Gun Control Advocates are Severely Misguided
I've done some fairly extensive research into the effects of gun control, the main arguments put forth by both parties, and the main focuses both sides have in this debate. I have come to conclude that proponents of gun control are severely misguided.
I am not arguing that pro-gun advocates aren't misguided, but rather the gun-control side has practically no legitimate arguments for their position and the overwhelming majority of them refuse to properly consider the previous effects and the potential effects of their proposals.
Misguided: Based or acting on error; misled (please note I am not saying they are stupid or idiotic, simply misguided)
Please be Respectful
Must Cite Sources for any Statistics Used
Virtually all gun control proponents have an improper fixation on preventing gun violence, and nearly all of their proposals will or are already generating more harm than good. The more extreme proponents possess a media-corrupted view of gun owners being dangerous, evil, or uncaring individuals. They "demand a plan" because they are emotionally responding to a tragedy rather than considering the true ramifications of their ideas. They desperately need something or someone (like the NRA) to be angry at, to take out their fears and emotions on. Inevitably they fail to realize that gun control isn't much of a solution, they're "feel good measures." In the words of Colion Noir, gun control is "a band aid on a bullet hole."
I would like to note that I am devils advocating this debate, but think that my opponent’s arguments are false views anyway.
1. Angry, do-gooder, media corrupted scum?
My opponent provides a lot of assertions about people who support gun control. He has never proven that they are misled. He merely claims that the common sense view is wrong, with no proof whatsoever. Merely assertions.
2. Data for gun control
There is significant peer-reviewed data supporting more controls on guns. The Brady law has been demonstrated to actually reduce firearm fatalities. The Brady Law requires background checks on people who obtain guns. One study indicates, “Performing local-level background checks was associated with a 27%-lower firearm suicide rate and a 22%-lower homicide rate”. People storing firearms improperly in the home is a significant risk factor for accidental injury and suicide. Studies repeatedly have shown that suicides occur more often when guns are not locked up . States which have implemented safe storage laws have had faster decreases in crime then those who haven’t .
Overall research concludes, “States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death” .
Since my opponent provided a small case, spamming references and data is not necessary (yet).
2. Brent D A, Perper J A, Allman C J. et al “The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a caseR08;control study” JAMA 1991.
Thank you 16kadams for accepting this debate, and special thanks for playing devils advocate.
Demonizing Pro-Gun Advocates
Obviously I cannot claim that all Gun Control Advocates hold the same beliefs, nonetheless my experience in debating with them as well as the ones I've seen in the news tend to be misguided.
For an example of the demonizing of gun owners by several prominent gun control advocates, please watch the above youtube videos. I have also witnessed this on gun-control facebook pages, where the blame for tragedies such as Newtown are often placed on the NRA.
In "Dershowitz: NRA Are Buying Their Facts - Piers Morgan Tonight" please watch the whole thing or skip to 2:10 where he talks about how gun owners don't care about the lives of our children.
In "Heated Debate - "You're An Unbelievably STUPID Man Aren't You!" Piers Mo..." Please watch the whole thing or skip to 6:30 where Piers Morgan claims that Larry Pratt doesn't care about children.
The "Common Sense" fallacy
Next, my opponent as well as nearly all gun control proponents love to use the term "common sense" to promote gun control legislation. This is one very common and massive fallacy on their part. The gun control debate is heavily embedded in statistics. I am currently going to school for statistics, and if you talk to ANY professional statistician, they will tell you that you cannot rely on "common sense" or "gut feeling" when interpreting data. The idea that gun control is "common sense" is blatantly false. Determining the positive or negative effects of gun control measure is EXTREMELY difficult and complex, and drawing immediate conclusions without critical review is almost always counterproductive.
