Question: Should more gun control laws be enacted?

There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", stated in 1998, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...

That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Gun control creates safer countries. Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so! I await your response.

The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws U.S. Congress's Unwillingness to Pass New Gun Control Legistlation has Spurred President Obama to use Executive AuthorityU.S. Congress's unwillingness to pass new gun control legislation over this last decade--which includes failure to extend the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban [1]--has prompted President Obama to take matters into his own hands, by using Executive Authority, on the basis of surging incidences of mass shootings across the country.In Summer of 2013, after the U.S. Senate failed to pass bill S.150: the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, the White House closed a number of gun law loopholes and took various actions to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns and for certain assault weapons to be obtained inside the United States. One such executive action included barring the acquisition of machine guns and similar assault weapons without a background check; the new ATF regulation requires all individuals to undergo a background when trying to attain a machine gun, or similiar assault weapon, or a short-barreled shotgun [2]. The White House has also banned U.S. military weapons sold overseas and across national boundaries from returning to the country [2].The U.S. President has implemented a dozen more Executive Actions to close numerous gun law loopholes and to prevent assault weapons from getting into the wrong hands, but the extent of these regulations is brutally limited.Gun Crime & Injury Due to Firearms Are Off the Charts in AmericaStatistics show that America is presently experiencing a crisis with gun violence [3][4]:--On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for firearm injuries in the emergency room; 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year.--One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed with guns everyday (either murdered or suicide), 609 are killed with guns every week; over 100,000 are shot in the U.S. per year.--In 2011, more than 80% of all homicides commited in the U.S. were done with firearms.--In 2010, 82 children under 5 years old died from firearms compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty.--Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 then the number of soldiers (5,247) injured in combat in the war in Afghanistan that same year.--Every day on average, 51 Americans kills themselves with a firearm and 45 are shot or killed with a firearm.--The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.--In the U.S., firearm homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people 1 to 19 years of age.--A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.The following map illustrates the number of deaths in each U.S. state due to injury by firearms per 100,000 people (year 2007). You'll notice that states with additional gun control laws have fewer deaths due to injury by firearms per capita; this is partly explained by the fact that there are fewer suicides by firearms in these states [6]. The financial toll of firearm violence/injuries in America is also staggering. Every year, U.S. taxpayers pay $100 billion for medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and other expenses caused by firearms violence or required for firearms violence prevention [3]. The lifetime medical cost of all gun violence victims in the U.S. is estimated to be $2.3 billion, with approximately half of the cost paid by U.S. taxpayers [3]. The lack of weak, porous gun control laws in the U.S. is a drain on taxpayers.And contrary to popular belief, the number and rate of firearm deaths in the U.S. have not decreased for a decade; they've actually remained the same [7]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that from 1999 to 2010, the number of deaths caused by firearms each year has remained constant (a slight increase) while the rate of firearms deaths has remained the same (10.32 deaths per 100,000 population) (table directly below) [7]. This is in contrast to the decline in both the number of deaths and rate of deaths caused by firearms observed over the previous decade, after the Brady law went into effect and required background checks on most gun purchases (all sales performed by licensed firearms dealers) [8]. Unfortunately this decline has not continued over the last decade.The CDC reports the same trend with HOMICIDE Firearms deaths and rates per 100,000 people over the last decade. Despite observing a decline in this number and rate from the 1980s to 1990s (after the implementation of the Brady gun control law), the numbers and rate remain constant from 1999 to 2010 (table directly below) [8]. The same trend is observed with suicides caused by firearms and with non-fatal injuries caused by firearms; this despite the Brady Campaign showing a slight drop in the percent of Americans and American households that own firearms during that period (graph directly below) [8]. The United States has more than 11,000 gun-related homicide killings per year--which is off the charts compared to other advanced countries [9]. Compare this to Japan, which experienced only 7 gun-related murders in all of 2011; in Japan guns are hard to come by, but they're not completely illegal (approximately half a million firearms are registered to private citizens in Japan) [9]. Japan has a population of 130 million people, or slightly less than one-half the population of the United States [9].U.S. Gun Rights proponents often bring up the the example of Switzerland to show how liberal gun regulation can accompany low gun crime. For example, the nation's 8 million people own 2.3 million guns, but gun-related homicides numbered just 24 in all of 2009; the U.S. has as rate that is 11 times Switzerland's [9].But what's often ignored is that most guns registered in Switzerland are military rifles issued to men when they join the conscript army (not concealable, portable handguns) and when Switzerland cut the size of its army over the decades, gun violence also fell, says criminologist Martin Killias at the University of Switzerland; domestic killings and suicides were higher when more people in the nation had access to guns [9]. According to Killias, the real problem is how many people have access to firearms, not the total number of weapons in the nation [9].And to substantiate this view critics point out that Switzerland has a firearms suicide rate that is the highest in all of Europe [9].Some Gun Rights proponents also point to Brazil and to Mexico as examples of nations that have banned firearms but that still see homicide-by-firearms rates higher than in the U.S. Still, experts point out that ferocious drug wars mixed with high levels of local corruption push and pull firearms into those regions, through porous, poorly-regulated borders, even though guns are banned in both nations. In these nations, drug gangs are often better-armed than police [9]. However, experts still point out that recent enacted guns laws in Brazil have made a noticeable impact on the country's homicide-by-firearms rate over the years [9].A recent study of international gun crime statistics has shown that the critical detail in gun violence around the world is gun ownership. Though guns are illegal in places like Mexico and Brazil, easy access to guns in these nations forces them to have high levels of gun crime. The study, which reviewed gun crime in 27 nations, showed that gun accessibility/ownership was an even bigger factor than mental illness when it comes to firearms deaths [10]. The study found that mental illness did play a role, but not as large as gun ownership [10].Mass Shooting Events are Surging in AmericaFinally, mass shootings are surging in america. Incidences of random mass shootings carried out by disgruntled perpetrators at public schools, in universities, in large malls, in theaters are on the rise [11]. The FBI reports that since 2000, the frequency of Active Shooter Events (mass shootings) has steadily been increasing (graph directly below) [11]. The number of people killed, shot, and injured in these mass shooting events is also surging (graph below) [11]. From 2000 to 2002, there was 5 or less mass shootings per year; by 2003, that number jumped to 7; by 2005, it jumped to 8; and by 2010, the number of mass shooting events climbed to 21 [11]. Horrifying events like those observed in Newtown, Connecticut (where 26 people were killed) and Aurora, Colorado (where 12 people were killed & dozens more injured) are increasing in frequnecy in the U.S.The number of school shootings is also on the rise (distinguished from "active shooter events"). In fact, since the heinous shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut, there have been 74 separate school shooting events in the U.S. (map below) [12]. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://seattletimes.com...)[3] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[4] (http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[6] (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)[7] (http://www.dailykos.com...#)[8] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[9] (http://www.csmonitor.com...)[10] (http://www.npr.org...)[11] (http://leb.fbi.gov...)[12] (http://news.yahoo.com...)

banning guns A. The Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [1] Notice the bolded words. I won't focus on the fundamentals of a militia, but I'd like to add on the "well-regulated" part."The phrase 'well-regulated' was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order." [2]With the way guns are handled today, you can't exactly call it well-regulated. I'll get back to that in the following points, though.B. Homicides Would DeclineAccording to gun statistics, 88.8 out of every 100 Americans own guns. The firearm homicide rate is 3.54 out of every 100,000 Americans. [3] Let's compare these rates to Japan. In Japan, 0.6 out of every 100 people have guns and exactly zero firearm homicides happened there in 2008. [3]"Civilians can never own handguns. Small calibre rifles were once legal, but in 1971, the Government forbade all transfers of rifles. Current rifle license holders may continue to own them, but their heirs must turn them into the police when the license-holder dies. Total remaining rifle licenses are 27,000. Even shotguns and air rifles, the two legal types of firearm, are becoming rarer and rarer, as few people find it worthwhile to pass through a burdensome gun licensing process. The number of licensed shotguns and air rifles declined from 652,000 in 1981 to 493,373 in 1989." [4]In other words, Japan has strict gun control laws and, in turn, they have less firearm homicides than America, where we're more flexible in terms of gun control. What would happen if we put these types of laws in place in the U.S? Looking at the stats of Japan, America's homicides probably go down.C. Mass ShootingsSub-point 1. Statistics/Decline Chance"According to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870." [5] This was recorded in 2015 alone. If more gun control laws were put in place, imagine the decline that could take place. In fact, the U.S has the highest mass shootings rates out of any other nation, developed or third-world. [6] If we put laws in place, more innocent lives could be saved. We wouldn't put their families in risk of grief or loss because their family member was killed.Sub-point 2. Mass Shootings of the Past/"Regulation"I'll look at three examples of mass shootings and how the shooters got their guns. First, the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They killed a total of 13 people in Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999. They also took their own lives after the massacre. [7] "Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal 'straw purchase.' Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500." [8] There was no mental health assessment of the original buyers recorded. This is just one example of so-called "regulation".Secondly, I present Brenda Spencer. On January 29, 1979, Spencer shot 11 and killed two from her bedroom window across the street from a school. Her motivation? "I Don't Like Mondays." Where did she get her .22 rifle? From her father who was aware of her being suicidal and that she had anger issues. [9] Again, no mental health check was made.Lastly, we have the more recent Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting committed by Adam Lanza. Lanza killed his mother and 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary. The guns were, indeed, his. But he was said to have severe schizophrenia. Yet, the gun was still sold. [10]D. "Regulation" in GeneralPreviously, private sellers weren't required to do background checks of any kind on their customers to make sure they are fit to own a gun. [11] It was announced back in 2013 that universal background checks were going to be required. [12] But they still get around it!"The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010, based on red flags raised by the background check system, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Justice. That’s just 1.2 percent of the more than 6 million applications. The most common reasons: nearly half were felony indictment or conviction; 19 percent were fugitives; and 11 percent were those who had violated state laws. The rejection rate has been essentially unchanged over the years." [12]This proves that there are inaccuracies in the background checks. If the U.S were to place stricter gun laws, we could be comparable to nations of lesser gun homicides and gun violence, like the aforementioned Japan. In conclusion, increasing gun control is the best way go when it comes to reducing violence. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttal. Citations[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu......[2]http://www.constitution.org......[3]http://www.cfr.org......[4]http://www.guncite.com......[5]http://www.pbs.org......[6]http://crimeresearch.org......[7]http://www.cnn.com......[8]http://www.vpc.org......[9]http://www.thedailybeast.com......[10] http://www.cnn.com......[11]http://www.governing.com......[12]http://www.politico.com......

More Gun control or less Gun control There should be more gun control, because there are way to many crazy people in the world for there not to be. Less guns mean less crimes and murders! In other countries like Canada, they have stricter rules on having/carrying guns, and they have WAY LESS crimes and murders then the united states. Guns can be used for hunting, but is it reasonable to carry an AK-47? If we have stricter gun control then people who have a mental illness would not go around killing people. THE GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE THE PEOPLE KILL THE PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS!!!! I've never needed to use a gun in my entire life, to defend myself. There are other ways you can defend yourself besides guns. If someone comes on my property with a gun and starts shooting isn't there other weapons I could use besides a gun? I could use a knife to defend myself, why do we need the guns. In the Second Amendment it does say we have a right to bear arms, but this right should be limited. We cannot have people going around buy guns and killing people. When you buy a gun , you have a background check, but what about the people who get the guns illegally? What are we going to do about them, there are billions of people in the world how are we going to stop this person from buying illegally a gun. This is exactly why we should gun control. America has a very low level of gun control already, and if we have people buy guns with bad intentions they are putting others in harm. THE WORLD ALREADY HAS SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH GUNS ARE WE HONESTLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PROBLEM BY LETTING PEOPLE BUY MORE AND MORE GUNS? How many people have been killed by a gun in the past year alone, does it matter? NO IT DOESNT BECAUSE GUNS ARE GUNS AND THEY ARE USED TO HARM, THREATEN, AND KILL PEOPLE. They need limitations on fire arms.

Gun Control Thank you Con for this debate. I do not argue to disarm law-abiding, responsible gun owners. I do not argue to strip American's of a constitutional right. I argue that we take sensible action and implement regulations that make it less likely that unstable people and those seeking to do us harm have easy, legal, "no questions asked" access to the weapons of their choice. Why you should vote Pro: 1) What We Have Does Not Work: As Con conceded, Guns are more prevalent and easier to access in the U. S. than anywhere else in the world. Let's assess how this has worked. We can choose to allow Con to compare the U. S. to war-torn, crisis-ridden countries far beyond saving from just gun control, and to just remove the deaths of thousands of African and Latino-Americans from the conversation to result in middling standings for the U. S. But the stats show that the U. S. is the runaway leader in homicides and firearm-homicides among countries of comparable HDI (the metric he introduced). One goal of lax gun control proposed by Con is better self-defense against crime. We can choose to believe the widely discredited studies and numbers provided by Con, based on a couple hundred phone calls and in which pulling out a gun during a vocal argument is considered "self-defense". Or we can believe the FBI, Department of Justice, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and Stanford Law Review that showed us guns are used in self-defense in less than 1% of crimes, guns are used for aggression far more than they are for self-defense, and over the course of a decade and over 100 mass shootings, police and even unarmed citizens were far more effective at neutralizing mass shooters than armed citizens were. When I see these statistics, when I turn on the T. V. to see kindergartners and club-goers massacred, it's pretty clear the U. S. has a gun violence problem. Not a bomb violence problem, or a pressure-cooker violence problem, guns are the preferred weapons. If criminals had no preference for guns, and the weapons don't make any difference, they wouldn't be used in 69% of homicides. There is no minimizing the problem. And if guns are not to blame for these problems and they are unrelated to crime than they cannot be praised and credited for reductions in crime. Even worse, the only proposed alternative is that we further the failed experiment and make guns more prevalent and invariably increase the tens of thousands of accidents, suicides, etc. not even mentioned in this debate involving guns. 2) Gun Control Can Work: Gun control implementations around the world have resulted in safer societies. Comparison wise, I have shown countries of reasonable comparison to the U. S. like the U. K. , Canada, and Japan to have vastly lower crime and gun crime rates than that of the U. S. Trend wise, Australia is hitting record low murder rates, significant drops in firearm homicide, and not a single mass shooting has occurred since its gun control implementation 20 years ago. Clearly these results benefit society. Within the U. S. , I have shown that states with strict gun control on average have lower gun deaths and gun homicides than states with lax gun control. It is not always perfectly implemented and its effects are oftentimes obstructed by problems caused by lax gun control (i. e. Indiana guns in Chicago), but these examples clearly show gun control has benefited various societies and Con has done nothing to dispute that. 3) Gun Control Does Not Infringe Upon Americans' Rights: Constitutional rights are subject to regulation and Con has done nothing to show how "common sense" gun control unduly infringes upon the 2nd Amendment or actively disarms law-abiding gun owners. Con proposes the goal of the 2nd Amendment to be prevention of government tyranny, yet throughout the debate insinuates that the government has and is actively committing tyranny. Hasn't the 2nd Amendment failed then? Tyranny is prevented through our checks and balances, our independent branches of government, our state and municipal governments, our other constitutional rights, our right to vote, our Constitution. All of these things are subject to constant regulation and review so the duty to prevent tyranny does not grant immunity. Are precious assault rifles really going to hold up when the hypothetical, tyrannical U. S. government comes knocking at our doors with tanks, fighter jets, and battleships? No. It is our voices, votes, and law-suits that keep the people in control over the government. 4) Common Sense Gun Control Is Common Sense: Statistics supporting gun control and indicting America's current gun policies as failing are abundant, but logistically the case for gun control is even more clear. Why should people investigated for terrorism and deemed to dangerous to fly be allowed to legally and easily purchase firearms? Why should felons? Why should the mentally unstable? Why should background checks be voided by online and gun show purchases? Why should weapons designed for assault, be protected for self-defense? Con argues because "criminals don't follow the law". Why have any laws at all then? Con argues the black market would be unstoppable. It's been stopped by the U. K. , Australia, Canada, etc. Are criminals just to smart and too powerful for us to confront through laws and law enforcement? Con also failed to rebut my argument that many mass shootings are not the result of intricate coordination by criminal, underground-connected masterminds. If these laws and their enforcement by our police forces, courts, and governments could prevent even a fraction of crimes, mass shootings, homicides, etc. then the safety of society has benefited. The right's refusal to take action because "criminals are criminals" and to block what the majority of Americans believe should be implemented is cowardly and costing lives. We need to do our best to ensure that responsible citizens are the only ones allowed to legally purchase and own guns. Thank you for taking the time for reading.

Gun law Regulations Gun control is definitely needed in today"s society. The regulation of guns is an extremely necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. Gun control is basically the effort to stop the rise in violent and fatal crimes by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms (guns). These laws would reduce gun deaths being that guns are the leading cause of death by homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. It is said that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States a women's risk for being murdered increases by 500% if a gun is present during a dispute. Gun control can also lead to fewer suicides being that there were 270,237 gun suicides in the US for about 52% of all suicides. A recent study found that when gun ownership went down in the US, the overall suicide rates decreased. - There are way too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults and if guns are readily accessible, they can more easily fall into the hands of children. Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes such as the incident in Newtown, Connecticut which killed 20 children and eight adults (including the shooter himself). Even President Obama said that after the Newton incident, his administration would take action towards more gun control. In his speech at Newtown, he asked, "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" Lawmakers have also said it is time for the nation to take a look at its gun control laws.

Guns should have stricter restrictions According the nonprofit project, The Gun Violence Archive, there have been a grand total of 301,797 firearm-related deaths in the past decade, compared to 71 deaths from domestic acts of terrorism in the United States. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide"). Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. So, yes, you could theoretically withhold the 2nd Amendment right of many people who have already committed crimes, but they aren't the only ones who could commit a murder (or more multiple). The people who could commit such a terrible act are people who own assault rifles, military grade weapons, and weapons bought for the intent of "self defense". America is (for the most part) a country of peace and prosperity. We are not a country that is engaged in war on our own territory, and we are not a country that is without a justice and protection system. So to own weapons of mass murder is completely uncalled for and unwarranted. A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines. There is no need for an American citizen to own a gun that can mow down a massive number of people at a time, nor do they need to own an assault rifle. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns, and can alert others of a possible mental disorder. In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers are not allowed to carry guns, and their population is not allowed to own guns (other than for hunting). If a country that is as advanced, if not more advanced, than we are has banned their guns with no problems, then why can't the United States. Gun laws should be tightened and guns used for anything other than recreational hunting should be banned.

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control 1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. An overarching theme of gun control is whether the strictness of its regulations has a correlation to how much it controls and/or reduces crime. Stricter gun control laws include longer waiting times, stricter eligibility for the privilege to conceal arms, as well as tougher requirements for background checks. I contest that stricter gun laws will either have no impact on crime rates, or it will have a negative impact on crime rates. Firstly, statistics and studies on gun control show that a longer waiting period does not impact firearm crime rates at all. Moreover, all commercial gun dealers have to run a background check; there is no loophole during "gun shows", as many people assume, either. Background checks are a gauge of how lawful a person is on paper; it's impossible to gauge everyone's intentions and what they might do in situations that cause them spur-of-the-moment violence. Finally, the real kicker is that gun control laws do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. In fact, the 31 states with "shall issue" laws (the law to conceal weapons) "have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. " The nine states with he lowest violent crime rates all have right to carry laws. (. http://www.cato.org...) Gun control laws do *not* work, and it is not a theoretical statement, but a statistically proven one. To make guns harder to obtain simply makes no difference to crime rates. To pass laws that forbids someone to conceal weapons makes crime rates go higher. Gun control laws not only do not work, but they even bring up crime rates. 2) Guns save lives. Despite it being an incredibly corny line, guns don't kill people, people kill people. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, someone pro-gun control might say that guns make it easier for people to kill, and guns make harm more accessible to people. We have to consider that people are using the guns to harm others. How, then, will people defend themselves? Consider this: rape victims are mostly female and physically weaker than their predators. What's a quick way to bridge the gap between the physicality? With a gun, of course. A victim with a gun is far more likely to have a winning chance to defend themselves. One, of course, also needs to look at the numbers. "Guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. " (. http://www.cato.org...) Guns save lives. To the weak, easily victimized, guns are a way for them to give themselves a fighting chance. 3) Guns are a form of liberty. We all know that weapons are power. Time and time again we've been shown that whoever has the weapons, has the power. For example, Hitler himself said that the "most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms". (. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...) The only people that could have guns were the German military, the military that ended up being the law and order of all of the Nazi-occupied countries. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we are putting more power into our governments' hands. What makes America a democracy is that the people hold the power. To hinder America's accessibility to arms is to hinder America's liberty. Just because America, at the moment, seem to be at a point where the people hold the most power, we shouldn't forget the recent events of World War II, where anyone Japanese in America by heritage, whether they are an American or not, were put into concentration camps whilst their property was taken away. 4) Conclusion Not only are stricter gun laws not effective or negatively effective, they are also a great component in people's safety. Statistically, and realistically, stricter gun laws will not save lives. In fact, it will cause more lives to be harmed. Even though the laws might be well-intentioned, they have to consider how the laws would work- and they wouldn't. Gun control doesn't work. I challenge Pro to come up with laws that aren't redundant or reductive. Just because we have a problem (gun violence) doesn't mean there's a solution to it. Stricter gun control laws are not a solution. My final argument is that yes, we have a problem, but the proposed solution (gun control) does not work. I look forward to hearing my opponent's side of the debate :).

