Gun Control

My opponent introduces the common argument of the left as being "stricter gun control will result in fewer people being killed by guns, and fewer mass shootings will occur." I fully agree with and will adopt this line of reasoning for the debate. I want to emphasize that this means we are discussing firearm-related deaths and gun control's effectiveness at reducing them. My opponent's use of world homicide rates is therefore misleading. Homicide rates encompass all types of murder, not just gun-related, which is what gun control is intended to reduce . I'd also like to point out that not a single one of the 106 nations that top the U.S. in the list is considered a developed nation. Developing nations are subject to a number of adverse conditions (war, famine, disease, etc.) that inflate these numbers and make them unfair comparisons to the U.S. All developed nations known for stringent gun control are far below the U.S. on the list: Japan (215), U.K. (184), Australia (185), Canada (169) to name a few [1]. When we specify the statistics to only include gun homicides and developed nations we see that the United State's current lax gun control policies are undoubtedly failing to keep gun violence low. The U.S. is the runaway leader in firearm homicides among developed countries. "According to data compiled by the United Nations... Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country" [2]. We see then that these developed countries with strict gun control are safer than the U.S. in both homicides and gun-only homicides. With regards to cities, there is evidence that may attribute gun violence in cities to areas with lax gun control outside city limits. In Chicago, for example, studies "found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state...The study also found that 22 percent of the recovered guns came from parts of Cook County outside the city, where gun dealers and gun shows are legal"[3]. But considering we are debating gun control on a national scale, I contend that reviewing state by state gun control is a more relevant comparison. And if we do that, it is clear to see that states with tougher gun control and lower rates of gun ownership have much lower gun death rates. States with light gun control make up the top 5: Alaska (19.95 gun deaths per 100,000), Louisiana (19.15), Alabama (17.79), Mississippi (17.55), Wyoming (17.51). We conversely see states with strict gun control in the bottom 5 (45-50): Hawaii (2.71), Massachusetts (3.18), New York (4.39), Connecticut (4.48), Rhode Island (5.33) [4] I would also like to dispute the claim "Criminals are more emboldened knowing there is a higher likelihood their victims are unarmed." It appears that criminals confronted are likely to respond with greater violence: "research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession." [5] My opponent repeatedly makes the claim that "disarming law-abiding citizens doesn't take the guns away from the criminals." In no way does gun control actively disarm law-abiding citizens. In what way do increased background checks disarm law-abiding citizens? In what way does prohibiting suspected terrorists, deemed too dangerous to fly, from buying guns disarm law-abiding citizens? These laws would in no way impact law-abiding citizens' right to bear arms aside from merely delaying the process of purchasing a gun by a matter of days. So how are their rights being infringed? The argument that criminals will not follow the law so there is no point in taking action is absurd. Criminals do certainly break the law. They murder, steal, rape, etc. but do we question the legitimacy of those laws simply because criminals do not follow them? Why should we lay down and not actively try to make it harder for criminals and terrorists to access guns? Take the common profile of mass shooters for example, the people behind mass shootings are often severely mentally disabled. James Foley of Aurora, Adam Lanza of Newtown, Dylann Roof of Charleston were all extremely socially isolated and barely mentally capable of living on their own. If they were deterred from legally purchasing a gun by increased background checks and screenings, is it really plausible to suggest that these kinds of people would be capable of penetrating the criminal underworld, establish connections, and acquire lethal stockpiles of weapons and ammunition? Regarding mass shootings: After dispelling his own argument about pressure cookers, my opponent appears to try and make mass shootings seem insignificant. His proposed numbers were surpassed in a single shooting just weeks ago. In June this year alone, 63 people have been murdered is mass shootings attributable to a "single name" as my opponent proposed [6]. I think most would agree that the mass shooting epidemic going on in the U.S. is unprecedented and unmatched by any other period in its history. "People who are deranged enough to take their religion, racism, or political ideas to the next level, and murder as many people as they can" should not be able to legally purchase guns as they do in many mass shooting cases. And while these deranged people may find a way to murder regardless of what weapon, guns enable them to cause far more damage than any other legally obtainable weapon. There is absolutely no way Omar Mateen could have gone into Pulse Nightclub with a knife and murder 50 people before being stopped. Regarding my opponent's analogy to car accidents: Do we blame cars? No. Do we set regulations, laws, set standards, restrictions, etc. to address and reduce car accidents? Absolutely. As far as gun free zones are concerned: "An analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety looked at the 133 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 and found that only 13 percent of those mass shootings took place in a "gun-free zone," while the vast majority of shootings took place where carrying a gun is legally permitted."[7] Having the most guns in the world has failed to deal with mass shootings as well. My opponent then goes to propose his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as having the intent to "protect the rest of our rights." I dispute this interpretation but let's assume it's true and that Amendments guaranteeing due process, voting rights, and our entire system of checks and balances intended to prevent tyranny, don't exist. Why still should the 2nd Amendment be immune from any sort of limitations or boundaries? Can we even consider background checks and closing of purchase loopholes to be limitations? All rights are subject to review and regulation. They have to be because times have certainly changed since they were written centuries ago and America needs to be able to function in face of modern problems. Even the late, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia agreed that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Due to character count, I will address Hitler example in next round. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... (used wiki for convenience, actual report is 100+ pg pdf) [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [5] http://smartgunlaws.org... [6] https://www.massshootingtracker.org... [7] http://mediamatters.org...