Gun Control

I stand by my argument that homicide rates are a misleading in presenting effectiveness of gun control. Gun control is intended to increase overall safety by targeting gun violence specifically. Because gun control is aimed to decrease gun violence, firearm homicides and firearm crimes are the statistics that we should focus on to better gauge gun control's effectiveness. Yes criminals have other methods of murder, but seeing as 69.5% of homicides are committed with firearms, [1] guns are the clear method of choice and our lax gun control undoubtedly makes it easier for criminals to acquire and use guns. "...there are 500,000 to 3,000,000 times each year where guns are used for self-defense. This means guns have potentially saved lives 43 to 260 times more than they have taken lives." First I'd like to point out this statistic has no source and a statistical deviation of %600. The commonly used pro-gun statistic is 2.5 million, a number from the Kleck study published in 1994 that has been widely discredited by the likes of the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, the Harvard Injury Research and Control Center, and the Stanford Law Review. A report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics the same year indicates gun were used in self-defense of crimes just 82,500 times. When we contrast this with the 930,700 crimes committed with only handguns the same year (my opponent only includes homicides when there are many more gun crimes that don't end in death), it is clear that guns are used in self defense very rarely [2] The Harvard Injury Research Center further concludes: "Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense", "Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.", and " Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens"[3]. It is also worth noting that these self defense numbers include active and off-duty police officers using self-defense. I stand by the argument that "Developing nations are subject to a number of adverse conditions (war, famine, disease, etc.) that inflate these numbers and make them unfair comparisons to the U.S." At no point am I arguing that the U.S. is superior or more "righteous" country. I am simply arguing that the vast differences in economic, political, health, etc. conditions between developing countries and the U.S. are going to inflate and effect the homicide rate (which I argue is irrelevant anyway) far more than gun control will. My opponent brings up Mexico, it is the perfect example. The Mexican Drug War against paramilitary cartels (costing more civilian deaths than counts in Iraq and Afghanistan combined [4] is not even in the same world as "the drug problem here." The massive damage from the Mexican Drug War undoubtedly amplifies homicide numbers, nothing to do with gun control unless of course you bring up the source of the cartels' weapons: the U.S.[5] As long as my opponent is discrediting and omitting information provided by the Washington Post and an international, sanctioned organization of 34 countries, perhaps he can take down NPR and the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. They show the U.S., home of "least strict gun control laws in the world" as conceded by my opponent, is yet again a world leader in firearm deaths, only falling behind South American and African countries that have very low HDIs and are embroiled in armed conflicts, drug wars, crime wars, etc. that are vastly more deadly than those of the U.S. [6] " The HDI rates economic development and quality of life. Now we have to include countries like Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay... " I'm happy to use a criteria using an HDI threshold. My opponent provides no reason for including these countries other than that they have higher murder rates which clearly pushes his agenda. The U.S. is 8 in HDI world ranking, none of these countries are even in the top 50 so how are they fair comparisons[7]? Using the top 50 would still find the U.S. topping all others in gun homicide rates [8]. "If you account that around 1 per 100,000 are murdered in Japan, and 3.2 per 100,000 are murdered (without guns) in the U.S. you will see we still have a rate 3 times that of Japan. In other words it"s not the guns, it"s the people. " The math here is just plain wrong. The U.S. homicide rate given without a source by the opponent is 3.9. If 69.5% of homicides are gun homicides that means 30.5% are committed without guns. 3.9 x .305 leaves us with 1.19 per 100,000 people murdered without guns; a difference of 0.19. This would indicate guns actually are the difference, not people. My opponent then goes on to make claims about UK, Australian, and Canada crime without any sources. UK: There is no evidence that links UK crime increases to its strict gun control. The U.S. still has more crime (16% more) firearm murders per capita (138 times more) and violent crime murders per capita (4 times more) than the U.K. [9] Australia: The country has actually hit record low murder rates, firearm homicides have dropped 13%, and there has not been a single mass shooting since the ban [10] Canada: I don't see why my opponent would use this statistic. Canada's homicide rate of 1.4 is approximately 35% of the U.S.'s 3.9, as in the U.S's rate is 65% higher. How having a much lower homicide rate than the U.S. indicates Canada's gun control is failing is beyond me. "The numbers actually fall apart when you look at gun homicides and not just deaths..." Using your source they actually don't with the exception of D.C. which is a highly concentrated, dense, urban city, not a state that has the suburbs, small towns, etc. of Alaska to balance the numbers out. It's unfair that your comparing Washington D.C. to cities in R1 and now to states. Using your source, the average firearm murder rate of the states I used for examples of for lax gun control: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, Wyoming, (Alabama N/A) is 3.6. The average rate of the states I used to represent strict gun control: Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island is 1.89. The states with lax gun control have a firearm homicide rate that nearly doubles that of the stricter states. "There is no due process to put people on the list. Many people get put on them accidentally with no recourse to get off." The Bipartisan Amendment to the No Fly, No Buy Bill accounted for due process: "Ms. Collins"s measure...would allow for an appeal by any citizen or green card holder blocked from making a purchase and it would award lawyer"s fees if the appeal is successful." And the bill does not prohibit someone who got off the list from buying for 5 years, it simply requires law enforcement be notified if a purchase is made [11]. "Show me how Omar couldn"t have used a bomb to kill all those people" Show me how Omar could have legally bought a bomb. Show me that Omar had any background in bomb-making.There's a reason he used a gun: it's easier. By not implementing gun control we make it legal and easy for people like Omar to carry out mass murder and terrorism. "Do you magically know how many mass shootings were neutralized by armed citizens? " No, the FBI does. Out of 104 mass shootings from 2000-2012, only 3 were neutralized by armed citizens shooting the perpetrator. [12] Last round I showed 120 of 133 mass shootings occurred in carrying was legally permitted. Here I have showed mass shootings are very rarely stopped by armed citizens. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that "Having the most guns in the world has failed to deal with mass shootings." "France suffered from more people being shot by mass shootings last year than the US has in Obama"s entire presidency. So please show how that correlates to the US and gun control." My claim was that the mass shooting epidemic is unprecedented in U.S.'s own history, not the world. I will address your comparison next round though. Sources in comment section