The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws My objective with this debate is to educate both debaters and the readers about firearms violence inside the United States and how it compares to other industrialized nations, and about troubling weaknesses in federal gun control laws and the loopholes specific prohibited individuals use to get their hands on these powerful, remarkable weapons. Loopholes & Weaknesses in current Federal Gun Control LawsAs I discussed in the previous ROUND, there are certain limitations with current federal gun control laws that make it difficult for the ATF and law enforcement to reduce gun violence in our nation and to sometimes quickly apprehend a culprit following an incident of gun crime or violence. Among the restrictions placed on law enforcement are the Tiarht Amendements, which prevent law enforcement from creating an electronic registry of gun purchases and gun owners at the federal level (therefore limiting the ATF and other national law enforcement agencies from being maximally efficient in their work and prolonging gun crime/violence investigations) [1]. The Amendments require law enforcement and the ATF to destroy records following gun transaction background checks and they prohibit law enforcement agencies from diseminating what information they might have (such as forms 4473, collected after firearms dealers go out business) to the courts [1]. Furthermore, firearm sales between individual persons is hardly managed at all by current federal gun control laws and such transactions do not legally require a background check to take place [1], providing convicted felons and other individuals prohibited from owning/operating firearms with an opportunity to get their hands on one. Indeed, the ATF estimates that a whopping 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks [2]. But, as I will demonstrate in this ROUND, current federal gun control laws are also weak in other ways and they're presently riddled with loopholes that make it easy for some prohibited people to get their hands on these lethal weapons of war. Currently, millions of fugitives across the country can pass federal background checks and buy guns illegally because police departments are not required to enter names into a national database that tracks criminals on the run [3]. This dreadful gap is largely a byproduct of the fact that police and prosecutors are often unwilling to spend the time or money to pursue fugitives across a state border. Because state law enforcement has no intention of pursuing these fugitives of justice in a different jurisdiction, these criminals travel relatively forgotten; the fact that there's no federal law requiring state law enforcement to enter fugitive names in the FBI fugitive database--the National Instant Background Check System--makes this problem a serious weakness of current federal gun control law [3]. Investigative reporter Brad Heath of USA Today recently found that in five states alone, law enforcement agencies failed to provide information to the FBI database for at least 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants, according to police and court records on file [3]. What's shocking is that tens of thousands of these fugitives on the run are wanted for violent offenses and felonies [3]. According to USA Today, the federal databases used to perform background checks are missing more than 900,000 Michigan arrest warrants, 150,000 Ohio arrest warrants, 184,000 Washington arrest warrants, and many more from other states [3]. In response to this alarming discovery, Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has said, "It is. .. not surprising to me the extent to which there are holes in our system, given Congress' lack of success in addressing them" [3]. In many cases, entering fugitives' names in federal databases would be as simple as checking two boxes in a state law enforcement's computer system, but the lack of courage by Congress to pass additional gun control laws, such as requiring state police to report names to the FBI database, allows this major lapse in background checks to continue [3]. And fugitives on the run are taking this opportunity because of Congress' inaction. Fugitive Deandra Smith, who was already wanted for a nightclub shooting (and multiple felony charges), was able to purchase a variety of guns at an Arkansas Pawn Shop in 2013 because his name was not entered in a federal or even a state database [3]. To quote his lawyer, "Without that [entering his name in a database for background checks], it wouldn't matter how many background checks. .. [firearms dealers] ran [3]. " Every year, hundreds of thousands of fugitives on the run and people prohibited from owning firearms, like Smith, attempt to take advantage of the current set-up [4]. According to a new report by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Program, which observed 78 gun shows in 19 states, loopholes in present gun control laws allow for easy access to guns that can be purchased by just about anyone, whether legally prohibited from purchasing a gun or not [5]. Among the findings [5]:--illegal purchases, where surrogates buy a gun from a licensed dealer, is common at gun shows--anonymous, undocumented gun sales are common--parts used to make untraceable guns are widespread and easily attainable at gun showsGaren Wintemute, professor of medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine, found that “illegal" purchases "were often conducted entirely out in the open" [5]. Wintemute asserts that more has to be done to prevent both unregulated gun sales and illegal guns sales at gun shows; “law enforcement needs to have an expanded, proactive program at gun shows to prevent the illegal sale of guns” [5]. If not, individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, like the dangerously mentally ill, minors, and convicted felons, will find gun shows to be an excellent source to obtain firearms--weapons the law states they shouldn't have. Currently, 44 states have laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, but few states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill to the national database for background checks; in fact, just seven states account for 98 percent of all names prohibited for mental illness [4]. A frequently cited example is that of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter who passed a background check to obtain the gun he used with which he killed 32 people on the university campus (and wounded 17 others), despite being declared mentally ill two years prior [4]. Different states also have varying degrees of additional gun control laws in effect, but some have very few, almost entirely relying on current federal gun control laws (some state governments have also tried to abolish federal gun control laws within their state borders, even calling for the arrest of federal agents who dare to enforce firearms legislation; something not permitted by the U. S. Constitution [6]). What Federal Gun Control Laws Ought to DoCurrent federal gun control laws do not go far enough to prevent fugitives, convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors from obtaining weapons they clearly shouldn't have. The Tiarht Amendments, though understandly trying to protect the anonymity of gun owners, create a stumbling block for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies charged with apprehending culprits of gun crime/violence. They frequently act to prolong the time between an incident of gun crime to final apprehension of the assailant, and in the case of new criminals or fugitives/convicted felons, like Deandra Smith, that's simply more time for them to engage in gun-related criminal activity. It would better serve law and order in this country to establish an electronic registry that law enforcement can use to link an individual gun owner with a registered firearm make, model and serial number. We can still protect the rights of gun owners to defend themselves while more effectively restricting criminals and others prohibited from owning guns. We shouldn't have to make the ATF and other law enforcement agencies jump through hoops and expand their investigations just to determine the individual that owns a gun make with a specific serial number. Determining who owns what gun should be as easy as it is to link a driver with a specified, registered automobile, especially for criminal investigations. Gun transactions between unlicensed individuals should still require a background check; it's simply way too easy for someone prohibited from owning a gun to purchase a firearm through these transactions. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks--well that's just an incredible opportunity for minors, the mentally ill, fugitives of justice, convicted felons, drug peddlers and others to abuse! Gun Control Laws need to be expanded so that all gun transactions require a federal background check. Federal law should require state law enforcement to register a fugitive's name in the FBI fugitive database to better enforce current restrictions with gun laws. Our current gun laws would be so much more effective if this was already the case. Likewise, the names of the prohibited mentall ill should be required to be submitted to the national database for background checks. (Additional recommendations exist. )[1] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (. http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[3] (. http://www.usatoday.com...)[4] (. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[5] (. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...)[6] (. http://www.nytimes.com...)

Is strengthening gun control laws necessay More gun control is absolutely necessary in today's society and is not a violation of the second amendment. People should be allowed to own a guns for self-defense and hunting purposes, but you don"t go hunting or defend your house with a modified assault riffle unless your street is being invaded by Turkish Rebels and you don't use 30 rounds either when you are hunting. It is not necessary for an ordinary citizen to have weapons of such force, with the potential to do so much harm, and you don't need a high caliber magazine to defend your home or hunt with. If you can't hit what you are shooting at with less than 5 bullets you don't have business owning a gun. Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.

Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I defined gun control I said laws and regulations regarding guns which don't necessarily mean a ban on any type of gun it just means more laws regarding guns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly, Unsurprisingly America has more guns than any country in the world. A staggering 89 guns for every 100 people. This is far more then doubling the second leading country in this area. The USA also has the most gun homicides (A staggering 22 more per million then the second leading country in the world) and also the most deaths because of guns in general. This data was all collected by the United Nations. There has been research conducted by Leah Libresco that shows that these two things are directly related. Another smart group of individuals, who also found that these two things were connected are the Harvard School of Public Health"s Injury Control Research Center. The Boston University School of Public Health found similar findings showing that a 1 percent increase in guns was most likely to create a 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicide rate at the state level. In all these findings the variables were controlled and the research was performed by experts. All this data proves that America's easy access to guns and quantity of guns leads to more violence. Having so many guns makes it incredibly easy for criminals and felons to access. To fix this problem America would have a limit on the number of guns made and imported into America. We could also have stricter laws on who could have guns. An example of a few is making background checks mandatory so that there would be less of a need for guns in America. We could also make an age restriction on guns. Don't you think its a bit weird how kids aren't allowed to drink until their 21 but they're allowed to have a weapon that kills humans? Thank you for reading my argument and I hope you consider it deeply. Sources: https://www.vox.com...

Stricter gun controls I will be playing devil's advocate (speaking out for the position normally against what I really believe).I will start off simple.1. Deterrence to crime and deathsThere have been many shootings in the pass years. [http://www.motherjones.com...] These are all due to guns, and if we control guns to a stricter extent, the criminals will be able to buy fewer guns, possibly leading to fewer shootings. Here are a few more statistics that prove guns should be in stricter control: [http://www.bradycampaign.org...] One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1 On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2 Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3 The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4 A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5 Stricter gun control would not only stop the criminals, it can also stop the unintentional shootings. It would be a warning to those who want to buy guns for good purposes, and allow them to be more careful. And even if the gun control isn't 100 percent, it arguably helps the civilians who do buy guns, since some people believe in defending themselves just in case. [Keep in mind that if gun control WAS 100%, criminals could obtain them illegally, leaving the civilians defenseless, while if it is just severe enough to hinder a good amount of criminals, with lots of security and checks, it still allows the civilians who are serious enough to both hunt for fun, and defend themselves in cases of emergency). The background checks, with sufficient increase in tighter control, will be able to deter much more crime than now. That is all.

Gun Control More regulations on the possession and sale of guns are needed in the United States.

Gun Control Yes, it is true that you have given some relatively convincing statistics but you conveniently left out the other side of the argument. To represent my side, here are some statistics quoted from a website: There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%). Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths topping liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson"s disease, as well as deaths from fires, drowning, and machinery accidents. However, everyone can quote statistics, so now, I will be moving on to the main pointers of my arguments. In present times, it has never been more pressing to impose gun control laws not only in the United States but also in the world. People are becoming increasingly radicalized in today's society, with the rampage of ISIS groups and supporters throughout the world. Maybe the part about removing all radicals from the US is highly improbable but why then. should we provide these radicals with unrestricted access to firearms? Have you ever wondered how easy it is to acquire fire arms in America? With the present gun control "laws" in America, it makes America extremely prone not only to external threats but threats within the nation itself. This is evident from the number of shooting cases happening in recent years. Therefore, doesn't the government's reluctance to impose stricter gun control laws similar to digging our own graves? Sure you may argue that guns are necessary to protect our individual rights, but at what cost? At the cost of a few thousand other lives in America? At the cost of our sovereignty? At the cost of the whole country? Think about it, an individual won't exist without a nation and a the fragile concept of a "nation" can easily be destroyed by the mere spread of radical ideologies and a few more shooting cases. Take Singapore for example. This country has extremely strict gun control laws and yet its crime rate is one of the lowest in the world? This proves that gun control is not an absolute criterion for the safety of individuals as other measures can be put in place. I am proud to propose

The US should adopt stricter gun control laws I would firstly like to state my framework for this debate, and then move on to state my contentions for this debate. Framework: The affirmation states "Adopt stricter gun control laws. " This means that the proposition only needs to prove one gun law that should be stricter in order to win this debate. C1: Solves The Root Of The Problem One of the roots of the problem for gun violence are background checks. The current laws for background checks are ineffective, allowing criminals to get there hands on weapons. According to Everytown, Federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks. That means that millions of guns are exchanged each year without a check"most often online or at gun shows through unlicensed "private sellers. " Felons, domestic abusers, seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people know about this loophole, and they exploit it every day. It"s like having two lines at the airport"one with security, and one without. And criminals get to choose. We also need to make sure the background check database is complete. States and federal agencies have failed to send hundreds of thousands of records to the national background check databases. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen. The Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 32 people, was banned from buying guns. But he passed a background check because his records never made it into the system. As you can see, by closing simple loopholes in the law, like making private sellers also have to give background checks and entering information in databases faster, criminals and the mentally ill cannot get access to guns, making tragedies over before they even happen. C2: Reduces Homicides And Suicides My opponent and I both know that there are intentional killings with guns. However, what many people do not know is that there are unintentional killings as well. According to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted. 89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents" absence. 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills themselves could be prevented by automatic child proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired. Simple solutions like these could have prevented over 270,237 lives in the last decade. This means that we should adopt these simple laws to save lots of lives in the future. C3: Reduces Societal Costs The effects of gun violence not only cause a loss of lives, but also cost a lot of money to families and the federal government. Causing restrictions, would make spending money at a minimum. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2015, gun violence cost each person in the United States roughly $564 and the US government $5.5 billion in lost tax revenue; $4.7 billion in court costs; $1.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid costs; $180 million in mental health care for victims; $224 million in insurance claims processing; and $133 million for law enforcement and medic response to shooting injuries. There were also 36,341 emergency room visits and 25,024 hospitalizations for gun injuries, costing an estimated $6.3 million. 84% of those injured by firearms are uninsured, leaving taxpayers responsible for most of those bills through programs like Medicaid. As you can see, there are so many effects of gun violence that can cost money. If we take simple precautions like closing loopholes and making sure guns are locked up at all times, then there would be no money spent on this, leaving more money to spend on other things.

Gun Laws should be Stricter "Since you have left the actual terms for winning said argument completely open by not specifying any sort of terms that i need to prove wrong."I will be arguing that more gun restriction will help prevent crime."Please specify what exactly you want done about gun laws your debate is very vague."Bans on high cap magazines, bans on assault rifles, close the loopholes, universal background checks, and registration.A hammer could be a fairly efficient killing tool in the right context but it also has a lot of valid day to day uses such as building.You can't kill as many people with a hammer as with a gun. Killing with a close range weapon such as a knife, club or hammer has its limitations.* You must get close. This may be impossible under various circumstances.* Getting closer reduces the odds of surprise.* It's much harder to kill someone stronger or taller* The victim may be around friends.* The victim could call out for help.* The crowd may help the victim* In a struggle, the murder may get harmed* The struggle would leave evidence of the murderer.Firearms eliminate all these restrictions*You can kill from afar*Greater odds of surprise.*Can easily kill bigger and stronger people.*It would scare away crowds and cause more death in the crowd.*Almost no chance of struggle there are many day to day recreational uses for guns...Now you might be asking how I validate the need for a 30 round clip and a red dot sight on my Ar15. Its simple really a gun is a tool and it is very multipurpose. I choose to use my Ar15 to hunt coyotes and sell their hides for 25 bucks a pop. This stimulates a lot of my extra income just like a hammer or any other tool used to complete a job does. Do you really need a military assault weapon to kill coyotes? It can easily be done without an assault rifle."If you were to restrict guns you would be restricting the livelyhood of many People"You can use this argument for the possession of anything."I drive to work in an old WWII tank, if you were to restrict tanks you would be restricting the livelihood of many people.""I use sarin gas to kill gophers, if you were to restrict sarin you would be restricting the livelihood of many people.""anymore then outlawing marijuana removed it from your local highschools or proabition stopped moonshiners"It's much harder to make a firearm. You can grow marijuana and make moonshine from what's natural in the earth. Not with firearms. You must admit, if marijuana were legal, more people would be doing it."People will always break any restriction a government implements so why remove guns from hard working honest people when the very ones your scared of would not be affected. Removing guns would not stop criminals it would merely stop the only people able to protect themselves from doing so."Let's draw a parallel between gun laws and sexual assault. No matter how much you try to restrict it, it still happens. Does this mean we should not have any laws prohibiting sexual assault? Same with firearm restrictions. If an action is performed with a gun that is illegal, they can be punished. Thus decreasing the motivation.With all gun regulation being proposed, none limit the rights of the people. Citizens who are capable mentally to own a gun will still be able to do so. The most liberal gun legislation only would confiscate military-grade weapons. Most proposals actually allow for the "grandfathering" of military weapons. It wouldn't stop only the people from being able to protect themselves.My ArgumentGun control has been shown to work."The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." -The International Crime Victim Survey [1]It's shown to work in Australia [2] "This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows."Gun death rateJapan 0.07 /100,000 United Kingdom 0.25 /100,000 Germany 1.10 /100,000 Australia 1.05 /100,000 Israel 1.86 /100,000 United States 10.2 /100,000 [3]As you can see, the ones with the most gun control, have the lowest homicide rate[1] http://www.unicri.eu...[2] http://www.factcheck.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control As is with my previous round, I remain adamant that her latter two arguments are unnecessary for this debate. Since I have been bent on proving one rather simple premise, this round need not be long. Let me go back again: we both agree that preserving the human life and the quality of living is important, which we both agree to as a presupposition in this debate. Thus, we also value a method that would decrease the amount of criminals (or at least a criminal's power to do harm). As a consequence, we agree that a method which will overall decrease the amount of criminal power in relation to law-abiding citizen's freedoms is a method that SHOULD be undertaken. This general movement stemming from an ethical foundation to pragmatic considerations is what unites much of our beliefs. So the more focused question is whether or not stricter gun control laws will decrease the amount of criminal power - I'm sure we both agree that, at least to an extend, IT DOES. However, the negative must also observe that stricter gun control laws can impede on the freedom (and safety) of law-abiding citizens as well. Therefore, we must look at the BALANCE between the too -- if some certain gun control laws were to be implemented that would tip the scale towards impeding on the freedoms of citizens, then my opponent would have palpable contentions against my position. On the other hand, if some certain gun control laws were to tip the scale towards decreasing the amount of criminal power, then I would have similar grounds to support such a change. So the question remains: do stricter gun control laws on balance decrease criminal power more than impeding the freedom's of law-abiding citizens? I would argue that most gun control laws have a much more significant impact on criminals than law-abiding citizens, allow me to explain in further detail: Take on gun control law: more extensive backgrounds. For a law-abiding citizen, this shouldn't be a problem since there shouldn't be anything to hide. For a criminal however, things such as suspicious connections or a tainted background can lead to higher attention at their activities or even rejection can curb the amount of potential gun-related violence. Another law is a waiting period; though any dedicated criminal can wait for the time, often criminals buy guns soon before committing a crime while a law-abiding citizen does not, on average, need it as urgently (there will probably be only one or two occasions in their life when it ever comes in crucial use - it's otherwise mostly rotting in their drawers). There are many other examples, but the point is that given the purpose and situations for criminals that obviously differ in comparison to law-abiding citizens, gun control laws will have a much more significant impact. Gun control laws, on balance, have a much more significant impact on impeding the powers of criminals. This is evidenced in the needs of criminals rather than citizens, thus amplifying the effects.

Gun Control C1: The Second Amendment confers no individual right to have firearms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment of the US Constitution Regulation means "To make regular" and it also means a rule or directive made and/or maintained by authority. Merriam-Webster defines militia as: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency subject to call or the whole body of able bodied male citizens subject to call to military service. In the time of the American revolution, the militia were everyday people with arms as the organized force. However the Constitution clears sets up the organized militia in terms of the state. In fact the Second Amendment is not the only place the militia is referred to. Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia". This is in clear reference to the armed forces of the state or government organized civilian force like the National Guard. The term in the Second Amendment "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." refers to national defense and security. Prior to the US Constitution being drafted private forces defended the land but after its drafting clearly the advent of the government military and militia means that the rights of holding arms as a collective right shifted from the private sphere to the state. In all this we see that no individual right to have arms exists. There can be debate about whether or not it is reasonable for individuals to have arms for limited purposes such as self defense, sport and so forth and what types of weapons should be allowed for public safety. This is the idea of gun control. C2: Reasonable gun control reduces gun violence In 2014 the United States saw 33,736 firearms deaths. which is a rate of 10.6 per 100,000 citizens(1) Compare to Canada who has legal access to firearms with restrictions and the rate is 1.97 per 100,000.(2) The main difference being the restricted access to handguns. Rifles are easy to buy in Canada just like the United States but handguns are tough to get. Most individual gun deaths occur via handgun in the United States. Some say gun ownership deters crime, however we find that generally only 40% of criminals surveyed in prison had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun."(3). We have also seen that restricting or prohibiting certain types of guns while not prohibiting all firearms works well in other nations. Australia most notably engaged in a buyback of assault weapons and saw a successful decrease in firearms violence. (4) From the above data and much more that is available we can see that a balanced approach where reasonable firearms restrictions can improve public safety while not totally banning the private ownership of firearms. When you combine this with the fact that most Americans support background checks, mental health screening and other reasonable gun control measures(5) the only conclusion we can make for benefit of the American public is that reasonable gun control should be enacted and kept in place. Sources: 1) http://www.cdc.gov... 2) "Canada " Gun Facts, Figures and the Law". Gunpolicy.org. University of Sydney School of Public Health. 3) http://www.justfacts.com... 4) http://www.cfr.org... 5) http://www.pewresearch.org...

Gun Control I think we should have more Gun Control laws.There are too many deaths in this country because of guns. In this year there were 7,910,100 crimes comitted, about 700000 were comitted with guns. There have been too many suicides because of guns. Also school shootings people! Innocent kids died because teenagers easily obtained guns! And this is why we should get rid of guns. We need too have compassion, we should have gun control laws that prohibit civilians to own guns, but the police and armed forces should be allowed to have them. With these laws murder rates will go down, according to www.justfacts.com there were 10,615 murders with firearms. Also there have been far to many accidents. Because of laws alowing us to carry guns, many children have died. In the case of Sandra Smith a 9 month old baby crawled up her dad's bed were there was a gun and shot herself by accident when playing with it. When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. In my opinion guns are to over-rated! We think we need guns for everything that involves protection, but guns have only brought trouble and disgrace into our nation.

gun control Most violent crimes are committed with guns; thus, restricting gun ownership will likely reduce the number of such crimes. Lunatics, bullied school kids, disgruntled workers, and others can inflict mass casualties with guns that otherwise wouldn't be possible. A crime victim who has a gun may be in more danger than an unarmed person since the criminal may kill in perceived self-defense. Suicides and crimes of passion are higher with gun availability, as it's much easier to act immediately on your impulses when a gun is available Legalized gun ownership means guns have a greater chance of falling into the hands of kids, potentially resulting in some deadly accidents Guns are not safe. There are too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults.

