Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

Alright, well I appreciate my opponent's acceptance, and I look forward to a stirring debate. As the policy I've suggested has three related but distinct pieces, I'm going to start off by providing reasons why gun control measures such as these are good on the whole, and then I'm going to get into each of them specifically and provide argumentation for why they are effective. I'll start by quoting some statistics. From the date of the Newtown shooting at the end of 2012 to the end of 2013, 12,042 people have been killed by guns.[1] These are caused by a combination of accidental shootings and violent crime, though the reality is that 60% of gun deaths occur due to suicide. I'll get into each of these issues separately. Accidental shootings From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Guns in the home are correlated with higher risk, as the likelihood of being involved in an accidental shooting, homicide, or suicide attempts increases by 22 times due to their presence. These are far more common than their usage in self-defense as well. States with more guns, on average, are 9 times as likely to die due to accidental shootings.[2] As my case reduces levels of gun ownership, this would be linearly improved, Suicide Essentially, guns make suicide too easy. They're far more likely to occur in the homes of gun owners, especially among adolescents. People who committed suicide in a given year were found to be 17 times as likely to have lived in homes with guns than people who did not.[3] States that perform background checks and have higher restrictions have lower suicide and homicide deaths.[4] What's more, states with lower gun ownership "had similar rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as similar rates of suicide that did not involve firearms, like hanging and poisoning. But the number of people who died by shooting themselves was almost four times greater in the high-gun states."[3] Even those with experience and training in using a firearm could benefit from additional restrictions.[5] Veterans who commit suicide use a gun 70% of the time.[3] Therefore, increased background checks to remove guns from individuals with psychiatric illnesses could stand to reduce these rates. Homicide This is a bit more involved. I'll start by talking about mass shootings, then move to individual crimes that simply involve the usage of guns. Now, why would this reduce mass shootings? Reducing the availability of legal avenues of acquisition would be likely to reduce incidence. Of the 143 guns possessed by these people, more than " were obtained legally.[6] This is true whether we're talking about workplace or school shootings.[7] If my opponent would like, I can cover specific instances in my next post. These often included assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles, though any gun would have a higher likelihood of being denied to them, especially due to psychiatric evaluation being more often taken into account. Individual criminals that utilize guns as a means to an end will also have less access. They will have far fewer no loopholes through which to acquire their weapons legally, so anyone with a criminal background will often be denied based on background checks. Access to the most dangerous rifles would be made more difficult and more expensive. Most of those who engage in criminal activities are poor.[8] A tax on certain guns makes them less likely to purchase them, since that will make the cost untenable for many. That means reduced access to the most destructive firearms. Alright, with that, I'll move into defending the specific pieces of my case. Why the restrictions on assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles specifically? Well, first we have to understand why a automatic weapons is problematic, since that's the basis for deciding this. Let's take an example. The M4A1 is fully automatic, and can fire 950 rounds per minute. In other words, it dispenses death very quickly. It can kill dozens of people in the span of a few seconds. So why the two I've chosen? The fact that they show up a lot in mass shootings isn't a coincidence. "What makes these weapons so deadly? They are civilian copies of military weapons designed with features that make them more lethal." This includes altered grips to increase the pace of shooting and accuracy, barrel shrouds to be able to fire more without releasing the handle, and a threaded barrel for silencing and suppressing muzzle flash.[9] These have all been used extensively by mass shooters, and are commonly available traits of assault rifles. What's worse, semi-automatic weapons can be converted to automatic weapons with ease, removing restrictions on fire rate per trigger pull.[10] This policy would dramatically reduce new purchases of guns by criminals, who would have to then engage in the more extensive process of background checks. In case anyone needs proof, we only need look at the assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. It reduced gun murders in 1995, the year after it went into effect, by 6.7%.[11] It reduced use of assault weapons in crime by 2/3s.[12] The reason is quite simple actually: "Criminals prefer new guns if they can get them. They get rid of ones that can be traced to a crime and, like anyone who works with a tool, they often prefer the best and latest models. Over time, a ban that dries up the supply of new weapons pushes shooters to more readily available options."[11] The policy's weakness actually was mainly with its loopholes, resultant from a weak definition of what was to be banned. There would be no such problem in my case. Now, why gun registries? Two reasons. One, it will provide a system to locate gun dealers. Tracking guns gets a whole lot simpler, and sourcing them, in particular, is dramatically improved.[13] Two, it creates opportunities for individuals to realize that they have to keep their guns more responsibly, securing them to prevent children from accessing them and thieves from stealing them. Those guns can be traced back to them more easily, so they would be more responsible for the outcome. How about universal background checks? This will help law enforcement spot gun traffickers. It's a method of prevention that will stop some loss of life. Currently, private sales don't require these checks, and thus online and gun show sales are often unregulated in this regard. It is estimated that background checks have prevented almost 2 million criminals and dangerous individuals from buying guns, and as such, this actually has received the support of a large majority of the country.[14] I pass it back over to Con. 1. http://www.slate.com... 2. http://nyagv.org... 3. http://news.discovery.com... 4. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 5. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 6. http://www.motherjones.com... 7. https://www.vpc.org... 8. http://www.nationaldialoguenetwork.org... 9. http://articles.baltimoresun.com... 10. http://www.motherjones.com... 11. http://www.usatoday.com... 12. http://crim.sas.upenn.edu... 13. http://www.minnpost.com... 14. http://www.usnews.com...