Gun control lowers crime

All of my opponent"s case can fall under a few points. 1) Cross-sectional data, 2) Canada"s "success", and 3) gun control actually controls guns and prevent criminals from accessing them. I will refute his points as follows. 1) Cross sectional data As I have stated, cross sectional data misses many factors. My opponent"s data fails to control for most factors and merely compares the crime per capita. As stated, Europe and the US are extremely different regions, and comparisons are futile. So my opponent has focused on Canada, but chooses to ignore my main rebuttal: demographics. Although other factors influence crime, this is the largest difference in these two societies. But there are many different factors. Population, for example. Canada"s population growth has been shrinking at a faster rate and has a much lower fertility rate. This decrease in population, and lower populations overall, partially explain the gap. Demographics (as in ethnicity) also play a large role. The vast majority of Canadians identify as Canadian or some type of European, whereas in the US there are very large minorities of African Americans and Hispanics [1][2]. Interestingly, using cross sectional data in Illinois gun ownership has a negative correlation (meaning more guns less crime). The gun controlled city versus the rural areas. Now, my opponent will note there are many differences between rural and urban areas, however when the differences are controlled for the results are the same. Whereas in England, urban more controlled cities versus rural cities exhibit no correlation, meaning gun control may have no effect or slightly increase crime. Using international data, as my opponents census did, there is actually no correlation. His census ignored large swaths of the globe. International cross-sectional data exhibits no correlation between gun control and crime [3]. A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy noted: "If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates."[4] As we can see, using cross sectional data gun ownership has no effect on crime, and may even reduce crime. Gun control, which disarms citizens may increase crime. These arguments, which I have been pointing out throughout the debate, seems to be ignored by my opponent. 2. Canada"s "success" PRO argued terrorism was the reason for rising crime and should not be counted. This is a cop-out argument as he is in a bind. Terrorism leads to a loss of life, is an illegal practice, etc. It seems odd that an illegal practice that kills citizens via firearm or bomb would not be counted as a crime. Terrorism is actually a designated crime [5]. Interestingly, Gun laws (gun laws that are lax, not controlled) actually have reduced terrorism in Israel and have forced insurgents to go from machine gun attempts, stopped by conceal carry holders in Israel, to bombings. Lott & Whitley actually find conceal carry forces terrorists to change their methods, and terrorist death tolls decrease because the methods they are forced to adopt are less effective [6]. My opponent claims mass shootings are not very violent, again he has lied. Canada has always had a lower crime rate, meaning it is logical they have had less shootings and less severe ones. However, shootings have occurred with more than one death (like my opponent argued). For example, in 1975 when gun regulations were increasing a shooter killed a student and a teacher, and wounded thirteen others. In 1989, a shooter killed 14 people, injured another 14, shooting 28 (So I guess he didn"t miss) and killed himself. In 1992, a college shooting killed 4 people. In 2006, a shooter killed one person, injured 19, 8 put into critical condition, and 6 requiring surgery [7]. My opponent has chosen to ignore the one peer reviewed study on the issue, he likely ignored it because (as I stated) the conclusions were "This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008." (see round 3, source 7) A review done by Gary Mauser, I would say other then the study above that proved the Canadian experiment was worthless, this review is the best source on the issue. This review noted there is no convincing link between the crime reduction and the gun control in Canada, and for suicides the reduction in firearm suicide was canceled out by suicide by hanging [8]. Modern gun controls in Canada have had no effect. Looking back upon the earlier gun control in the 70s, I cited David Kopel who proved the gun control has been extremely futile and possibly counterproductive [9]. Further, due to the fact the gun registry has failed to solve any crime or help police track down suspects, the ban has been an utter failure (see source 7, round 3). 3. Gun control keeps criminals away from guns I would say there is equilibrium with this. Criminals aren"t over-motivated, meaning many will not use guns. However, as described with David Kopel, most criminals switched to knives and other substitutes (when it came to long gun crime which is extremely rare [3]. anyway). When it came to handguns, the rate changed little, handgun crime seemed more resilient to gun control. In other words, in the case of Canada, gun control has not prevented gun crime [9]. Some will keep or get guns, some might shy away. However, this next point will demonstrate the majority will keep their firearms: Interestingly, though, many citizens and criminals keep their guns, and continue making them. Just like the drug war, controlling these items have been extremely ineffective. In Europe, illegal guns far outnumber the amount of legal ones. As Mr. Tucille notes, in New York City he obtained illegal AK-47"s at1/3 the cost of a pistol, it was only 300 dollars. Unlike my opponent, who argues criminals would shy away from these black markets (odd, as many of them obtain guns from them anyway) it was easier to get a gun via the street than through a legal process. Tucille noted, the illegal dealer was actually much more pleasant than the police you would deal with to obtain a legal weapon. Interestingly, one study argued gun ownership is common in many European countries" illegally. The UK and the Netherlands are the few examples where gun control actually has disarmed the populace, but as I described in round two violent crime there has been increasing since their bans. In France, for example, there are 17 million illegal guns. In Greece 1.5 million illegal weapons. Austrian criminologists have noted non-compliance with these laws is actually a common practice. Australia"s compliance with their bans are only around 20%, according to the study. Many other analyses continue. For example, children in the Middle East construct AK"s with their bare hands in caves. In the Philippines, 20% of the population is involved in the firearm black market, creating "assault weapons" and handguns with ease. All without modern tools or good supplies. In reality, this data refutes my opponents black market contention and gives me an edge [10]. Reiterating my case I gave evidence that gun control increased crime. I showed the failed experiments in Europe. I proved gun free zones in the US have increased mass shooting; mass shootings in Europe are increasing (Germany " strict gun control " 3/5 worst shootings in recent history). I showed the American "assault weapons" ban has been highly ineffective [11]. David Kopel has noted in a study that these gun free zones have increased the amount of shootings, and that since the gun free zone act acts of shooting have become more common. This gun control is counter-productive [12]. Cross-sectional data proves gun control increases crime [4]. An analysis done by the public safety project documents recent research on the topic, and finds gun ownership reduces crime and gun control increases crime [13]. There are only two valid hypotheses: One: Guns have no effect on crime, more guns means more guns, less guns means less guns. Guns have positives and negatives, and some data proves guns decrease crime, and some that gun control increases crime, guns likely have no effect [3]. Two: Guns reduce crime, gun control increases crime. Gun control is counterproductive [6]. Bth prove guns do not reduce crime, meaning I win this debate. Side note: None of my arguments involved petty crime, all involved violent crime. My opponent is strawmanning my position. Things voters should remember: 1) the only study done on Canada"s gun registration shows their gun control has not reduced crime, 2) Gary Mauser has published reviews that I have cited demonstrating there is no evidence Canadian gun control has reduced gun crime, 3) The Harvard Study finds gun control increases crime, and gun ownership reduces it. VOTE CON Sources: http://tinyurl.com...