Gun control does not reduce crime (USA only)

R1: Correlation is not Causation My opponent agrees that correlation is not causation in his R3. Yet it continues to be argued that a statistically significant relationship exists, but the factors between the two states that differentiate one another remain unaccounted for. Again, correlation is not causation. The information is anecdotal in nature. That's awesome that we can compare two states, but what makes them similar enough, minus the one variable that needs to be changed (in this case gun laws) to be able to compare them? It seems as though the two states compared are cherry-picked, rather than done to control the other variables (poverty for instance) to show a relationship. R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire My opponent compares these two states, and claims that homicide rates differ: the tighter gun regulated state has more homicides than the non-gun regulated one. Except, with all due respect to my opponent, again this is anecdotal. Homicides can be committed with a wide variety of tools. Knives, vehicles, fists, etc... can all be used in a homicide. Even if we take this relationship at face value, it does not show that gun-related crimes are somehow more desirable in a more gun friendly state than vice-verse. Again, correlation is not causation. R3: Psychopaths by Nature Lack Empathy/Fear My opponent cites response times in the Virginia Tech Shooting as justification for a more armed populace. Fair enough, however even if the school had armed guards, it would not have mattered. That's because psychopaths, literally by virtue of being a psycho, lack empathy and fear by their actions. That's part of the purpose of being diagnosed with being a psychopath in the first place. Furthermore, my opponents argument means taking the actions of a shooter, and making vigilante justice happen. While police are certainly not perfect, the police by nature are suppose to enforce the law. The very purpose of their being. The claim that police cannot always help ignores the fact that no one can ever be somewhere in an emergency fast enough, and that the argument itself is a slippery slope to lawlessness. If police are never fast enough, why even have a police force? As for my claims, I showed with two cases (Fort Hood and Naval Yard) that if background checks (a form of gun control) went farther, those shootings could have been prevented. When a shooter is able to legally purchase a gun, even though he thought microwaves could talk to him, we have a serious issue here. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... R4: Source Issues For some weird reason, DDO coding is not giving my opponent the proper coding to see the sources. I'll repost them here: http://smartgunlaws.org... https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu... As for my Harvard Health source, it actually does link each study in a peer-reviwed journal showing without question causation links between gun crimes and relaxed gun control laws. The main reason behind it is simple: guns are emotionally empowering. When guns are used in a “self defence” claim, the Harvard Journals pointed out that most folks used them ended up escalating violence instead of stopping it. Worse yet, it almost always was done illegally in the first place. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Even in cases where one claims self defence, how do we know? No one actually wants to go to jail (unless they do not care of consequences) ergo we must look ourselves with an objective eye. What we see...isn't good. Its rather frightening. Furthermore, my opponent claims it only shows higher rates of suicide. That isn't true. It clearly shows higher rates of both suicide and homicide. Otherwise, here is another study proving my point further: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu... R5: CasesHere my opponent conceeds that if background checks (a form of gun regulation) were to have been furthered, both the Fort Hood Shooting and Naval Yard Shooting would have been prevented. In fact, he almost furthers my case: Hasan had people investigating him, same with Alexis. The failure of the military and FBI to deem them unfit for weapons carry results in them gaining and utilizing their arms. Other factors were an issue here (personal psychology) however, in both cases, both were displaying troubling behaviour, which caught attention, and no one decided to act on it. This argument highlights why gun control needs to go further. They both had guns, and should not have been able to aquire them, and if they were unable to have posessed those weapons in the first place, the crisis could have been averted. Worse yet, personally, I cannot think of a more bold move than having a shooting right where the military is. Literally, the most armed group one can find. If the logic of my opponent was correct, this would never have happened, as the military is most heavily armed. It still happened regardless. In particularly bold fashion too for both cases. R6: CausationI just wanted to remind everyone reading his, that causation can be established through several methods when statistical significance is shown. If we were to roll dice over 100 times, we would have an equitable distribution among numbers, meaning no statistical significance is shown (its falling where its suppose to with chance). If thew dice were loaded, then statistical significance would appear, thus showing something is up with the data, the distribution isn't being hit, and thus we have to examine the dice. My Harvard studies show statistical significance with gun control. Its pretty clear: less guns, less crime. http://en.wikipedia.org... Meta analysis on the issue: http://jonathanstray.com...; And for your comedic pleasure. Please enjoy this (funny) comedian take on gun control. Cheers guys! (source: ) Over to my opponent