An example of this "common sense" fallacy is comparing the murder and crime rates of the United States against other developed countries such as Britain and Australia. At first glance, Britain, Australia, Germany, Japan and other practically gun free nations have far lower murder rates and the immediate conclusion is that guns in America are what causes us to be so violent. Drawing causation from correlation is a difficult and tedious, and this conclusion is made far too quickly. Before simply conlcuding that guns increased the murder rate in America, we must consider other well-known variables that contribute to violence in a country, such as black-market drug trades and higher wealth inequalities.
For example, according to the United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime, the central United States consumes more cocaine than all of Europe, and the wealth inequality in America is about twice that of most developed European Countries. To simply assume correlation without factoring in additional variables is misleading and ignorant.
http://www.unodc.org... (displays murders and murder rates between countries)
http://www.dailyfinance.com... (Displays wealth inequalities across the globe).
http://www.unodc.org... (displays drug trafficking by route and approximate quantity).
Gun Violence Fallacy
Next, the improper fixation gun-control proponents have on preventing gun violence. My opponent has proposed several sources displaying how more guns leads to more gun violence and death. I should note that both the Atlantic as well as the Violence Policy Center (ESPECIALLY vpc.org) are extremely anti-gun, and therefore caution should be used before claiming the studies they propose have merit. But more importantly, even if their studies are accurate I believe they should be immediately dismissed because they focus only on gun violence and not net violence.
Please pay extra attention to the upcoming arguments, because they are absolutely critical to my position.
Our ultimate goals should be to reduce as much suffering in the world as we possibly can. This includes reducing the TOTAL people killed, total rapes, total assaults, total robberies, total suicides, and total accidents. This means if we have to promote gun violence to reduce overall violence, I argue we should promote gun violence. Whether this is the case or not is actually quite controversial.
When addressing the effectiveness of gun control measures, it is quite literally cherry picking to only pay attention to gun related violence. Reducing gun violence does not immediately gaurantee that we reduced the net violence. Americans very commonly use guns for self-defense, and we must factor in criminal substitution for other methods of violence. Therefore in order to prove that any given gun control measure had any positive effects on reducing violence, gun-control advocates must show a statistically significant decrease in accidental death rates, suicide rates, and violent crime rates after factoring in additional variables that may have affected each statistic.
Granted very few people bother to read the statistical analysis of this topic, nor are they likely to understand them, however the universal focus on reducing gun violence could be and has been counterproductive to reducing the net suffering. This is why the National Academy of Sciences mainly concluded that most gun control proposals (as well as right to carry laws) have had little to no effects positive effects on crime and suicide rates.
I haven't read the entire above source, however they have ultimately concluded that the Assault Weapons Ban, Background Checks, Gun Buybacks, and even child protection programs have had virtually no effect on reducing violence or suicide rates. They also have some information regarding right to carry laws if anyone is interested.
This is not necessarily "misleading" or being misled. Indeed, ad hominem is merely an informal fallacy--in this case more of an irrelevance . For example, if I said I support abortion, and those who oppose it are hateful bigots against women. I may be mislead about the other person and their attitudes against women, but I may still be considered correct on the overall issue. Even if I used that argument in a debate, I may or may not be misled. I would merely be insulting the participant in the discourse.
Indeed, if we watch Piers Morgan (a poor example of a gun contol advocate) insult that man, he may or may not be misled. He may mislead his viewers, that gun owners are all scum of the earth, but he himself may not be misled. His viewers themselves, even if they come to hate gun owners, may not be misled. To hold a predjudice view =/= misled.
Many gun control advocates, the vast majority of them academics, are likely no misled or misleading. If anything, literature in Australia themselves may be misleading. Research by David Hemmingway, a leading gun control expert, has noted that pro-gun studies which find gun control having "no effect" are actually designed on purpose to get these results, either inadvertently or intentionally .
Merely attacking someone does not indicate being misleading, and the research on gun crime (which supports control) is not misleading. This argument is fairly weak, and those who support control actually have a solid empirical basis to support their views.