The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThe U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that U.S. Congress has the right to pass gun control legislation as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment--but how is this possible? Easy. It's because most people don't truly understand the Second AmendmentBefore we get into the lively discussion of why U.S. Congress should impose sensible, more effective gun control laws than are currently on the books, I'm going to briefly explain that U.S. Congress has this power, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has historically and consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation [1][2]. Furthermore, the implied powers granted to U.S. Congress via Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution--the portion I'm referring to known as the "Necessary and Proper" Clause--give Congress the authority to pass gun control legislation, as long as it does not violate the Second Amendment [3][4].First of all, in order to understand why the U.S. Supreme Court has historically ruled that gun control is not unconstitutional, we have to look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment--which brielfy states the exact motive for having it inserted in the Bill of Rights."Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. [5]"There are actually several ways to interpret this, but the most conservative U.S. Supreme Courts (and by extension, U.S. Congress) have interpretted this to mean that people have the right to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defense--but not necessarily for anything beyond that [3]. In other words, the Second Amendment grants people the right to arm themselves in self-defense--but not to maliciously and criminally injure others, to rob other people's property, or to act against law enforcement or state and federal governments [3]. Of course, this fits in line with the most conservative rulings of the nation's highest court, but historically the Court has also interpretted the Amendment to mean that having arms is only constitutionally protected for military purposes [4]. In fact, this is a position held by several sitting members of the current U.S. Supreme Court, and also the recently retired Justice John Paul Stevens [4].Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about having moderate (conservative rulings) to abundant (liberal rulings) national gun control laws, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee the unrestricted, unconditional right to own firearms [1][3][4].In fact, because of historical U.S. Supreme Court rulings, U.S. Congress has already passed various laws restricting gun ownership or requiring gun registration and background checks on some gun purchases. As early as 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which required certain firearms and destructive devices to be registered with the U.S. government and which imposed a tax on sales of such devices; failure to comply with the act had criminal penalties, including up to 10 years of incarceration and between $10,000 to $100,000 fines for individual violations [6]. Over the years, congressional legislation signed into law has made it a crime for convicted felons, those convicted of certain misdemeanors, and for fugitives of justice to own and use firearms; people who illegally use drugs are prohibited from owning/operating a firearm, as are people who have been committed to a mental institution and who suffer a dangerous mental illness (however, not everyone diagnosed with a severe mental illness is prohibited from owning firearms); others are outlawed from owning and using firearms as well [1].Current Federal Gun Control Laws and Their Limitations In the last paragraph, I explained that certain people are probited from owning/operating firearms under federal law in the U.S. These people include [1]:-convicted felons/people convicted of certain misdemeaners-fugitives of justice-unlawful users of drugs-non U.S. citizens/non-permanent legal residents-people committed to mental institutions and diagnosed with dangerous mental illness-those with a criminal history of domestic violence (a single misdemeaner incident or more/greater)-some othersBut current federal gun control laws also place legal responsibilities (punishable with a fine and/or incarceration for not complying) on people who engage in the business of selling and buying firearms, also known as gun dealers.Current national law requires gun/firearms dealers to be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and federal restrictions make it a crime for them to sell firearms to people under 18 years of age and other people prohibited from owning/using firearms [1]. It is a crime for a gun dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm without the transaction first being approved by a prescribed source, after a background check has been conducted; the dealer is also required to document the sale of the firearm with federal form 4473, which identifies the purchaser's information and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm [1]. However, form 4473 is kept by the dealer, and the ATF is not allowed to put the purchaser's information in an electronic registry that can be later used by law enforcement; furthermore, current laws (the Tiahrt Amendments) require that the ATF destroy records on background checks after 24 hours that it approves a gun sale, and the ATF cannot use tracing data in some legal proceedings to revoke or temporarily suspend a dealer's license [1]. The ATF can only investigate dealers on an individual basis with regards to purchases, and can only collect 4472 forms after a gun dealer goes out of business [1].It's these limitations that place great strain on the ATF and that prevent it from more effectively carrying out its work. Because the ATF cannot create an electronic registry on gun purchases and must destroy information after it approves a gun sale (background checks are performed soley to determine if the gun purchaser is someone prohibited from owning/operating a gun), crimes committed with firearms take longer to investigate and provides the assailant with more time to break the law. The lack of an electronic registry on gun purchases in some cases allows assailants who use guns to avoid ever being detected and be brought to justice.The Bradley Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports that the current weak guns laws in place at the federal level have allowed tens of thousands of guns to leave gun shops without checks or records, one of the reasons being the severe restrictions placed on the ATF's role during transactions and the follow up [7]. Requring gun dealers to better keep records of all firearms in their possession and to register all gun purchases in an electronic registry would allow the ATF and other law enforcement to better track guns in this nation and would vastly reduce gun crimes and violence; it would also shorten the time between an incident of gun crime and apprehension by law enforcement.Gun sales and transactions between individuals is even less strict and unfortuneately a background check and federal form 4473 are not legally required in such sales, which increases the probability that someone prohibited from owning a firearm will obtain one through such a transaction, such as a convicted felon or a minor. It also makes it more difficult for the ATF and other law enforcement to track a gun sold in this way used in a criminal incident [7]. In point of fact, firearms sold by "occassional sellers"--people not required to abide with the federal background check--were used in the Columbine School massacre that killed 12 students and 1 teacher, not including the two young perpetrators [7], who committed multiple felony violations of federal in the days leading up to the school shooting [8].Firearms sold by "occassional sellers" in the U.S. have also found their way into the hands of terrorist organizations in the middle east, including the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, and across the Southern border into Mexico, where rivaling drug gangs have used the weapons to mow down each other and countless innocent bystanders [7].Shockingly, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that more than 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels originate in the U.S; 2000 guns are estimated to cross--illegally--the Southern border into Mexico per day [9]. Mexico, where guns are strictly outlawed, has seen over 100,000 people lose their lives in a drug war partly fueled by illegal firearms being shipped in from the U.S. [10]. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U.S. are made by unlicensed sellers who do not perform background checks, and that this is one major reason why guns are flowing across the Mexican border at such an alarming rate [9].But, as we shall see in the next ROUND, the U.S. is also suffering a major crisis all its own, for its weak/inefficient federal gun control laws currently in place.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://online.wsj.com...)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[4] (http://www.businessweek.com...)[5] (http://www.ushistory.org...)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[7] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide Gun control laws reduce gun violence--the evidence for that is overwhelming. Take two states who did exactly the opposite Missouri and Connecticut: in 1995 Connecticut tightened its gun laws; in 2007 Missouri loosened them. Gin related homicide dropped sharply in Connecticut and rose in Missouri. http://www.cnn.com... A frequent talking point of gun rights supporters is that gun violence occurs in other countries too. Well, yes, but not nearly as often. For example, see this headline after the murder of a British Mp: Gun violence rare in U.K. compared to U.S. The numbers are staggering: Britain has 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides with a population only about six times larger. This disparity isn't due to some unavoidable law of nature. After a mass shooting in 1996, the British government decided to do something about it and actually passed some laws. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned, background checks were tightened, and thousands of guns were taken off the street. Australia that very same year passed strict laws in response to a mass shooting; the results were similiar. Gun violence has gone considerably down since then in both countries. I'm confused by my opponent's following statement: "As for the other two, accident's wouldn't really be considered violence." Deadly accidents, like a recently publicized tragedy of a father shooting his gun at a gun range in Florida, aren't considered violence? http://www.cnn.com... Easy access to guns is responsible for so many lethal accidents. By the end of 2015, about 265 children under 18 picked up a firearm and shot someone by accident, and 83 of those shootings were fatal. This simply doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. My opponent makes another common but deeply flawed argument regarding suicides: "there are still plenty of other ways " That's a very misleading statement. Suicide attempts are much more "successful," if that's the right word, with a gun. Suicidal acts with guns are fatal in 85 percent of cases, while those with pills are fatal in just 2 percent of cases, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. The Alcohol/Prohibition analogy my opponent uses, which my pro-gun father also uses, is a straw man. What I am proposing is stricter gun laws, not outright prohibition. The Court ruled in 2008 that there was an individual right to a firearm so any national laws banning guns--which won't pass-- would be immediately invalidated. Easy access to guns in America doesn't go unnoticed by our foreign enemies. A recent ISIS defector was quoted as saying: For America and Canada, it"s much easier to get them over the social network, because [ISIS says] the Americans are dumb " they have open gun policies. From 2002 to 2014, 85 percent of people killed by terrorists in the U.S. were killed using guns, according to our analysis. Link: http://fivethirtyeight.com...

Why more gun laws are a bad idea. 'The majority of criminals who use violence obtain their guns illegally. You honestly think taking away the right to own firearm should stop people from owning guns' I never said it would stop people owning guns altogether, but it would severely reduce the amount of people (including criminals) who have them simply because it would be much more inconvenient to obtain one. A criminal does not care about abiding to laws, I agree with that, but as I said in round 3, criminalising gun ownership could mean that a criminal intent on using guns to murder could be caught as he purchases the firearms; thus preventing a massacre. Also, a criminal could very well not be bothered to go to the effort to obtain a gun and instead opt for a less dangerous weapon such as a knife. Whilst this might not prevent many individual murders, it would make massacres a whole lot harder to do. 'This puts guns in the hands of criminals and takes guns away from law abiding citizens who can no longer protect themselves.' Firstly, gun laws would not put more guns in the hands of criminals. How would it? Secondly, guns are not needed to protect oneself. Thirdly, if both the victim and the criminal had guns, the criminal would be more likely to use it (out of fear) as opposed to where the victim is harmless. 'Chicago- Chicago has the stricktest gun laws in the country yet they have an extremely high crime rate. If they have so many gun restrictions how could it be such a violent city? If the criminals saw all of these gun restrictions why would they obtain guns illegally, don't they know that's agianst the rules?' Correlation does not mean causation. Just because Chicago has a high crime rate and simultaneously has strict gun regulation does not mean that the latter causes the former. For all we know the strict gun regulations have reduced the crime rate from an even higher one. To propose a counter example, the United Kingdom has much stricter gun laws compared to the USA yet the USA's gun murder rate is 32 times that of the UK. This suggests that gun control reduces gun murders. In regards to the constitution, I do not see it as an unquestionable authority that should have the power to prevent regulation that could save peoples' lives.

Gun laws After the horrific Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a sense of fear gripped the nation. Stores pulled guns from their shelves. Cities organized gun buyback events. Lawmakers pledged to tighten gun laws. Bulletproof backpack sales spiked, and some kids even took guns to school for protection. Through it all, the national debate turned once again to gun control: Should citizens even have guns? And what can we do to prevent future shooting tragedies? The Democrat party responded with clamor for more gun control. On Jan. 16, President Barack Obama signed three memorandums and announced 23 executive actions to help "reduce gun violence." His plan emphasizes stronger background checks, bans on "assault weapons," and more emergency resources in schools. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" that would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns. Feinstein is known for her anti-gun stance. She championed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004 and only banned 18 specific firearms. Although gun violence did drop in the 1990"s, a University of Pennsylvania study shows that the 1994 ban had too many loopholes and had no statistical effect on the number of mass shootings. Murder and violent crime rates continued to fall even after the ban expired. In addition to pressing for useless gun regulations, many Democrats also engage in political doublespeak. They talk about banning "assault weapons;" however, there is no set definition of an "assault weapon." It is whatever a given individual wants it to be. Gun control advocates are against "military-style weapons," but these guns bear a purely cosmetic resemblance to military weapons and would never be used by the military. They speak of the dangers of "semi-automatic weapons," which sounds scary until you realize that "semi-automatic" refers to any gun that can shoot more than once without reloading (nearly every gun that shoots is semi-automatic). They talk about "reducing gun violence" and promoting "gun safety" (can you really argue against reducing violence or promoting safety?) instead of what they"re really doing, which is attacking our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms by tightening gun control laws. But no matter what terminology they use, gun control is not going to work, and here"s why: Reason #1: There are already 300 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. In theory, a more strict gun law could work. In 1996, Australia implemented a strict assault weapons ban with few loopholes. The country banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and spent $500 million buying approximately 600,000 guns from private citizens. But this isn"t Australia. There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown. Reason #2: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship. Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people"s rights being removed little by little. You can"t carry your guns around in public. Now you can't own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can't have any guns at all, time to amend the Constitution. That's an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile. Reason #3: Mass shooters don"t follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation's strictest gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course. But that didn't stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. in the end, it's only the law abiding citizen that would be harmed by gun control.

more gun control should occur looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all. here are my initial thoughts/rants.... why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand. -background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people. the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up. -a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here. a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.// -so when people say "guns don't kill people people kill people" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway. -i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least. -i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights. if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?

We need more gun control Gun control is the way to go. Too many school shootings, too many deaths, why not just ban guns altogether for a safer America

Gun Control Laws It is true that gun control policies are hard to enforce but the good of having them and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms far outweighs the difficulty of enforcement. The basic argument put out by PoeJoe is not that control is bad, but that it is hard to enforce. That reason does not mean and that these policies should be abandoned. As for your argument that gun control rates increase with stricter gun control laws you fail to acknowledge alternate causes. Look at the places you cite as examples, D.C. and New Jersey. Both those places have huge poverty rates, some of the biggest in the nation. It is no surprise that D.C. and Jersey would have increased crime since the people there are so desperate. Here are some stats that tend to prove the foregoing point: In 1987, more than 3,000 men aged 15 to 24 were murdered with firearms in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.) As for humans being inherently evil, that is simply not true. Sociological studies show that humans come into this world tabula rassa, meaning blank slate. If you want to cut down on violent crime you have to attack the root of it, the poverty and accessibility of firearms to the public. So my position is not only for strict gun control laws, but more enforcement. The USFG should pass legislation to crack down on the illegal gun trade. Basically there is major laws dealing with stopping the illegal gun trade but the money and resources are not there. Proper funding and resources have to given to the members of the law enforcement community. There are only 22 federal gun control laws, of which 20 are not enforced due to the lack of funding. Third-Way.com explains it: "The current Administration has not displayed anywhere near the same aggressiveness with the other 20 major federal firearms laws, even though enforcement of most of these laws could greatly reduce gun violence. Prosecutions for 11 of the remaining 20 major federal gun laws were either the same or lower in 2002 than 2000. For example, the number of corrupt gun store prosecutions dropped from 36 to 27. The number of prosecutions for illegally selling to a minor stayed at 7. The number of federal prosecutions for lying on the background check form did increase – from 501 to 587 cases – but that still means that 99.6% of violators were not prosecuted in FY2002, compared to 99.7% in FY 2000. During the first full fiscal year of the Bush Administration, the proportion of federal cases devoted to the two most frequently prosecuted statutes actually increased from 83% to 86% of total federal prosecutions. Crimes associated with corrupt gun stores, illegal firearms traffickers, straw purchasers, gun thieves, those who obliterate firearm serial numbers, sell to minors, bring guns to schools, and lie on a background check form to obtain a firearm were barely enforced under President Clinton and are still barely enforced under President Bush. "

Gun rights However, the are some flaws in his argument: 1. A year and a half a go, our country was shaken when they found out about the Sandyhook Elementary School Shooting where 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members. Had the principal had a gun he could have faced the gunner and saved innocent children who hadn't even gotten all their teeth in yet. Flaws: However, had a teacher had a gun, it could have possibly caused more deaths and having guns in school might cause a teacher to use the gun or a student and actually increase school shootings. Furthermore, only 1.6 percent of mass shootings ended in a civilian using a gun and successfully intervening. Furthermore, many in many situations a civilian successfully intervened and got killed, hurt or even died. 2. Many criticize that people couldn't do these crimes if they don't have the gun in the first place. But no, guns are stolen in cases as this and many others. Another flaw, 80 % of mass shooters obtain the gun legally. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U. S. found: " 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" " 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" " 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" Another flaw: Since it only was conducted in 11 state prisons it is not the whole United States, also they only went to only STATE prisons, the statistics do not represent the ENTIRE U. S. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U. S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. Flaw: Only 0.5% of people in all of the U. S successfully defend themselves from gun violence every year. However, I think the U. S. needs more gun control: 1. About 30,000 people die every year from gun homicides. 2. In 2015, more people will die of gun violence than automobile accidents. 3. Most violent crimes are committed with guns so gun control, would help curb crime 4. Most guns uses in Homicide or any kind or crime are legally obtained 5. Gun Control would help curb suicide rates. 6. Most Americans support gun control 7. Countries with more guns have higher Homicide rates, America had about 310 million guns and had a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people. United kingdom has a homicide rate of 1.0 per 100,00 people and has 4 million guns and tougher gun laws, and the same can be comparable to countries with less guns and more gun control. 8. 70 percent of homicides are with a gun 9, A gun is more likely to bystanders than any other weapon.

there should be more gun control looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all. here are my initial thoughts/rants.... why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand. -background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people. the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up. -a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here. a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.// -so when people say "guns don't kill people people kill people" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway. -i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least. -i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights. if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?

Gun Control My opponents primary point is that banning a powerful gun (I'm going to assume an AR-15 until he says decides to say something more specific.) would reduce the impact that a shooter can cause. I am going to show that not only would banning a gun not reduce gun violence but that it may even make it worse. First, according to the National institute of justice and affirmed by the ATF, the black market for guns is extensive and easily accessible which shows that banning firearms would only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens tipping the scales against the assaulted and towards the assailant. Just as the United States learned during prohibition and is relearning during the war on drugs, when you ban something that people want a black market will form. In 1994, Australia passed huge firearm legislation that banned huge numbers of semi-automatic firearms and created a buyback program that was intended to get them out of the hands of civilians. The buyback was not optional of course. If you refused to sell your firearm then you would be arrested and tried for possession of an illegal weapon. The intention of these laws was to reduce the crime rate within the country. Instead, the laws paved the way for an illegal gun trade to form in Australia that "Police admit they cannot eradicate"" as mentioned by the south Australian newspaper the Adelaide Advertiser. Many of the people that are being supplied these weapons are not even criminals. According to The Sporting Shooters" Association of Australia and Franz Csaszar"a professor at the University of Vienna"the buyback program saw a compliance level of around 19-20 percent. So people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens were made criminals by a law passed that was intended to target criminals.Australia saw almost no decrease in its homicide rate. Gun control will never be effective in the U.S. and here's why.There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown. Reason #2: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship. Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people"s rights being removed little by little. You can"t carry your guns around in public. Now you can"t own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can"t have any guns at all"time to amend the Constitution. That"s an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile. Reason #3: Mass shooters don"t follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation"s most strict gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course. But that didn"t stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. in the end, it's only the law abiding citizen that would be harmed by gun control. However, if there had been someone in the classroom that was armed themselves, they may have been able to stop the shooting before it became as deadly as it was. Furthermore, Guns are a necessary part of self defense. I completely respect our police force, but they can't always be there. When seconds count, the police arrive in minutes. Individual citizens have the right and responsibility to be armed in order to defend themselves and their families. It is also no coincidence that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones. After all, an unarmed man can be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.

Gun Control Laws There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.

Gun control Firstly, to disprove my opponent"s assertion, Australia, Canada, Ireland, and Japan, all countries with more gun control laws have significantly lower crime rates than America, proving, in fact, it will lower the crime rate instead of raising it. Also, my opponent did not back up their assertion with any evidence so it can be dismissed until they provide some. Secondly, this debate will be weighed on a utilitarian basis, the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Thirdly gun control will be defined as an assault weapon ban, a background check, and a mental health check. My arguments are; 1. Common sense gun regulation lowers the violent crime rate 2. Common sense gun regulation lowers the overall suicide rate 3. Guns make everyone less safe My first argument is that common sense gun regulation lowers the violent crime rate. This argument uses the same evidence as my refutation of my opponent"s assertion. In 2014, 33,599 Americans lost their life to guns, that same year 6 Japanese citizens were killed using guns. To break that down another way on average in America that year 92.05 Americans lost their life to guns each day while on average in Japan everyday 0.016 lost their life to guns. My opponent may point out that American is a bigger country than Japan so of course, the American total would be higher or that the first statistic was gun deaths, not murders. To address this issue that year the homicide rate per 100,000 people in Japan was .4 and in America, it was 4.75, so in America that year you were 11.875 more times to get murdered. In Australia that year, the murder with gun rate was 0.14, and Ireland was 0.0086. (source nationmaster. com) Since all these countries with much lower gun related crimes than us and have much stricter gun laws than us it is very easy to see the causation. If you weigh this on a utilitarian basis, it's obvious that it does more good for more people to being saving their and their loved one's lives and make them jumps through some hoops to buy a gun and limit their selection than the reverse. My second argument is that common sense gun regulation will lower overall suicide rate. Suicide is the 10th largest cause of death in America, each year it claims the lives of 42,773 Americans. Firearms cause about 50% of Suicide. While making tougher to get guns will not stop people from committing suicide entirely, guns are one of the most successful ways of committing suicide. Things like pills to OD on are harder to get your hands on and have a lower success rate. Making guns harder to get would overall lower the suicide rate because it's harder to get your hands on the means and remaining methods post a lower rate of success. Suicide is an ugly thing helping people avoid it, and giving the help; they need instead it incredibly important. (source AFSP) My third argument is that guns make everyone less safe. A study from October of 2014 analyzed data from 27 developed nations to examine the impact of firearm prevalence on the mortality rate. It found an extremely strong direct relationship between the number of firearms and firearm deaths. This evidence proves a positive relationship between guns and gun deaths. (source nih. gov) Another study from the FBI found you are 3x more likely to die from a gun if you own one. This evidence disproves the common myth that guns make you safer. So if we can limit the amount of guns that are in our society and make sure they are in the right hands we can make our society a safer place. I have so far provided three fleshed out arguments as to why we would be far safer with some common sense gun laws. My opponent, on the other hand, has provided on an assertion which they failed to back up with evidence. Thank you, and I hope we can have a productive debate

Gun Control Guns are not tools. Tools make our lives better. Guns can only inflict pain and death. If they were only used for self defense and hunting, there would not be a problem, but more often guns are used to hurt people. I have already proven that strict gun laws reduce gun related deaths and protect the public. I agree that guns don't kill people; people kill people. Another way to think of it would be: people kill people, so why give them give them guns? Even police, who undergo more training and psychological testing than anyone, have used their guns to kill innocent people both intentionally and unintentionally. I'm not going to address the comparison to Nazis because it's too ridiculous.

That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. ==My arguement and rebuttal== ::"My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet. ":: How do we know this is true. Maybe criminals would become more agressive and in return citizens would be more agressive. This would cause alot of distress on society. ::"If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? ":: Maybe not directly! But I doubt this would halt the criminal but rather look for more secluded route to accomplish the fact that he is a criminal and will continue to be. 'Gun control‘ means the efforts of the government or the authoritarian body to keep a check on the selling-purchasing and using of the guns by the citizens within their jurisdiction area. They encompass the sale, purchase, ownership, usage and the distribution. The subject of gun control has always created a political and social debate regarding the restriction and availability of guns and firearms. In American politics for instance, gun control has been a controversial issue that has not been easy to manage or control. Gun control is a law that is used in deciding whether a citizen can own a gun or not. It is a law established to ensure that guns are not owned by criminal minded people but by people who are victims or are helpless against crime. :Pro stated: "The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these "laws". : Those people, who are in support of gun control, say that a gun is meant to kill and the less available it is in the society, the safer the society will be, while those against it say that whether guns are restricted or not, it does not change anything because guns do not kill, people do. Those in support say that gun control will ensure that guns will not fall into the hands of children and teenagers, while those against it argue that with gun control those children and teenagers will not be able to defend themselves in the face of crime because they are not protected. One of the common arguments for gun control is that it helps to reduce the ability of criminals, juveniles, kidnappers, bandits etc to own or posses a gun, firearms and ammunition. These advocates for gun control argue that the availability of guns can be successfully reduced only by strict federal measures. Many a time, crime and morality statistics are used when it comes to dealing with the debates on arguments for gun control. For instance the number of murders committed per year, with a gun, by people within the age range of 14-24 years, increased at a rate of 173% from the year 1985 to the year 1993 and later, it went down by around 47% from the year 1993 to the year 1999. On the contrary, my opponent is a segment of population that does not believe in Government imposing laws over acquisition of gun. :Pro states,"If we let the government disarm us, whats next? ": What's next is the absence of guns altogether. The fact that there is a gun in a household is also a threat a family member can use it to perpetrate one crime or the other, which is why a lot of people are in support of the implementation of strict federal measures of gun control with penalties if anyone goes against the law. Federal government should insist and ensure that citizens comply with and adhere to those gun control laws, to reduce the rate of gun related deaths and make the society safe for citizens. ::"No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves. ":: This inclination by my oppoent is with this culture reflected in our movies, television, music and various other creative forms such as art. Which is based upon the theme of the so called ‘gun culture'. Hence, they have been supporting the laws corresponding to the arguments about gun control and have been insisting the government to enforce them more strictly to lessen the chances of gun going into the hands of wrong people or children or young adults, so that the innocent people do not have to bear the brunt of fire-arms. I do not think my opponnt have given us a real good arguement for why 'gun control' is not needed. I thank my opponent for this debate. I send it back his way!

