Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

Con says it's the parents' fault. How does he plan to solve for this? Does he offer a counter-proposal? I don't see one. He even admits that "parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership," something that would require the gun control he so vehemently disagrees with. And, once again, I'm not taking away the right to wield guns, at least not that of anyone who can pass a background check. But more on that later.It is the parent's fault I am not saying homicide should be legal I am saying and defending the point of guns that if a child is not a normal child do not have a arsenal nearby. Gun control is not needed in order for that it is responsibilty that counts. Backround checks are made by the government and it is like stop and frisk. Backround checks have nothing to do with striter gun laws. Con mishandles this argument. First off, you'll note that suicide rates are higher in homes with guns than those without, he never responds to that. Second, note that states with background checks and higher restrictions on gun rights also have lower suicide and homicide rates on the whole. That's with these deadly "house knives." Third, I didn't claim that I'm solving for all of suicide. I don't see why I would have to in order to yield benefits in reducing the amount of suicide. Fourth, knives and hammers are still a whole lot less effective when committing suicide than guns. It normally only takes a single trigger pull, versus multiple attempts at slashing or pounding. The damage caused by these two items is often treatable as well.I never said that guns dont increase sucide your saying that since we have guns it is easy to kill eachother. And so? If the person wants to die let him be. In certain cases their nees to be sucide which are during- school shootings.And knives dont even take a minute and you can still kill yourself should we take control of knives. Also people kill themselves with cars should we have stricter laws People can steal guns." This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold much water. First off, as I stated, more guns are likely to be locked up and kept that much further from the hands of intruders. Second, this still requires an extra step, forcing these criminals to break into houses known to contain guns without their own to start with. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the risk of injury or death dramatically increases, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. Third, even you buy this wholesale, it's not a reason to do nothing. People break the law. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. As for gangs and mafias, again, we can't solve for every kind of criminal getting any guns. These groups will have a harder time of it, but I don't doubt that they will sometimes manage to get guns. That just puts us back in status quo, which is what Con is arguing for. I don't doubt that some criminals "can be smart," but fewer will be able to acquire guns, and next to none of them will be able to do so legally. I didn't say that all criminals were poor, and no, that was not an assertion, it was sourced from Maurice Ward, a Juvenile Justice Program Administrator for Washington State (my [8]). If my opponent would care to provide a competing link, he may do so. I realize that handguns are destructive (though, I would say that Con's only hurting his case by stating this), and background checks and registries would still solve for this. They are not as destructive as assault or semi-automatic rifles (my [9] and [10]).Hnadguns are destructive and I am not hurting my case. You said that guns should have a stricter purpose. Hand guns are very accurate and can kill and people need them in their households. Criminals do not obey laws they can still find a way to break through doors. People could send and make bots and break open the door with heavy explosive bombs. And what if those criminals robbed a bank with 1,0000000000 in it they would be able to afford bombs. "...states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."[2]I have nothing o refute withI think I was a poor represenative and I feel like I might go back to my old self defending gun control