Gun Control

The homicide rate is one, broad crime statistic. It is not the end-all, statistical representation of a society's safeness. Regardless, I have shown that the U.S. has the highest homicide rate of any nation of comparable HDI, stability, development, etc and that developed nations known for strict gun control (U.K., Canada, Australia, Japan) have rates dramatically lower than that of the U.S. Gun homicides are more specific and more relevant when we are talking about guns but if my opponent wants to continue using homicide rates, so be it, it doesn't help his case. "Yes it does say 500,000 to 3,000,000 self defense actions with a gun are used each year." No it does not. The CDC report referenced by my opponent neither found nor endorsed definitive numbers. It says other studies give those ranges and that "the variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field.[1]" Again I will cite the Department of Justice that found "In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.[2]" "Intimidation with a firearm is an excellent form of self-defense." This study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center evaluated "offensive gun use" for threats and intimidation, as in, not self-defense. The same center, in addition the their findings disclosed last round, found that "Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal", meaning most self-defense cases entail one, or both parties needlessly pulling guns and escalating the situation rather than diffusing it. [3] "This is the sort of tyranny I was talking about before that we have to be prepared to stand up against." If our own government is undermining the law as my opponent claims then obviously the laws won't work. My opponent has accused the U.S. of tyranny now in multiple cases. If these claims are true and the U.S. is actively committing tyranny, why hasn't the 2nd Amendment achieved its proposed goal and stopped it? The point of the side note he addresses here is that the U.S.'s abundance of and easy accessibility to guns has made it the weapon source of Mexican Cartels. My opponent did not rebut the main point by providing a reason as to why Mexico's homicide and gun homicide rates should be comparable to the U.S. or why "we have to include countries like Argentina, Cuba...", nearly the exact same words and arguments from this article that he failed to cite: https://mises.org.... A lot more than gun control is needed to stabilize many of the world's developing countries, so while their problems are tragic and important, they're just not relevant to a discussion of the U.S.'s gun control policies. "Countries have vast difference in culture, demographics, populations, gang violence, religion, historical traditions etc" Therefore crime rates are expected to be different across countries." My opponent is the one who introduced country comparisons in all previous rounds. My opponent is the one who introduced the HDI as a measurable for comparing countries. I tried to ensure that the U.S. was reasonably compared to other countries. Now that the stats have shown no country of comparable HDI to the U.S. (or even in the top 50) to have homicide and gun homicides close to as high as ours, he backs away from the metric he introduced and tries to pivot to an individualistic argument about trends in the final round (which per his rules shouldn't even be allowed). States and cities within the U.S. have these vast differences yet he still compares them. "Since 1993 the number of privately owned firearms have increased...." There is no evidence linking the two occurrences, especially not in a causal relationship as my opponent argues. The NYU School of Law contends that "various social, economic, and environmental factors, such as growth in income and an aging population" were the cause of the crime decline [4]. We have also seen the end of the crack epidemic in that time span. All of these are more likely causes. "Cities with traditionally higher gun control laws, have higher violent crime with guns being involved" I have shown in previous rounds that this is attributable to surrounding areas with lighter gun control. Chicago was the last example, New York is another: "Guns from out-of-state make up the grand majority of city crimes" [5] "Blacks are 1/7th of our population, but account for " of our murders. Hispanics account for 15% of the population, but account for another 25% of the murders..." My opponent wants to pretend thousands of Americans who die from gun violence each year aren't relevant because of their race, yet accuses me of a divisive mentality. If we're just going to delete gang-related deaths too then let's be fair and do it for U.S.cities. Excluding Chicago's gang-related homicides (61% of all [6]) yields a rate of 5.9. Other cities with strict gun control would also experience drastically lowered rates if we applied the same logic. "Only 16% of crimes..." In the past 5 years, we've watched kindergartners, churchgoers, college students, club-goers, and more get massacred by legally owned guns. There's no minimizing the problem. If gun control is able to prevent or deter these 16% of crimes another step, that's a significant improvement to society's safety. Furthermore, "illegal" guns begin as legal guns. As shown before, guns legal in Indiana are only made illegal when they enter Chicago city limits so this statistic is distorted. "a narrow view. They completely leave out gang related mass shootings, or self-defense situations where multiple people were being threatened." I doubt there are many gang shooting where innocent citizens step in with their weapons to save the day and my opponent says himself these are shootings where multiple people are killed in a highly populated area so clearly "multiple people were being threatened." The stats show 14 shootings being stopped by unarmed citizens vs. 3 stopped by armed citizens. If guns are so effective at neutralizing mass shootings, if guns are the greatest option for self defense, if there are more guns in this country than there are people and they are easier to access here than anywhere else in the world then why are unarmed citizens stopping mass murderers 5 times the rate armed ones are? Why are firearms used for self-defense in less than 1% of all violent crimes [2]? Notice also how the study says "protect themselves" to "limit damage" not "save everyone" by "shooting back". They are in no way condoning vigilantism, they are saying survive until the professionals, who dedicate years of training and every working day to taking down criminals, arrive. The U.S. is facing a mass shooting epidemic unprecedented in its history. 14 of the 20 deadliest shootings in the U.S. history have occurred in the past 20 years [7]. I'd like to see anyone who tries to minimize the problem of mass shootings tell the families of the slain innocent that their dead loved-ones are statistically insignificant. "blaming guns vs the world"s growing problems...." Making it legal and easy for ideological radicals to acquire the weapons they use in their attacks is certainly part of the problem. These mass shooters are rarely criminal masterminds with extensive black market connections and abilities to coordinate elaborate attacks, they are deranged, socially incapable maniacs. They know they can inflict massive amounts of damage by legally and easily acquiring guns and then simply opening fire; maximum damage at the cost of little effort. They are not afraid or deterred by armed civilians or police. By making guns so easy to purchase, we give these people the means to translate mental insanity into real life murder and damage. It's unjustifiable and unacceptable. Sources in Comment