Gun Control Firstly I will be addressing the legality of gun control and the logic and meaning behind the text of the second amendment of the US constitution. The second amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " Many interpret this text to mean that it is an inalienable right for every individual to own a firearm. This is incorrect, the second amendment gives people the right to collective security and the right to form state militias. This right is exercised through the National Guard in each of the fifty states, which serves to counter federal military power and to protect the citizenry from tyranny. [1] This is why it is constitutional for counties and states to enact gun control legislation, because it is the duty of the state governments to organize and carry out the collective security of the people. Individuals cannot afford the ordinance, supplies, and defensive systems that are required for a practical and pragmatic defense against a tyrannical federal government or foreign army. Thus, we must consider the spirit of the second amendment and what it means, as well as how it applies to modern society. Does every individual need a weapon when the needs of collective security are already met? The answer to that question is no, because not only is there no point in it, but a heavily armed citizenry can actually be a detriment to the public health and collective security of the states. An armed citizenry with access to military grade weapons would be capable of forming paramilitary groups, which if left unchecked could substitute civil discourse with forceful discourse to influence the government and terrorize the populace. Of course we do not interpret the constitution to allow for independent militias to form on our soil, we recognize that it would be disastrous to interpret the constitution in such a way. Unfortunately that same argument in regards to arming citizens is ignored. Some political parties and advocacy groups assert that it is the right of every citizen to own a firearm, because they choose to interpret the constitution in the same literal sense that we as a nation recognize to be absurd in relation to the right to form militias. In lieu of the fact that personally bearing arms meant for the contribution of the collective security of society is impractical and dangerous to the public health, we can agree that ownership of a weapon for this reason is not legitimate and that we should work against the proliferation of firearms in society. Not only do we need more gun control to achieve this goal, but we need a national plan that supersedes any local legislation. We must recognize on a national level and codify it into law that there are only three legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership. 1)Personal Defense. 2)Hunting. 3)Competitive shooting and similar gun based sports. By recognizing the legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership we can limit the types of weapons that people can own to two categories; handguns with magazines not in excess of 10 rounds for self-defense, and hunting rifles and non-combat shotguns for hunting. With legislative recognition of legitimate civilian firearms, we can rule out the legality of certain weapons, such as assault rifles. Successful gun control will require a national plan and initiative, because of the nature in which illegal guns are obtained. For the purpose of this debate we will recognize an illegal weapon as the following; a class of weapon outlawed by legislation in the district that it resides in, or an unregistered or stolen registered weapon. Criminals are able to obtain illegal weapons despite gun control laws, because they can easily purchase these weapons in states or counties with lax gun control legislation and bring them into the cities, where gun control is stricter. Criminals will often simply buy guns from gun shows held outside the cities with tight gun control legislation, or buy guns illegally from gun dealers with federal firearms licenses. By making it harder for firearms to be purchased on a national level, and by removing firearms from the market by buying them back from the populace, we can drive up the cost for illegal firearms and eventually make them unaffordable to the average criminal. [2] Furthermore, we should increase the size and funding of the ATF. The ATF is responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, yet it only has 1,800 agents to monitor an estimated 77,000 gun dealers. Currently it would take 22 years for the ATF to inspect every federally licensed gun dealer. There is a very clear problem here, when the organization tasked with monitoring this form of commerce is woefully undermanned and underfunded. [3] The most important thing is to have a national gun control plan and to enforce it. Attempts to institute meaningful gun control have been undermined by governmental incompetence, and the giving in to gun lobbyists. With a strong ATF and a national policy leaning toward gun control, we can finally bring gun violence down to an acceptable level. I thank my opponent, and look forward to his rebuttal. [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]. http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://gunvictimsaction.org...

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control I've noticed that his arguments are all based on the conjecture that somehow stricter gun control laws will, in its projected duty, doubly lower crime rates without harming the self-defense abilities and liberty of citizens. I will show that his guesswork is exactly that: a conjecture, but not an appropriate inference (there is a major difference, for the non-Bones viewers). I also contend that even without statistics, I can appropriately show that I can justify the psychological and/or sociological interpretations of my anti-gun control stance. Moreover, I plan to show that my opponent's responses to my contentions are wholly ineffective. 1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. Firstly, I want to reiterate that I do agree America has a gun violence problem. I also want to say that stricter gun control laws will do nothing to help that problem. As my opponent challenges me to demonstrate that stricter gun regulations will have either none or a negative impact on crime rates, I respond with the following: One thing my opponent fails to address or perhaps realize in his arguments is that for there to be stricter laws, *everyone* will have a harder time to obtain guns. How can the government *possibly* differentiate between people that purchase guns to commit crimes to people that purchase guns to defend themselves? Our laws as of now already has thorough background checks to consider if the purchaser is at-risk. Again, I challenge my opponent to come up with a plausible solution for stricter gun regulations to better deter criminals and future criminals that won't prevent everyone else in the mass that is America from the timely ability to defend themselves while somehow "picking out" the criminals and would-be criminals. Moreover, I'd like to point out that criminals can easily obtain guns around the law. I agree that people who desire to do or obtain something illegal will have the motivation to use guns. However, my opponent fails to realize that criminals have been getting guns from unlicensed, illegal, unregulated sources for ages and they're going to keep doing that. In fact, stricter gun control laws will give even stronger motivation for criminals to obtain guns outside regulation. If the fact that guns can be traced to them isn't enough for criminals to go around the law to obtain guns, for there to be stricter laws would give criminals even more motivation to illegally purchase guns. After all, why on earth would criminals want to purchase from a regulated seller *now*, let alone when we have stricter regulation? My opponent also insists that motivation will cause someone to try the hardest to obtain something they want; hence, it's only logical that criminals will purchase outside of regulation since it's so much easier. My opponent's entire argument is based on his belief that somehow stricter gun regulations *can* do such a thing as deter criminals to obtain guns, yet he provides nothing to justify that belief. 2) Guns save lives. My opponent assumes that somehow, if we have stricter gun control laws, we will have better control over whether or not criminals purchase guns and still give self-defense to law-abiding citizens. As I've shown in 1), that is simply not true. How can we differentiate between law-abiding citizens and criminals? Stricter gun control laws will not deter criminals from obtaining guns, and it will only make it harder for citizens to get guns. Yes, it is common sense that the more powerful weapon you have, the easier it is for someone to commit a crime. If that's true, then my opponent should also concede that the more powerful weapon you have, the easier it is for someone to defend themselves. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we aren't taking away the weapons of criminals, but rather the weapons of people that want to defend themselves. I do believe that my rape victim and "whatnot" example counts towards this debate, since if stricter gun regulations are put into place, less people will obtain guns. If less people obtain guns, then less people will be able to defend themselves with guns. Realistically, if I was a rapist, I would go for the one with the Swiss army knife rather than the one with a handgun. More than that, if I was going to do *any* crime that involves victims, I would go for the ones without guns. If there are stricter gun regulations, less people will have guns, and hence more easy target victims for the crimes of criminals that will attain guns from elsewhere. Again, I must challenge my opponent to come up with stricter gun regulation laws that will deter criminals from attaining guns while maintaining the ability to let law-abiding citizens to obtain them. 3) Guns are a form of liberty. As with my previous arguments, I stand with my point that to have stricter gun control would hinder citizens' self-defense and have no bearing on crime rates. Moreover, my opponent fails to respond to my previous argument for liberty; I still vie that stricter gun control laws will deter liberty because weapon is power, guns are power, and to subject citizens for stricter gun control laws on the government's terms is to take a form of liberty away from Americans. To show my previous argument: "We all know that weapons are power. Time and time again we've been shown that whoever has the weapons, has the power. For example, Hitler himself said that the "most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms". (. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com......) The only people that could have guns were the German military, the military that ended up being the law and order of all of the Nazi-occupied countries. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we are putting more power into our governments' hands. What makes America a democracy is that the people hold the power. To hinder America's accessibility to arms is to hinder America's liberty. Just because America, at the moment, seem to be at a point where the people hold the most power, we shouldn't forget the recent events of World War II, where anyone Japanese in America by heritage, whether they are an American or not, were put into concentration camps whilst their property was taken away. " To elaborate even more, I daresay that this contention has less to do with crime-deterrents and self-defense than liberty and the relationship of power between the people and the government. My opponent does not realize that there is a disconnect between those two. The stricter grasp our government has on our gun laws, the stricter grasp our government has on our liberty, and the larger the pool of power our government has over its people. My opponent does not provide a refutation to my argument that to impose on our gun laws is to impose on our liberty. 4) Conclusion My opponent has the fanciful belief that somehow stricter gun control laws will deter criminals from obtaining guns, which I've refuted through and through in my arguments. My opponent also fails to respond effectively to my 2nd contention simply because it's entirely based on his (refuted) first response to my first contention, moreover he virtually did not respond to my 3rd contention. I believe that my opponent's biggest obstacle is that he has a burden of proof that he has not met. His burden of proof is simple but hard to rationally manifest; how can stricter regulations prevent crime? I challenge him to show me his proof of his stance.

There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.

Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide I accept the challenge and am looking forward to a good debate. I would like to open with that while stricter gun control laws may reduce some gun related violence, it won't be able to reduce all the issues it's trying to resolve. It may just end up causing more problems than it creates. For example, guns are a very popular item to own. In some areas, like rural Idaho, having a gun is needed for hunting and warding off bears and other carnivores from your ranch. In the city, one might argue that they need it to protect their family or it might just make them feel safe. No matter the reason, 1 in 3 Americans own guns (according to the journal Injury Prevention) and with added pressure on stricter gun control, the number keeps on rising. After events like San Bernadino, pressure for gun control goes up, but at the same time, so does the desire for more to own guns. According to an article on NPR, they are afraid of the governments power if they don't or that if they have a gun when a terrorist comes through town, they can fight back. If this trend was to continue, there could be an increase in crimes involving guns. Another example is relatable to the this issue is the government banning alcohol during the Prohibition Era in the 1920's. When the government cracked down on the consumption of alcohol, the people responded with an underground movement to continue to enjoy their favorite drink. I don't believe people would act any differently today. They'd just seek out the black market to buy guns, which since the black market or similar vendors wouldn't adhere to any federal law, would make it impossible to track the gun owner. As for the other two, accident's wouldn't really be considered violence. As for suicide, while firearms make up for approximately 50% of how someone commits suicide, there are still plenty of other ways and if your truly suicidal, you'd find anyway possible to do it. There's still a 50% of other methods used, and that's just in the U.S. alone.

Gun Rights First, I will start with the fact that more gun laws lowers gun violence. First, I will start in the US. States that have more fun laws, like background checks, difficulties in getting concealed carry permits and the like, have lower gun laws then states with loose gun laws. [1] Now let's look at other countries. First, look at Japan. They have extremely strict gun laws, and they banned all guns minus air rifles and shotguns. Their gun murder rate is 0.0 for every 100,000 people. They only had 11 gun murders in 2011; the most recent data. [2] Now let's look at Canada. They have strict gun laws. Their gun gun murder rate is .38 per 100,000 people, which is quite low. Now let's look at the US. The U. S. has some of the weakest gun laws in the developed world. Their gun murder rate is 3.43 per 100,000 people. [4] So this is strong evidence that more gun control equals less gun crime. Now I will address your argument. Here is the full second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Notice the, ". .. Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. .. " Part. This only gives the right to bear arms to part of a militia needed to defend the country. We don't need militias to defend our country, because we have a military. So not everyone gets the right to bear arms. Also, the second amendment says, "Arms. " Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knifes, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms. Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too. Finally, even if the second amendment of the constitution was, "We the people have the right to keep and bear arms", restrictions like background checks, mental health checks, bans on certain guns, and so on will not hurt law- abiding citizens' chances to get a gun, only potentially bad people's chances, which is good. Do we really want convicted felons to get guns? No. I have shown that gun laws are complely legal and help reduce gun crimes. I await my opponent's response. [1] . https://img.njdc.com... [2] . http://www.gunpolicy.org... [3] . http://www.gunpolicy.org... [4] . http://www.gunpolicy.org...

no gun control in america I would like to argue the point that stricter gun control in America would do more harm than good to our society as a whole. I will start off by saying that I understand where liberals are coming from when they cry for stricter gun control. Shootings such as the Sandy Hook School shooting (along with many similar shootings) are horrific events and I pray for those affected. Just as my fellow Americans on the left side of the political spectrum, I was very moved by many of these shootings and thought to myself why these things happen to innocent people, and in certain cases even children. Despite the strong emotions stirred within me after such tragic events, I still can't think of how stricter gun control would have made any difference, as it won't help to prevent similar events in the future. As much as it hurts to write that previous sentence, I feel that our society has just become such a messed up world that it is unfortunately true. If I felt that stricter gun control could have helped to prevent such awful events, then I would immediately change my point of view and argue for the left side, despite my Conservative beliefs. For starters, almost 90% of guns used in crime are not obtained legally. Criminals can obtain firearms quite easily by purchasing them off of the street, at a gun show (where background checks do not have to occur), at a flea market, pawn shop, from a family member or friend, or even by theft. The fact is, criminals will get guns whether we want them to or not. Banning guns will only take the protection of law-abiding citizens from these criminals. In the United Kingdom, violent crime (homicide, assault, rape) per 100,000 people is 400% higher than the violent crime rate per 100,000 people in the United States. The United Kingdom is home to some of the strictest gun laws in the world. The knife crime rate in England is also much higher than the United States. Had many of these British citizens been able to protect themselves, lots of this crime may have never happened. There could be many more people living their lives not having to have gone through a terrible experience such as assault or rape. A recent survey of 5,000 households in America show 0.5% responding yes to the question have they had an instance where having a firearm may have saved you or other citizens from a criminal. This figure adjusted to the population of the United States reaches over 150,000 people. Guns are often bashed for "killing people," but what about the guns that save lives? Many people argue that most guns are not the major issue, but assault weapons are. These weapons actually account for just less than 1% of crimes involving a gun. Banning any of these guns would hurt the everyday citizen much more than it would benefit us. I personally would absolutely not want to allow myself, family, and friends four times more susceptible to violent crimes. I have many more points for the next round proving that we are safest when allowing guns, not taking them from us. In my opinion, this debate mostly comes down to logic and common sense. If criminals are able to obtain weapons anyway, why should you or your family not be allowed to own a gun legally, just in case of an emergency. The option of owning a gun is not only in our Bill of Rights, but it is a very effective way of keeping yourself safe. The 2nd Amendment should not only stand just the way it is, but more people should think about using your rights and owning a firearm, you never know when you just might need it. I bet the 150,000 lives saved in America yearly certainly appreciate those who do. Sources: . http://www.justfacts.com... . http://dailycaller.com... . http://www.statisticbrain.com...

guns should be banned Yes. they should. So many people have lost their lives because there has been very little gun control. If there is no gun control, hundreds more could die. with all these deaths, people live in fear. fear that they might be killed or a loved one may be killed. Many families mourn over the deaths of their children because there is no gun control.

Gun Control No, I did not prove your point. Your use of the term "banned guns" was what I was referring to. So in the contrary, I showed that your evidence was incorrect in all cases in your Round 3 argument. Of the modern states that you referred to, None of them have, In principle, BANNED GUNS. The facts ought to be straight. I shall base this argument on why guns are not needed - they are unwanted sources of potential violence. Read this straight - "unwanted" sources of "potential" violence. That one possesses a gun means that he can, And that "can" holds large prominence, Cause violence. Giving someone a gun permit, Allowing him to possess one, Never fully removes the risk associated with that. It need not be the ARs - just about any gun that can fire bullets using gunpowder is risky for the general population at large. You say the mother of the Parkland criminal called on her son 39 times. He still had a gun. Imagine - if gun control laws were rigid, His worrisome mental stature, And potential criminal status would have been enough to confiscate the firearm(s) he possessed. What if the mother had respite in the legal system of Florida? What if guns were under strict control? Would this have happened? I shall back that up with the stats - Florida does not require a state permit for possessing guns. There is no need to have a registration. No owner licenses needed either. Assault weapon law? No. This exists for all - both the long and short - guns. Tell me - wouldn't those 17 students still have been safe had there been a helpline for the mother to inform authorities that her mentally unstable son was in possession of a gun? If there was a legal system, If there was any legal infrastructure that would tackle any unstable gun owners, This would not have happened. Also, According to John Malcolm, VP at the Institute for Constitutional Governance, And Amy Swearer, Visiting Legal Fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The principal cause for concern in society from guns is from suicides and illegal possession - not mass shootings. Either way, Gun control is the best option. 80% of gun crime is drug related. Tell me, Can you shoot a person dead using pills? The root cause is guns. Not drugs. That which leads to the mafia killings is guns, Not drugs. Yes, Violence and gun crime may fall. But even in the way you make that statement, It is clear that there is no correlation. This is because it is illogical - when everyone has guns, And some may be influenced to crime, One can never expect gun rates to fall. If homicide rates have decreased, Is this decrease uniform? Take a look at the fact that over 50 percent of gun murders occur in only 2 percent of all counties. 2 PERCENT. Gun control applies uniform law, Even banning the guns, Hence eliminating such disastrous statistics. "If we ban guns, Illegal firearm sales from our southern border will skyrocket". Does a nation base policies on fear from illegal smuggling? If that had been the case, Shouldn't be drugs be fully legal since, As you say, That would increase their price and hence, The rates of smuggling? There is no truth in your statement, At least, With regards to this debate - we must look at the situation in our country, And that what needs to be done here is not the permit of guns, But merely the tightening of border rules. Australia never banned guns. I find it bothersome that you use the term " ban " so liberally - for banning guns completely would mean that society is completely compelled to do away with guns - incorrect. People can possess guns with permits. In the current argument, That the rates of such violence have increased does not really do with guns alone - it has to do with criminal jurisdiction. Your last argument is incorrect too - you see, Banning of guns does not bend around criminals. I have pointed out that it is possible for the confiscation of guns when new policies are introduced in countries. Hence, Law abiding citizens must expect that the law works - take it this way. Let us consider bombs - bombs can, In most cases, Be made from one's knowledge, And from basic circuits and triggers. The damage they cause is devastating. Now, Most individuals don't how to make bombs, But there are people with such knowledge. Of course, Detonating objects are a strict no-no in all states - do we see everything blowing up? Law must be trusted in most cases so as to prevent crime. The legal framework must be rigid enough. Gun control, With I quote, Strict laws must be brought up. Coming to another argument - what impact could this have on little children in homes. They see guns, And with the rise in news of shootings, A child's mind isn't mature enough so as to prevent it from using the gun. I am talking about even those upto the age of 13 - stats show that at least 30 % of kids in America are brought up by a single parent, And 16 % have abusive parents - do guns promote peace in the newer minds? Ask yourself. I brought this up last round - ask the survivors of the MSD shooting. First hand witness to their friends being slaughtered - I pray this never happens, But if we think in their shoes, Gun control is what we must be promoting - not greater liberty for more crime. The route for peace is hard, Often worrisome, But one must at times believe in the laws - minor incidents may happen, Even under gun control. I accept that. But these will be minor - very insignificant, Compared to the state of affairs today.

More Gun Control is needed in the United States. So to continue guns are a tool, a item that makes people feel safer while walking at night or in dangerous areas. Guns are a strong foundation for which this country was built around. Now in order to keep the debate going i am just going to counter some of the arguments my opponent could of used. First of all according to a study by statistician named William Sturdevant the general public is 5.7 times more likely to get arrested for violent offenses and 13.5 times more likely to get arrested for non-violent offenses then concealed carry weapon permit holders. Pretty much this confirms that a majority of gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens who just wish to protect themselves and their family. Source: http://concealedguns.procon.org... Secondly the school shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech could have been aided if just one person had a concealed weapon. I'm not sure if you noticed this but most of these shooting sprees all take place in gun free zones. This to me means that criminals are going to go where they are less likely to come across someone with a gun such as schools, movie theaters, restaurants, and colleges. Lastly it's impossible to completely get rid of crime. It's always going to be apart of this world. Putting heavy restrictions on guns or even banning them all together will not get rid of crime but it will make sure that the general public will not be able to defend themselves which in turn makes the criminals job a lot easier. Look at cities where you can't have a concealed weapon like Chicago, Illinois, that city has one of the worst crime rates in the country and yet you cannot "legally" carry a concealed weapon. What does that tell you?

Gun Control Washington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987. The study concluded there was a "prompt decline" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C. Handgun bans are enforceable Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates is also wrong when he claims that laws restricting access to firearms in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are "unenforceable." On the contrary, it is because these laws have been so effectively enforced that gun-related death rates in those nations pale compared to those in the U.S. According to "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s" (2006), the 2001/2002 rates of firearm death per 100,000 for the countries in question are as follows: U.S.: 10.27; Canada: 2.6; Australia: 1.68; and England/Wales: .38. What this means is that I have evidence on gun control and you don't, shows it is enforceable and I already talked of the impact in my last post. All of your arguements fall, because I have proven gun control can work and be enforcable. I'm am not basing it on assumption either gun control leads to less guns in the hands of people, leads to less harm to people. States with the greatest number of guns in the home also have the highest rates of homicide, a new study finds. The study, in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine, looked at gun ownership in all 50 states and then compared the results with the number of people killed over a three-year period. The research, the authors said, 'suggests that household firearms are a direct and an indirect source of firearms used to kill Americans both in their homes and on the streets.' The researchers, led by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, drew on data gathered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the agency surveyed more than 200,000 people and asked them, among other questions, whether they had a gun in or near the home. In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high. Although homicide rates may not rise – private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings which are not represented in homicide statistics The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] Miami Police Chief John Timoney, whose reign as top cop in Philadelphia brought a reduction in homicides to below 400 for the first time in a decade, said that if the decision overturning the handgun ban is affirmed, there is likely to be a rise in the number of suicides and accidental shootings. "And it won't necessarily be reflected in the homicide rate, because suicides and not-fatal shootings won't show up in those statistics," Timoney said. "You'll have an increase in those shootings . . . and opponents [of the ban] will say that the homicide rate didn't rise." Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68. Myron Boor, "Methods of Suicide and Implications for Suicide Prevention," Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, (January 1981): 70-75. For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, 2003 [Mark, "Guns and Suicide," in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 65] Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than are other individuals. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The finding that the male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership suggests that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship, though one cannot rule out the hypothesis that gender-specific suicidal tendencies vary with the availability of guns. Finally, it appears that reductions in gun ownership have not been the driving force behind the fall in the suicide rate. Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately bad effects upon children Arthur Kellermann, MD, MPH, et al., "Firearms and Family Violence," Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 17 (August 1999): 699-716, citing Ernest N. Jouriles et al., "Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations with Child Behavior Problems," Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 2 (1998): 178-194. The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not. Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., "Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home," Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782. A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that fewer guns mean fewer deaths Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates rejects the "quasi-religious belief that more guns (particularly handguns) mean more violence and death, and, concomitantly, fewer guns mean fewer deaths." Yet this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows, as discussed by David Hemenway, director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center, in his book "Private Guns, Public Health" (2004). Numerous studies have found that having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm injury, suicide and homicide. Thus gun control leads to less guns, equals less death, meaning even suicide rates equal out gun violence, We need to cut that death down. Also I also have proven that gun ownership leads to a negative effect on women and children. Gun control works, and please, understand me, don't just base, a vote for the neg is a vote for more gun deaths and that is not safe to me.

