Gun control

The argument that firearms are used for defensive purposes is half true. The question is whether or not the defensive usages of guns outweigh the harms. There are no convincing studies suggesting defensive gun use is common in the united states. In fact, most research has “found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense” (1). The increase in gun ownership may or may not be because of the increase in firearm ownership—it seems illogical to say the increase in gun ownership has caused the huge decrease in crime. The death penalty, which has been found to deter 3-18 lives per execution, became much more widespread throughout the 1990s when the majority of the crime decline occurred. The number of executions in 1991 was 14, compared to 98 in 1999 (2). The execution rate has fallen sharply since them—at a time where the crime decline slowed, indicating some relationship may exist. There are many reasons crime fell—including abortion, policing strategies, the end of the crack-cocaine epidemic, the increased risk of being placed in a prison, a growing economy, and, of course, gun control laws (3). Indeed, the crime fell not because gun ownership increased but because of these other factors. In fact, gun control laws (like the Brady Bill) have reduced crime by preventing criminals from obtaining a firearm. I do not need to argue for a ban—just control. And I have proven that control works. Even pro-gun criminologist Gary Kleck says background checks will reduce crime, and he thinks defensive gun use is VERY common. He argues guns are good and bad: they can reduce crime by deterring it or being used in defense, but they can increase it if a criminal gets a gun. Background checks primarily affect criminals and not law abiding citizens so it will lead to reduced crime. Even though Kleck has found guns are not inherently bad, he has also found that “of 108 assessments of effects of different gun laws on different types of violence, 7 indicated good support, and another 11 partial support, for the hypothesis of gun control efficacy.” (4) Thus, it seems incorrect to say that *all* gun control is ineffective, as *some* gun control laws actually do reduce crime or have at least some empirical standing. My opponent claims concealed carry laws bring down the crime rate, which may or may not be true. Analysis by economist John Donahue has found those laws have no effect on the crime rate and probably increase aggravated assault rates (5). To say concealed carry laws reduce the crime rate has been proven wrong time and time again. My opponent says keep drugs banned. I agree! But to dismiss guns as minimal is a weak argument. It is like saying we must combat the AIDS in Bobby because his cancer is not a big problem. Both must be treated, even if one has more urgency. Further, allowing guns to exist not only facilitates crime here, but in Mexico where the drug cartels are a brutal reality. Having a gun market here makes it easier for cartels to kill people abroad. 1. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 3. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu... 4. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu... 5. http://news.stanford.edu...