Strict Gun Control

Hi!I saw your debate with chazzerz17, and you've raised a few points which I think he didn't adress properly. I'd like to go over them again, in order."We can't let just any one own a gun, for example, what happens if a psychopath gets a hold of a gun?"Psychological checks are already in order for gun licences. However, we can't prevent a psychopath from getting a gun illegally. During the entire debate, both of you seemd to forget about the black market, which is a huge mistake! Anyone can buy a gun through dark net sites like Alphabay (which is basically an eBay for illegal items), or by knowing the right people. Criminals don't care whether theft, murder, kidnapping, robbery or rape is legal, why would they care about guns being legal? They will get them through the black market just as easily as they can get illegal drugs or stolen goods.Remember the Paris massacre in 2015? 4 people got hold of a few AK-47s plus a few hundred rounds of ammo, and they managed to kill 130+ people. Imagine being stuck in a theatre with 90 people and a few gunmen, and all you can do is watch the gunmen kill everyone around you one by one, because none of you have any means to fight back, and the police hasn't arrived yet."Now if we were to have stricter laws and regulations on guns, then we might be able to make it harder for criminals to buy guns"There are more than 300 million guns estimated to be in the US. Banning them will not make them disappear, most of it will simply enter the black market. It may increase their prices over there, but that won't make enough of a difference. Even if you managed to somehow confiscate and destroy every firearm in the US, any self respecting mechanic would be able to create shotguns and revolvers, from a few pieces of metal in a moderately equipped workshop, then sell them to criminals for a nice profit. (just like the way illegal drug labs produce and sell drugs)"Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long lasting increased risk of violent death"Why do (alw abiding) people buy handguns? It's mainly because they want to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones from danger. If they live in a peaceful neighborhood, where the chances of being attacked is low, they won't feel like they need to spend hundreds of dollars to get a handgun and a CC licence. However, if they live in a place, where the chance of a violent death is higher (say, Detroit or Mayami, with all the gang violence going on), then of course they will be more likely to buy a gun to protect themselves.If we look at this statistic from the chances of accidents, then it's just plain old common sense. Guns are not 100% safe, therefore buying one will increase the chances of a lethal accident. So does buying a motorcycle, a sportscar, a jet ski, etc. And the 600 deadly gun related accidents in your source seems to be somewhat small compared to the average of 4'000 motorcycle deaths per year. [1] (and a fun, but ultimately irrelevant fact: there are only arund 9 million motorcycles registered in the US, compared to the 300 million guns) [2]"Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims(235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm"How many mass shootings have occured on gun shows? Not any that I could find. If a man wants to murder as many people as he can, it's not very practical for him if his victims can shoot back. Prbably that's the reason why 98,4% of mass shootings from 1950 to 2016 happened in gun free zones [3], places where people are not allowed to bring guns. I still don't know how they expected such a sing would stop anyone already intent on killing... They might as well call them "murder free zones". Anyway, the same logic applies to criminals: If a would-be attacker suspects, that the woman walking down the street all alone at night might be carrying a handgun, he will look for another victim. Criminals don't want to get shot any more than you or I do, so they'll just wait for someone defenseless.'almost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction'Where do you suppose guns come from? They are mass produced by large compnies, such as Colt, Walther or S&W, then sold to retailers (such as gun shop owners), who then sell it to people. A gun goes through a legal transaction as soon as it leaves the factory, and after that they can be stolen, or get "lost" during shipping, just like any product valued on the black market.And finally:"More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths"That is actually true. If it gets too expensive for a criminal to buy a gun, the won't. They will find other ways instead. An recent evidence of that would be the terror attack in Nice, where a single man managed to kill 80 people with a truck (more than the 50 that the Orlando shooter managed to kill with a gun). Now, banning trucks would decrease truck-related deaths, but I think you can see what's wrong with that logic. People can use knives, batons, knuckle dusters, and home made bombs, flamethrowers and firearms, if they find the black market prices too high, but feel the need to hurt or kill people. Every place that has banned guns has seen a drop in gun related murders, but an increase in the total number of murders. [4]One final thing:Before you think that I'm a gun-toting redneck, I'd like to tell you that I haven't fired a single round of ammunition in my life (unless arrows are considered ammunition). In fact, one of my close relatives died because of a gun related accident, when I was around 10 years old. I'm Hungarian, and it's technically impossible to use a firearm for self defence over here. Even if you're a hunter, and managed to buy a shotgun or a hunting rifle, you still need to keep the gun and the ammunition in separate and locked safes. Not very practical during a home invasion. Luckily we can still carry pepper spray with us (under 20ml), which works really well against a single assailant at close range, but not so well against multiple opponents, a mass shooter, or on a windy or rainy day. A pistol would be more valuable in any of those situations.I argue for gun rights because I hate to see good people being unable to protect themselves. Over here it's not uncommon to hear a story about a group of people murdering a retired person for his or her ~250$ pension somewhere in a smaller village. And it's even worse in places like Sweden, where practically any "weapon", even pepper spray, is illegal whether it was used for self defense, or not. There are so many cases of rape and violent crime over there, that the media and the police is actively trying to cover it up to avoid civil unrest. There were 6400 cases in 20014 alone. Right now they are at 63.5 cases per 100'000 population. Compare that to the 27 per 100'000 of the "rape culture" of the US. [5] But those assailants would thnik twice before attacking innocent people, if they knew that there was a chance they might get shot. And even if they choose to attack, a person with a firearm on his/her side is still a lot more likely to come out alive, than a person whose only weapon is a cell phone with a quick dial for 911.Sources:1: https://en.wikipedia.org...2: https://www.reference.com...3: http://www.theblaze.com...4: http://crimeresearch.org...5: http://www.nationmaster.com...