Gun control is futile.
Thank you, Con for accepting my debate!
Gun control: government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms. 
Futile: incapable of producing any result; ineffective; useless; not successful. 
That means I believe that government regulation on the sale and ownership of firearms would be ineffective ultimately.
I will start my arguments with the failures in countries that have adopted gun control policies. The main one is the United Kingdom.
Failures in the United Kingdom
Ever since the Dunblane Massacre of 1996, gun control laws have been put into place in response to it, such as the Firearms Act of 1997. This law banned most firearms from being sold/owned.  This act have been absolutely ineffective. Gun crime has soared to 35% more than in 1996.  Crimes involving guns have come from 2,700 in 1996 to 5,800 in 2010. Take a look at this graph: (http://2.bp.blogspot.com...) It shows the homicide rate ever since the gun ban. In 2003, it was at 18. Now, luckily it has dropped, due to other laws, such as the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006. This has actually been bad for the United Kingdom, because they have to hire more lawmen/women to work. (http://3.bp.blogspot.com...)
Failures in Jamaica and Ireland
It hasn't only happened to United Kingdom. Jamaica and Ireland have suffered ever since they put gun bans in effect. Take a look at this graph: (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...) The top is Ireland. As you can see, ever since the gun law was put into place, the murders among 100,000 people has skyrocketed to 1.6. Same thing goes with Jamaica down below. The gun laws have actually made crime go up in other countries like this, so it proves my point that not only is gun control ineffective, it is a terrible idea on how to control firearms.
Based on the graphs and data coming from countries that have adopted a gun control policy, which is stated in the definitions part of my argument, the gun control policy has not only been ineffective on controlling crime, it has actually caused more crime to happen. Therefore, data shows that gun control is ultimately ineffective in other countries.
Over to you, Con!
I thank my opponent for creating this debate. I would like to point out that I will be taking the Devil’s Advocate and I really am against gun control. Good Luck!!
C.1 Harvard Injury Control Center Study
A study in Harvard has analyzed developed countries from the early 1990s. The study found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, the study analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period
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.(1)
C.2 More guns and More murder
One of the largest studies ever presented was by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University Many people believe that crime rates overall declined with no gun control. However, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. The authors also included these variables making it one of the largest study ever. These variables include
“Age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted non firearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate” were all accounted for.
After doing this research the result was staggering.
“for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. (2)
To put this into perspective, a one standard deviation in gun ownership would result in a 12.9% increase in homicide rate.
This points out the obvious. More guns=more crimes including ALL of the factors, unlike most other studies which do not have all the factors.
C.3 Gun control does not mean gun ban
Not allowing guns in a movie theater means gun control. Not allowing 3 year old guns to shoot guns means “gun control.” Even the slightest restriction means “gun control.” By my opponent’s definition the slightest restriction would indeed be gun control. This does not mean a ban.
For an example, don’t let a nine year old shoot an Uzi means gun control. Recently a nine year old fatally shot her instructor with an Uzi when the gun slipped out of her hand. (3) Follow my logic
-A nine year old shoots her Instructor
-Solution would be to not her shoot a gun
-The solution is actually gun control
-Therefore gun control would be effective when using common sense
-Common sense is gun control
-Therefore, gun control is not futile
This also means to not let a mentally disturbed person with a gun. A shooting at a school (Sandy Hooks) killed 20 first graders and six adults in the school and then killed himself. (4) The solution would be to not to let a mentally disturbed person with a gun. However, this is gun control. Therefore gun control is not futile.
Now I will move on to rebuttals.
R.1 All of my opponent’s arguments relate to gun bans
All of my opponent’s arguments are in regards to gun ban, NOT gun control. This means, that my opponent has not shown weather gun CONTROL is effective. Gun ban in fact is irrelevant. Furthermore, I have shown how fewer guns means less homicide.
On another note, the last link (Number 4) is a faulty URL for my opponent. Just pointing that out so my opponent can fix. No worries.
