No Futher Restrictions on Guns

I will begin first with my arguments, then proceed in the second part with a rebuttal to my opponent’s arguments. ARGUMENTS FOR INCREASED RESTRICTIONS As the CON position, I am required to argue that increased restrictions should be placed on guns. I will NOT be arguing that the right of law-abiding individuals to own a gun should be reduced – instead, I will be arguing that current gun laws (1) do not adequately prevent the purchase of guns to criminals or other dangerous individuals at gun shows, and (2) do not adequately protect gun owners, their families, and young children from accidental injury or death. Gun Show Loophole Permits Individuals to Purchase Guns Without Background Checks My opponent admits that “[c]riminals, illegal aliens, [and the] mentally unstable, should be prohibited” from acquiring guns. When guns are sold by licensed gun dealers, federal law requires these dealers to conduct background checks on all buyers to ensure they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from owning guns. The purpose of these laws is clear – to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from acquiring deadly weapons. However, there are gaps in federal law that permit these dangerous individuals to purchase weapons at “gun shows,” and the government, in order to ensure public safety, should require further restrictions on gun show sales to prevent these dangerous weapons from changing hands without background checks. The so-called “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that permits individuals, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records of those sales. According to the AFT, over 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal trafficking investigations are connected in some way to gun shows – over 10,000 guns used in crime [1]. The ATF states that “gun shows . . . are a major venue for illegal trafficking.” The lack of gun restrictions on gun shows allows an unregulated flow of dangerous weapons into the public domain. Currently, there are no required background checks for purchasers at gun shows, and there are no records of who is purchasing these weapons. The highly regarded International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that laws be put in place to include universal background checks, even for the purchase of weapons at gun shows, to combat gun violence and increase public safety [2]. In order to protect innocent individuals from gun violence, the government should institute new gun restrictions requiring background checks on gun purchasers at gun shows – in the same way that the government already requires background checks on gun purchasers from licensed sellers. Laws Restricting the Access of Guns to Children reduce Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities Currently, only 27 states have adopted “Child Access Prevention” (CAP) laws. Among the requirements of these laws are mandated trigger locks on guns and safe storage requirements. States that adopted these laws experienced greater declines in unintentional gun deaths among youth within those states, as compared to states that did not adopt the laws [3][4]. These guns restrictions – which have been shown to be effective – do not prevent an individual from legally owning and using their gun, but instead simply require trigger locks and safe storage of these weapons to protect gun owners and bystanders. Studies have demonstrated a clear benefit of these child access laws in preventing unintentional deaths, and these restrictions should be applied in states that currently do not have them. REBUTTAL TO OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS My opponent argues that further restrictions “could possibly lead to a removal” of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and that existing restrictions “are strict enough.” Will Further Gun Restrictions Lead to Removal of the Second Amendent Right to Bear Arms? The Second Amendment of the Constitution provides “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The Second Amendment – while granting the right to bear arms – does not prevent the government from placing restrictions on the manner in which individuals acquire those arms, nor does it prevent the government from restricting the manner in which those guns are stored. The government has an inherent duty to ensure the safety of the people of the United States. Because guns are dangerous, the government must necessarily place restrictions on how these weapons can be purchased and stored. These types of restrictions, which I have argued for, do not affect “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” It is my position that even though individuals have the right to bear certain arms, it still remains the government’s duty to ensure that these dangerous weapons are properly purchased, do not end up in the hands of criminals, and that these weapons are properly stored by gun owners to ensure public safety. Are Existing Restrictions “strict enough”? My opponent contends that existing restrictions are strict enough. First, as evidenced from my previous argument regarding “gun show loopholes,” current restrictions are not strict enough. Felons, mentally-unstable, and other dangerous individuals can currently purchase guns at gun shows without undergoing a background check. My opponent agrees that guns should not be sold to these individuals, yet here we have loophole where these dangerous individuals can purchase these weapons. New restrictions are required to close this loophole and prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing guns without background checks at gun shows. Further, Child Access Laws [see above argument] that require trigger locks and safe storage of guns have been shown to reduce accidental deaths of young children. Nearly half of the states in the United States do not have these restrictions, despite the clear benefit in protecting children. Instituting these restrictions would not prevent anyone from owning a gun, but would require that they safely maintain and store their weapon in order to protect young children. Conclusions Gun show loopholes allow dangerous individuals to purchase weapons without a background check. Restrictions should be applied to close these loopholes and protect the public. Child Access Laws requiring trigger locks and safe storage of guns have been shown to reduce accidental deaths of young children. These laws do not restrict the right of an individual to own a gun, but merely mandate that they safely maintain and store their weapon. These restrictions should be applied to prevent the access of young children to dangerous guns. [1] http://www.atf.gov... [2] http://www.theiacp.org... [3] http://www.theatlantic.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...