No Futher Restrictions on Guns

My opponent asserts that I dropped or ignored his arguments in the previous round. I do not believe this to be true, and I will reiterate and clarify my rebuttal against my opponent’s arguments. <<< REBUTTAL AGAINST PRO >> 1. “More restrictions will only disarm the wrong people” My opponent contends that additional restrictions will only serve to disarm the wrong people, i.e. disarm individuals that have a legal right to own guns. However, neither of the restrictions that I proposed – (1) laws requiring background checks at gun shows; and (2) laws require safe storage of firearms – would prevent legally-qualified individuals from owning guns. Requiring Background Checks at Gun Shows will not Disarm People that have a Legal Right to Purchase Guns Federal law already requires Brady Background Checks when individuals purchase guns from licensed sellers. The purpose of this law is to prevent criminals and the mentally-unstable from owning guns, thus furthering public safety. My opponent has admitted that the current Brady Background Checks serve this important purpose. Requiring Brady Background Checks at gun shows will not disarm people who have a legal right to own a gun. These people will still be able to legally purchase a gun at a gun show, just as they could purchase a gun from a licensed seller. As a result of these gun show restrictions, the only individuals who will be unable to purchase weapons at gun shows are criminals and the mentally-unstable (who already do not have a right to purchase guns). These restrictions would therefore not “disarm the wrong people.” Safe Storage Laws Have No Effect on an Individual’s Right to Purchase and Own a Gun Further, laws requiring the safe storage of firearms in order to protect young children will not “disarm the wrong people.” Safe storage laws require that a gun be maintained and stored in a particular manner. These restrictions have absolutely no bearing on who may purchase or own a gun, or what type of gun they may purchase. Because safe storage laws do not affect who may purchase guns or the type of guns they may purchase, safe storage laws will not “disarm the wrong people.” In fact, safe storage laws will not disarm anyone. 2. Restrictions Will Not Work Because Criminals Won’t Follow The Rules My opponent also contends that further restrictions will be ineffective because the only people that will follow these rules are law-abiding citizens and that criminals will refuse to abide by them. However, the intention of criminals and their desire to circumvent the law is not relevant. The purpose of these restrictions is to increase the difficulty for criminals to acquire these guns. Overwhelming evidence supports the notion that background checks will make it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns. In the year 2009 alone, there were over 150,000 attempts-to-purchase guns by dangerous individuals that were blocked by the federal Brady Background Check – and, over 1.9 million since the law was enacted.[1] As a result of blocking these dangerous individuals from acquiring guns, crime and violence has dropped. Numerous studies have found that Brady Background Checks have reduced homicide, gun-related violence, and illegal gun trafficking.[2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The effect of these background checks is clear – it makes it more difficult for dangerous people to acquire guns, regardless of their intentions, and ultimately reduces violence and crime. These same background checks should be applied to gun shows to increase the difficulty of criminals and the mentally-unstable to illegally acquire guns at these events. <<< CON ARGUMENT >>> The following are the gun restrictions for which I am advocating. Close Gun Show Loopholes Gun show loopholes allow dangerous individuals to purchase weapons at gun shows without a background check. Background checks have been shown to reduce gun trafficking, reduce homicide, and reduce gun related violence. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Restrictions should be applied to close these loopholes, prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing guns at gun shows, and protect the public. My opponent states that gun shows already have basic rules to ensure safety. However, these existing restrictions do not require purchasers to undergo a background check, nor do these existing restrictions even require the seller to make a record of the sale. Background checks at these events must be required to prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing guns. Child Access Prevent Laws – AKA Safe Storage Laws Child Access Laws requiring trigger locks and safe storage of guns have been shown to reduce accidental deaths of young children. [10][11] These laws do not infringe on the right of an individual to own a gun, but merely restrict the manner in which they maintain and store their weapon. These restrictions should be applied to prevent the access of young children to dangerous guns. My opponent argues that although these laws serve a good purpose, it should be a choice of state to enact them. My opponent’s view brings up a federalism argument that is outside the scope of this debate, and which I think we should both avoid. As such, I modify my argument and simply contend that these laws should be enacted in every state, regardless of whether the legislation is national or through each state’s own laws. SOURCES [1] Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009 - Statistical Tables, October 20, 2010 [2] La Valle, James M, “Re-Estimating Gun-Policy Effects According to a National Science Academy Report: Were Previous Reports of Failure Pre-Mature?” Journal of Crime and Justice, Volume 33(1), 2010, pp. 71-95 [3] Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T Bulzacchelli. “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 86 (2009): 525-37. [4] Sumner SA, Layde PM, Guse CE, “Firearm Death Rates and Association with Level of Firearm Purchase Background Check,” Am J Prev Med 35:1(July 2008):1-6. [5] La Valle, James M. “Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 18 (2007):451-465. [6] Vigdor ER, Mercy JA, “Do Laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide?” Evaluation Review 30(3)(June 2006):313-346. [7] Webster DW, Vernick JS, Hepburn LM, “Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other State Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns,” Injury Prevention 2001;7(3): 184-9. [8] Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Drake CM, and Beaumont, JJ, “Subsequent Criminal Activity Among Violent Misdemeanants Who Seek to Purchase Handguns: Risk Factors and Effectiveness of Denying Handgun Purchase,” JAMA, 285(8)(2001):1019-26 [9] Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T Bulzacchelli. “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 86 (2009): 525-37. [10] http://www.theatlantic.com... [11] Hepburn L, Azrael D, Miller M, and Hemenway D, “The Effect of Child Access Prevention Laws on Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities, 1979-2000,” The Journal of Trauma, 61(2)(2006):423-428