My opponent and I actually reach agreement here. Gun-control is a hard thing to study. But to say that basic controls are not common sense, well, is not common sense! Regardless, whether or not these "common sense" laws work is pretty easy to demonstrate when the right abount of data is taken. For example, Gary Kleck, who does not oppose bannign guns supports measures to restrict them to the general public. Guns in the hands of right people, he says, do good. Guns in the hands of bad people do bad. This is something hard to measure. However, he has claimed based on a literature review that a universal backround check system would reduce the gun supply to criminals and reduce crime rates .
My opponent creates a red herring. As PRO, he has the BOP. But he seems to be making a very defensive argument, and is refuting something I have not used. I have not compared country to country without studies that control for various non-firearm effects. I have not even compared the US crime to foreign countries in this debate! Regardless, this is a valid point. But this doesn't mean that the argument is misleading. Studies which compare countries and compare for certian variables can obtain valid results. The academic literature I have cited, although having cross-sectional analysis (which is to what my opponent is refering) as the methodology, they include controls which make the study a correlational study. This helps find a cause-and effect, which can confidently give us a clue as to what causes some of the differences. In the literature, guns arises almost universally.
Gun violence fallacy
Oddly enough this is not in logic textbooks, you better get them to change that...
Anyway, instead of arguing with the data, my opponent argues with the source. Now that is a real fallacy: the genetic fallacy. If you only argue with the source of the data, but have no conflicting results, it is essentially a concession. His only response is that the data focus on un deaths. However, my data on suicides focused on total suicies. To expand on the previous results, Daniel Webster et al. 2009 reports that total deaths increase as the amount of gun shows increase . Expanding the dataset does not prove his case.
2. The funny thing is that you haven't offered any data yet. Just criticisms of specific gun control advocates, generalizations about them youself--based on that logic you are misled--and tell us to read links...
3. I have read hundreds of study on the issue. Technically there is a lot more anti-gun studies out there. Guns are a risk factor in deaths. Even though overal deaths are important--there may be substitution effects--the effect of the firearm drops generally outweighs the substitution effects (which, to a degree, exist).
4. You should read their conceal carry section. 14/15 of the reviewers felt that John Lott, and others, were wrong. That conceal carry has no effect on crime. However since them recent studies show that CCW increases crime. (ADZ 2012a, 2012b).
My opponents affirmative position gives him the burden of proof. He has given not proof that gun controlers are misled. His statements under common sense and additional arguments are the only ones that should get weight. Being insulting does not mean acting on error! One flaw does not undermine an idea--usually. Ad hominem, although is indicative about that person does not describe a sub set of people. I am willing to bet the vast majority of academics on this issue who support gun control are not misleading themselves or the public. My opponent has not refuted my analysis. The resolution stands negated.
3. Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control, 1997.
Firstly, recall that we are arguing that gun control advocates are misguided, and this is indirectly related to their views on the statistics of gun violence. We are not necessarily arguing over the statistics unless gun control advocates believe in a false or misleading conclusion.
Just to clarify, the definition of misguided was: Based or acting on error; misled
Demonization of Gun Owners
Many gun control advocates demonize gun owners as uncaring that so many people are (supposedly) dying because we have access to firearms. This is seen from the views expressed by Piers Morgan, Alan Derschowitz, and if you simply visit the facebook pages for the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, stop gun violence, the coalition to stop gun violence, and so on. This is completely false, millions of gun owners have children and care about their well-being, they simply believe that firearms (which are properly stored and handled) don't endanger their children and the lack of an armed person does. Whether or not this view is correct is debatable, but nonetheless the assumption that gun owners and the NRA doesn't care about children is acting on an erroneous view of gun owners, which by the definition is misguided. Perhaps not all gun control advocates are misguided in this regard, but even so some of them are.
Hemenway and Australia
Next, your source for David Hemmenway's comment did not yield any results, otherwise much of his work has been criticized by pro-gun experts as being biased as well. Australia is also a difficult case because the total homicide rate and firearms homicide rate were decreasing before and continued to decrease after the 1996 firearms act, and the gun ban does not appear to have accelerated the decrease in their murder rates. Hemenway could be arguing that the inevitable increase didn't happen because gun were banned, and others have argued that no substitution of firearms took effect, but if the total homicides and suicides were already decreasing then it would be hard to determine a rate of substitution.
