Gun Control is illogical

Thank you Eminentend for the clarification and responses. I will address your responses below: 1) Age restrictions are logical. You have conceded this point. The argument that an assault weapons ban is infringing on the 2nd Amendment can be made as can the argument that there shouldn't be a 7 bullets per magazine restriction. However, these arguments are much more specific than the overarching claim that "gun control in general is highly illogical." I am being asked to debate something much different from what I agreed to debate, so I ask that this not be held against me. Given the Supreme Court's recent decision to establish an individual right to bear arms for personal protection under the penumbra of the 2nd Amendment, it is unlikely that magazine restrictions or assault weapons bans would pass constitutional muster. Out of curiosity, do you support any restrictions on the type of weaponry available to individual citizens? Is there any line you would draw at which public safety overrules the possibility of using a weapon for protection or sport? 2) Universal background checks for mental illness are logical Just because background checks have not stopped everyone who is mentally ill and potentially dangerous from obtaining a firearm does not mean that they have not stopped anyone. In fact, background checks have been highly effective; since the NICS instant background check system was implemented in 1998, background checks have denied transfers to over 1.7 million prohibited purchasers (http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org...). As can be seen from this figure, even if background checks are not always being enforced as they should, they are being enforced often. They are helping us keep guns in the hands of the people who should have them rather than in the hands of those who pose a danger to the community. 3) Among competent adults, having less restrictive gun laws is associated with greater incidence of suicide and overall gun death rates. It may not be true that anyone who wants to commit suicide will take anything that is available. Suicide attempts can be cries for attention or help, and people who attempt suicide are not always sure about what they want. In an Oxford, UK study of attempted suicide, 36.9% of those who attempted suicide reported only low suicidal intent, while 33.9% reported moderate intent, 25% reported high intent, and 4.2% reported very high intent (http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk... csr/monpubs.html). Yet, firearms are highly effective for suicide (although there is the possibility of failure): http://www.amazon.com... Easy access to firearms may be contributing to the success of suicides that may have otherwise been unsuccessful, leading to a decision by the individual to not commit suicide after all. Here is a citation for research that demonstrates that when you reduce access to lethal means, suicide rates diminish: Johnson, Rene M; Coyne-Beasley, Tamera. Lethal means reduction: what have we learned? Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2009; 21: 635"640 You raise the issue of Chicago's homicide rate, but this is just one example. You have to consider larger trends to get the full picture. Overall, states with weaker gun laws have higher gun violence: http://www.americanprogress.org... You depict criminals as being people who are going to break one law in order to achieve the breaking of another because "they're criminals, duh." However, it isn't as though there are two groups of people: criminals and non-criminals. Everyone has committed a crime at some point, whether that crime was driving faster than a posted speed limit or committing a homicide. You have not provided any evidence to suggest that there are certain people who will inherently break all laws and some who will break none. Thus, it is possible that some, when confronted with what would be necessary to obtain a firearm illegally, would use that opportunity to rethink their actions. It is also possible that people have some laws they would break and others that they would not because of their values, beliefs, worldviews, the difficulty of breaking the laws, fear of certain consequences but not others or any number of other reasons. For example, I have no problem with speeding in my car, but I would never commit a DUI. You raise a hypothetical regarding a criminal intending to kill children in a school and ask whether a gun-free zone sign would be more or less effective than a sign that indicated that staff are armed and violence would be met with lethal force. Personally, I don't think either would be effective. If someone is intent on killing children in a school, neither a gun-free zone sign nor threat of lethal force is going to effectively deter that person. One has to assume that killing others will likely lead to lethal force from the police in response. Thank you for your comments, and I look forward to the next round. Best Regards, Dukeblueinmyveins