Gun Control Advocates are Severely Misguided

I agree with my opponents definition. Unless he demonstrates that their ideology is false, he loses the debate. He has the burden of proof to show that any gun control is acting on error, or based on misleading statistics. He has not done this, as I will explain. 1. Demonization Again, my opponent picks on a few agencies and news casters to claim that those who support gun control are demonizing others. It's like saying people born in Germany during Hitler's reign are misled because they are recists, when the fact is that most of them aren't. Instead of focusing on their views, that gun-control would save lives, he focuses on the fact that they dislike the NRA and that a few of them are crazy. Well, Ted Nugent is kinda crazy, too, but I am not going to cite him because I acknowledge the fact that he is not the whole gun-supported lobby. The Brady Campaign, although calling the NRA a criminals best friend, does not ever say that the NRA loves criminals. Rather, that their statements are hypocritical and that their opposition to new gun laws, and old gun laws, have led to more crime. Further, to say that the NRA uses politicians to their political gain (as many groups do) does not say that gun owners are heartless [1]. My opponent basically misrepresents gun control ideology. These people have a good outlook on life, and want to reduce gun violence. They have genuine concerns and they should be addressed. However, if they say that the NRA misrepresents their own position and increases the crime rate that is not saying that they are abusive. Its like me saying that I think the NAS is wrong on global warming and ignores pertinent data (which I do), but I am not considered as demonizing all of those who support man made climate change. 2. AustraliaMy opponent does not name any criticisms, merely states that they exist. However, I could flip the coin and say anti-gun scholars have vicerated Kleck's and Lott's pro-gun arguments. Really, unless you can name specific objections, this is just an assertion. Was crime decreasing before the law? Now according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Actually, in the 1990s, homocide fluctuated on a year to year basis in large swings due to natural crime cycles. But the swing trended upward. In 1996, when gun control was passed, and in 1997, when it was fully enforced, crime fell. Natural cycle rose the crime, not surprising, then crime fell from 2000 onwards [2]. Here is where pro gun misleading statistics come in: from 1990 - present, yes, crime fell. However, from 1990 - 1995, a period before the banm crime rose. From 1996 - 1997 it decreased, rose, then fell for the next decade. Pro gun experts draw the downward line and say "well, crime fell before, so we're right". But a simple look into the actual statistics disproves that assumption. My opponent then argues that Australian gun ownership was low before the law. Unless he cites this specific staistic, it is merely taking my opponents word. 3. Common senseKleck notes that guns in the hands of criminals increase crime, and that a proper backround check system would reduce crime. Although I could say the prevalence of an Iphone or androids increases cellular usage, my opponent says that they will substitute guns just like a teenager would substitute a smart phone. This is obviously absurd. A teenager with the old Razors used their phone for much less. Why? It was less effective. Guns in the hands of criminals are very effective. Even if we assume guns have no net-effect on crime, research shows that guns in the hands of criminals significantly increase homicide. So, if gun control reduces criminal possesion, gun control would reduce crime. Kleck notes, "research... on state licensing and purchase limit laws, which all include backround checks as their centeral element, indicates that these laws may reduce rates of homocide and perhaps suicide" [3] (pg. 376). 4. FlawsThe Brady Law was insufficient. The main reason being it only applied to liscensed dealers, whereas 40% of gun owners go throuh unlicensed ones--unlicensed =/= illegal, to clarify. However, the statistics my opponent uses are skewed. Research has shown that a large, though unknown, number of criminals did not attempt to purchase a weapon because it was illegal (i.e. more cost to the criminal) [4]. Further, my opponent cites a study showing that 2.1 million people were barred from getting guns. Great! He has not shown that all of those on that list were innocent, though many of them probably were. However, I doubt most of those on the list would have been not-harmed had they had a gun. The vast majority of those innocent on the list would want the gun for other purposes. And even those who wanted defense, they probably would not have died. Say I want an antibiotic for an infection. And we have a 3 day waiting period. The vast majority of those on the list would not die, because its not urgent. My opponents argument is entirely hypothetical; at least my "detered from buying a gun" argument has some empirical standing, and that the number is significant. My opponent only used an assertion. And even if they all lived in a bad neighborhood, a wait wont kill them. It's a pretty huge assumption to make that a large number of people were killed due to the brady law. 5. Cross sectionalLOL at my opponent saying "well, some of them use the argument, so they are misguided". Most pro-gun people say that they need a gun to defend themselves from the goverment, when Europe is doing just fine with heavy control. They are wrong and misguided, but to say that the whole ideology is wrong based on one argument is just dumb, they have many other reasons to believe what they believe. My argument, and most statisticians argument, does not rely on cross-sectional analysis. Saying one argument is wrong =/= that they are wrong. Unless my opponent gives proof that they are wrong, overall, he loses. He has targeted, cherry picked even, specific arguments. However, he has yet to show that their whole ideology is false. 6. Violence fallacyMy opponent loses here. If the substitution effect is small, which he has not refuted, and gun violence falls, total violence will fall. I have provided research using total gun deaths, he has essentially ignored them, he loses the point. My opponent says that guns are used in defense often: source? And this is blatantly false. Young victims report being threatened at amuch higher rate then using a firearm in self defense. Guns in the home are more often used to intimidate other people in the house than for defense, and when looking at self defense records using firearms in self defense is illegal: or, in other words, that most reported self defense instances are unwarented--and undesirable [5]. its funny how my opponent criticizes my arguments like I have the BOP, which is false. He has to provide proof, I merely have to refute. As he has not provided any proof of anything, that guns save people, or that all gun control fails, he loses the debate. First, most of my studies have some total crime aspect if you read closely. Second, with no substitution effect, gun crime is the main driver. Lastly, guns increase crime in the hands of criminals, and gun control reduces that number of guns in the hands of criminals [3].Less guns in the hands of the bad dudes, less crime--basic logic.Final remarks?a.) I have not cited Kellerman, and one flawed study =/= flawed ideology. b.) Properly regressing the NAS homocide regressions lead to the conclusion that CCW increased crime (see ADZ)My opponent has utterly failed to show that gun control, as an idea or in practice, is false. He merely attacks specific studies or arguments, not the idea, therefore loses hands down. 1. http://tinyurl.com...;2. http://tinyurl.com...; 3. Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. 4. http://tinyurl.com...;5. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...