Guns should be more regulated in the United States Hello, I apologize for this debate slipping my mind. Looks like it did for my opponent as well so lets just start now. As a roadmap I will give 2 contentions showing my position on the topic. First Contention: 1. Gun Control Is No Answer to Crime. According to a Harvard study in 2009 the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong. For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000. Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate." And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides. The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8. The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world." In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. Second Contention A. Guns are needed to protect ourselves 1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated. 2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the "more difficult" of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated. 3. After the rise of the Nazi"s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the "Brown Shirts", were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts" fate. 4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated. As we"ve seen in the past, guns are a very important of self protection and while some might use a tool with malicious intent we cannot punish all citizens. Regulation does not solve this problem because whether or not it is more regulated someone with malicious intent will find a way to commit a crime whether or not these regulations exist. What we need to focus on instead is actually focusing on how to reduce the amount of this criminals and actually address the problem itself. Thank you, I urge a vote in the negative.

More Gun Control is needed in the United States. Guns. To some people it's a tool that is used to defend themselves and their family. To others it's a collectors piece that is very valuable. And to some it's something that causes death and misery. The rights that America is built around includes "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now i intend to show that putting more restrictions on firearms is not only pointless but also that it violates the rights that every american has. This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Criminals are less likely to attack someone if they believe that they are armed. Put yourself in the criminals shoes for a second if you are in a state like Alaska, where citizens are allowed to carry a weapon without a permit or license, you would probably be a little hesitant to rob or mug a person because chances are that the person is carrying a weapon. Weapons make a great deterrent 9 times out of 10 if you just show someone that you have a firearm that they are going to stop what they are doing and leave. There is always that one that will try and continue what they are doing whether that be robbing a store or mugging you on the street if you have the firearm on you then you have a way to defend yourself and that is what firearms are for. Simply put a firearm is a tool that is deadly and should be used only if you are in a situation where your life or another life is in danger.

Should Gun Control Be Implemented Into American Law Beginning Argument: The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. The is in fact not true! The Second Amendment protects an individual"s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Now for some statistics: 270 MillionAPPROX. # OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA 200,000TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A GUN TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE4 3/5POLLED FELONS SAY THEY WON"T MESS WITH AN ARMED VICTIM5 Closing Statement: With the given data we can assume that Guns do not kill people, People kill People... therefore it can be assumed that Gun Control Should not be Implemented Into American Law. Thank you.

Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide I believe firmly that stricter gun control laws will reduce gun violence. Having grown up in a conservative family, I have heard every argument against gun control but none of them stand up to any honest evaluation. Let's have a good argument!

The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control The debate, the question of why more gun control is trite. The debaters know the why - deaths by gun per 100,000 population: 10.6, just squeaking under motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7 [1]. Over seventy thousand hospital emergency room visits for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010 [2], and another dozen commonly cited statists. Endless known point vs. counter points, but as I say in all gun debates, statists don’t move the needle on the debate one degree because it is an emotion based argument. Emotional on both sides - driven by primordial fears of man. So why then. Why should “The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control”. Because it can, and the people want it. It’s really just that simple, not all I have to do is prove it. We want it.Gallup polling has tracked the issue for more than two decades. They show the difference between support for expanded gun control over lessening gun control never being lower than 33 points [3]. In 2014, they have 47% supporting additional gun control, 38% saying its good as it is, and 14% wanting less strict gun control. The line for more control and stay the same have crossed only once in the history of the poll. That’s 24 years of Americans asking for more gun control, and getting little of what they ask for. The NRA prides itself on being the epicenter of protecting gun rights. It boasts having 5 million members [4]. Everytown, a gun control group currently has 2 million members [4]. However, a funny thing happens when you start asking the 5 million members of the NRA what they want [5][6]. Yup, they want MORE gun control. “A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales.” [6]. “"Not only are gun owners and non-gun-owners very much aligned in their support for proposals to strengthen U.S. gun laws, but the majority of NRA members are also in favor of many of these policies," [6] Can we.Let’s start where it all starts. The constitution of the United States of America. Section. 2. - The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;… Section 8. - …To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Hold on. That’s not what we all thing about when we are talking guns and the constitution. Okay, let get that Bill of Rights in there. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That’s better. That’s the part we know and love or loath. Up until very recently we relied on several supreme court rulings . In the 1876 United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution [7]. In the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.Then along came a very conservative supreme court, some, like myself, might call it “activist”. They brought us two cases. The 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller and in 2010 McDonald v. Chicago. These two cases changed a lot. They inexplicit removed the very obvious connection between guns and a militia in the constitution. But what about “gun control” or ristrictions? Well it’s nowhere in there. [11]. Scalia said the decisions did not interfere with restrictions including background checks, limiting types, or disallowing firearms to the mentally ill. There is NO constitutional problem with expanding gun control (check). There is no SCOTUS precident issue with expanding gun control (check). Yup, were clear to go there. So, there you have it. We want it. We can do it. We should do it. It is counter to the will of the American people. Our will subverted by the loudest voice in the room, or in this case it might be better to say, our will is subverted by the guy with the gun. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://smartgunlaws.org... [3] http://www.gallup.com... [4] http://www.usatoday.com... [5] http://www.cnn.com... [6] http://www.usnews.com... [7] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... [8] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [9] http://www.supremecourt.gov... [10] http://www.supremecourt.gov... [11] http://www.nytimes.com...

Gun Control Laws ----- The following is taken from my website, which can be found here: http://politicaljoe.net... ---- The idea of gun laws is very similar to Communism believe it or not. Communism at it's idea stage is a very, very great idea. But as with a lot of good ideas, it is often so that the idea is oblivious to the fact that humans are evil. As so, humans will find a way to manipulate that idea to make it a bad system. Communism, again, was one such idea that got screwed over by our inner-evilness. Communism is an extremely complex idea that many have written thousand-page theses on, but I want to focus on one aspect of it, that aspect being how people would work and consume. Communism basically took out money in a sense, and told people to work their hardest at their line of expertise. Then, if you needed anything, you would ask for it, and you would get it. Again, I'd like to state that this is way oversimplified. So for instance, if you were a farmer, you would produce crops your best and give your crops to people who needed it. Conversely, if you needed something, per say a car, (and communism taught not to over consume) you would ask someone who made cars to give you one. This in my opinion, is a great idea as an idea. However, people are evil, and corruption begins. People had to wait months to get car a because of all the under-dealings, and outside of this aspect of Communism, all hell broke loose. This is exactly the same with gun control laws. It predicts that if we make it so hard to get a gun, the bad guys will not be able to get guns, and we all can live under harmony. But we as a race are not quite bunny-sunshine. The bad guys would not just stop being evil, they would just start getting guns from the already hugely existent gun underground. And that underground would grow and grow and what else? Grow. Sort of like illegal immigrants and fake ID's, but that's a totally different story. Take for instance the Temperance Movement. They were a Christian movement in the early 1900s that successfully banned alcohol in the United States of America. They actually got the United States Congress to pass the Eighteenth Amendment of the United States of America, which only got being rejected by Rhode Island. Thank God it was short-lived being repealed thirteen years later by the twenty-first amendment, or else the damage it cause would have been quite multiplied. The Eighteenth Amendment of the United States of America, subsequently created such a massive alcohol underground, run by the Italian Mafia just for your information, that it became a joke to get drunk, thus forcing Congress to repeal it. However, in those thirteen years alcoholism increased fanatically, and countless thousands died due to alcoholism just because a group of Christian women thought it'd be a good idea. And that brings me back to the corruption of ideas. Gun control laws may be a great idea, but looking at historical evidence, it will, and has already become quite corrupted. In fact, according to a Time Magazine article entitled, "Darkness Falls" by Nancy Gibbs, 85% of crimes that involve guns are committed with illegally obtained gun. Want more? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms during the 1990's, reported that only 7% of armed career criminals obtained firearms from licensed gun shops. The simple fact is this. With or without gun control laws, bad guys will always find guns to use, and if they're going to get them anyways, I for one want to arm myself from them. In fact, according to an article entitled "Recent School Shootings" published in 1997 by the Washington Post, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. However, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. Imagine how many lives he saved. So, some of you might be asking by now, am I implying that more gun control laws mean more violence, and that less gun control laws means less? No. I'm saying that. According to The National Center for Policy Analysis and safestreetsdc.com, in 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 200% while their population dropped about 15%. It got so bad, D.C. was known as the "murder capital" of the United States. Switzerland practices total conscription, and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world according to a 1996 Switzerland Census and just wide know knowledge. Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987 and between 1987 and 1996, homicide rates dropped 36%, firearm homicide rate dropped 37%, and handgun homicide rate dropped 41%. New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966 and two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. Even using Hitler as an example, when he banned all guns in Germany... well you know what happened. So in conclusion, Gun Control laws, just like Communism and the Eighteenth Amendment, are great ideas as ideas. But humans are evil maniacal beings who love to manipulate. When an idea does not include prevention of evilness in it of itself, the idea will get corrupted. Gun Control laws will be more, but have already been corrupted as evident by all the statistics. So I ask this, why are we adding upon the already 20,000 gun laws we already have in the good ol' US of A?

Is strengthening gun control laws necessay We don't need gun control. Any gun control is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment, as it clearly states, "The Right of the People to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed". The 2nd Amendment isn't there for hunting ducks. It's there to protect the people against a tyrannical government. You could argue that they didn't have full-autos back then, but neither did the military. The citizens had access to the same kind of muskets that the military did, therefore, they were just as powerful as the military. Oh sure, you say the legal mag capacity should be 5 bullets, yet the military has guns that can fire 6000 rounds a minute without reloading. You should take heed of the old saying, "But who will watch the watchmen?" A waiting period for guns? What would that do? Anybody with the will to kill a bunch of people doesn't care about a waiting period. A one-time psychological test wouldn't hurt, but with a drivers license, all of your background information be accessed instantly! Why would you need to wait any longer than the time needed to obtain that info.? As for the massacres, look at Japan! There are school mass murders committed with knives over there! They outlawed guns in England, yet people are burning down London! According to FBI statistics(http://www.fbi.gov...), violent crime has been going down in the last decade, while gun sales have gone up. While America has more gun crime, overall crime has actually been lowering. Look at Switzerland! Barely any gun control, yet one of the safest places in the world. Outlawing the powerful guns would make a criminal gun-smuggling industry rise up, just like with Prohibition nearly a century ago as well as drugs today.This will allow criminals to obtain them while leaving law-abiding citizens powerless to stop them. Lastly, just because you don't want to feel like you have to defend yourself doesn't change the reality that you do. If we outlaw guns, criminals will not feel threatened and you will need guns more than ever.

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control While her contentions are coherent with the right goal in mind (we both presume that decreasing crime and preserving human life and welfare are desirable ends), her arguments often sidestep important facts that may have been blurred along the way. She uses a point about statistical differences in conjunction with stricter gun control laws, but she forgets that there is a degree of interpretation that is involved in statistics -- we shouldn't readily accept it's consequences at face value. I will respond accordingly to the numbered format she has supplied, for the sake of clarity and convenience: ==================== Argument #1: Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. ==================== You argument here relies on statistics, and this is where my first criticism arrives. Statistical evidence can be incredibly annoying given that many arguments which use it do so in the lens of correlation, as is what happens in statistics. As you should know, the problem with relying on correlation is that there are often many variables that can be unknown or failed to be calculated, thus skewing one's understanding of the casual chains behind a certain statistical conclusion. This is how we can have different statistical evidence: I can reference you to a paper that demonstrates a high percentage of deaths in America was via guns[1] and that there is a strong correlation between gun-ownership and gun-homicide[2]. We should move out of this muck - such a debate about statistics would be obtusely long and complicated to the point of unbearable technicalities. I propose that instead of simply throwing statistics back and forth, we should examine the main claim here - that stricter gun control will not reduce crime (or it can even increase crime) and extrapolate a plausible reason for this. In other words, we should ask ourselves WHY stricter gun control won't at the very least help lower the crime rate. Allow me to break it down: You state that "stricter gun laws will either have no impact on crime rates, or it will have a negative impact on crime rates. " If so, then you should have some psychological or sociological justification for this claim; in other words, I want you to demonstrate to me how having a stricter regulation on guns will have no impact on crime rates. I propose that even a simple folk psychology thought experiment can expose the failure of such a claim. The basic question of how crimes come about is simple. There exists a group of people who desire something illegal (drugs), or desire something in an illegal fashion (rape). Given that they have a motivation for desiring whatever it is they desire, the more power they have the easier it is to get it. Guns greatly aid the criminal in obtaining what they want, and thus it would seem to be a simple task to conclude that thus more criminals will succeed in their actions and thus the crime rate will go up. Do note that I use crime rate in comparison to previous amounts of violence - if a state has an overall increase in criminal activity but at the same time employed an effective police force, we wouldn't say such a state was getting more peaceful. Rather, it was the presence of a police force that curbs the statistics, thus giving the charming but false presentation that the state's crime rate is lowering. ==================== Argument #2: Guns save lives. ==================== This is an fact that I have no motivation to deny. What I will complain is that this argument neglects the very fact that my position for having stricter gun control laws does not negate such a demand for innocent people to have guns in self-defense. The stricter gun control laws are aimed at diffusing crime rate by making it much harder for criminals to obtain it. After all, isn't it common sense that the more powerful weapon you have the easier it is for you to commit a crime (if you desired as such)? If one is a law-abiding citizen then he should have no problem purchasing a gun to defend himself. Therefore, your point about rape victims and whatnot is moot; in no way does my position entail the denial of self-defense via gun ownership. ==================== Argument #3: Guns are a form of liberty. ==================== Going along with the same motif in my previous argument, I will reverberate that my position does not deny the law-abiding citizen to own guns for self-defense, hunting, etc. Therefore, I see no need in refuting this point given that the main purpose of gun control laws is to decrease crime rates by making it harder for criminals to accomplish their tasks. ==================== Conclusion ==================== It would seem patently obvious to me that the only real avenue my opponent has left is to provide a satisfactory rationale for the claim that stricter gun control laws would, at the very least, have no significant impact on crime rates. As I proposed before, it is both more efficient and important to examine the psychological rationale of such a claim. I have proposed that such a claim is absurd - it is demonstrably simple to realize that if a criminal wants to obtain X, and he has the power to do so, he will likely do it (unless something else subjugates his motivation). By having a gun the criminal has more power and thus a greater chance of achieving his goals, which entails a crime. ---References--- 1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. . http://www.unicri.it...

There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...

Gun control America needs to change 1. You cannot reduce gun crimes with more guns! The mores guns there is the more violence in the world. Bedsides if you just got rid of guns altogether or had stricter gun laws then it is not likely that there would even be a shooter in the first place. Look at the UK, There has only been 1 mass shooting since stricter gun laws were put in place. In America, Mass shootings are happening on a regular basis and your solution is more guns! You have tried that and it clearly has not worked, It is time for America to make a change! Masses of people are dying on a regular basis and you are doing nothing effective! 2. Why waste money on things that can kill people? ! I think just like your driving test you should have to pay for this test and to have a licence for a gun. The practical test would ensure that you actually know how to use a gun safely. The theory test would be the part where you mental health, And your background is checked and yes I admit people could lie BUT it would still make it that little bit harder for people to access guns and could prevent some gun crimes from happening. It is worth doing even if it only saves a few lives. 3. If you don't like the way your country is run you should not be protesting with a gun anyway as that would be murder. The police and the military are there to protect you from any foreign invasion so you do not need a gun for that either. "a gun behind every bush" I believe is a terrible saying because that implies that you are living your life in constant paranoia and fear and that is no way to live. America has a very good police force and military as far as I am aware and they are there to protect you so I do not think you need to worry about having a gun on you at all times. 4. How is taking away guns going to make more people die of gun crime! You cannot shoot your way to peace! 5. Cancer is not something that can be prevented. It is not a choice. You cannot compare someone dying because somebody shot them to somebody dying of cancer. America has the power to reduce gun crime, That is a fact you can reduce the amount of deaths due to a gun. I don't understand how you even think its okay to compare cancer and murder. 6. Yes there will always be the black market and you will never be able to completely get rid of the guns in America but putting these laws in place will decrease gun crime massively. It will make it so much harder for people to access guns and therefore the amount of shootings will go down. Look at the UK, Japan and many other countries who have enforced strict gun laws. Look at the amount of gun deaths in them counties and then look at the amount of gun deaths in America and try and tell me that the number of shootings will go up. These laws have worked everywhere else so now America it is time for you do make a change and help the people in your country. You can reduce the gun crime massively if you take a step, Be brave and stop hiding behind you guns.

The US Should Have Better Gun Control In the United States, the homicide rate is one of the highest of the more developed world, if you compare the US rate of 4.8 deaths per hundred thousand, with 3.3 of those involving firearms, to countries with tighter restrictions, like Germany (0.8 per hundred thousand), Australia (1.0 per hundred thousand), or the UK (1.2 per hundred thousand), it is clear that there is a correlation between mass ownership of firearms and an increased homicide rate. (Data from http://en.wikipedia.org...) The proof that introducing gun control has a precedent, in 1996 after the Port Arthur Massacre, the Australian government introduced much more restrictive gun control, this is the major factor in the 47% drop in firearm related homicides in the country (http://www.aic.gov.au...). Put simply, if you don't have a gun, killing people is much harder. I'm sure at some point in this debate the age old argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" will surface, to nip that in the bud at the start, the simple fact is that it is people who kill people ...... using guns. There is no need to own a firearm except for sport, it's not like controlling the use of knives, a gun has one purpose, it is designed as a means to kill. The floor is yours.

Gun Control Laws The laws that are in place make the guns illegal, that is why they are called "illegal guns." Without the proper enforcement it makes it possible for these people to obtain these illegal guns. More gun control law enforcement is what is needed to prevent these tragedies. These laws are key to stopping tragedies that would occur in a no gun control world. In your world, a world without gun control, it would make it easy to obtain guns for any person. Whether they be a hunter or a killer. So why should there be no gun control laws? Also your "evidence" states that when gun control laws are enacted violence goes up, but you refuse to give the "why" to that argument. My evidence provides the reason why gun violence increases, and that reason is poverty. My stats directly answer yours for this fact. --- On your conclusion: Your first point says that poverty does not have any relation to gun violence. Again, that has been disproved by my stats and your own statement. Poverty is a leading cause to gun violence, and cutting down on gun violence the key reason for enacting gun control laws. On your second point I have an empirical example. England has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and their gun violence is extremely low per capita. Also, I sight Canada's 1977 gun control laws (see above argument) and show that Canada's gun violence is also extremely small per capita. On your third point, you have not proven why no gun control leads to less gun violence because you do not provide the "why" in your arguments. Saying that more armed citizens prevents gun violence is a falsehood. Look at Canada and England. --- So voters do not look to PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs, but look to the empirical evidence that I have provided.

more gun regulation should exist For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls." This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.

Gun Control Laws I have three points I would like to make in regards to this issue:1. Guns laws do not work.2. States with higher concealed carry permits have less gun related crime.3. We have sufficient laws. Gun laws do not work--In 1976, Washington DC city council instituted extreme gun control measures. This law prohibited residents from possessing fully functional fire arms in their own homes. Restrictions for legal gun ownership in DC during this time period were:a) All guns must be kept unloaded. b) All guns must be rendered temporarily inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. During this period of restriction, the murder rate was 73% higher than when the law was first implemented, and 11% higher than the rest of the US. [1] --Chicago, Illinois implemented a ban on handguns in 1982. This ban disallowed civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered prior to the law. During the ban period, murders committed with handguns rose by 40%. [1] States with higher concealed carry permits have less gun related crimes“Lott and Mustard (1997) found those states with a less restrictive law saw a 7.65% drop in murders. The new study examines data from 1980 to 2009, one of the biggest time periods in research of this kind. It also looks solely at gun crime, rather than violent crime which is the case in similar research. State level data on gun related murder is taken from the Supplementary Homicide Reports from the United States Department of Justice and the information on CCW laws was obtained from a variety of United States bodies. ” [2]States with the most gun control had the lowest gun ownership, the highest violent crime and murder rates, and the highest non-firearms murder rates illustrated in chart below. [3]We have sufficient laws nowCurrents laws include: It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition: someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien,someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U. S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above. It is illegal to "engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms" without a federal license to do so. It is illegal for any federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above. It is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines. [1] The current laws clearly restrict gun ownership and handling in a reasonable way in a similar fashion to which pro desires. Conceal carry permits generally require a safety/training course to be completed before approval. If Pro would like to advocate enforcing current laws better I agree. However, adding news laws would be redundant and pointless. I will make rebuttals to Pros argument in the next round. [1]. http://www.justfacts.com...[2]http://www.science20.com...[3] . http://slgop.org...

