Gun Control

Sure, why not? Let's have it, been meaning to do this debate for a while. I'll be arguing in support of gun control. As The Instigator has not posted any arguments in the first round, I will leave it to him to post them starting in the second round, so that we can both have an equal number of arguments in this debate. However, I will make an effort to define how this debate should be judged, and explain my case, since that will be the basis upon which the round is evaluated. The burden of proof is on me in this debate. I must prove that gun control is likely to be effective in some regard if implemented on a national level. This is not limited to a specific form of gun control, but rather all forms, so any form that I argue for will have to be debated by my opponent. If I can prove that any of the forms of gun control I argue are more beneficial than harmful, then I have earned the vote of our judges. Alternatively, if Con proves that each of these forms is more harmful than beneficial, or if he proves that gun control in any form is at least a net 0, then he wins this debate. If Con has any concerns with this, he can feel free to express them in the comments, and we can work out a suitable arrangement there. With only 2 rounds to debate this, I would rather that we not waste time doing this in our arguments. Since I'm providing him the opportunity to make arguments first, I will provide four subsets of the gun control debate that I will be arguing: 1) Gun bans are net beneficial. I feel this is pretty straightforward, and it is commonly understood. I will be arguing not for a complete ban, but a partial ban of certain subsets of guns, mainly focused on national bans of semi-automatic and assault rifles. This would not be retroactive, and as such, no guns will be removed from current ownership. 2) Gun restrictions are net beneficial. This warrants a little explanation: we currently have laws that make ownership of automatic weapons in many states possible, but make them significantly more difficult to acquire. They require advanced permits that are significantly more expensive and time consuming to acquire, making their owners more knowledgeable in terms of how to wield a firearm. The weapons themselves are also made far more expensive by current regulations. As such, this system would inherently reduce access to these weapons. This would function retroactively, though there would be a 10-year time span during which this could be accomplished. Weapons' owners that cannot achieve this can sell back to the government at cost. 3) Universal background checks do more good than harm. Again, pretty straightforward, and as it's universal application of current background checks (which means closing currently available loopholes), I feel this doesn't require much explanation. Background checks would be made free, covered by the federal government, in order to make them easily accessible to private gun sellers. 4) Gun registries are similarly beneficial. This would apply retroactively (everyone would have to register their guns within 5 years), with any newly purchased gun being added to the registry following background check approval. Any uncertainties here can be addressed in the comments, so I'm hopeful that Con will bring them forward at any point between now and his next post. With that, I leave it to him to begin the debate by posing responses to my case, along with any non-gun control alternatives he wishes to present.