. 3) As I stated above and as pointed out by you, Government takeover is not likely by our own government. However, It was not likely that Donald Trump would become president either. . . Even more unlikely that he would win by the largest landslide vote we've seen in decades. Even further unlikely that he would win by a landslide against the most qualified presidential candidate in American history (over 240 years). On top of that he never spent a day in Congress or even served at any level in America's political system making him quite possibly the lowest qualified Republican presidential canditate of all time. What if North Korea followed through on there threats and launched a missile at America that hit American soil. Firearms would be necessary as marauding would be a reality. And I'd like to bring up what the president of the Free world called Kim Jon Un (known to be a sadistic murderer) "Rocket Man". Antagonizing somebody that was threatening America with ICBM missiles. . . We're not as safe or as protected by the government and there defense as you think. After all Donald Trump is the Commander in Chief of the US military. 4) Woman & children would be at risk more so than a full grown man. Men prey on woman because believe it or not some men are evil. Children would be at a higher risk of homicide as murder rates being increased apply to them also. I think that is more than explained enough as to why especially woman and children would be at risk of being victimized without having to explain anything more around this issue, I think most people could rationalize other reasons as to why they would be more susceptible to violence using common sense. Increasing not skyrocketing is the word I should have used. . . Good catch. 5) I will now address the negative outcome of some perceived justifiable beliefs. As your name probably suggests, A common liberal belief is that it is ok for a womam to have an abortion in the third trimester so long as it is for the better good of her life. Although the outcome is a biological child dying, In there minds it justifies that it is ok because a woman's way of life will remain uninterrupted. So not only is not having to agree with the negative outcome of your belief justifiable in certain situations, It may be the right ideaology to possess. 6) Owning a gun as you stated above, Is not in the definition that you used previously (fundamental right). Even though "owning a gun" is not part of the definition you used, It is common sense that you are entitled to protect yourself from those who would want to cause you harm. Calling the police is not always a possible options for this simple reason. . . Time. Sometimes picking up a phone (if charged), Calling 911, Waiting for an operator, Describing where you are and what room in the building your in, And waiting for the cops to show up is just not reasonable in certain situations. Therefore your firearm is your only reasonable protection. 7) Gun regulations, With the reasoning and evidence stated above, Should not be put into place. We are not in a dangerous society riddled with gun violence and because we're not it's best not to possibly upset the balance of things currently. We don't want to make it a serious problem, And therefore should leave things the way they are to not risk there being a sharp increase in homicide rates. As i have addressed your questions asked, My question to ask you is this, With gun violence not currently posing a serious risk to American citizens, "WHY RISK USING REGULATIONS THAT COULD BACKFIRE"? Overall good debate, I look forward to reviewing your final argument. Good luck