Gun Control Prevents Violence

Alright, since you know where I'm coming from, I'll just jump straight into rebuttals. To start off, I would like to challenge the fact that you said, "Con doesn't offer much of an argument. Instead, Con presents a few examples and implies that these examples are proof that gun control is ineffective." I most certainly did, I will go ahead and copy examples of where I did. "Contingency A: I'd like to start off with an example of why this argument is false. The infamous Washington Navy Yard shooting. Gun control would not have prevented a situation like this, therefor gun control in ineffective, period based of the sole fact that it cannot stop all violence." "Gun control will never fully work because there will always be a black market with a huge supply and demand. Gun control can never truly work because of how impossible it is to stop illegal purchase and sales of these weapons." You know exactly where I am coming from consequently because of the arguments I DID give, which I have been accused of not providing, so now, I'll dive into to your argument, and examine your points. "The Navy Yard Shooting may have been prevented if gun control was more comprehensive. I argue that a more comprehensive restriction on guns would have limited the violence that occurred. The example puts me in a awkward position. I must attempt to rebut what happened with what might of happened. This is similar to having to prove a negative. One should consider this, if gun control was so complete that it made it impossible for the Navy shooter to obtain a gun, then there would have been no shooting at all." That first sentence is completely inaccurate. As I stated in the statement following the quote, "Now let's talk about how immensely impossible it would be." You know as well as I do, that this situation could not have been prevented. Shootings will happen regardless of what ever kind of control you want to put on it. Also, you said "if gun control was so complete that it made it impossible for the Navy shooter to obtain a gun, then there would have been no shooting at all." He was an officer. your argument makes no sense, because this was a man who was permitted to have access to both the weapon, and the area. Rebuttal 2: "For example, there is a black market for harvesting organs. Some people are murdered and their organs are removed and sold. This is of course illegal and there are harsh penalties for it. And yet the black market continues to trade in harvested organs. This doesn't lead to the conclusion that we should eliminate the laws that prohibit organ theft. In fact, it only reinforces the need for controls that would prevent organ theft. " ironically enough, this is your easiest argument to rebut as well. The government does not track where your body parts are 24/7. The government really only cares about this issue if they bust you on it, hence why the government does not have an entire organization dedicated to organs, however, they do for weapons. "on's source used to support that example is taken from an organization that is for gun control. Read their mission statement and follow some of the links on its website to find out." Also, you would be correct in saying that that's irrelevant, and it does not pertain to the argument. Statistics are statistics. All this website does is take numbers that were published by the government, and display them. Also, YouTube videos are not a valid source of evidence. Come to me with the same information on a .org website, and I will look. finally, "I must also prove that guns enable people to act violence. This is easily understood. A person with a rifle can do much more damage than a person with bare hands. I will expand on this in the next round." You have proved my point with this. By saying "much more damage" you must agree that a person can be dangerous with out a firearm. You also basically ignored the statistic showing the amount of illegal firearms, so you must have been so blown away you were at a loss for words. Most crimes are committed with illegal weapons. And last time I checked, criminals don't follow rules, which would be why they are called criminals. "Con's third example is a double edged sword. The example implies that there are not enough people to enforce gun controls, and therefore gun control cannot prevent violence. This example actually supports my argument. It also implies that gun control would work if there were enough people to enforce the controls. The solution is simple. Hire more people." Also, my third example would be the shooting at D.C., that in no way would have been prevented had there been more people. Also, I never said there would need to be more people. I said that gun control would never be effective because there would never be enough people to enforce it. Because you brought up 'anger' as a reason pecan pie someone would commit murder, I will provide you will a website, which should help. http://www.helpguide.org... I suppose that bombs are also illegal, yet they are still used. Like the Boston Bombings. There is no way those were legal, yet they were used anyways. Man is inherently violent, however taking away guns from people who legally have them is unjust, and would leave weapons in the hands of criminals. Thank you, I am finished.