Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

I'm not trying to assume your skill level. I simply presented my case in the best way I knew how, and left it to you to respond as you will. We can both always learn something new. R1: I'm not sure Con understands this argument. I'm not saying that crime rates increase in states with higher gun ownership. I'm saying death due to accidental shootings, homicide, and suicide attempts are up in these states, and I've provided a link to prove that (my [2]). In fact, the same link states that crime levels are pretty much constant. I'm not sure which study you're using to prove that crime rates are higher in the U.S. with gun bans, but since I'm not implementing one, it hardly matters. It doesn't apply to my case. It also doesn't matter whether or not the U.S. is a "hotspot for crime." The reality is that over 30,000 people died from gun usage in 2013. Con says it's the parents' fault. How does he plan to solve for this? Does he offer a counter-proposal? I don't see one. He even admits that "parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership," something that would require the gun control he so vehemently disagrees with. And, once again, I'm not taking away the right to wield guns, at least not that of anyone who can pass a background check. But more on that later. R2: Con mishandles this argument. First off, you'll note that suicide rates are higher in homes with guns than those without, he never responds to that. Second, note that states with background checks and higher restrictions on gun rights also have lower suicide and homicide rates on the whole. That's with these deadly "house knives." Third, I didn't claim that I'm solving for all of suicide. I don't see why I would have to in order to yield benefits in reducing the amount of suicide. Fourth, knives and hammers are still a whole lot less effective when committing suicide than guns. It normally only takes a single trigger pull, versus multiple attempts at slashing or pounding. The damage caused by these two items is often treatable as well. As for the point about background checks and what they're meant to do, Con is mistaken. Background checks are meant to check the eligibility of the buyer, not just whether or not they have a gun permit.[1] No, they're not meant to control all guns, but they are meant to control for people who have criminal backgrounds and psychological problems. R3: "People can steal guns." This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold much water. First off, as I stated, more guns are likely to be locked up and kept that much further from the hands of intruders. Second, this still requires an extra step, forcing these criminals to break into houses known to contain guns without their own to start with. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the risk of injury or death dramatically increases, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. Third, even you buy this wholesale, it's not a reason to do nothing. People break the law. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. As for gangs and mafias, again, we can't solve for every kind of criminal getting any guns. These groups will have a harder time of it, but I don't doubt that they will sometimes manage to get guns. That just puts us back in status quo, which is what Con is arguing for. I don't doubt that some criminals "can be smart," but fewer will be able to acquire guns, and next to none of them will be able to do so legally. I didn't say that all criminals were poor, and no, that was not an assertion, it was sourced from Maurice Ward, a Juvenile Justice Program Administrator for Washington State (my [8]). If my opponent would care to provide a competing link, he may do so. I realize that handguns are destructive (though, I would say that Con's only hurting his case by stating this), and background checks and registries would still solve for this. They are not as destructive as assault or semi-automatic rifles (my [9] and [10]). R4: Cross-apply my points about acquisition. As for knives, hammers and bombs... Knives aren't nearly as effective at mass slaughter, partly because it's just not as deadly, but also because you can't kill someone at range without losing your weapon. Hammers are even less effective, relying on blunt force trauma to kill the victim and therefore heavy, powerful swings. Someone can far more easily run away from a person wielding either of these things than someone with a gun. Bombs are effective, but often more dangerous the maker, difficult to build, store and transport, and, most importantly, banned. We track people who buy bomb materials for a reason. Onto Con's arguments "Guns can decrease crime" I will note that Con is hedging his bets on one study while ignoring all of mine (my [4-6]). He also uses a highly correlative study that does little to explain why more guns = less crime. They're not controlling for other factors like improved law enforcement, poorer neighborhoods, or drug usage. But this one is.[2] Another Harvard study used survey data from the CDC, with over 200,000 people polled in telephone surveys, to determine if homicide rates were higher in states where households have more guns. And they controlled for a lot: "...several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption..." And found quite a bit: "...states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."[2] It even provides some causal analysis: "These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent."[2] As for Con's point that "Most citizens needs to have guns" to scare off criminals, let's look at another Harvard study.[3] This study weighed the various risks of having a gun in a home, which may look familiar (accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation) and compared them to the benefits of deterrence and thwarting crimes. Homes with women and children are less safe, since they tend to be murdered at home. It concluded that guns re more often used to threaten intimate people than to protect against intruders. My previous studies show the increased risk of suicide, and so does this one. What's more, on deterrence: "...there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in."[3] In other words, the benefit Con states is practically nil. Con mentions terrorism. I don't think my burden in this round is to solve for terrorism. We can also solve for terrorism while implementing these gun control policies. The two are not mutually exclusive. Lastly, the Second Amendment: 1) I would argue that guns were deemed legal not to secure personal liberties, but to provide for the state"s collective defense. Hence the mention of militias in the Amendment. 2) The USSC recently ruled on this, stating that there was room to restrict or ban "dangerous or unusual weapons," which I would argue include assault and semi-automatic rifles. 3) Con seems to agree that background checks are beneficial and somewhat necessary for parents with kids who are "unstable or misbehaving," so he apparently agrees that this Amendment can be abridged, even if he disagrees with the amount of abridgment. 1. http://www.cnn.com... 2. http://archive.sph.harvard.edu... 3. http://sbcoalition.org...