Gun Control

Thank you Con for this debate. I do not argue to disarm law-abiding, responsible gun owners. I do not argue to strip American's of a constitutional right. I argue that we take sensible action and implement regulations that make it less likely that unstable people and those seeking to do us harm have easy, legal, "no questions asked" access to the weapons of their choice. Why you should vote Pro: 1) What We Have Does Not Work: As Con conceded, Guns are more prevalent and easier to access in the U. S. than anywhere else in the world. Let's assess how this has worked. We can choose to allow Con to compare the U. S. to war-torn, crisis-ridden countries far beyond saving from just gun control, and to just remove the deaths of thousands of African and Latino-Americans from the conversation to result in middling standings for the U. S. But the stats show that the U. S. is the runaway leader in homicides and firearm-homicides among countries of comparable HDI (the metric he introduced). One goal of lax gun control proposed by Con is better self-defense against crime. We can choose to believe the widely discredited studies and numbers provided by Con, based on a couple hundred phone calls and in which pulling out a gun during a vocal argument is considered "self-defense". Or we can believe the FBI, Department of Justice, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and Stanford Law Review that showed us guns are used in self-defense in less than 1% of crimes, guns are used for aggression far more than they are for self-defense, and over the course of a decade and over 100 mass shootings, police and even unarmed citizens were far more effective at neutralizing mass shooters than armed citizens were. When I see these statistics, when I turn on the T. V. to see kindergartners and club-goers massacred, it's pretty clear the U. S. has a gun violence problem. Not a bomb violence problem, or a pressure-cooker violence problem, guns are the preferred weapons. If criminals had no preference for guns, and the weapons don't make any difference, they wouldn't be used in 69% of homicides. There is no minimizing the problem. And if guns are not to blame for these problems and they are unrelated to crime than they cannot be praised and credited for reductions in crime. Even worse, the only proposed alternative is that we further the failed experiment and make guns more prevalent and invariably increase the tens of thousands of accidents, suicides, etc. not even mentioned in this debate involving guns. 2) Gun Control Can Work: Gun control implementations around the world have resulted in safer societies. Comparison wise, I have shown countries of reasonable comparison to the U. S. like the U. K. , Canada, and Japan to have vastly lower crime and gun crime rates than that of the U. S. Trend wise, Australia is hitting record low murder rates, significant drops in firearm homicide, and not a single mass shooting has occurred since its gun control implementation 20 years ago. Clearly these results benefit society. Within the U. S. , I have shown that states with strict gun control on average have lower gun deaths and gun homicides than states with lax gun control. It is not always perfectly implemented and its effects are oftentimes obstructed by problems caused by lax gun control (i. e. Indiana guns in Chicago), but these examples clearly show gun control has benefited various societies and Con has done nothing to dispute that. 3) Gun Control Does Not Infringe Upon Americans' Rights: Constitutional rights are subject to regulation and Con has done nothing to show how "common sense" gun control unduly infringes upon the 2nd Amendment or actively disarms law-abiding gun owners. Con proposes the goal of the 2nd Amendment to be prevention of government tyranny, yet throughout the debate insinuates that the government has and is actively committing tyranny. Hasn't the 2nd Amendment failed then? Tyranny is prevented through our checks and balances, our independent branches of government, our state and municipal governments, our other constitutional rights, our right to vote, our Constitution. All of these things are subject to constant regulation and review so the duty to prevent tyranny does not grant immunity. Are precious assault rifles really going to hold up when the hypothetical, tyrannical U. S. government comes knocking at our doors with tanks, fighter jets, and battleships? No. It is our voices, votes, and law-suits that keep the people in control over the government. 4) Common Sense Gun Control Is Common Sense: Statistics supporting gun control and indicting America's current gun policies as failing are abundant, but logistically the case for gun control is even more clear. Why should people investigated for terrorism and deemed to dangerous to fly be allowed to legally and easily purchase firearms? Why should felons? Why should the mentally unstable? Why should background checks be voided by online and gun show purchases? Why should weapons designed for assault, be protected for self-defense? Con argues because "criminals don't follow the law". Why have any laws at all then? Con argues the black market would be unstoppable. It's been stopped by the U. K. , Australia, Canada, etc. Are criminals just to smart and too powerful for us to confront through laws and law enforcement? Con also failed to rebut my argument that many mass shootings are not the result of intricate coordination by criminal, underground-connected masterminds. If these laws and their enforcement by our police forces, courts, and governments could prevent even a fraction of crimes, mass shootings, homicides, etc. then the safety of society has benefited. The right's refusal to take action because "criminals are criminals" and to block what the majority of Americans believe should be implemented is cowardly and costing lives. We need to do our best to ensure that responsible citizens are the only ones allowed to legally purchase and own guns. Thank you for taking the time for reading.