CON: Gun Control The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own.

Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles. It is because my partner Harsha and I firmly agree with the words of international expert on the use and history of small arms John Cooper, that we urge your CON decision on the following resolution: Resolved: In the aftermath of recent school shootings, stricter gun control laws are necessary. To justify our stance on this resolution, we offer the following three areas of analysis for consideration:

1. Contention 1: Stricter gun control laws will not work. 2. Contention 2: Stricter gun control laws will only make the present situation worse. 3. Contention 3: Stricter gun control laws are not the solution to solving violent gun crimes.

Contention #1 Now moving back to our first main area of analysis, stricter gun control laws simply wont work. The reason why stricter gun control laws wont work is because they wont be enforced to the fullest extent, just like present gun control laws according to Matt MacBradaigh. It is important to understand and point out the fact that over the past several years, strong enforcement of existing gun laws has not been a priority. John Avlon of CNN observed that before the Newtown shootings, the Obama administration had not made enforcement of existing guns laws a political or policy priority and goes on to cite Arkadi Gerney, an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on illegal guns from 2006-11 who said, "during the Clinton administration there were efforts to fully enforce the gun laws we have". One of the primary reasons why current gun control laws cant truly be effective is because of the governments failing to fund the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The significance of the NICS is that it is the database that is checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress specifically reporting that this was because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011 ($20 million). Now, the NICS is by no means a relatively new system and was implemented in the early 1990s, taking this into account, to date, the Huffington Post states that 19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds since the implementation of NICS. Therefore, even in the event that we do pass stricter gun control laws, they will be virtually ineffective until we address this problem first.

The secondary reason why gun stricter control laws will not work is because the Obama Administration Justice Department is not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. To put this into perspective, CNN cites the FBI which reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted merely 77 of those people, or roughly 1%. To this point, let me remind you that the ultimate goal of this resolution is to prevent gun violence from being as prominent within society. Therefore, by simply enforcing the existing laws to their fullest extent and prosecuting criminals who fail to obey the law, we would be able to reduce the number of crimes that take place. In addition, stricter enforcement of the law is a fact that everyone can agree on. In fact Cory Booker of the Huffington Post cites that enforcing the law and prosecuting violators has strong support, with 99% of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law.

Taking into account these two factors, we can see that we dont need stricter gun control laws, but rather we need to enforce the existing law much better. Therefore, the resolution floats towards the CON.

Contention #2 Moving on to our second area of analysis: stricter gun control laws will only make the present situation worse. In addition to the fact that stricter gun control laws will not be effective anyway for the reasons aforementioned, it will also do little to prevent dangerous criminals in society from obtaining them. Josh Sugarmann, former communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH), wrote in The Washington Monthly: "handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns". Therefore, by attempting to create stricter gun control laws, not only will they be ineffective, but the only people that it may deter from purchasing guns would be those people who choose to abide by the law. With this in mind and extrapolating this idea, we will inherently be making society even more dangerous by allowing dangerous criminals to assert power over the law abiding society. To put this idea into perspective, we cite an analysis conducted by Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center regarding the correlation between gun control and violence. His analysis showed that more gun control is worse than ineffective, because it makes it harder for citizens to defend themselves when the police are not on hand to protect them. Research shows that guns are used thousands of times each year to prevent crimes. In fact, Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute and found that When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success. To use an example, we can look towards the Kyle Huff - Capital Hill Massacre case in which Mr. Huff killed six fellow students and wounding two others after being invited to a party after school. At this point it is once again necessary to bring-up the effectiveness of stricter gun control laws; if he had already broken a dozen gun laws, would he have acted differently if he had had to break 13 laws? The Tacoma shooter broke the law the moment he brought a gun to school. It is unlikely that more gun control would have led him to choose differently cites Guppy.

* Add your stuff about increasing other crimes here.

Contention #3 *[I like your argument about treating those people who will misuse guns. The reason why we cant have stricter gun control laws and mental rehabilitation is because stricter gun laws wont work and will only create an imbalance of power which is harmful for the best interest of the communities. For these reasons, rehabilitation is the only option. However you should also advocate making the US more responsible in general and promoting responsible use of guns instead of stricter gun control policies: Of course the more that U.S. governments can do to make gun use in America even more responsible, the better. Switzerland shows how successful governments can be in promoting responsible gun use. Elementary schools in America should have gun safety classes which teach children never to touch a gun unless a parent is present, and they should be taught to tell an adult if they see an unattended gun. The NRA actively promotes this idea, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorses it. But Handgun Control opposes this reasonable, sensible safety measure. Has HCI gone off the deep end? High schools and colleges wishing to offer target shooting as a sport should be allowed to do so. Unlike football or swimming, scholastic target shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport ever invented. Have they gone off the deep end'? Finally, local governments should enact reasonable zoning laws, which allow the construction of indoor shooting ranges (properly ventilated and sound insulated) in urban areas. In some cases, governments should subsidize the building of ranges. At target ranges, Americans can take lessons in gun responsibility, and practice safe gun handling skills. As you might expect, the anti-gunners oppose this simple safety measure too. They've gone off the deep end. What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel. Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime. America-with its traditions of individual liberty-cannot import Switzerland's culture of social control. Teenagers, women, and almost everyone else have more freedom in America than in Switzerland. What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.]

http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html