Gun Control

I begin round 3 by refuting my opponent"s arguments; I will then defend my opening statement. Con's central argument is that gun control should not be instigated because the real cause of school shootings is bullying. I do not deny that bullying probably plays a large part of one's motivation to instigate a school massacre, but if the tools to do so (firearms) are a lot harder to obtain, then all the built-up resentment will not be unleashed on pupils in such a lethal manner. I agree that severe bullying ought to be stopped, but bullying-prevention and gun control are not mutually exclusive when they both contribute to reducing school shootings. There is also statistical evidence that bullying is not the principal cause of school shootings. The USA has had more school shootings than the rest of the world combined (1), but there is no evidence to suggest that American children are bullied more than children in other countries. If bullying was the principal cause of school shootings then the rate of school massacres should be roughly equal worldwide, considering that bullying is occurring globally. This is not the case, which suggests that there are other causes of school shootings. As a school shooting can only occur if the perpetrator can obtain a firearm, it follows that the rate of school shootings is dependent on the availability of firearms. As the USA has one of the most lenient firearm regulations in the world and coincidentally has the largest amount of school shootings, it heavily implies that the availability of firearms is a primary reason why school shootings occur. Moreover, even if firearms would not stop school shootings, my opponent overlooks that fact that there are many mass shootings that do not occur in schools. Surely bullying cannot be the principal cause of them? Even if gun control did not reduce the amount of school shootings, it does not mean that it would not reduce the amount of miscellaneous shootings. My opponent also argues that "crime will still happen". I do not deny this; the reason I advocate gun control is that it will REDUCE the amount of crime. Let me propose a few counter-examples: 1.Stealing still happens despite it being illegal; it does not mean that we should legalise stealing. 2.You can get plutonium on the black market, it does not mean that we should legalise ownership of it. I agree that guns will still be bought to people who really want them, but if you are an average person intent on murder, you are a lot more likely to use a gun if you can simply pop down to Walmart and pick one up as opposed to going to the effort of navigating the shady world of the black market. A lot of murders are committed on a spur-of-the-moment on a tide of anger, only a few are accurately planned and prepared for. If guns are commonly-owned, then these flashes of anger are more likely to cause a murder. 'By using my opponent's logic, you can say that since the person who came up with the idea of educating children was infallible, we should dismiss that idea,' Not at all, I am not saying the fallibility should entail dismissal, I am saying that fallibility should entail a healthy level of scepticism. The US constitution is well-meaning and largely a good thing, but because it is fallible, it should not be treated as an absolute authority. "The constitution says X=Y" is not a logically valid way that we can verify that X=Y. If evidence against a particular tenet of the constitution (i.e the 'right' to own guns) comes to prominence, which it has - insofar as there is statistical evidence that gun control reduces homicide, then the constitution is not invulnerable to reasoned analysis. The very fact that the US constitution has amendments (2) shows that it can be repealed without discarding it altogether. Therefore one can support both the constitution and gun control. Just as an aside, my opponent claims that I would be 'going against [my] citizenship papers' and so my argument is invalid. Firstly, I am not a US citizen so this is a moot point. Secondly, you can support an amendment to the constitution without going against the constitution as a whole. (1) http://www.neontommy.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...