No Futher Restrictions on Guns

I will use my final round to summarize and clarify my arguments. I am proposing that two additional gun restrictions should be implemented. If you agree that I have presented compelling evidence that both, or either, of these restrictions would be beneficial to society, then you must vote for CON – as you would therefore agree that further restrictions should be added. These restrictions are (1) requiring background checks at gun show events and (2) requiring safe storage of guns to prevent child access. <<< CON ARGUMENTS >>> 1. Background checks at gun shows will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals When someone wants to buy a gun from a gun dealer, they must undergo a background check. This background check is designed to prevent criminals, the mentally-unstable, and illegal aliens from purchasing guns. However, due to a gap in federal law, background checks are not required when someone buys a gun from a gun show event. The following evidence will demonstrate why background checks are so important, and why they should be implemented at gun shows. Since 1994, when background checks were first required for purchases from licensed gun dealers, over 1.9 million criminals and mentally-unstable individuals have been prevented from purchasing a gun. [1] As a result of blocking these gun purchases, crime and violence have dropped. Numerous studies have found that these background checks have reduced homicide, gun-related violence, and illegal gun trafficking. [2][3][4][5] The effectiveness of these background checks is clear. So, why should we apply these background checks to gun shows? According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, “gun shows . . . are a major venue for illegal trafficking. ”[6] Over 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows – which represented over 10,000 guns. Without background checks at gun shows, there is an unregulated flow of dangerous weapons, many of which end up in the hands of criminals. This loophole undermines police enforcement efforts to combat gun violence, and undermines the effectiveness of existing laws that require background checks in other contexts. Moreover, requiring background checks at gun shows would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns or purchasing guns. These individuals would still have the exact same rights they currently possess. If they could legally purchase a gun from a gun dealer, they would be able to legally purchase a gun at a gun show. No rights are lost. Thus, requiring background checks at gun shows will increase public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and will not harm the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. Background checks should be required at gun shows. 2. Laws requiring safe storage of guns will reduce unintentional child firearm fatalities Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws require that gun owners have trigger locks on their guns or safely store their guns outside the reach of children. The purpose of these laws is to prevent children from finding and using guns, potentially leading to accidental injury or death. The effectiveness of these laws and increasing child safety is compelling. States that have adopted CAP laws experienced greater declines in unintentional gun deaths among children than states that did not adopt these laws. [7][8] Additionally, these laws do not prevent an individual from owning or using their gun, but instead simply require safe storage of the weapon they choose to own. CAP laws improve child safety by requiring that guns be safely stored, and do not affect an individual’s right to own a gun. Thus CAP restrictions should be adopted. <<< CONCLUSION >>> I have presented compelling evidence that requiring background checks at gun shows and requiring safe storage of guns will improve public safety, without affecting any law-abiding individual’s right to own and use a gun. My opponent admits that gun shows are not strict enough in his opinion, stating “Now, are all gun shows strict enough in my opinion? No. ” This, alone, is an admission that more restrictions should be required and ultimately supports my argument. He also states that “everything in life will have a loophole. You can’t patch up every loophole. ” Maybe that is true, but at least we can patch up this particular loophole by simply implementing a law requiring background checks at gun show events – a patch that would greatly improve public safety. If you believe I have presented a compelling argument that both, or either, of these restrictions would be beneficial, then you should VOTE CON! Thanks to the readers and my opponent! SOURCES [1] Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009 - Statistical Tables, October 20, 2010 [2] La Valle, James M, “Re-Estimating Gun-Policy Effects According to a National Science Academy Report: Were Previous Reports of Failure Pre-Mature? ” Journal of Crime and Justice, Volume 33(1), 2010, pp. 71-95 [3] Webster, Daniel W. , Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T Bulzacchelli. “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking. ” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 86 (2009): 525-37. [4] Sumner SA, Layde PM, Guse CE, “Firearm Death Rates and Association with Level of Firearm Purchase Background Check,” Am J Prev Med 35:1(July 2008):1-6. [5] La Valle, James M. “Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 18 (2007):451-465. [6] . http://www.atf.gov... [7] . http://www.theatlantic.com... [8] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...