Gun Control My opponent introduces the common argument of the left as being "stricter gun control will result in fewer people being killed by guns, and fewer mass shootings will occur." I fully agree with and will adopt this line of reasoning for the debate. I want to emphasize that this means we are discussing firearm-related deaths and gun control's effectiveness at reducing them. My opponent's use of world homicide rates is therefore misleading. Homicide rates encompass all types of murder, not just gun-related, which is what gun control is intended to reduce . I'd also like to point out that not a single one of the 106 nations that top the U.S. in the list is considered a developed nation. Developing nations are subject to a number of adverse conditions (war, famine, disease, etc.) that inflate these numbers and make them unfair comparisons to the U.S. All developed nations known for stringent gun control are far below the U.S. on the list: Japan (215), U.K. (184), Australia (185), Canada (169) to name a few [1]. When we specify the statistics to only include gun homicides and developed nations we see that the United State's current lax gun control policies are undoubtedly failing to keep gun violence low. The U.S. is the runaway leader in firearm homicides among developed countries. "According to data compiled by the United Nations... Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country" [2]. We see then that these developed countries with strict gun control are safer than the U.S. in both homicides and gun-only homicides. With regards to cities, there is evidence that may attribute gun violence in cities to areas with lax gun control outside city limits. In Chicago, for example, studies "found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state...The study also found that 22 percent of the recovered guns came from parts of Cook County outside the city, where gun dealers and gun shows are legal"[3]. But considering we are debating gun control on a national scale, I contend that reviewing state by state gun control is a more relevant comparison. And if we do that, it is clear to see that states with tougher gun control and lower rates of gun ownership have much lower gun death rates. States with light gun control make up the top 5: Alaska (19.95 gun deaths per 100,000), Louisiana (19.15), Alabama (17.79), Mississippi (17.55), Wyoming (17.51). We conversely see states with strict gun control in the bottom 5 (45-50): Hawaii (2.71), Massachusetts (3.18), New York (4.39), Connecticut (4.48), Rhode Island (5.33) [4] I would also like to dispute the claim "Criminals are more emboldened knowing there is a higher likelihood their victims are unarmed." It appears that criminals confronted are likely to respond with greater violence: "research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession." [5] My opponent repeatedly makes the claim that "disarming law-abiding citizens doesn't take the guns away from the criminals." In no way does gun control actively disarm law-abiding citizens. In what way do increased background checks disarm law-abiding citizens? In what way does prohibiting suspected terrorists, deemed too dangerous to fly, from buying guns disarm law-abiding citizens? These laws would in no way impact law-abiding citizens' right to bear arms aside from merely delaying the process of purchasing a gun by a matter of days. So how are their rights being infringed? The argument that criminals will not follow the law so there is no point in taking action is absurd. Criminals do certainly break the law. They murder, steal, rape, etc. but do we question the legitimacy of those laws simply because criminals do not follow them? Why should we lay down and not actively try to make it harder for criminals and terrorists to access guns? Take the common profile of mass shooters for example, the people behind mass shootings are often severely mentally disabled. James Foley of Aurora, Adam Lanza of Newtown, Dylann Roof of Charleston were all extremely socially isolated and barely mentally capable of living on their own. If they were deterred from legally purchasing a gun by increased background checks and screenings, is it really plausible to suggest that these kinds of people would be capable of penetrating the criminal underworld, establish connections, and acquire lethal stockpiles of weapons and ammunition? Regarding mass shootings: After dispelling his own argument about pressure cookers, my opponent appears to try and make mass shootings seem insignificant. His proposed numbers were surpassed in a single shooting just weeks ago. In June this year alone, 63 people have been murdered is mass shootings attributable to a "single name" as my opponent proposed [6]. I think most would agree that the mass shooting epidemic going on in the U.S. is unprecedented and unmatched by any other period in its history. "People who are deranged enough to take their religion, racism, or political ideas to the next level, and murder as many people as they can" should not be able to legally purchase guns as they do in many mass shooting cases. And while these deranged people may find a way to murder regardless of what weapon, guns enable them to cause far more damage than any other legally obtainable weapon. There is absolutely no way Omar Mateen could have gone into Pulse Nightclub with a knife and murder 50 people before being stopped. Regarding my opponent's analogy to car accidents: Do we blame cars? No. Do we set regulations, laws, set standards, restrictions, etc. to address and reduce car accidents? Absolutely. As far as gun free zones are concerned: "An analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety looked at the 133 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 and found that only 13 percent of those mass shootings took place in a "gun-free zone," while the vast majority of shootings took place where carrying a gun is legally permitted."[7] Having the most guns in the world has failed to deal with mass shootings as well. My opponent then goes to propose his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as having the intent to "protect the rest of our rights." I dispute this interpretation but let's assume it's true and that Amendments guaranteeing due process, voting rights, and our entire system of checks and balances intended to prevent tyranny, don't exist. Why still should the 2nd Amendment be immune from any sort of limitations or boundaries? Can we even consider background checks and closing of purchase loopholes to be limitations? All rights are subject to review and regulation. They have to be because times have certainly changed since they were written centuries ago and America needs to be able to function in face of modern problems. Even the late, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia agreed that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Due to character count, I will address Hitler example in next round. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... (used wiki for convenience, actual report is 100+ pg pdf) [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [5] http://smartgunlaws.org... [6] https://www.massshootingtracker.org... [7] http://mediamatters.org...

Gun Control Laws Studies show that gun control laws lead to a lower firearm murder rate in the United States. I am strongly in favor of stricter gun laws. http://www.politisite.com...

Gun Laws So I think I am supposed to say why gun laws should be in place because that is what my opponent told me in a message. Contention 1: Not all guns should be restrictedBy all means we should have tighter gun control. But I am not referring to taking away our guns. Access to, and the types of guns that we have, should be more closely regulated. Guns for hunting and sport shooting and even for one's personal defense could be allowed. But no one outside of the military or the police needs a semi-automatic rifle or heavier guns. Contention 2: Recent ShootingsI'm sure you have seen the news lately. Schools, movie theatres, former police officers, teens, and a former sniper. Why? Because all of these people have managed to get their hands on any type of guns because the law permits them to. But if these laws were stricter, then they wouldn't be able to get their hands on ALL these heavy guns used in the military, police, and other government related departments. I am not saying to ban all guns to citizens. I know that we need them. Contention 3: Mental PersonsWe cannot control a mental person's action. Sometimes not even they know what they are going to do. Like the one in Aurora, Colorado. The man had some type of mental illness. If the government enforced that the person to own the gun wasn't having mental related issues, then the citizens of the United States would be a little safer. Additional Info: An average of 83 Americans die every day from firearms in the United States. And the U. S. has the highest firearm homicide rates in the developed world. In 33 of the 50 states, criminals can buy military-style weapons from "private dealers" on the internet without any ID or background check. This can be very dangerous. Each year in the US, there are 30,000 deaths related to guns. This is a hot topic in the media, but the presidential and congressional candidates do nothing about it. Once again, I am not saying to ban all guns. I am saying to enfore some stricter laws on guns so that the US citizens are safer in their homes and evironments. Sorry for the short round; if I had posted it earlier, I would have been able to make it longer. Thank You and Enjoy!

Gun Control Gun control laws do not provide for a safer society. This is shown through multiple ways, either with honest comparables looking at violent crime and homicide rate, or crime trends before and after enacted laws. When compared with other countries using actual comparable populations, you find the United States is roughly in the middle of all developed nations for gun violence, or homicide rate. You can also see how violent crime has risen in areas where gun control has been enacted throughout the world. The simple fact that there has been a near 50% increase in guns owned in the United States since 1993, and an over 50% decrease in gun homicides shows that it is not the guns being the problem. You are safer with a gun than without one. In fact as most studies have shown you are 43 to 260 times more likely to defend yourself with a gun than be killed by one. Taking the gun out of your hand won’t take the gun out of the criminal’s hand. I have shown how the vast majority of criminals obtain their guns illegally, and most stated that they could have obtained an illegal gun if they were unable to purchase one legally. Disarming everyone else in an attempt to disarm the criminal is backward logic. This is also evidenced by countries that have a higher gun ownership have lower violent crime. Mass killings won’t be hindered by gun control. Just turn on the news and you will see that places all over the world, even places where gun control has become gun bans, are having mass killings. Saying these ideological murderers will be stopped by laziness (not being able to buy a gun) is a lazy argument. You might not be able to prevent a radical from acting out radical ideas, but you can arm more citizens to stop them. Our founding fathers made clear the purpose of our 2nd amendment. We must protect our freedoms from anyone who would try and take them, including foreign powers, or domestic tyranny. An armed population is what prevents governmental powers from pushing their ideological pursuits on it’s own people. To drastically reduce what the people can arm themselves with, compared to what the government has at its disposal, is directly contradictory to the 2nd amendment. How does this keep us safe? God forbid we become disarmed, and God forbid the government starts to push it’s agenda, and all who oppose become enemies of the state, and God forbid they make the punishment for non-allegiance to their ideology anything up to and including death. But since history is replete with this exact system of take over, our founding fathers put a check and balance in the face of such unrestrained power, a gun in the hand of the citizen. The left will constantly pick numbers that show biased views, compare apples and oranges in terms of ratios or trends, or flat stats that are sampled from a small population with conclusions inarrivabile from their premises. The truth is, guns are tools. They can be used for good or bad, moral or immoral ends. Gun control is actually an obstruction to the safety of society.

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control As I've done with the previous rounds, I am determined to focus this debate on gun rights to a specific contention: whether the application of stricter gun controls will lead to a positive consequence in the balance of armed, innocent citizens and criminals with weapons. Obviously we desire more of the former and less of the latter, it is extremely likely to do away with both of them -- however, we can hope to minimize such damage by prompting for more well-armed citizens whilst disarming criminals. This is where I propose gun controls can help. Since I believe our only major point of division to be here, I will go on and explain the failure of her argument concerning the first point, and then demonstrate the irrelevancy of her other contentions. In fact, as I've stated before I will even grant her latter 2 points given that they are both harmless to my position nor do they conflict with it. ==================== Argument #1: Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. ==================== Your first rebuttal is to argue that everyone will have a harder time to obtain guns if there are stricter gun laws, thus lowering the amount of criminals owning guns BUT ALSO citizens in need of a defensive weapon. Whether or not this is an appropriate criticism (as it assumes the lowering of the opportunities for citizens is as important for criminals), I can level one easy argument against it: this is simply false. Sure, sellers may not be able to check out the customer's motivation but they can very well apply other rules and regulations to strengthen the prevention of a gun getting into a criminal's hand. Things such as much more extensive background checks (there are obviously levels), a longer waiting period, a more extensive test, a limit on what kind of guns can be bought, etc. There are a much more things that can be down to restrict the flow of guns into the public hands that can be done without impeding a citizen too much. As long as said citizen is law-abiding and a little more patient, he should be able to buy his gun -- the criminal, on the other hand, will likely turn up to be illegitimate or not try at all in fear of being caught. Your other point is about those gain guns illegally - this dodges the point I am making. If we are deciding on laws concerning the regulation of alcohol, it would be irrelevant to cite instances in which teenagers obtain alcohol via illegal methods; it's not the laws fault that people are breaking it. To curb such an effect, though, stricter gun laws can make it harder for private interests to obtain and manufacture guns. ==================== Argument #2 and #3: Guns save lives & Guns are a form of liberty. ==================== As I've stated in my previous contention, this is a useless argument now. While it is true the amount of law-abiding citizens will decrease ever so slightly, the amount of criminals with weapons will decrease MUCH MORE given the much more ample risks present in stricter gun control laws (more extensive background search, stricter tests, etc. ). And in the same vein, though guns are a form of liberty and expression for Americans the presence of gun related crimes is of MUCH MORE IMPORTANCE than pleasing those with a gun hobby. To relate gun ownership to one's liberty is nonsense - old age traditions of liberty that were connected with America has no bearing on what is true for many people today. I for one do not find guns to be liberating, though I do know some do. The point is that though the presence of gun ownership will elicit certain emotions, it's irrelevant in the face of danger. .. especially when THEY CAN STILL OBTAIN IT. They just got to wait a little longer, is that too much to ask? ==================== Conclusion ==================== My position in no ways denies the liberty or safety of it's citizens, though I will agree it does lower it to some extent. However, this shouldn't be taken with too much weight given the fact that in the same hand, the amount of criminals with weapons will decrease MUCH MORE.

Gun Control Over the past months, the debate over gun control has taken bounds through media; after the sandy hook shooting this trend is more easily observable. The Obama administration is now slowly moving closer and closer to gun restriction and confiscation, but is it a rational move? Today, out of every 100 Americans, an estimated 88 people own guns; which takes the figures well into the millions of people; yet arguably the vast majority of whom are law-abiding citizens. More Freedom Means Less Crime: Much like any other matter in our social life, Freedom to bear arms leads to more peace and security and it does not necessarily mean that every single person has to have an AR-15 for this to happen but precisely this freedom to bear arms alone guarantees less crime. Statistically speaking, in nearly every city more gun freedom means and has meant less crime. This is an undeniable, irrefutable and an unquestionable fact that the "anti-gun" media never stops to address. The example of this is very easily observed in the southern states like Texas, where some of the least restricting gun control laws are prevalent and not so surprisingly they have very low violent crime rate. For example after the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years. Also see point 5 for the case for Switzerland"s gun control. The issue of guns and gun control could not any simpler if people only understood the above fact. When we reflect on facts and statistics many of our arguments actually settle by themselves. In this case we can easily refute the notion that views guns as an "evil" piece of machinery, which is thought to be evil in the hands of regular citizenry and good when used and monopolized by the government, the military, and criminals. On the other hand where there is more restrictive gun control laws there is much more crime. States like New York and Illinois have some of the worst crime rates not only in the US, but in comparison around the world. The city of Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the United States yet it has become one the centers of overall crime in the US and deadliest Global cities! The harder gun control laws get, the higher crime rate soars. So the question must be asked: has the imposed gun restriction reduced crime? The answer is absolutely not. The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011. For any wise reader, who is able of some rational thinking, the above mentioned facts and examples should be enough of an argument to the end this debate, but let"s not cease here as I have nine more points to cover.

Gun Control You lack sources in your argument(links, quotes, etc.). The more people with guns equals a greater chance for suicides, and self harming. We can't let just any one own a gun, for example, what happens if a psychopath gets a hold of a gun ? Said psychopath is likely to flip out and shoot people who live in approxamity to him or her. You said it yourself. Thousands of people are losing their lives in Chicago each day due to gun violence. Now if we were to have stricter laws and regulations on guns, then we might be able to make it harder for criminals to buy guns. And, if we require background checks for gun purchases, then we'll be able to see who's a felon, or a rapist, or a psychopath, or someone who was arrested for weapon related crimes in the past, etc. Of course we just can't go breaking down doors and taking guns from people, we just need to have stricter gun purchasing laws and require background checks for all citizens who want to purchase a gun.

Gun Control Gun Control should be placed into effect because it will secure the safety of all of us. It is bad enough that twenty-six people had to lose their lives because someone was "sketchy" and no one took his guns, or all those people who lost their lives when they went to the movie theater to see a movie. We shouldn't have to worry about possibly being shot if we want to go see a movie or children going to school to get an education.

Gun laws need to be more strict rather than banning them Thanks for accepting the terms of this debate and may the best argument win. I would first like to start off by saying that no matter your age you should not be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. Guns do not kill people rather people kill with guns. 1. TEST- People should have to get a test before they buy or use firearms. Think of it as an unlicensed driver behind the weel of a car. You are not shure they know all of the rules and regulations of the road, and they could kill or injure someone. People should be tested on gun safety, how to hold a gun correctly and have there eyes checked. Then a person should have to take a test to insure they are aware of how to be safe and safely operate the weapon. 2. BACKGROUND CHECKS- Background checks should be performed every time an individual buys a weapon. This will ensure the person is always allowed to buy and carry a firearm. This would reduce the around of criminals receiving firearms. 3.STORE CHECKS-The gun shops that buy and sell guns will be routinely checked so that we can ensure that they are following all procedures that are listed above 4. GUN LICENS- Every individual must obtain a gun license so that we can ensure they have past the test stated above just like a drivers license. The license must be renewed and a test given to assure the person can be safe and safely operate a firearm.

We need more gun control I extend.

Gun Control is necessary for a stable society. Thank you, con for making this debate possible. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this debate. Let me start by disregarding how important gun control is for the creation of a stable society, we can all agree that a stable crime free environment, is imperative to a utopian model stable society. I understand that we need rules to prevent criminals from doing more criminal activity, however it is imperative that to the overall masses, there needs to be gun laws to prevent future crimes. Criminals are people who have already committed a crime, but this bracket removes the possibility of future criminals from the masses. It is important to notice this difference. Rules should apply to criminals, of course. However rules should apply to non-criminals to create difficulty for future criminals to use such a weapon as a medium to carry their evil deeds. Let me also highlight, the simplicity of people using guns to carry out their deeds. All it takes it to grab a weapon, a few rounds and with little to no planning, time and effort you have a dozen dead people in a mass shooting, as well as the cops chasing you down furiously. Now, I understand that if we do impose gun laws that criminals will find other ways to enact their violence, but this does come with it"s benefits, for example as I mentioned before, the simplicity of becoming a mass murderer with a gun. Other methods take a lot more time and effort than just picking up a firearm, and clicking the trigger. Bombs for instance, require hours, days or weeks of effort, and with this time, it gives people more time to notice their evil deeds and other suspicious activities. By making the criminals have to go to longer lengths, it makes the community able to pinpoint suspicious activities and to catch the criminal at hand. Regardless of how they conduct their methods, the amount that they do it is more concerning. By placing gun control, it removes the simplicity of merely picking up the firearm, holding the trigger, and having dozen bodies scattered in front of you.

Stricter gun control laws Guns are certainly a major social issue in the United States however they are often abused by the insane and criminals; thus, it gives the wrong impression that guns do not protect humans. In fact, they are quite the opposite of what many people assume. Stricter gun control laws are not necessary to moderate guns because they only promote the illegal use of guns; only certain minorities will use guns in unethical/illegal ways; and there are many benefits that come along with passive gun laws. Prohibiting or limiting the use of guns will only make gun users want to use them even more. Just as parents trying to limit an activity will only make children become addicted, so will with guns. As humans are wired to be curious and become addicted to things that are purposely limited to them, it will only make matters worse as gun owners will attempt to use guns even more with such laws. This has been proven throughout history as anything banned by the government would only make them be used even more by the people. Only certain evil or crazy people will use guns. Instead of trying to limit gun use, the government should only try to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. They should create laws that are fair and only limit those that are crazy/evil, such as requiring a gun license and attendance at certified gun training facilities to purchase a gun. As opponent said, only the insane and evil abuse such a privilege, so the government should only make laws to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. There are also many benefits that come along with using guns as a citizen. You can use it to protect your own or others' lives when there are criminals or crazy people that have illegally purchased guns to kill people. You can use it as self-defense against not just people but with animals and with objects in certain situations. Having a gun also makes you feel safe in case your country gets invaded; that's the reason why Japan never invaded U.S. in WWII.

Gun control I feel that we need more regulations on guns to keep America safer.

Gun Control Reform is vital for the safety of our Country Gun Reform is a necessity for the future of our country. Our relaxed reform rules clearly not working right now. Sixteen of the top Twenty-Eight mass shootings in the U. S. have taken place in the passed Fifteen years. That’s a staggering statistic. Furthermore The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). More rules and regulation would reduce gun deaths. About 200 Americans go to emergency room each day, gun violence being the cause. Now I know the number one argument on the opposing side will be it’s our 2nd Amendment Right to own guns. With this being said there were gun controls back in the colonial time. Some of the laws consisted of criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, Slaves, and Native Americans; there was regulation of gunpowder in homes and loaded guns were banned from Boston houses. With this in mind there should be no reason to have High Capacity Magazines. A Mother Jones investigation discovered that he use of high capacity magazines were used at least 50% of the 62 mass shooting taking place from 1982 and 2012. With High capacity magazines being used injury rates rose about 156% and the death rate rose about 63%. There is also no need for civilians to have access to military grade weapons. The 2nd Amendment was written when guns were single loaded long rifles or muskets. Now people can acquire military grade issued SCAR and guns like it. In conclusion there is no need for the public to have access to high-grade militant weaponry.

Gun Control Gun Control Leads To More Crimes

Gun Laws should be Stricter I will be arguing that more gun restriction will help prevent crime. Rules: No Forfeits No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post 8000 Characters Max 3 day Voting Period Start your arguments in round 1

Gun law Regulations The use of these tax dollars will be put into a good use. Isn't it better to do full background checks on someone before basically handing them a gun? If someone believes they need to possess a gun in order to feel safer and more secure then that is absolutely fine. However, anyone who desires a gun for that reason should not have any problem going through a thorough background check system. In conclusion, it doesn't make sense for everyone to just carry around a gun without a valid reason. Just allowing guns to be shared and dealt freely will do us more harm than you may see it does good. It has and will spike more crime, increase the number of deaths, homicides, and suicide rates. If we don't do anything to make the situation better then we should blame ourselves for the mass shootings that have been taken place and similar situations where the suspect obtains an illegal firearm. If there is something done to alleviate the negatives and focus on the safety of innocent people, then the good definitely outweighs the bad.

Gun Control "I am sorry, but I feel like this is a little unfair. I would not have accepted this debate if I would have known you would be making these types of arguments. The thing I find unfair about this, is that you don't give the voters a choice in whom……" Ah, I don't believe this is unfair at all. You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1. You also stated before the debate started that I am to argue for gun control. The definition of gun control is, "any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens." Throughout this debate I have clearly defined the problems with the current gun control system in the United States, and I have clearly argued why we must have more and why it would be effective. I have also refuted your arguments in regards to the US having more gun control. I have also clearly laid out why certain guns shouldn't be prohibited, and why other guns should not. By giving examples of what guns would be okay and in what situations, I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles. So I ask the audience to not ignore these types of arguments, because they are the core of the debate and my opponent seeks to detract from that. Furthermore, before my opponent says anything, this is not semantics, because gun control has a clear definition. "This doesn't make sense. So your saying you agree that people need self defence and thus guns are justified, but then go…" I am not contradicting myself at all. I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging. "Gun laws require that in order to obtain a fire arm in your home, you must have a safe to safely store them in. http://en.wikipedia.org...... This deters children from entering, criminals from entering, etc. The only person who should know the combination should be the owner of the gun. So this argument cannot be looked to as a child cannot harm themselves in this scenario." Firstly, your source says nothing about the gun safes being required by law, and you used Wikipedia. Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense. [1] So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home. This on top of the fact that the presence of firearm makes homicide and suicide between family members more likely in the home, shows that a firearm in the home is more likely to cause tragedy than prevent it. "In order to own a gun, an individual must complete basic gun courses in order to purchase one. http://corneredcat.com...... You must show proof of completing the courses neccesary to own a gun as well, among having several other things. Gun laws are strict, and not so easy that any one and their kids can purchase one without the neccesary requirements being completed. People who own gun have a basic understanding and knowledge of how to operate them. Thus we would be giving the government too much power if they are the only ones who own guns. The reason we have gun laws in the first place is to prevent government intrusion. Just like in the revolutionary war, owning and operating guns will prevent government from transforming into a dictatorship." Gun safety training is not the same thing as military training. You know, the military training you'd need to take part in a "well-regulated" militia. Again, the arming of the citizenry in a time of conflict in best left to the National Guard, which can properly train the citizens and integrate them into the state militia. Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us. "So you do claim that a person has a right to self defence, and you give an example..." The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one. "Here you contradict your whole argument….." I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. "Hand guns have the same ability to stop a persons life as an assualt rife does. When used the right way, and fired at the right part of the human body…." No, no, and no again. I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle. This is a clear absurdity. "Again, as I have said before, You are thinking nationally. We must think internationally here. Just like criminals can still obtain drugs, they can obtain guns….." Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up. Opponent's Arguments "This is exactly why gun control is a horrible concept. It limits citizen protection from the exact scenario you are showing." This is why no gun control is a horrible concept. The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals. Conclusion I've stated my case. I have argued successfully for more gun control in the United States. I have given you examples where guns are necessary in our society, where they serve for more good than harm. I have also plainly spelled out what is wrong with the current gun control system today, and how and why it needs to be improved. I have refuted my opponent's arguments, sometimes more than once. I thank my opponent for a strong argument, and wish him luck in the voting period. I believe my argument is stronger, and that you should vote Pro. [1] http://www.vaultandsafe.com...

The US should adopt stricter gun control laws Current laws are not enforced concerning firearms. New ones will not be enforced efficiently either.People have the right to protect themselves from terrorists, murderers, rapists, and even our own government. Our government can't rid the world of 30-40,000 ISIS militants. How would they stop 350,000,000 angry Americans when the military itself would be related to these armed people by blood? I trust the American people to know when to act in such matters, not the corrupt government of the United States.We will get guns, laws or not. We will make them and stockpile them if we must. The government will never truely be in control, nor should it be. We are this nation, not them. We have our own checks and balances by being armed and outnumbering the U.S. military 300 to 1. And even within the military, most would defect with no desire to kill their mom's, dad's and family. The government will never win, so it can just accept it. It's not in control. We are.