In any case, referencing Australia should be done with extreme care and it is a very, very controversial issue. But what is clear is the fact that, given that the government had to spend 500 million in order to receive questionable benefits, their gun buyback wasn't cost effective. Additionally, gun ownership in Australia was much lower than it is in the US, and therefore it is likely that far fewer people used guns for self-defense.
http://www.smh.com.au... (see "Statistics and Gun Laws")
Common Sense Rebuttal
To bring "common sense" into the gun control debate is extremely counterproductive. You say background checks are common sense, and even how pro-gun expert Gary Kleck supports them. Theoretically they could be beneficial, but the problem with background checks is that just because a criminal doesn't have a gun doesn't mean they won't commit a crime, even if the criminal can't get a gun as a result. Next, we have to consider that the current background check system may actually be counterproductive.
Background Check Flaws
It is well known that there are literally millions of gun circulating in the United States. In 2010, 2.1 million applicants were denied access to a firearm because they failed the background check, around 66% of which were due to previous felonies or fugitives of justice. Given the volume of available firearms in the streets and the inability to track straw purchases, these criminals would've only been inconvenienced, but it would not prevent them from getting a gun. How many of the 33% of law abiding citizens desperately needed a gun for self-defense and were denied? Essentially, no criminals were prevented from committing violence or purchasing a gun while some good citizens may have suffered.
Country Cross-Sectional Analysis
Also, I brought up the firearm death rates and homicide rate differences by countries simply as an example as to how gun control advocates are misguided. They often assume that the vast difference in the homicide rates must be due to guns without considering other variables. Even if guns contribute to the total violence in America, given the wealth of other problems America has it is not going to be nearly as significant as they would like. Rather, the summation of my research suggests that guns can amplify or deter violence, but since these are going on simultaneously they tend to even each other out.
Gun Violence Fallacy
My point of the gun violence fallacy was to show that the assumption that studies that focus solely on reducing gun violence or gun suicides are inherently flawed. Even if the substitution rate for using guns for other means is small, it MUST be statistically shown in the reduction of the TOTAL deaths. And given that millions of Americans use guns for self-defense, and some cases will be such that they would have died or seriously injured had they not had a gun, it becomes even more erroneous to assume less gun deaths means less deaths overall. In other words, if some gun control measure has or will save lives, it must be shown in the reduction in total deaths.
Also, I read parts of the gun show loophole study, and nowhere could a section where it focused on total murders or total suicides, thus far ALL of the sources you've provided have focused solely on gun violence. None of them have shown that they found a statistically significant decrease in total homicides or total suicides, and therefore I argue they should be discredited because they fail to account for substitution and effects on self-defensive gun use.
I too have read quite a few articles on this issue, do not assume I'm uninformed. The fact that you have, thus far, only given sources explaining the effects gun control has on gun violence suggests, and the fact that you are referencing the disproven Kellerman study which concluded that guns are a risk factor for homicide, suggests you haven't studied very many professional, academic studies on this subject.
One of the most disproven gun-control studies is the Kellerman study dictating the risk factor of guns in the home. How could you honestly bring that up if you've studied this issue as extensively as you say?
http://guncite.com... (the critique of the Kellerman Study)
I also mentioned the conceal carry section because it was an interesting read. The academic community overwhelmingly agrees that shall-issue laws have been neither beneficial nor detrimental to the net violent crimes, however virtually all mass killings have occurred within areas where guns are banned.
To reiterate, I am arguing that gun control advocates are misguided, or that they have erroneous beliefs or are acting in error. The fact that nearly all of them focus exclusively on reducing gun deaths at all costs is acting in error, or that they are misguided. Additionally, I argue that practically all proposed American Gun Control Measures, with the exception of requiring a firearms safety test before buying a gun, will be or have been counterproductive or ineffective in reducing total violence.
