Gun Control (Copy #2)

My opponent has used his acceptance round to state his arguments. Based on this I will begin my rebuttals in Round One, and post my main arguments afterwards. R1 "The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do." It is true that guns do not cause violence, they are simply the middlemen, so to speak. And it is also true that deranged individuals are often behind gun violence. These two statements are true, but that does not mean there shouldn't be gun control laws in America, as my opponent suggests in the first sentence of the quote above. If deranged individuals do cause gun violence, then there should be laws in place to control and hopefully prohibit said deranged individuals' access to guns. Gun control laws are already minimal in America compared to those in countries like Australia[1] or Japan[2], and to further lessen our laws and regulations is an invitation to an even greater ease of access for deranged individuals. R2 "Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal." This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this. More importantly, there can be many factors not taken into account when measuring such statistics. For instance, what if an area is experiencing a significant amount of gun violence, and decides to give stricter gun control laws a shot. The following year after this decision may not see much change, simply because the new laws take a while to have full effect, but people taking the statistics take a quick look at the area and say, "Yep, they've still got gun violence." R3 "The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty." I'd like to stress the use of the word 'original'. The Constitution was crafted at a time very different than ours, when militias were relied upon to help fight in the revolution. The United States was a baby nation at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and the forces of law and order were few and far between, and so it was necessary for people to join into militias to provide protection. America is no longer at that stage however. We have a tangible police force to protect us now. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. A complete ban on guns is not required, but completely free access to guns is no longer needed. R4 "government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies." It seems my opponent's contention here is aimed at a ban on weaponry. I am not for a complete ban on weaponry in the US, so I cannot rebuttal this in its entirety. However I will comment on the idea that firearms are necessary in the modern world to protect oneself from enemies. Statistics show that legally owned guns are rarely used to stop criminals. In fact, legally owned guns are found to be used in socially undesirable ways, such as threatening spouses and children, illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3]. Legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense. This is contradictory to my opponent's idea that guns are necessary for safety. Main Argument: Point 1 I do not argue for a complete ban on weapons in the United States. I argue for smarter and stricter laws regarding gun ownership, especially in gun acquisition. Currently 20% of gun sales are private[4], without background checks taking place. This is a huge loophole for potential deranged individuals. Point 2 We have seen many countries enact very tough gun laws, and been the better for it. My two biggest examples are that of Australia[1], and Japan[2]. Japan has virtually no civilian owned guns. The only weapons that are legal to purchase are shotguns and air rifles, and these are extremely hard to come by, due to the complicated gun acquisition process in place. Japan has had as few as 2 gun deaths a year. Compare that to the US's 12,000 firearm related homicides in the year 2008[2]. Or take Australia, which has seen significant reduction in gun related homicide since the NFA was enacted[5]. It is impossible to look at scenarios like this and claim it's due to chance, and that the same could not happen in America if stricter gun laws were introduced. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://guncontrol.org.au...