THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms

Re: Increase of TerrorismI will agree with my opponent that the gun laws are far too permissive and relaxed. As I mentioned in the previous round, guns are not and should not be free from government control or regulation; however, any form of regulation must be consistent with the Constitution. Con argues that there has been an increase in terrorism and attacks on the U. S. Although it appears to be true that mass shootings have increased this ignores the overall trend. According to an October 1 (and updated in January 2016) report from Pew Research, since 1990, gun violence and gun related crimes has gone down steadily (1). This is due to many factors including a better economy, more police officers and technology, a decline in alcohol consumption, and a significant decrease in lead thanks to the Clean Air Act of 1970 (2). Indeed, it has never been a safer time in the United States for children (3). As for the rest of Americans, it also remains true that America is far safer now than we were 8 years ago under Bush (4). Another important factor to consider is the amount of errors on the no-fly list. If the no-fly list is as deeply flawed as it currently is, how are we to expect that such a list would function well as a no-buy list? Indeed, the list would not have prevented many of the most recent shootings in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook Elementary School (6). None of these attackers were on the no-fly list including those with extremist ties. The Orlando shooter was on the no-fly list, but was removed in 2013 after the FBI could find no evidence of terrorist ties. An alternative solutionI would like to take some time to propose an alternative policy for public safety. What would be effective to prevent more mass shootings? I would argue that expanding background checks, mandating gun insurance, requiring extensive psychological testing, limiting magazine capacity, and requiring a waiting period to purchase firearms would be far more effective than no-fly no-buy. We know that these policies work because they have worked in Australia and other places (7). These policies will effective and would be far consistent with the Constitution than no-fly no-buy. ConclusionCon's case relies on public safety and the increase of mass shootings. However, as I have shown, that ignores the overall trend that gun violence has gone down. Furthermore, no-fly-no-buy would not have prevented several of the most recent deadly attacks. There are good reasons to be skeptical of the no-fly-no-buy policy. Because the no-fly list is deeply flawed, it is questionable whether or not it would be effective as a no-buy list. Furthermore, due to the secretive nature of the list, it is nearly impossible to get off the list or contest your inclusion. Americans should not be forced to give up more liberties - including that of due process, the right to a speedy trial, being able to contest a government witness, and the right to bear arms - in the name of public safety over a list that has not been proven to be effective. I have also proposed an alternative solution that would be more effective and less intrusive than a no-fly no-buy policy. I look forward to hearing my opponent's reply. Sources1. . http://pewrsr.ch...;2. . http://wapo.st...;3. . http://wapo.st...;4. . http://bit.ly...;5. . http://nydn.us...;6. . http://nbcnews.to...;7. . http://nym.ag...;