Lastly, you do not need to read my links. However if you do not you have to assume what I'm saying is true
I agree with my opponents definition. Unless he demonstrates that their ideology is false, he loses the debate. He has the burden of proof to show that any gun control is acting on error, or based on misleading statistics. He has not done this, as I will explain.
Again, my opponent picks on a few agencies and news casters to claim that those who support gun control are demonizing others. It's like saying people born in Germany during Hitler's reign are misled because they are recists, when the fact is that most of them aren't. Instead of focusing on their views, that gun-control would save lives, he focuses on the fact that they dislike the NRA and that a few of them are crazy. Well, Ted Nugent is kinda crazy, too, but I am not going to cite him because I acknowledge the fact that he is not the whole gun-supported lobby. The Brady Campaign, although calling the NRA a criminals best friend, does not ever say that the NRA loves criminals. Rather, that their statements are hypocritical and that their opposition to new gun laws, and old gun laws, have led to more crime. Further, to say that the NRA uses politicians to their political gain (as many groups do) does not say that gun owners are heartless .
My opponent basically misrepresents gun control ideology. These people have a good outlook on life, and want to reduce gun violence. They have genuine concerns and they should be addressed. However, if they say that the NRA misrepresents their own position and increases the crime rate that is not saying that they are abusive. Its like me saying that I think the NAS is wrong on global warming and ignores pertinent data (which I do), but I am not considered as demonizing all of those who support man made climate change.
My opponent does not name any criticisms, merely states that they exist. However, I could flip the coin and say anti-gun scholars have vicerated Kleck's and Lott's pro-gun arguments. Really, unless you can name specific objections, this is just an assertion.
Was crime decreasing before the law? Now according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Actually, in the 1990s, homocide fluctuated on a year to year basis in large swings due to natural crime cycles. But the swing trended upward. In 1996, when gun control was passed, and in 1997, when it was fully enforced, crime fell. Natural cycle rose the crime, not surprising, then crime fell from 2000 onwards . Here is where pro gun misleading statistics come in: from 1990 - present, yes, crime fell. However, from 1990 - 1995, a period before the banm crime rose. From 1996 - 1997 it decreased, rose, then fell for the next decade. Pro gun experts draw the downward line and say "well, crime fell before, so we're right". But a simple look into the actual statistics disproves that assumption.
My opponent then argues that Australian gun ownership was low before the law. Unless he cites this specific staistic, it is merely taking my opponents word.
3. Common sense
Kleck notes that guns in the hands of criminals increase crime, and that a proper backround check system would reduce crime. Although I could say the prevalence of an Iphone or androids increases cellular usage, my opponent says that they will substitute guns just like a teenager would substitute a smart phone. This is obviously absurd. A teenager with the old Razors used their phone for much less. Why? It was less effective. Guns in the hands of criminals are very effective. Even if we assume guns have no net-effect on crime, research shows that guns in the hands of criminals significantly increase homicide. So, if gun control reduces criminal possesion, gun control would reduce crime. Kleck notes, "research... on state licensing and purchase limit laws, which all include backround checks as their centeral element, indicates that these laws may reduce rates of homocide and perhaps suicide"  (pg. 376).
The Brady Law was insufficient. The main reason being it only applied to liscensed dealers, whereas 40% of gun owners go throuh unlicensed ones--unlicensed =/= illegal, to clarify. However, the statistics my opponent uses are skewed. Research has shown that a large, though unknown, number of criminals did not attempt to purchase a weapon because it was illegal (i.e. more cost to the criminal) . Further, my opponent cites a study showing that 2.1 million people were barred from getting guns. Great! He has not shown that all of those on that list were innocent, though many of them probably were. However, I doubt most of those on the list would have been not-harmed had they had a gun. The vast majority of those innocent on the list would want the gun for other purposes. And even those who wanted defense, they probably would not have died. Say I want an antibiotic for an infection. And we have a 3 day waiting period. The vast majority of those on the list would not die, because its not urgent. My opponents argument is entirely hypothetical; at least my "detered from buying a gun" argument has some empirical standing, and that the number is significant. My opponent only used an assertion. And even if they all lived in a bad neighborhood, a wait wont kill them. It's a pretty huge assumption to make that a large number of people were killed due to the brady law.