We Should Have Stricter Gun Control My final round for this debate will be short and sweet, as I feel that the readers will have already have my previous arguments in mind; there is no need for me to be redundant. My main point in my final round is that my opponent has not met any of my challenges, and the argument that he produces for gun control is ineffective. Moreover, he is casting off *two* of my arguments, even though they are obviously pertinent to the subject of this debate. 1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. For my opponent's responses on what constitutes gun control laws as effective, he said "much more extensive background checks (there are obviously levels), a longer waiting period, a more extensive test, a limit on what kind of guns can be bought". Background checks do one thing; they check for a criminal record. There are no levels to this. What pertinence is, say, what job or education level a person has in correlation to how eligible they are for a gun? Our current gun control laws already do this. Moreover, what on earth would a longer waiting period achieve? How would that help with hindering the gun-attainment for criminals? There is no purpose to longer waiting periods. Also, do you mean test by ability? What tests are you talking about? I think that as long as a person learn the basic safety features of a gun and how to shoot it, beyond that, how can there be more extensive tests? The limit of types of guns should also be elaborated on, because I don't see how much relevance it has to why that would limit criminal activity. If we're talking about most of America, then we're talking about handguns; shotguns and so forth would only be relevant to recreation and hunting (in fact, shotguns are a bigger pain to carry and shoot than handguns are). I hope it's common sense that our current gun control laws do not permit machine guns and so on (aka militia guns). The purpose of my breaking down my opponent's laws is that it is obvious that stricter gun control laws DO NOT WORK. My opponent cannot even come up with the very laws that he argues to defend. My point about attaining guns illegally is pertinent because I am arguing that it doesn't matter if we have stricter gun control laws, because it will not reduce crime. No matter how strict the laws are, people will get guns, and that's where the gun-related crime rates come from. Isn't that the whole purpose of this argument? My opponent is wrong because there is no rational reason to have stricter laws; it does not reduce crime. My point is shown through his proposal of very ineffective laws; there simply is no rational stricter gun regulations that will reduce crime. 2) Guns save lives. This is probably the most pertinent argument of this debate, as not only have I shown how obviously fruitless stricter gun regulation is, but to make attaining guns harder would be to hinder many citizens the ability to defend themselves. The laws pertaining to stricter gun control such as a longer waiting period, what point is there to that law? Why should the government impose such unnecessary laws that would only make it harder for citizens to gain the ability to better defend themselves? 3) Guns are a form of liberty. Guns are not liberating in the sense that it is the weapon that makes Americans liberated, but the power that they represent. America is built on the mission that the government is for the People. The more power the government has over the people the less liberated we are, and weapons are a *very* big form of power. Examples I can say off my head that were in my previous arguments are that Hitler explicitly acknowledged that to take away weapons from citizens is the best way to control them. Even America has been guilty of this, as shown from their instances of taking away the possessions of anyone of Japanese descent during the second World War. Stricter gun control won't turn our government into Nazis, but it is far too naive to say that our government wouldn't gain a stronger hold on us if they tightened how they regulated something as big as arms. 4) Conclusion My opponent cannot even come up with laws that would effectively reduce crime rates. Everything about stricter gun regulations just screams unnecessary. I've never said that stricter gun control would deny liberty or safety, and my opponent concedes that "it does lower it to some extent". When there is absolutely no reason to impose stricter gun control, why should our government lower our liberty and safety? My last two arguments are absolutely relevant as they relate to us citizens as Americans and the foundation of our personal safety and our liberty. The main point that my opponent fails to argue for is that the amount of criminals with weapons will NOT decrease. Stricter gun control does absolutely nothing, my opponent has shown no reason why it will, and I've shown plenty of reason why it *doesn't* work and in fact hinders America's safety and liberty. I've had a very fun time with this debate, and I thank my opponent for a riveting debate. I'd like the voters to keep in mind we have a gun violence problem, but stricter gun control laws will do absolutely nothing to help reduce gun crime.

There should not be more restrictions on guns or gun ownership It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, Such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, The number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero. Indeed, A study of 10 previous years of crime survey data found that of more than 1, 100 sexual assaults, In only one did the victim use a gun in self-defense. The data, Moreover, Do not provide support for the notion that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use " the same percentage as were injured during or after taking other protective actions. Some other forms of protective actions were associated with higher rates of injury (for example, Struggling) and some with lower (for example, Running away). Guns did seem beneficial in one category: protecting against loss of property. Looking only at crimes in which the intent was to steal, The victim lost property in only 38% of the incidents when using a gun, Compared with 56% of the incidents when taking other actions. But using some other weapon " Mace, For instance " appeared equally effective as using a gun. Almost two-thirds of the people in the U. S. Population live in homes without guns, And there is no evidence that the inhabitants of these homes are at greater risk of being robbed, Injured or killed by criminals compared with citizens in homes with guns. Instead, The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the likelihood not only that a household member will be shot accidentally, But also that someone in the home will die in a suicide or homicide. In addition, Hundreds of thousands of household guns are stolen each year. Gun theft is a main pathway by which guns end up in criminal hands. The public health costs of gun ownership are very high. That is why physician organizations " who care about your health and often see firsthand the harmful effects of firearms " suggest that you very carefully weigh the actual costs and benefits before bringing a lethal weapon into your home. Guns do not save lives, They KILL PEOPLE, Get rid of guns and the senseless killings will go down. The 2'nd Amendment needs to be removed from the constitution. Guns should be illegal like they are in most countries. Like Canada where the guns are prohibited, The crime rate is 90% lower then in the USA. Case closed (mic drop)

The US Should Have Better Gun Control I believe that the lack of gun control in the Unites States is a serious danger to the public, in nations with full gun control the homicide rate, armed robbery rate, and suicide rates are much lower.

There should be more gun laws I would also like to note that there is a 2000 character limit. Opening Statement1. ) Gun control is the strictest in Japan, and is widely implemented in England and Australia. Their gun homicide rates per year in England and Whales are 50 per year, compared to America's 100,000 per year. America has 30 times more gun homicides than Australia. Japan has a gun homicide rate close to zero. The statistics show that if Gun Control is implemented, it can work. . http://www.washingtonpost.com...2.) The homicide rate per 100,000 people in Australia is 1.3, while in America it is 5, a drastic difference. . http://www.nationmaster.com...3.) Crime rate (burglary, rape, theft, arson, etc. ) does not correlate to gun control, for gun crimes are crimes but not all crimes are gun crimes. 4. ) A question for Pro; why do people like you (advocates for less gun control) insist on being able to own instruments of destruction that can easily take away a person's life in the blink of an eye? This question has always been nagging me at the back of my mind.

Gun control of any kind would be bad for the US Thanks to my opponent for opening the debate. To begin, we need to establish what gun control is, and what it is not. Gun control is not some Orwellian principle that would require citizens to lock their weapons in government vaults and wear serial numbered arm bands. Gun control is not taking people’s guns away. Gun control is applying common sense measures to ensure that people exercise their Constitutional rights in ways that are safe for everyone. Anything that can be highly dangerous rightly requires some degree of government regulation: Drivers must get licensed before operating a vehicle, surgeons must pass state exams before cutting people open. Guns are no different. For this debate, I will argue that it makes perfect sense to regulate firearms in several ways. First, it makes sense for the government to require background checks and permits before letting people carry weapons in public. This is a simple measure that ensures guns are not purchased by people with a history of criminal activity, substance abuse, or mental illness. Any reasonable person would agree that it’s a bad idea to let such people freely purchase guns. Requiring permits ensures that people actually know how to operate their firearms. We do this for drivers because we don’t want people who can’t correctly operate a vehicle zooming through our neighborhoods and highways. Such a reality would put everyone at risk. Similarly, since the Constitution protects the right to carry a weapon, it only makes sense to require that people know how to do it safely. Second, firearm owners should be required to attend basic firearms training. If hunters must pass a safety course before being allowed to carry guns through uninhabited woodlands, citizens should have to pass a safety course before being allowed to have guns in densely populated residential areas. Firing a weapon requires much more than simply squeezing a trigger. It involves decision making, accuracy, and remaining calm under stress. People using guns to defend themselves or others without any practice in these areas can make dangerous situations worse, not better. These measures do not infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment right to own a gun. People can still buy, carry, and use weapons freely. Gun control of this flavor simply makes sure that people who choose to buy guns respect them and know how to properly use them. If applied in such a way, gun control only helps to make society safer for everyone.

Guns should be more regulated in the United States I apologize as well for letting this debate slip my mind. Since we no longer have as many rounds, I'll just jump right into the debate:In response to my opponent's first contention:Numerous studies, also by Harvard, have demonstrated the exact opposite: gun control actually has been shown to lead to fewer homicides. According to a study by Lisa Hepburn and David Hemingway:"[A] review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."The findings of another Harvard study, by the David Hemingway and Matthew Miller, found that specifically in developed nations more guns can often lead to an increased homicide rate. According to the study, the developed countries where guns were more widely available had markedly higher armed crime rates; these findings held true even when the USA was omitted.A third Harvard study found that within the US, more guns was generally correlated to a higher armed crime rate. According to the study:"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide...This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."Incidentally, the Western European countries that are often used as examples (I.e. Norway) are significantly wealthier than the Eastern European countries (Estonia, Belarus, Russia, etc.) that you cited as examples. In fact, Norway is one of the richest and most productive countries in europe. This is the more likely reason for the apparent correlation; more wealth allows more people to buy more guns.In response to my opponent's second contention:Your examples all shared a common thread in that they pushed for widespread gun ownership to protect against an oppressive government. Frankly, the fact is that no individual, even with an assault rifle, could defeat the government single-handedly. Even a sizable militia would be able to do little more than terrorize small cities before being wiped out by the government. This seems self-evident, but if you feel that it merits more attention I can address it more thoroughly in the next round. With that out of the way, I present my arguments for stricter gun control: 1) More guns mean more suicides In 2010, according to an article published in the Boston Globe, there were more gun-related suicides than homicides; These suicides made up three fifths of all gun related deaths. While you may prefer to think of suicides as planned ordeals that are carefully performed after months of consideration, the truth is that they are usually not planned; they tend to be impulsive, and the widespread availability of Exploding-Instant-Death-Tubes can only increase this staggering statistic. According to Harvard studies by Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway, Steven Lipman, and Matthew Miller: " After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide... States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment. There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm suicide." 2) Most people favor gun-control laws Another Harvard study also showed that the general public supports gun control. The majority of adults support strict gun control laws, and this number jumps even higher for common-sense protocols like background checks. According to the study: "Household gun ownership levels have been decreasing in the United States since the 1980s. Most adults, and even most gun owners, favor most gun control laws short of bans on gun ownership." Even inside the NRA, the majority of the membership disagrees with the more outspoken leaders, instead opting for some measure of gun control. According to the Harvard study: " National Rifle Association (NRA) members are similar to other gun owners in many respects, but they are more likely to own six or more guns. Unlike the NRA leadership, both NRA members and non-member gun owners support waiting periods and mandatory registration of handguns." I have no more to add at this time ,and I am beginning to run out of characters. I respectfully encourage you to vote in favor of gun control. On that note, I turn the debate over to pro.

Gun Rights in the USA So are you saying my burden of proof is to show that mass shootings are impossible under tighter gun laws. That to me seems absurd. Of course, sometimes people get their hands on explosives, or a vehicle, or plane. But that doesn't mean gun control isn't effective at reducing mass killings it just means that gun control isn't 100% effective. If you had a vaccine that reduced cancer deaths by 95% you would probably use that vaccine. Just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean you shouldn't use it at all. Seat belts aren't 100% effective at stopping you from dying in a car crash. They can even sometimes harm you in certain very specific scenarios. But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. That's what I'm trying to prove with gun control. While you say that gun control would not work as well in the U.S. as other countries I would argue that there are examples of countries with a very strong gun culture losing their guns. Most notably, I would look at Australia a country with a large rural conservative demographic (like the U.S.) and a strong gun culture. After a mass shooting in the 1990's, Australia pushed through tight gun controls such as a national gun registry, a mandatory 28 day waiting period, and a national gun buyback program. Despite pushback from special interest groups and activists, Australia pushed their legislation through. Since the legislation was passed, Australia has seen zero mass killings their homicide and suicide rates both drop significantly. Mass killings could also have been prevented in the U.S. by enforcement of America's current gun laws. In Texas, enforcement and use of the background checks that exist would have prevented a mass shooting there. I also want it to be noted that guns are by far the best machines for killing large amounts of people. My opponent claims that "they will find the next best thing,". Knives are of course very inefficient at killing most stabbing attacks only kill 1-2 people at the most. That isn't even a mass killing. Vehicles can only be used in open spaces such as bike paths. For the most part they too are quite poor at killing. Explosives are also not as good as guns because wiring explosives is difficult and they are often discovered before the attack. There is also a risk that the explosive will backfire or fail to go off. For those who want to kill many people, guns are just better. They are the ultimate killing machines. My opponent claims that gun control does not effect the suicide rate. This is not true. Universal background checks have been shown to decrease the suicide rate meaningfully. According to the New York times "states with universal background checks had a decrease of 0.29 suicides per 100,000 people from 2013 to 2014. Those without such laws had an average increase of 0.85." The article continues to note that there was a decrease in suicides of 0.38 per 100,000 in states with mandatory waiting periods. It is completely untrue to say that a mandatory waiting period would not effect gun violence. The director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center said with regards to suicides "Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide." Therefore, mandatory waiting periods can have a very large impact on suicide rates. Allowing time for psychologists to hopefully help the suicidal person. Time matters. So in conclusion, gun control has been shown to be effective around the world as well as in the United States. Universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods have both been shown to reduce the suicide and homicide rate meaningfully. It has also been shown to reduce mass killings by large amounts in other countries that implemented gun legislation (most notably the conservative Australia). As a result of the fact that gun control is immensely effective at saving lives I urge a con vote. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... https://www.nytimes.com... https://www.nytimes.com... Graph: https://www.bing.com...

gun control Making gun control more restrictive is not the answer to a safer way of life. The second amendment was put in place to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves and their assets. Outlawing guns will only prevent the law abiding citizens from having access to firearms. Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on what they want. Most drugs are illegal but there are still drug addicts. By taking away the ability for good people to own guns you also take away any deterrent that criminals may see. If a person plans to shot up a school or a hospital, simply posting " no guns allowed" isn't going to stop them. However, if there is a chance someone in that area has a gun, they might think twice. .

Should we have Gun Control I am a little new to this site and will try to to best I can to get my point across on this platform. Be for I get stated you should know that some gun control is necessary but not to the extent that it has been presented by many. I believe you live in the U. S. so this response will be based on the U. S. unless you wish to extend to other nations around the world. Now we all after remember that criminals break the law. The laws we have in place now criminals have broken and we must not respond with feeling but with logic to the tragedies that occur. We currently have background checks and have many limitations on firearms now. What we should focus on instead of creating more regulations is to enforce the laws we have now. Examples of failures to act are in the recent Parkland Shooting when authorities failed to prevent the shooting while they had information of a possible unstable individual that could harm someone. We need to protect our second amendment. It allows us to protect ourselves from criminals or tyrannical governments. That is why we do not need to get new gun control legislation.

The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime The belief that imposing stricter gun laws will reduce violent crime is an erroneous belief. If a person is going to commit a violent crime with a gun, how does it make sense to think that stricter gun laws will prevent them from doing so? Does anyone really believe that a hypothetical murderer becomes compelled to murder someone in cold blood, but then stops him or her self because it may be illegal to have a gun at the time? This was the first news headline I read when I logged on to Yahoo this evening (2/14/08): "DEKALB, Ill. - A man dressed in black opened fire with a shotgun and two handguns from the stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, killing five students and injuring 16 others before committing suicide, authorities said." Illinois is a state which already has strict gun laws, but that obviously didn't protect these people from getting gunned down. After this incident and the one at Virginia Tech, I reaffirm my position that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that gun laws should be relaxed so law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves in situations such as these. If the government were to take our guns away, or continue to impose stricter gun laws, it will only impede our ability to protect ourselves. The closer the U.S. comes to having full gun control, the closer we approach a time in which the only people with guns are cops and criminals. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it won't work for guns.

The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime "A study ... found that "the United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide." -Wiki - Just because the U.S. has higher rates of homicide in no way means that it is caused by a higher rate of gun ownership. All the American Journal of Public Health is effectively doing is putting one figure beside another in the same statement in order to put a spin on a controversial issue. If anything, I would attribute the higher rates of homicide to largely flaws in our legal / prison system / police state, which serve to worsen conditions for criminals instead of correcting them in any way. "Person with a legal handgun vs. person with a legal full automatic walks into a school and starts shooting people. Who is going to commit more crime....?" "If the gun is illegal it is harder to come by, especially for deranged children or college students. Under our current laws I can walk into a store in most any state and buy a full automatic weapon. WTF do you use a full auto for?" - First off: You are grossly misinformed about fully automatic weapons. School shootings aren't being committed with full autos. There is a difference between an automatic handgun or rifle (meaning that the firearm is operated automatically as opposed to manually) and a fully automatic weapon, which fires multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. I challenge you to name one store in the U.S. that anyone can go into and buy a fully automatic weapon. Full autos aren't even legal to possess without a special federal permit that very few people can obtain. Secondly: Firearm prohibition will not work, just like alcohol and drug prohibition haven't worked. The assumption that "If the gun is illegal it is harder to come by, especially for deranged children or college students" isn't true at all. If guns were outlawed, they would be obtained the same way illegal drugs are. A person who's compelled to commit mass murder isn't going to change their mind because the weapon they plan to use is illegal, and / or a little harder to come by. Third: In regard to the analogy of a person walking into a classroom with a handgun vs a fully automatic, if a person is walking into a classroom with any gun, does it really matter how many rounds they can get off per squeeze? It's a matter of time and ammunition. If there are thirty people in a class room, and the aggressor has enough ammo to kill sixty and intends to, what do you think the end result will be? Fourth: To address your question "WTF do you use a full auto for?", the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that we may protect ourselves from tyrannical oppression. In the event that tyranny would ever befall our country in the future, we're not going to be able to fend it off with pea shooters and shotguns if the aggressors are using more sophisticated weaponry. Additionally, in certain areas of the country like LA, gangs frequently carry illegal automatic weapons. If you happened to be a person living in an area that had to deal with gang violence, would you rather have the option to possess weaponry as sophisticated as the gangs that were terrorizing your neighborhood, or would you opt for lesser weaponry or none at all? I guess you could call the cops and wait for them to arrive, but there's not a lot they're going to be able to do for you when the incident is already over. It's a matter of proactive vs reactive, and which side of the fence you prefer to be on. "Your fallacy assumes that because one thing happens then it must have a link to another. This would be like saying, "The rooster crows when the sun rises, thus the sun rises because the rooster crows" Its simply not true. Another example, because sometimes people die when they are wearing seat belts therefor seat belts don't work. You assume that these two incidents are the rule but it isn't true, they are the exception to the rule." - The point I'm trying to make is that many of the places that have the most stringent gun control laws in the US are vulnerable to violent crime, e.g. college campuses. "Also, concerning Virginia Tech. What would have been done if there were no gun control laws? Are you suggesting college students should carry fire arms?" - I am absolutely claiming that students should be able to carry firearms. There would be far less incentive for someone to walk into a classroom and start shooting people if they knew they would die before they got more than a round or two off. The same applies to other aspects of society as well. "The constitution was created in 1971! Times change, when the Bill of rights was made the second amendment meant that you have the right to keep a musket for defense. It was created in a time when the police force was almost non-existent, in a time when people were expanding west past the confines of the law. Our for-fathers could have never imagined the world as it is today especially fully automatic rifles." - As I stated above, the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that we may protect ourselves from tyrannical oppression, which after numerous geopolitical events such as WWII, it is every bit as relevant today if not more so. At the time when the constitution was written, personal protection was a given. I seriously doubt that if our forefathers could've anticipated that our rights to personal protection in 2008 would be eroded to the point that Americans were having debates such as this, they would've amended the constitution to appropriately address the issue. Ask some of the people who have served in war what they think about gun control, and then ask yourself if founding fathers, who fought and died for our rights, would have a difference in opinion. Not to stray too far from the topic at hand because we could have an entire debate on the issue, but as far as the police force being non-existent in the eighteenth century, I could make the argument that the police state is in-part responsible for the increase in violent crime. "Who reading this debate has heard of deranged murders traveling in groups so large that fully automatic weapons are needed to contain them?" - I've heard of some; such as the mafia, street gangs, biker gangs, etc. Many of the people who do obtain a federal permit to legally possess a fully automatic weapon are eligible to do so because of the fact that they live in areas with high street gang activity, so that they can put up a fair fight should a time come when they would need to defend themselves from such threats. "Someone pulls a pistol in a school cafeteria and starts blasting away. Another guy sees this and pulls his own pistol. A third guy looks around and notices the two guys blasting away at each other and decides to help the guy he likes the most. Guy four notices his friend being shot at and pulls his pistol. Guys five six and seven decide to fight for justice, sadly they don't know who started the fight so they are shooting everyone with a pistol." A) What sense would it make to anyone with an I.Q. of over 25 to go into a cafeteria intending on killing someone when they know many or all of the people in there were or could be packing a firearm? B) Historically, similar situations have occurred on numerous occasions. Think about the exact same scenario playing out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries if a person walked into a bar full of people carrying a gun intending to kill many or all of the people in there. Do you think they'd all panicked and kill each other? - If you need more refutation of full gun control, research the Nazi's during WWII. Also, Do you really need a link to illustrate the fact that prohibition doesn't work because it's impossible to completely police due to the fact that any of the above can be easily obtained on the black market?

