Gun control lowers crime

I thank my opponents dedication to this debate, however I remain unconvinced. “still the reason of my insistence on comparing USA and Canada is disregarding the minute differences that separate the two nations” Interestingly, Canada and the US are far from similar and the differences not “minute”. Interestingly, although parts of the Northeast are similar to Canada, much of the West and south comes from Spanish decent, not Western European or Britain. Further, before the revolution many criminals were sent to the Americas via exile. Canadian immigrants are mainly French and English, whereas American immigrants are mostly of some Hispanic decent. The majority of American settlers did not conform to British laws. But is non-conformity indicative of crime? Not necessarily, however criminals by their nature do not conform to laws. As much of the US crime comes from the south and west, and these are the areas very different from Canada, comparing an overall rate would be illogical and very flawed [1]. My opponent may point out the Northeast is very similar to Canada, however Hispanic immigration is beginning to touch these regions and the Northeast has a much higher population (and population density). Comparing to the US simple does not work. “by balancing the populations with a mere 1 to 10 ratio one would reach a strong comparison between the firearms related crimes in the two countries” US POP. 311,000,000 CANADA POP. 34 million Yes, a 1 – 10 ratio. However, the crime difference is about a 3-8 ratio. Using this, we can see the ratio then becomes 3.75 – 10. Therefore, using this data Canada actually has a higher crime rate when population is controlled for. My opponent cites the same source multiple times, but as stated above his whole ratio argument is defeated. “What my opponent fails to see is that if I carry a gun in my pocket, so can the pick pocket, or the burglar, or the car thief, thus the above census. It would have a good world if only the law abiding citizens had access to the guns. It is not however the case. So better it is that except for an elected body of law enforcement, none else does.” The problem with his argument has been refuted last round. I have proven guns used in defense are far more common than it is used in crime. And the problem with this logic is simple: he assumes gun registry and other controls would stop criminals from crime, which is not the case. Criminals would not follow the law and could obtain weapons without permission via black market. So, to rephrase what actually happens: wouldn’t it be nice if criminals could have guns but we couldn’t. As stated, handgun crime has remained unchanged and resilient through gun control. Criminals keep the guns; law-abiding citizens lose them [2]. Further, the police have slow response times and could not defend everyone. Controlling guns means criminals have easy pickings. “Wrong, whoever produced this data failed to see that in Canada as well as US it is possible that one provides his household with a means of protection, that is a handgun.” Listen to this: My opponent has admitted guns deter crime. I have proven guns reduce crime, he says in Canada guns are still allowed. That was his rebuttal. Meaning he argues guns reduce crime… Read his quote and response, it is essentially a concession of ground he needed to have to win the debate. “The law was rectified rather as a future measure than to address a problem. No wonder that the crime rate did not show a sharp change, since the law was not there to address an immediate problem.” False, Canadian crime rate [3]: Violent crime was increasing, fast, and increased much faster after the 1977 and 1991 laws. The second one was in response to crime, and there would be no other reason for these laws other than to decrease crime (they don’t, but that is the intention). So yes, they were trying to decrease crime. Further, the government posited 10 main reasons for their gun registry, and 6 of those reasons are crime related, from solving crimes to smuggling [4]. “ever since the introduction of the gun laws, there hasn't been a single major gun related incidence such as mentioned.” He assumes two things, 1) gun control reduced these crimes. Which is unlikely, almost all guns used in crimes weren’t registered, if they are dodging the law how is it affecting them? Further, many law abiding citizens do not even follow the law. Lastly, no studies have proven the law has lowered Canadian crime [5]. 2) this is a lie. And mass shootings have actually become more common since the 1970s [6]. “The problem with my opponent's argument on top of all is that he puts the same weight on petty crimes and the major crimes alike.” This is also a lie. When looking at Europe all of my numbers involved violent crime, and I proved gun bans increased violent crime. The 1999 study only measured violent crimes. None of my case used petty crimes, rendering my opponents rebuttal useless. “I maintain the previous examples, pointing out again that Gun control is not there to prevent you from protecting your household, it is there to lower the gun related crimes.” My opponent fails if I prove gun control increases any crime, as the resolution does not say “gun crime”. So this is a red herring. Further, I have proven gun crime is increased by gun bans in Europe. Further, gun control in Canada has not prevented gun crime. “To repeat, during these seven years, there were only 62 cases — nine a year — where it was even conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.”[7] And “This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.”(Canadian data)[7]. Again, the effects and the intentions of the law are two separate things. And if non gun crime rises, and more lives lost, then there is a net increase in crime – meaning we should oppose the laws. However, my opponent seems to ignore any increase in non-gun crimes no matter how large. “Based on the above refutes and my original case, I maintain that Gun control by lowering the number of serious first hand gun related crimes” I have proven Canadian gun control has not reduced handgun crime [2], rifle crime [5], and has not decreased overall crime [7]. My opponent gives no valid data on the subject, rendering his case useless. I reiterate: gun related crime increases always after a gun ban [8]. My opponents case is factually false. CONCLUSION: I have refuted my opponents case. My opponent has the majority of the BOP being pro, and has failed to fufill it. All of his case relies on cross sectional data which is highly unreliable. All of his data relies on one country: Canada. I use the US, proving guns save lives, Canada, proving gun control is ineffective, and Europe, proving it may increase crime. My case is far superior to that of my opponents, and it is impossible to support the less guns less crime hypothesis. Vote con. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com... http://www.guncite.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.guncite.com... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...; http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nationalreview.com...# http://www.justfacts.com...