We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

I've noticed that his arguments are all based on the conjecture that somehow stricter gun control laws will, in its projected duty, doubly lower crime rates without harming the self-defense abilities and liberty of citizens. I will show that his guesswork is exactly that: a conjecture, but not an appropriate inference (there is a major difference, for the non-Bones viewers). I also contend that even without statistics, I can appropriately show that I can justify the psychological and/or sociological interpretations of my anti-gun control stance. Moreover, I plan to show that my opponent's responses to my contentions are wholly ineffective. 1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. Firstly, I want to reiterate that I do agree America has a gun violence problem. I also want to say that stricter gun control laws will do nothing to help that problem. As my opponent challenges me to demonstrate that stricter gun regulations will have either none or a negative impact on crime rates, I respond with the following: One thing my opponent fails to address or perhaps realize in his arguments is that for there to be stricter laws, *everyone* will have a harder time to obtain guns. How can the government *possibly* differentiate between people that purchase guns to commit crimes to people that purchase guns to defend themselves? Our laws as of now already has thorough background checks to consider if the purchaser is at-risk. Again, I challenge my opponent to come up with a plausible solution for stricter gun regulations to better deter criminals and future criminals that won't prevent everyone else in the mass that is America from the timely ability to defend themselves while somehow "picking out" the criminals and would-be criminals. Moreover, I'd like to point out that criminals can easily obtain guns around the law. I agree that people who desire to do or obtain something illegal will have the motivation to use guns. However, my opponent fails to realize that criminals have been getting guns from unlicensed, illegal, unregulated sources for ages and they're going to keep doing that. In fact, stricter gun control laws will give even stronger motivation for criminals to obtain guns outside regulation. If the fact that guns can be traced to them isn't enough for criminals to go around the law to obtain guns, for there to be stricter laws would give criminals even more motivation to illegally purchase guns. After all, why on earth would criminals want to purchase from a regulated seller *now*, let alone when we have stricter regulation? My opponent also insists that motivation will cause someone to try the hardest to obtain something they want; hence, it's only logical that criminals will purchase outside of regulation since it's so much easier. My opponent's entire argument is based on his belief that somehow stricter gun regulations *can* do such a thing as deter criminals to obtain guns, yet he provides nothing to justify that belief. 2) Guns save lives. My opponent assumes that somehow, if we have stricter gun control laws, we will have better control over whether or not criminals purchase guns and still give self-defense to law-abiding citizens. As I've shown in 1), that is simply not true. How can we differentiate between law-abiding citizens and criminals? Stricter gun control laws will not deter criminals from obtaining guns, and it will only make it harder for citizens to get guns. Yes, it is common sense that the more powerful weapon you have, the easier it is for someone to commit a crime. If that's true, then my opponent should also concede that the more powerful weapon you have, the easier it is for someone to defend themselves. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we aren't taking away the weapons of criminals, but rather the weapons of people that want to defend themselves. I do believe that my rape victim and "whatnot" example counts towards this debate, since if stricter gun regulations are put into place, less people will obtain guns. If less people obtain guns, then less people will be able to defend themselves with guns. Realistically, if I was a rapist, I would go for the one with the Swiss army knife rather than the one with a handgun. More than that, if I was going to do *any* crime that involves victims, I would go for the ones without guns. If there are stricter gun regulations, less people will have guns, and hence more easy target victims for the crimes of criminals that will attain guns from elsewhere. Again, I must challenge my opponent to come up with stricter gun regulation laws that will deter criminals from attaining guns while maintaining the ability to let law-abiding citizens to obtain them. 3) Guns are a form of liberty. As with my previous arguments, I stand with my point that to have stricter gun control would hinder citizens' self-defense and have no bearing on crime rates. Moreover, my opponent fails to respond to my previous argument for liberty; I still vie that stricter gun control laws will deter liberty because weapon is power, guns are power, and to subject citizens for stricter gun control laws on the government's terms is to take a form of liberty away from Americans. To show my previous argument: "We all know that weapons are power. Time and time again we've been shown that whoever has the weapons, has the power. For example, Hitler himself said that the "most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms". (. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com......) The only people that could have guns were the German military, the military that ended up being the law and order of all of the Nazi-occupied countries. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we are putting more power into our governments' hands. What makes America a democracy is that the people hold the power. To hinder America's accessibility to arms is to hinder America's liberty. Just because America, at the moment, seem to be at a point where the people hold the most power, we shouldn't forget the recent events of World War II, where anyone Japanese in America by heritage, whether they are an American or not, were put into concentration camps whilst their property was taken away. " To elaborate even more, I daresay that this contention has less to do with crime-deterrents and self-defense than liberty and the relationship of power between the people and the government. My opponent does not realize that there is a disconnect between those two. The stricter grasp our government has on our gun laws, the stricter grasp our government has on our liberty, and the larger the pool of power our government has over its people. My opponent does not provide a refutation to my argument that to impose on our gun laws is to impose on our liberty. 4) Conclusion My opponent has the fanciful belief that somehow stricter gun control laws will deter criminals from obtaining guns, which I've refuted through and through in my arguments. My opponent also fails to respond effectively to my 2nd contention simply because it's entirely based on his (refuted) first response to my first contention, moreover he virtually did not respond to my 3rd contention. I believe that my opponent's biggest obstacle is that he has a burden of proof that he has not met. His burden of proof is simple but hard to rationally manifest; how can stricter regulations prevent crime? I challenge him to show me his proof of his stance.