more gun control should occur Pro stated: why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. Rebuttal: The current administration's catch phrase (“meaningful legislation”) is simply a generic “pathos” (emotional) appeal, which exploits voters who are instinctively reactionary, rather than rationally critical.To counter this pathos appeal, I will utilize a “logos” approach. After all, an emotional argument is best countered by a rational argument. Premise 1: Meaningful legislation already exists. Article 18 , section 922 of the Federal Firearms law prohibits Felons, Drug users, non-citizens, subjects under court restraint, persons with assault convictions, fugitives, dishonorably discharged service-members and minors (article VII) from owning or coming into possession of a firearm. [2] This is a blanketed federal law, applicable to all states. In addition to Federal guidelines, each state has supplemental gun laws. Connecticut (Sandy Hook) has a law in place to prevent mentally ill persons from acquiring a firearm. Connecticut State Law 53a, article 217c prohibits a classified mental patient in custody of a state appointed guardian to purchase a weapon. [3] Adam Lanza actually attempted to buy a gun, and the laws in place prevented him from obtaining it. Current gun laws work if they are enforced. Sandy Hook cannot be blamed on an absence of gun regulation. It must be blamed on the presence of malicious, criminal intent. The law already prohibited his actions. In fact, Adam Lanza broke at least eight gun-laws before he even entered the school. --------------------- Pro establish: background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \are without checks, through gun auctions etc. Rebuttal: Background checks are already in place. The Brady Handgun violence act prevented 190 million weapon sales between 1994 and 2009. [4] That's approximately 12.6 million gun sales annually. By any measure, a hugely successful law. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the US, being one of only seven states that require background check in all gun sales, including private, gun-show and auction sales. Clearly, an Executive mandate to make this common place would have little effect on gun violence, because the Sandy Hook shooting occurred despite the rigid Connecticut gun law. Premise 2: Background checks are already sufficient. According to the National Institute of Justice, only 2% of gun related deaths occur from weapons purchased at gun-shows.The source does not list how many of those guns where stolen from the owner or if the gun related death was criminal (or self-defense). [5] Why is my opponent so focused on the 2%, while the 98% run a muck? --------------------- Pro said: there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. Rebuttal: Straw man argument. Current gun laws are already removing weapons from the wrong hands, while guaranteeing the 2nd amendment to law abiding citizens. As stated above, current background checks prevent 12.6 million illegal gun sales annually. --------------------- Pro stated: -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. Rebuttal: Certified Mental illness already prevents gun ownership. The problem is diagnosis. Most psychotics aren't diagnosed until they have psychotic breaks. Not one incident (as far as I have found) lists a shooter who was a ward of the state due to mental illness. At some point we need to stop blaming gun laws and start looking at the people who know the killer. More often than not, there are warning signs, if not flagrant threats. Premise 3: The citizen has a duty to report suspicious behavior. Yet more often than not, suspicious behavior is ignored, rather than confronted. Seung-Hui Cho was in psychiatric care for good reason, but a failure to diagnose resulted his release from state custody to an “outpatient” treatment, which allowed him to purchase weapons. Had the mental health professionals taken his condition more seriously, the shooting would have been prevented. In fact, had the two women, whom he stalked, pressed charges against him, the shooting would have been prevented. Had the classmates reported his threatening social-media profile to the school, in which he posed with loaded weapons, the shooting could have been prevented. I challenge my opponent to explain how the Virginia tech massacre was a failure of gun laws, rather than a failure of the people around him to recognize his capacity for violence. --------------------- Pro established -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... Rebuttal: Most people don't know what an assault weapon is. Premise 4 The American population is mostly composed of low-information voters.70% of people questioned in a poll believe an assault weapon is a gun that keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down. [6] --------------------- Pro stated -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. Rebuttal: There is something to be said about banning all guns. “Terrible idea”. How safe should we feel with criminals knowing that we are not armed? Consider this single mother who saved her own life, and the life of her infant, by shooting the intruder. [6] --------------------- Pro established - japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths. Rebuttal: Japan's homicide rate is a cultural phenomenon. Consider the quote: “Japan’s crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.” [8] --------------------- Pro remarked - in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. Rebuttal: Correct. Most gun crimes are crimes of opportunity. Very few criminals fight fair. They us the gun to gain an advantage over the victim. There is only one cure for this: Arm the victim with a gun. If you remove the ability of the victim to arm themselves, you've removed the ability of the victim to protect themselves from criminals who use any means of opportunity to prey on their target. To correct you premise:” In fact, most gun situations involve victims that didn't have a gun to defend themselves with.” --------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.justice.gov... [2] http://www.ncsl.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.cato.org... [5] http://www.debatepolitics.com... [6] http://abcnews.go.com... [7] http://frontpagemag.com... [8]

Gun Control Okay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people." The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny." Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence." Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round.

Gun Control Leads To More Crimes -This post is based on laws in the USA- Gun Control Laws are designed to prevent incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech from occurring. If an individual is so mentally unstable that they desire to shoot random classmates, it is not feasible to believe that a gun control law will stop them. If an individual truly wants to harm others, then they will try to do so regardless of laws or regulations. This greatly prevents the laws from serving their purpose (to prevent gun crime). If anything, gun control laws will increase crime. A saying often muttered in the Southern United States is, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This statement is often ignored but it is true. Criminals rarely go through the legal channels to obtain their firearm so it is easy to conclude that criminals will barely be affected by gun control laws. The average citizen will be the one affected. The only real accomplishment gun control laws will have is hindering law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right [[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html]] If citizens are heavily hindered from getting guns they will have a harder time protecting themselves. I believe that citizens should rely on law enforcement, but on average Seattle's emergency crews took 8 minutes 46 seconds to respond (by respond, I mean arrive and begin helping victims), Oklahoma City 7 minutes 36 seconds, Tulsa 8 minutes 48 seconds, Columbus, Ohio, 7 minutes 49 seconds, Charlotte 6 minutes 56 seconds, and Fresno took 22 minutes 11 seconds [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm]] . If you have no protection, what could happen to you in that time? In conclusion, I believe that gun control activists mean well but, in the end, these laws will cause more trouble than they're worth. If someone is determined to commit a crime using a gun, a law will not stop them. If they break one law (murder, robbery, etc.), they will not mind breaking another (gun control law).

Gun laws need to be more strict rather than banning them Hello, THE_OPINIONATOR, and thanks for challenging me to this debate. I'd first like to thank my opponent and assure him that I believe myself to be an honorable person, and will not vote or try to otherwise influence the outcome of this debate by asking others to. If I win, it will be because of my arguments and not because I cheated. First of all, I'd like to start off with a simple statement: Guns should be banned. Why? This is what I will be explaining in my first speech. I. Guns kill people. How else would people be committing crimes and such? With guns, not only can people kill others, it makes it less dangerous for them [it's not as likely they will get caught, since these are ranged weapons and they can shoot from a distance] to shoot people. Therefore, having a gun has two major outcomes; A) allows people to kill people, and B) indirectly encourages people to kill others, in that it is both easier and safer. II. The Proposition is likely to state that guns are people's protection; without guns, they would not be able to protect themselves from the people that do have guns. Guess what? If people didn't have guns in the first place, they wouldn't be attacking those people, and so those people would not need protection! III. More gun access means more deaths. I quote [awesomelibrary.org/guncontrol]: "The Brady Center argues that when the civilian population has more access to guns, more teens and children die from gun wounds. For example, during a year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children died from gun wounds." What does this tell us? The more people have guns, the more crimes are committed, the more people are killed. If we abolish the law that allows people to have guns, then the amount of deaths should GREATLY decrease. IV. The Proposition may state that this a matter of public safety. Yes, it is a matter of public safety, BECAUSE of guns. Despite the fact that there will still be crimes and murder with or without guns, guns are responsible for the majority of these incidents. V. I'd also like to point out that we are banning guns from normal citizens. That does not mean we should ban them all together. Police and other security officers [the likes] may still be in possession of a gun. This also means that public safety will be less of an issue, since the culprits will not have guns and the officials will. VI. The Constitution says in its second amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution clearly indicates guns are allowed to protect citizens. But now, times are changing, and the circumstances are different. Banning guns will help the safety of citizens even more. We need to make a constitutional amendment. I'd also like to ask my opponent to explain how he intends the gun laws to be more strict. Understand, people, that others like you are DYING out there. We cannot allow such an amount of mass deaths to happen. We have ignored it so far, and now we must face the truth; guns are bad. This requires a constitutional amendment. We need to ban guns. Thank you, all of you, once again, and please vote for the Opposition.

Gun Control For too long people have to die in order for politicians to see what they have to do. There has to be stricter gun laws in the United States

Gun Control I want to start off by saying that all these shootings are a tragedy for those losing loved ones,friends, co workers, and neighbors. My argument against Gun Control will give you an understanding why we can't have it. I. The second Amendment gives citizens the right to own a firearm The constitution reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " More laws will infringe that right. II. Gun control causes more Gun deaths In the last 30 years the Assault weapons ban has not effect much in towards of gun deaths. States and cities with strict gun control had more deaths let me get an example Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and in the past 22 months there have been 1,310 people killed by gun violence.

Gun Control I should start this debate by saying that the Gun Control policies most people are advocating for are specifically to stop mentally disturbed people and violent criminals from obtaining weaponry. We are imposing limits on who can obtain weaponry. These types of gun laws will not pose much of a difficult for law abiding stable citizens. Few people care if these people have guns as well. "Gun Control" and "Gun Elimination" are not synonymous. I am Pro-Gun. To have a platform that says no gun control should exist and to simultaneously say that mentally disturbed individuals are the problem is to hold contradictory beliefs. Here are arguments for gun control, Again, Not gun bans or gun elimination. 1. Reason for Regulation If for no other reason, Guns should be regulated to prevent people with demonstrated mental instability, Violent crime records, Et cetera. These people have proven themselves dangerous, And at risk of being school shooters/et cetera. Many of the people who commit mass shootings would have been prevented with stronger or improved background check measures alone. (1) The majority on this list would've been prevented from getting a gun from background checks alone. Others get their guns from their parents. Gun safe requirements for households with children is an easy common sense requirement. 24+ hour waiting periods prior to the acquisition of one's first gun (not guns after the first) will prevent some crimes of passion or suicides, While constituting only a small burden on law abiding citizens. None of these requirements prevent law abiding citizens from acquiring weaponry. This is what we call 'common sense' gun control. Closing off the gun show, Or private sale, Loopholes, Is also common sense. If we can show many cases where mass shooters would've been stopped from acquiring weaponry with stronger background checks, One can easily see why private sellers should be required to background check prior to weapon purchase as well. You cannot simultaneously hold the position that mass shooters are mentally disturbed individuals and say we should not regulate guns. To say we shouldn't regulate guns is saying we should be OK with the mentally disturbed and violent criminals getting easy access to weaponry. To say that 'they can get their weapons even if its illegal' is a moot point. People can get drugs even if they're illegal. Should we not have laws against any drug? People will abort their children even if it illegal. Should it not be regulated? This is an argument you use for nothing else. Why do you use it here? The argument is that legal acquisition of things makes them easier to acquire, And some people will either not be able to afford the higher cost of obtaining weapons illegally, Or will give up prior to this. No one want to take a knife to a gun fight. The argument that 'they will switch to knives' is also asinine when it comes to regulation, Not bans. 2. Efficiency of Gun Regulation Whatever freedoms we have as individuals will come at a societal cost. There will be lives lost due to guns if we allow them to be legal. This is simply the price we pay. However, With moderate controls you can limit this negative cost while allowing law abiding citizens the right to their arms. A law in Connecticut in 1995 required a license as well as a background check prior to purchase of firearms. This required 8 hours of safety training to acquire said license as well as the passing of said background check. The check was conducted by local law enforcement, Not the sellers of the weaponry. The result was a 40% drop in firearm related crime. The repeal of a similar law in Missouri was met with a 25% increase in firearm related homicides. 3. Dangerous Ammunition We require licenses for people to drive vehicles. If you believe this is a good idea, But licensing guns is not then you have a serious problem on your hands. You can only kill so many people with a car, And you'll largely be taking yourself out at the same time. Guns are relatively cheap and efficient at killing. Even relatively untrained individuals can kill dozens of people before they are stopped. To require licenses for driving but not for owning weaponry and understanding its maintenance and safety (probably saving the person money in the end on both these fronts) is to hold contradictory positions based on little more than a literalist interpretation of the constitution. Dangerous ammunition such as Dragon's Breath (3) should certainly be regulated. If we're regulating RPGs there's no reason not to regulate these. They present serious fire hazards particularly in drought zones. Ensuring people understand the danger behind this kind of ammunition should be mandatory for public safety. To conclude, The position that weaponry and ammunition should not be regulated at all is untenable. You have to believe that mentally unstable and violent criminals should be allowed easy access to weaponry. That we should watch children have easy access to weaponry and punish the parents not at all. That we shouldn't even make an attempt to prevent mass shootings by said unstable individuals when the background checks that can prevent many are barely a minor burden on law abiding citizens. Waiting periods for one's first gun, Licensing requirements for one's first gun, Etc are hurdles that are undeniably beneficial. Law abiding citizens will not have problems getting weaponry even with GUN CONTROL measures in place. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban In the light of increased gun crime and mass shootings, Many a reasonable human has called for some sort of change to happen with our firearm laws. Although scholars seem to agree that it is the time for change, Some ideologues still stand firmly behind the current legislation? Why? Do they have the facts on their side? In this debate with Our_Boat_is_Right, Who I admire for his strong ability to debate and dedication to the craft, I will be setting out to prove that the answer is a firm "no. " --Concealed Carry Laws-- The National Research Council has found that "shall issue laws" (laws that require authorities to issue concealed carry permits) increase crime rates by 3 - 5 % [1]. Another study by Stanford Professor John Donahue also found that conceal carry laws increase crime [2]. There's very little to no studies that anyone can cite that say that concealed carry laws decrease crime. So, I ask Pro, Why does he support concealed carry? --Gun Laws-- My argument for gun laws is short, Simple and to the point: Places that have more gun laws have less gun crime than places that have less gun laws. We find that countries with more gun laws have less crime, [4] and although it is true that it is impossible to prove that less gun laws are cause of this, We can find that the states in the U. S. With less gun laws pretty consistiently correlate with the states that have the most gun crimes. [5] -- Assault Weapons -- Automatic and semiautomatic weapons do not save lives, They kill people. There is no reason to keep assault weapons. There is no evidence that they deter crime any more than your average gun. Will someone who may already be mentally unstable or desperate enough to rob a house draw the line at seeing not a regular gun but an assault weapon? There is no evidence that they do anything better than your average gun, Except kill large amounts of people. This is why they are the weapon of choice for mass-shooters. [3] --Unconstitutional? " Finally, Some radical defenders of guns posit that gun restrictions, Bans, And the like are wrong simply because they violate the fundamental lawbook of our American society: the Constitution. But is this true? Are gun control advocates really violating the constitution? My answer is no, And this is what will be addressed in this contention. Here is the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, Being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. " According to The Supreme Court, Gun law regulation to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is perfectly constitutional, Which is all the handgun control I advocate for. [6] The Supreme Court also dictated that banning sawed-off shotguns also doesn"t violate the Constitution because they saw no way that a sawed-off shotgun could be used lawfully. [6] These similar restrictions would also apply to an automatic and semiautomatic weapon because these rifles were also made for the use of military combat, To kill as many people as possible. So, It is true that it is legal to ban certain guns. [6] Finally, Whether the Constitution prohibits regulation or banning of concealed carry laws is still up in the air. Of course, This could all be seen as an appeal to authority. So here are some of my individual arguments: It is fairly obvious that the Constitution would not want mentally insane people or criminals possessing guns. So gun control is pretty reasonable. It is also ridiculous to say that the Constitution would be against allowing assault rifles, Because they are guns that could be used for self defense. By that logic, Could someone have a turret gun on the top of their house, Because they could use that to protect themselves? Could someone have a bazooka gun, Because it could be used to protect themselves? How deep does this rabbit hole go? ! Finally, The Constitution says you can have guns. It doesn"t say anyone can have guns. It doesn"t say you can have any gun you want. It most certainly doesn"t say you can own guns anywhere? On top of all of this, Bringing up the Constitution, A document written hundreds of years ago to dictate a government that had just escaped tyranny and was radically different from our own in modern times, Is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Just because it"s an important law doesn"t mean it"s subject to scrutiny. In conclusion, I have proved that concealed carry laws increase crime and thus should be disallowed, Assault weapons increase crime thus should be disallowed, And I have proved that gun regulations decrease gun crime and thus should be implemented, And I have done it all within the framework of the Constitution. Sources in comments

Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime Alright, well I appreciate my opponent's acceptance, and I look forward to a stirring debate. As the policy I've suggested has three related but distinct pieces, I'm going to start off by providing reasons why gun control measures such as these are good on the whole, and then I'm going to get into each of them specifically and provide argumentation for why they are effective. I'll start by quoting some statistics. From the date of the Newtown shooting at the end of 2012 to the end of 2013, 12,042 people have been killed by guns.[1] These are caused by a combination of accidental shootings and violent crime, though the reality is that 60% of gun deaths occur due to suicide. I'll get into each of these issues separately. Accidental shootings From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Guns in the home are correlated with higher risk, as the likelihood of being involved in an accidental shooting, homicide, or suicide attempts increases by 22 times due to their presence. These are far more common than their usage in self-defense as well. States with more guns, on average, are 9 times as likely to die due to accidental shootings.[2] As my case reduces levels of gun ownership, this would be linearly improved, Suicide Essentially, guns make suicide too easy. They're far more likely to occur in the homes of gun owners, especially among adolescents. People who committed suicide in a given year were found to be 17 times as likely to have lived in homes with guns than people who did not.[3] States that perform background checks and have higher restrictions have lower suicide and homicide deaths.[4] What's more, states with lower gun ownership "had similar rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as similar rates of suicide that did not involve firearms, like hanging and poisoning. But the number of people who died by shooting themselves was almost four times greater in the high-gun states."[3] Even those with experience and training in using a firearm could benefit from additional restrictions.[5] Veterans who commit suicide use a gun 70% of the time.[3] Therefore, increased background checks to remove guns from individuals with psychiatric illnesses could stand to reduce these rates. Homicide This is a bit more involved. I'll start by talking about mass shootings, then move to individual crimes that simply involve the usage of guns. Now, why would this reduce mass shootings? Reducing the availability of legal avenues of acquisition would be likely to reduce incidence. Of the 143 guns possessed by these people, more than " were obtained legally.[6] This is true whether we're talking about workplace or school shootings.[7] If my opponent would like, I can cover specific instances in my next post. These often included assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles, though any gun would have a higher likelihood of being denied to them, especially due to psychiatric evaluation being more often taken into account. Individual criminals that utilize guns as a means to an end will also have less access. They will have far fewer no loopholes through which to acquire their weapons legally, so anyone with a criminal background will often be denied based on background checks. Access to the most dangerous rifles would be made more difficult and more expensive. Most of those who engage in criminal activities are poor.[8] A tax on certain guns makes them less likely to purchase them, since that will make the cost untenable for many. That means reduced access to the most destructive firearms. Alright, with that, I'll move into defending the specific pieces of my case. Why the restrictions on assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles specifically? Well, first we have to understand why a automatic weapons is problematic, since that's the basis for deciding this. Let's take an example. The M4A1 is fully automatic, and can fire 950 rounds per minute. In other words, it dispenses death very quickly. It can kill dozens of people in the span of a few seconds. So why the two I've chosen? The fact that they show up a lot in mass shootings isn't a coincidence. "What makes these weapons so deadly? They are civilian copies of military weapons designed with features that make them more lethal." This includes altered grips to increase the pace of shooting and accuracy, barrel shrouds to be able to fire more without releasing the handle, and a threaded barrel for silencing and suppressing muzzle flash.[9] These have all been used extensively by mass shooters, and are commonly available traits of assault rifles. What's worse, semi-automatic weapons can be converted to automatic weapons with ease, removing restrictions on fire rate per trigger pull.[10] This policy would dramatically reduce new purchases of guns by criminals, who would have to then engage in the more extensive process of background checks. In case anyone needs proof, we only need look at the assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. It reduced gun murders in 1995, the year after it went into effect, by 6.7%.[11] It reduced use of assault weapons in crime by 2/3s.[12] The reason is quite simple actually: "Criminals prefer new guns if they can get them. They get rid of ones that can be traced to a crime and, like anyone who works with a tool, they often prefer the best and latest models. Over time, a ban that dries up the supply of new weapons pushes shooters to more readily available options."[11] The policy's weakness actually was mainly with its loopholes, resultant from a weak definition of what was to be banned. There would be no such problem in my case. Now, why gun registries? Two reasons. One, it will provide a system to locate gun dealers. Tracking guns gets a whole lot simpler, and sourcing them, in particular, is dramatically improved.[13] Two, it creates opportunities for individuals to realize that they have to keep their guns more responsibly, securing them to prevent children from accessing them and thieves from stealing them. Those guns can be traced back to them more easily, so they would be more responsible for the outcome. How about universal background checks? This will help law enforcement spot gun traffickers. It's a method of prevention that will stop some loss of life. Currently, private sales don't require these checks, and thus online and gun show sales are often unregulated in this regard. It is estimated that background checks have prevented almost 2 million criminals and dangerous individuals from buying guns, and as such, this actually has received the support of a large majority of the country.[14] I pass it back over to Con. 1. http://www.slate.com... 2. http://nyagv.org... 3. http://news.discovery.com... 4. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 5. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 6. http://www.motherjones.com... 7. https://www.vpc.org... 8. http://www.nationaldialoguenetwork.org... 9. http://articles.baltimoresun.com... 10. http://www.motherjones.com... 11. http://www.usatoday.com... 12. http://crim.sas.upenn.edu... 13. http://www.minnpost.com... 14. http://www.usnews.com...

Gun control It has to start sometime. If it doesn't the shootings will only get worse and worse. And on top of all that we are basically giving guns to everyone. No background checks what so ever. It doesn't make sense to feed a fire if you want it extinguished so why are we feeding guns into the criminal world. Terrorist. Drug dealers. And mass murderers can all get guns as easy as a man can buy bread. The beginning might be a little bumpy but if no one will enforce laws they will never work. When our founding fathers placed the second amendment they were thinking of the single shot rifles that they used in their day not weapons made specifically for killing groups of people quickly. The Constitution was written to be changed to evolve along with society to be American. Just think fire a minute. Put yourself in the shoes off one of the victims of mass genocide. Seeing a person come in to a place you thought was safe and murder. Bam! Bam! Bam! Killing your friends and possibly you in seconds wouldn't you wish he wasn't able to shoot of that many rounds at a time. It's dangerous. I don't know about you but I don't exactly like it when people get slaughtered like cattle. Gun control is necessary. It needs to be implemented. I know violence can't be stopped but it can be slowed just like the rate of fire of the weapons we give away. Gun control is the gateway to a violence free nation.

Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated. There are two key aspects to this discussion. One is a constitutional outlook and one a statistical outlook. As Americans we are expected to value our constitution. Regardless of whether or not people agree with the second amendment, while it is on the books it needs to be respected. For people who desire to infringe on citizens' right to bear arms, they need to pass an amendment that repeals the second amendment, not passing legislation. Even if people want to utilize the correct method of changing law, they should not want to. People who want to control guns, typically have a lack of understanding of how guns work and what benefit they yield. While guns are used to commit crimes, they are also used to stop them. With the use of guns, a 100 lb female would be able to defend her house and family from a 200 lb male, something that would not so easily be done with any other type of self defense, regardless of the amount of training. Guns level the playing field giving Americans equality that is clamored for in so many other aspects of life. The net number of lives saved by guns is higher than the net number of lives lost by guns. On top of this, there is no reliable data that shows increasing gun control will reduce the amount of gun related homicides. Since there is a benefit to be had from people legally owning guns, and there is no proof that passing laws will lead to a decrease in gun violence, we should stay away from legislating guns out of the hands of people that can use them to protect themselves.