Gun Control

Thanks for the debate Pro. If you would, please post links to the articles you are citing so that I can fact check them. I don't have any way to know how valid your sources are otherwise. I would also urge voters not to give Pro grace on this issue as it skews the ground unfairly in their favor by making their claims falsifiable. Without documentation, Pro's claims are unfounded and cannot be grounds to vote for them. First, we need to make a distinction between gun control, and gun bans. Gun control encompasses measures which regulate and control the sale of fire arms. This includes things such as more comprehensive background checks, waiting periods between applying to purchase a gun and receiving one, and closing loopholes which allow the sale of firearms to individuals who would not otherwise be allowed to legally own one(Think gun shows and pawn shops). This definition isn't comprehensive, but I'd like to think it outlines what con means when talking about gun control. Banning guns means taking away the right to purchase, or own guns. The topic does not give Con the burden to show that guns should be banned, only that gun control is a good idea. Therefore, if Con is able to show any advantages to gun control, he will win the debate Second, Gun control reduces violent massacres. Pro notes in their opening statements that "Bad people will find a way to do bad things [without guns]", which I think misses the point behind gun control pretty dismally. I agree that people can still be violent without the use of guns, but the question of scope and reach is the one that is important. On March 7, 2018 there was a school attack in the Netherlands[1] where the perpetrator attempted to harm students and faculty members using two knifes. Despite his weapon of choice, no one was hurt as the students managed to fend of the attacker by throwing their backpacks at him. This man clearly had an intent to harm, if he had access to a semi-automatic rifle, these kids would be dead. Finally, Pro uses Australia as reason that Gun Control is unnecessary, however since Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles and other Military style weapons were banned in 1996, there has not been a single mass-shooting[2]. Single round weapons such a rifles and hand guns are still legal in Australia, but because they are not nearly as dangerous as assault rifles, the country hasn't seen this kind of tragedy since. There was a shooting in 2002 where an attacker killed two students using a handgun, after which legislation was introduce to encourage an optional buy-back program for hand guns. Since then, there have been no other reported incidents of gun violence in Australia. Compare that the Untited States where over 15,000 people were murdered because of Gun Violence[3] in 2017, and a vote against gun control becomes laughable pretty quickly. I agree that people with evil hearts will still seek ways to hurt others; but to say that that's a reason to allow them access to military grade weaponry is unconscionable. If these people intend to harm others, I want it to be difficult for them. I don't want them to be able to murder 30 people in the blink of an eye at a whim, and that's why I stand in negation. [1] https://dutchreview.com... [2] http://fortune.com... [3] https://www.thetrace.org...