Gun Control

I will begin my argument by asking my opponent to define what kind of gun control we are debating as he began the debate and this makes a large difference on the outcome of the debate and the points argued. For the purposes of this debate, we will argue gun control in general. The argument I will present will show statistically why gun control can and has worked if implemented correctly. Opening Statement: To determine the constitutional burden of any such gun control law we must first establish what we are talking about when we use the term "gun control" as the supreme court has come down both ways largely depending on the restriction in question. There are many gun control laws that have been found to be constitutional, like keeping felons and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons. While there are also gun control laws that have been deemed unconstitutional, like laws requiring the weapon be disassembled at all times and the ammo kept in a different room than the weapon. Pro-gun advocates like my opponent, the NRA, and the RNC would have you believe that on the issue of gun violence in general, the person behind the gun is entitled to the entirety of the blame and the weapon used deserves none. In reality, they share the blame. Gun Control will result in less gun violence: My opponent does not specifically cite his first statistic about the number of gun-related deaths per year. But he does show that the United States has a problem with gun violence. He then makes his first point by assuming that someone whom cant obtain a firearm will simply use a knife or bat and not only continue out their originally planned crime, but kill as many people with a knife or bat while doing so. This is simply an irrational line of thinking and is not the case. Quoting the conclusion of a study done from 1981 to 2010 by the Boston University School of Public Health looking at the correlation between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates."[1] Again, I ask my opponent to cite his statistics. I would like to receive an actual peer reviewed study that shows that the supposed fact that 50% of American households have a gun prevents home invasions. My opponents claim that the United Kingdom is statistically worse that the United States and South Africa concerning violent crime is flat out false. The British definition [of violent crime] includes all "crimes against the person," including simple assaults, all robberies, and all "sexual offenses," as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and "forcible rapes.[2] This explains the disparities shown in my opponents sources. A look at exact numbers shows that in the U.S. you are nearly 4 times more likely to be murdered than in the U.K. [3] The U.S. burglary rate is also 184.3 per 100,000 higher than the U.K.[3] As for the notion that guns are a deterrent to home invasions and that statistics will lay on the side of the homeowner, I cite this studies conclusion, "Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."[4] The rates of murder in Chicago and Detroit don't prove that gun control doesn't work, they underline the need for stricter federal regulations. The study I am about to cite looks at where the guns used to commit these murders in Chicago, Illinois are purchased. "More than half of these guns " nearly 10,000 or almost 58 percent " originate from outside the state of Illinois. More than 3,000 guns come from Indiana, and another 1,000-plus come from Mississippi".[5] So its not very simple at all. If you have a city with tough gun-control regulations but a state or surrounding states with lax gun-control regulations, it undermines the gun-control regulations put in place by that city because weapons can simply be procured in other city/states around it and brought in. Guns in Schools: The idea that when a shooting is going on and everyone is in shock, we need more guns in the area that could just as easily be used to kill even more people, accidentally or not just doesn't make sense. For example, how do we know that the armed guards you are proposing are immune to mental instability? So now, with armed guards, we could have a situation where the person going on this rampage is highly trained, knows the layout of the school, the schedule of the employees, exactly where children will be at certain times, where the closest exit is, etc. The same applies to arming teachers. Furthermore, Columbine had an armed guard. Something I would like to point out is that I can see you have put no thought into the cost of these armed guards. How many per school? Lets say they make $50,000 per year. There are 67,000 elementary schools in the United States.[7] If we hired 6 guards per school, that's about 400,000 guards. That's 20 billion dollars a year just for elementary schools. That's not including junior-high or high schools. Then what stops the gunman from just shooting up the soccer game down the street? The point is, the solution to gun violence is not more guns. A point you don't address when you make knives seem just as deadly as firearms is the skill needed to successfully use a knife in a manor which inflicts as much permanent damage as a firearm in the same situation. Then what about your range of motion with a knife vs. a gun? For a knife attack to be of any success the target must be within arms length. This then greatly restricts the effectiveness of a knife as a mass murder weapon. A knife may kill many on a subway, but how will it fare on an open campus where students are much more spread out and a firearm would allow one assailant to kill many people with relative ease. There's an old saying, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Your "Gun control not really gun control" argument is not at all supported by the source you cited. Furthermore, we have democratically elected leaders to protect us from tyranny, armed combat where people lose there lives is never the first option. No one in the United States Legislature or myself is proposing enacting a police state and forcing all people to give up there weapons or receive the death penalty. That's just ridiculous and has no merit within this debate. Final Rebuttals and Closing Argument: We are not debating an all-out gun ban. We are debating gun-control. There is a large difference. Do you mean you will not abide by gun regulations or can you somehow speak for everyone who owns a gun? A gun buy back would be a start, but again, do you mean you won't sell your guns or do you have some ability to speak for the majority when you make these claims? Your last point makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "People won"t sell their drugs, even when that"s 100% illegal." Your now comparing two separate markets that are absolutely nothing alike. Guns are not addictive like most drugs are. Gun buyers don't continue to buy guns regardless of the price unlike drug addicts who will pay anything due to their immense addiction to them. If criminals don't follow laws, then why do we have laws? Why make murder illegal when criminals don't follow laws? Gun-control laws can and do work when implemented correctly. Sources: [1] http://ajph.aphapublications.org...; [2] http://www.politifact.com... [3] http://rayrayallday.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] http://www.citylab.com... [6] http://www.dailykos.com...