Gun Control Advocates are Severely Misguided

http://www.youtube.com...Ok... My PositionHere is my official position reiterated. I argue that all measures proposed by the Brady Campaign, Barack Obama, the Dianne Feinstein, and the gun control lobby in general, will be or have been ineffective and sometimes even counterproductive, with the only exception being the requirement of a gun safety test before buying a gun. The over fixation on reducing gun violence instead of reducing all violence is fallacious and does not always correlate, as I will prove later in this section. In order to disprove this claim, my opponent needs to show me one, single academic study that disproves any of my claims while withstanding appropriate academic critique. As a result, the debate over Australia isn't very significant to this debate they proposed many different gun control measures than the ones recently proposed by gun control lobby. However it is significant to prove there was a significant substitution from firearms to other methods, and that the entirety of the gun control measures proposed in Australia had a statistically insignificant effect on the total murder rate. Australian Gun ControlAustralia bought back around 650,000 guns in 1996 and continued to confiscate guns steadily over the next few years. This initial buyback supposedly reduced private firearms ownership by around 20% and roughly halved the number of gun owning households. America owns approximately 300 million guns and has been number one in guns per capita in the world for quite some time. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... (please note this source, as I will prove later, improperly focuses on gun murders and gun suicides, but the figures for firearms bought back are probably accurate).http://en.wikipedia.org...Firearms SubstitutionThe point of the most contention between my opponent and myself has been the issue of substitution for other methods of murder. My opponent has continuously argued that there is virtually no substitution, and has continuously insisted that reducing gun violence reduces all violence. In Australia immediately before the ban in 1996, guns were used in roughly 33% of murders, sharp objects were used in roughly 30% of murders, and if we do some math blunt objects, hands, and other weapons were used in the remaining 37%. The year immediately after the ban, the percent of firearm homicides dropped to 25%, knives rose to about 38% and then other weapons stayed at about 37%. As time went on, the percent of firearms used in murders decreased while the percent used in knives simultaneously increased, so there was in fact a direct substitution to other weapons. This does not tell us that more or less people were killed, only that there was in fact a substitution to other weapons, particularly knives. http://www.aic.gov.au...Now, let's evaluate the murder rates after the ban. I find it extremely funny that my opponent chooses to accuse me of cherry picking, to claim that if you run a proper regression in Australia you'll find a statistically significant decrease in homicides, when he's not even using the proper economic indicator. The second link of his sources directs you to a chart depicting the total homicide victims in Australia over time, but the proper economic indicator to measure changes in homicide is to use the homicide rate per 100,000 people. The total homicides does not factor in the increasing Australian population, whereas the homicide rate does. If you look at the male and female homicide rates over time, you find that both decreased before and after the ban. Immediately after the ban, there should have been an accelerated decrease in the murder rate, but there wasn't. Actually the murder rate increased a quite a bit in 2001, then it decreased. This sudden increase and steady decrease suggests statistical insignificance. http://www.aic.gov.au...In conclusion, the extremely strict gun control measures in Australia did reduce firearm homicides, but methods of homicide were substituted for other methods and did not have an effect on the total people killed (unless you only focus on mass murders). I never claimed that all gun control advocates demonize gun owners. The ones that do, are misguided, but this does not yet prove my claim that all gun control advocates are misguided. Additionally, I have never talked to any gun control advocate that has not compared the US to other developed foreign countries, but my opponent is right that if just one doesn't then I'm proven wrong. I have proven that most gun control advocates are misguided in regards to these criteria, but not all like I'm claiming. And remember, I am not claiming that pro-gun advocates are not misguided, as is proven in the assumption that shall-issue laws significantly reduce crime, but I am arguing gun control advocates have statistical base for their beliefs. My claim is that no gun control legislature in America, nor any of the proposed controls, would have a significant or even productive effect reducing the total people killed. In order to prove me wrong, all you have to do is find a single study that statistically proves that some gun control legislation other than safety tests that reduced the total people killed in America, and of which has survived extensive critique. Simply referencing a reduction in gun murders is not enough, as proven with the Australian case. Common Sense RebuttalI have tried to reiterate that we cannot reference common sense when dealing with a statistically difficult dilemma. For centuries people thought it was common sense that the world was flat, but when they started looking at the science and statistics they were proven wrong. Common sense cannot dictate this debate. When considering background checks, theoretically it could reduce murders (to an unkown extent) by allowing only the proper people to possess guns while criminals have none. However the current proposals, as they are, will not prevent criminals from legally obtaining guns, it would only inconvenience them. There is no firearms registration, therefore even if private background checks were mandated, it would not prevent straw purchases nor would it prevent criminals from buying guns on the streets. Additionally, it does not prevent criminals from substituting for other methods. Background ChecksHow could background checks hurt ordinary citizens? Buying a gun is rarely a random decision. Typically they're gun enthusiasts, but sometimes they're people who desperately need protection and they need protection quickly, and they may need the most effective means possible (i.e. a gun). Lots of women must deal with potentially violent ex-boyfriends or stalkers all the time. People can irritate the wrong people, sometimes they hear of reports of someone in their neighborhood becoming a murderer. If we do some math, 2.1 million people were denied access to a gun because of a background check. 66% were because of felonies or fugitives of justice. Therefore around 693,000 citizens were denied access to a gun unjustly, and how many of the justified denials were false positives? How many of them were at risk of being killed, seriously assaulted, or raped? Criminals were inconvenienced, but they did were not prevented from getting a gun or committing violence. Ordinary citizens were denied effective means of self-defense (background checks are usually required for tasers and stun guns too). http://bjs.gov...http://www.people-press.org...;(most people own guns for self-defense)I'm running out of room for further rebuttals, however I will address gun suicides and guns as a risk factor for accidents and suicide in the next round.