Thank you, Con.
"All of my opponent’s arguments are in regards to gun ban, NOT gun control. This means, that my opponent has not shown weather gun CONTROL is effective. Gun ban in fact is irrelevant. Furthermore, I have shown how fewer guns means less homicide."
Control- to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command. 
Ban- to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict. 
Forbid- to command (a person) not to do something, have something, etc., or not to enter some place 
Because to ban means to forbid something, and forbid means to command someone not to do something, they are the same as control, because it means to dominate or command.
Gun control and a gun ban are the same concept, if not the same thing.
'“for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. (2)"
This quote is wrong. Not to mention all the study along with it. Studies show that, and I quote: "The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people." 
So that research does not make any sense, because all of these countries have tried to control gun rights in some way, and the USA is only #28 on the top homicide rates. Yemen doesn't restrict guns, the 3 leading countries do.
"Not allowing guns in a movie theater means gun control. Not allowing 3 year old guns to shoot guns means “gun control.” Even the slightest restriction means “gun control.” By my opponent’s definition the slightest restriction would indeed be gun control. This does not mean a ban.
For an example, don’t let a nine year old shoot an Uzi means gun control. Recently a nine year old fatally shot her instructor with an Uzi when the gun slipped out of her hand. (3) Follow my logic"
R.1 Ban and control are not the same definition
Not only is this is a pathetic and desperate attempt by my opponent to show how these two words mean the same thing, it is actually bad conduct. The reason why this is bad conduct, is because my opponent tries to find a way to alter the definition using synonyms that have *almost* the same meaning. On top of that, the two definitions do not even use the same synonyms! Further more, just because those two synonyms are used in the same definition, it does not mean the two words are the same definition! Those two words themselves ! In this field, those two words have similar meanings, however in this debate my opponent’s logic is completely irrelevant and flawed.
Lets go a little further shall we?
I used my opponent’s definition of Gun control correctly. (“Gun control: government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms.”) This is therefore assumed I am arguing by my opponent’s definition of gun control, which I am. So I do not see why my opponent is bringing up the definition of ban at all as I am simply arguing by his definition. He tries to change his definition resulting in bad conduct.
Also, if you go to thesaurus, and type in “control” or “ban”, those two words do not show that ban and control are synonymous. ( 1 and 2)
This means, that my entire opponent’s arguments in the second round are meaningless since they refer to gun ban!
R.2 U.S has far more gun related killings than any other developed country
For a rich and developed country, U.S has According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third.(3)
Brazil is a developing country. A developing country is a country with a low living standard, underdeveloped industrial base and low Human Development Index relative to other countries. This means, you cannot compare a rich and developed country such as the United States to a poor and low quality country such as Brazil. (4)
R.3 “Follow my logic. A ban is controlling/commanding something based on the definitions”
Not exactly, I showed earlier how this is bad conduct and are not the same definitions. In my argument, I took the definition that my opponent showed me. My argument in regards to control stands.
C.1 Hawaii has shown gun control works
The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranks Hawaii's gun laws as the fifth strongest in the nation. Yet is has lots of gun control. You need a permit, the seller needs a permit, the authorities need to know when you have a gun etc etc. . . (5)
Yet it ranks one of the lowest in gun control. This is pretty clear and is common sense. It is best to carefully examine the person to ensure that the person would not commit any crimes. With this severe gun control laws, Hawaii has shown us how gun control works.
C.2 Further evidence showing that gun control works
In 2012-13, Britain had 87 gun deaths, more than half using shotguns; of them, 45 were suicides, nearly two-thirds of them using shotguns. Firearms offences have been brought down from 25,000 in 2002 to fewer than 10,000 in 2011. (6)
Yet, Britain has one of the most strict gun laws. Truly, with can expect less gun violence to occur with more gun control making it harder for people to get guns.
IcySound forfeited this round.
IcySound forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|