5. Cross sectional
LOL at my opponent saying "well, some of them use the argument, so they are misguided". Most pro-gun people say that they need a gun to defend themselves from the goverment, when Europe is doing just fine with heavy control. They are wrong and misguided, but to say that the whole ideology is wrong based on one argument is just dumb, they have many other reasons to believe what they believe. My argument, and most statisticians argument, does not rely on cross-sectional analysis. Saying one argument is wrong =/= that they are wrong. Unless my opponent gives proof that they are wrong, overall, he loses. He has targeted, cherry picked even, specific arguments. However, he has yet to show that their whole ideology is false.
6. Violence fallacy
My opponent loses here. If the substitution effect is small, which he has not refuted, and gun violence falls, total violence will fall. I have provided research using total gun deaths, he has essentially ignored them, he loses the point.
My opponent says that guns are used in defense often: source? And this is blatantly false. Young victims report being threatened at amuch higher rate then using a firearm in self defense. Guns in the home are more often used to intimidate other people in the house than for defense, and when looking at self defense records using firearms in self defense is illegal: or, in other words, that most reported self defense instances are unwarented--and undesirable .
its funny how my opponent criticizes my arguments like I have the BOP, which is false. He has to provide proof, I merely have to refute. As he has not provided any proof of anything, that guns save people, or that all gun control fails, he loses the debate. First, most of my studies have some total crime aspect if you read closely. Second, with no substitution effect, gun crime is the main driver. Lastly, guns increase crime in the hands of criminals, and gun control reduces that number of guns in the hands of criminals .Less guns in the hands of the bad dudes, less crime--basic logic.
a.) I have not cited Kellerman, and one flawed study =/= flawed ideology.
b.) Properly regressing the NAS homocide regressions lead to the conclusion that CCW increased crime (see ADZ)
My opponent has utterly failed to show that gun control, as an idea or in practice, is false. He merely attacks specific studies or arguments, not the idea, therefore loses hands down.
3. Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control.
Here is my official position reiterated. I argue that all measures proposed by the Brady Campaign, Barack Obama, the Dianne Feinstein, and the gun control lobby in general, will be or have been ineffective and sometimes even counterproductive, with the only exception being the requirement of a gun safety test before buying a gun. The over fixation on reducing gun violence instead of reducing all violence is fallacious and does not always correlate, as I will prove later in this section. In order to disprove this claim, my opponent needs to show me one, single academic study that disproves any of my claims while withstanding appropriate academic critique.
As a result, the debate over Australia isn't very significant to this debate they proposed many different gun control measures than the ones recently proposed by gun control lobby. However it is significant to prove there was a significant substitution from firearms to other methods, and that the entirety of the gun control measures proposed in Australia had a statistically insignificant effect on the total murder rate.
Australian Gun Control
Australia bought back around 650,000 guns in 1996 and continued to confiscate guns steadily over the next few years. This initial buyback supposedly reduced private firearms ownership by around 20% and roughly halved the number of gun owning households. America owns approximately 300 million guns and has been number one in guns per capita in the world for quite some time.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... (please note this source, as I will prove later, improperly focuses on gun murders and gun suicides, but the figures for firearms bought back are probably accurate).
The point of the most contention between my opponent and myself has been the issue of substitution for other methods of murder. My opponent has continuously argued that there is virtually no substitution, and has continuously insisted that reducing gun violence reduces all violence. In Australia immediately before the ban in 1996, guns were used in roughly 33% of murders, sharp objects were used in roughly 30% of murders, and if we do some math blunt objects, hands, and other weapons were used in the remaining 37%.
