Gun control is futile.

I would like to point out that I will be taking the Devil’s Advocate and I really am against gun control. Good Luck! ! C.1 Harvard Injury Control Center Study A study in Harvard has analyzed developed countries from the early 1990s. The study found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, the study analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e. g. , poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide. (1) C.2 More guns and More murder One of the largest studies ever presented was by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University Many people believe that crime rates overall declined with no gun control. However, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. The authors also included these variables making it one of the largest study ever. These variables include “Age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted non firearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for. After doing this research the result was staggering. “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. (2) To put this into perspective, a one standard deviation in gun ownership would result in a 12.9% increase in homicide rate. This points out the obvious. More guns=more crimes including ALL of the factors, unlike most other studies which do not have all the factors. C.3 Gun control does not mean gun ban Not allowing guns in a movie theater means gun control. Not allowing 3 year old guns to shoot guns means “gun control. ” Even the slightest restriction means “gun control. ” By my opponent’s definition the slightest restriction would indeed be gun control. This does not mean a ban. For an example, don’t let a nine year old shoot an Uzi means gun control. Recently a nine year old fatally shot her instructor with an Uzi when the gun slipped out of her hand. (3) Follow my logic -A nine year old shoots her Instructor -Solution would be to not her shoot a gun -The solution is actually gun control -Therefore gun control would be effective when using common sense -Common sense is gun control -Therefore, gun control is not futile This also means to not let a mentally disturbed person with a gun. A shooting at a school (Sandy Hooks) killed 20 first graders and six adults in the school and then killed himself. (4) The solution would be to not to let a mentally disturbed person with a gun. However, this is gun control. Therefore gun control is not futile. Now I will move on to rebuttals. R.1 All of my opponent’s arguments relate to gun bans All of my opponent’s arguments are in regards to gun ban, NOT gun control. This means, that my opponent has not shown weather gun CONTROL is effective. Gun ban in fact is irrelevant. Furthermore, I have shown how fewer guns means less homicide. On another note, the last link (Number 4) is a faulty URL for my opponent. Just pointing that out so my opponent can fix. No worries. . http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... . http://thinkprogress.org... . http://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.nytimes.com...