Gun control in America

I do not believe that it is fair or accurate to say the the Harvard School of Law and Public policy is biased against anti-gun legislation. Harvard is probably one of the top 3 most trusted academic sources in our nation if not the world. The NCPA is also respected as a repository of information and not normally associated with a known bias. That being said, I will say that the hard statistical data for this subject is complex and rather incomplete. It is my opinion that most of the quantitative analysis that has been done on gun ownership versus crime is too narrowly focused and therefore subject to validity problems. For example it rarely takes into account the effects of culture upon the statistics, or the prevalence of mind altering substances, both the black market kind as well as pharmaceuticals. I think that we can agree that quantitative analysis is not sufficient, in and of itself, to make a definitive policy statement. It requires a good deal of qualitative analysis to back it up and give it context. In coming to my decision to support individual gun ownership rights, I have tried to look into the qualitative data that is available. The two nations who I chose as examples for my case, Australia and Great Britain, were selected because out of all nations who have enforced strict firearms restrictions, to the point of banning individual ownership for most citizens, they are most like the United States in their culture, traditions, and legal/political structure. Have the strict controls in those two countries led to more security for its citizens against crime? I think the evidence that does exist points pretty far toward 'no' as I have cited above. Another interesting point that we have not touched on yet, but is equally important from a qualitative and contextual point of view, is the security of individual freedom post gun ban? Since disarmament, have those states tended to become more or less authoritarian? I think the legislative and judicial records speak for themselves and show that the loss of liberty and increase in public repression have accelerated in those countries in the wake of banning private ownership of firearms. I did also look at Canada, which you cited as an example with your first article as an example of successful firearms controls, and determined that their restrictions were not comprehensive enough to qualify as a gun ban. Actually, Canada's gun control laws have not been that bad so far. Out of 150+ countries where data is available Canada still ranks as number 12 with regards to private citizen gun ownership. I also looked at the historical/anthropological view of citizen weapons bans. This is where it gets really interesting. Take crime, and crime prevention, completely out of the equation, and what does that leave you? A history of pathological regimes disarming targeted citizen groups before enslaving them, killing them, or in other ways repressing them. The logic for this is clear enough, and this brings us back to the intent of the 2nd Amendment. If you remember your history, you will know that one of the key issues that escalated tensions between England and the 13 American Colonies and directly lead to revolution was the 1774 ban on importation of firearms and powder. This attempt at repression was thwarted only after a bloody conflict, and its direct result was the codifying and enshrining of the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the nation in the 2nd amendment. Gun violence of any kind, be it war, crime, or accident is horrible and reprehensible. The evidence has shown that weapons bans do not eliminate or even significantly reduce the threat of these incidents. Gun ownership in America is, whether you like it or not, enshrined in the 2nd amendment with the full understanding that singular tragic anecdotes will happen from time to time, but also in the full understanding that an armed citizenry is the last fail-safe against large scale, systematic atrocities like genocide and tyranny. America still stands as one of the best examples of liberty and individual rights. We have not been perfect as a nation, but we have been better than most. Though there has been a recent trend away from liberty, the bill of rights still stands and the 2nd Amendment guarantees that would be authoritarians, on both the left and right of the political spectrum, must still tread carefully and hide in the shadows in the United States. Your point on school shootings is invalid. Guns and Schools have been around for a long long time. Spree shootings in schools, as a rising trend, is very new. It begs the question: 'What has changed in our society that could bring about this rising wave of tragedy?' The answer to that question is not gun ownership. I do not think we have enough data to answer that question yet, but If I were to speculate, I would take a look at the psychoactive pharmaceutical industry. Besides possessing (illegally in most cases I would point out) firearms, it appears these spree killers have been on, almost to a man, a class of pharmaceutical known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Like I have said before, lets solve the root causes of violence, and not use these tragedies to grandstand for curtailing good, law abiding citizen's rights. Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject with you. I have greatly enjoyed this debate and learned much in the process. You presented your case well, and this was an informative process for me. I believe that both of our hearts are in the right place, though we may disagree on the methods. May we always be free to debate openly and in a friendly atmosphere of acceptance, tolerance, and goodwill. Godspeed.