The year immediately after the ban, the percent of firearm homicides dropped to 25%, knives rose to about 38% and then other weapons stayed at about 37%. As time went on, the percent of firearms used in murders decreased while the percent used in knives simultaneously increased, so there was in fact a direct substitution to other weapons. This does not tell us that more or less people were killed, only that there was in fact a substitution to other weapons, particularly knives.
Now, let's evaluate the murder rates after the ban. I find it extremely funny that my opponent chooses to accuse me of cherry picking, to claim that if you run a proper regression in Australia you'll find a statistically significant decrease in homicides, when he's not even using the proper economic indicator. The second link of his sources directs you to a chart depicting the total homicide victims in Australia over time, but the proper economic indicator to measure changes in homicide is to use the homicide rate per 100,000 people. The total homicides does not factor in the increasing Australian population, whereas the homicide rate does.
If you look at the male and female homicide rates over time, you find that both decreased before and after the ban. Immediately after the ban, there should have been an accelerated decrease in the murder rate, but there wasn't. Actually the murder rate increased a quite a bit in 2001, then it decreased. This sudden increase and steady decrease suggests statistical insignificance.
In conclusion, the extremely strict gun control measures in Australia did reduce firearm homicides, but methods of homicide were substituted for other methods and did not have an effect on the total people killed (unless you only focus on mass murders).
I never claimed that all gun control advocates demonize gun owners. The ones that do, are misguided, but this does not yet prove my claim that all gun control advocates are misguided. Additionally, I have never talked to any gun control advocate that has not compared the US to other developed foreign countries, but my opponent is right that if just one doesn't then I'm proven wrong. I have proven that most gun control advocates are misguided in regards to these criteria, but not all like I'm claiming. And remember, I am not claiming that pro-gun advocates are not misguided, as is proven in the assumption that shall-issue laws significantly reduce crime, but I am arguing gun control advocates have statistical base for their beliefs.
My claim is that no gun control legislature in America, nor any of the proposed controls, would have a significant or even productive effect reducing the total people killed. In order to prove me wrong, all you have to do is find a single study that statistically proves that some gun control legislation other than safety tests that reduced the total people killed in America, and of which has survived extensive critique. Simply referencing a reduction in gun murders is not enough, as proven with the Australian case.
Common Sense Rebuttal
I have tried to reiterate that we cannot reference common sense when dealing with a statistically difficult dilemma. For centuries people thought it was common sense that the world was flat, but when they started looking at the science and statistics they were proven wrong. Common sense cannot dictate this debate.
When considering background checks, theoretically it could reduce murders (to an unkown extent) by allowing only the proper people to possess guns while criminals have none. However the current proposals, as they are, will not prevent criminals from legally obtaining guns, it would only inconvenience them. There is no firearms registration, therefore even if private background checks were mandated, it would not prevent straw purchases nor would it prevent criminals from buying guns on the streets. Additionally, it does not prevent criminals from substituting for other methods.
How could background checks hurt ordinary citizens? Buying a gun is rarely a random decision. Typically they're gun enthusiasts, but sometimes they're people who desperately need protection and they need protection quickly, and they may need the most effective means possible (i.e. a gun). Lots of women must deal with potentially violent ex-boyfriends or stalkers all the time. People can irritate the wrong people, sometimes they hear of reports of someone in their neighborhood becoming a murderer. If we do some math, 2.1 million people were denied access to a gun because of a background check. 66% were because of felonies or fugitives of justice. Therefore around 693,000 citizens were denied access to a gun unjustly, and how many of the justified denials were false positives? How many of them were at risk of being killed, seriously assaulted, or raped? Criminals were inconvenienced, but they did were not prevented from getting a gun or committing violence. Ordinary citizens were denied effective means of self-defense (background checks are usually required for tasers and stun guns too).
http://www.people-press.org...;(most people own guns for self-defense)
I'm running out of room for further rebuttals, however I will address gun suicides and guns as a risk factor for accidents and suicide in the next round.
16kadams forfeited this round.
ufcryan forfeited this round.
16kadams forfeited this round.