We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. An overarching theme of gun control is whether the strictness of its regulations has a correlation to how much it controls and/or reduces crime. Stricter gun control laws include longer waiting times, stricter eligibility for the privilege to conceal arms, as well as tougher requirements for background checks. I contest that stricter gun laws will either have no impact on crime rates, or it will have a negative impact on crime rates. Firstly, statistics and studies on gun control show that a longer waiting period does not impact firearm crime rates at all. Moreover, all commercial gun dealers have to run a background check; there is no loophole during "gun shows", as many people assume, either. Background checks are a gauge of how lawful a person is on paper; it's impossible to gauge everyone's intentions and what they might do in situations that cause them spur-of-the-moment violence. Finally, the real kicker is that gun control laws do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. In fact, the 31 states with "shall issue" laws (the law to conceal weapons) "have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. " The nine states with he lowest violent crime rates all have right to carry laws. (. http://www.cato.org...) Gun control laws do *not* work, and it is not a theoretical statement, but a statistically proven one. To make guns harder to obtain simply makes no difference to crime rates. To pass laws that forbids someone to conceal weapons makes crime rates go higher. Gun control laws not only do not work, but they even bring up crime rates. 2) Guns save lives. Despite it being an incredibly corny line, guns don't kill people, people kill people. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, someone pro-gun control might say that guns make it easier for people to kill, and guns make harm more accessible to people. We have to consider that people are using the guns to harm others. How, then, will people defend themselves? Consider this: rape victims are mostly female and physically weaker than their predators. What's a quick way to bridge the gap between the physicality? With a gun, of course. A victim with a gun is far more likely to have a winning chance to defend themselves. One, of course, also needs to look at the numbers. "Guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. " (. http://www.cato.org...) Guns save lives. To the weak, easily victimized, guns are a way for them to give themselves a fighting chance. 3) Guns are a form of liberty. We all know that weapons are power. Time and time again we've been shown that whoever has the weapons, has the power. For example, Hitler himself said that the "most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms". (. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...) The only people that could have guns were the German military, the military that ended up being the law and order of all of the Nazi-occupied countries. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we are putting more power into our governments' hands. What makes America a democracy is that the people hold the power. To hinder America's accessibility to arms is to hinder America's liberty. Just because America, at the moment, seem to be at a point where the people hold the most power, we shouldn't forget the recent events of World War II, where anyone Japanese in America by heritage, whether they are an American or not, were put into concentration camps whilst their property was taken away. 4) Conclusion Not only are stricter gun laws not effective or negatively effective, they are also a great component in people's safety. Statistically, and realistically, stricter gun laws will not save lives. In fact, it will cause more lives to be harmed. Even though the laws might be well-intentioned, they have to consider how the laws would work- and they wouldn't. Gun control doesn't work. I challenge Pro to come up with laws that aren't redundant or reductive. Just because we have a problem (gun violence) doesn't mean there's a solution to it. Stricter gun control laws are not a solution. My final argument is that yes, we have a problem, but the proposed solution (gun control) does not work. I look forward to hearing my opponent's side of the debate :).