gun control debate question

Data is a bit dated but the sources are most excellent

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

Click to expand...

Bold type added by NukemJim

Source Center for Disease Control
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

You might also want to try National Academy of Sciences, they did a review with similar results. Can't find it right now have to go to work will try later.

A suggestion, worth what you paid for it, avoid Lott's work if you can, he can be attacked far too easily, (true/false, right/wrong, who knows) but before you quote him read up on him a bit, he has made himself look foolish on a number of occasions. It.s much harder to succesfully attack CDc ( Or hopefully if I can find it NAS )

JPFO also has some excellent data on their web sites.

Good Luck
NukemJim

Another helpful stat regarding the "assault weapon" hysteria--all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, half as many as fists and feet:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Look especially at the Maryland and Illinois stats, which are considering banning scary looking rifles at the moment...

The FBI stats appear to have lost Florida.

Here's a recent example from Canada: in 1993, the Liberal government of Canada passed a law requiring universal firearms registration, and arbitrarily PROHIBITED a wide variety of firearms outright (small handguns, most of what could be considered "assault" -style firearms, etc.), and prohibited magazines that could hold more than 5 shots in the case of semi-auto rifles and shotguns, or 10 shots in the case of semi-auto handguns. Since then, the Canadian murder rate has gone down by 6.8%, and the anti-gun crowd has acclaimed this as a great success. What they DON'T mention is the fact that the US murder rate over the same period has gone down by 41%, and the US didn't have to treat its citizens like criminals, mental defectives, or 2-year-old children to get that drop. Over that period, 12 more US states passed CCW laws AND the federal "Assault Weapons Ban" was allowed to sunset. Clearly, there are social factors at work here that make any sorts of "gun control" laws pale in comparison.

Gun Control

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/

Try there.


and here: http://www.smallestminority.blogspot.com/

You might try John: http://john-ross.net/ross_in_range.htm

I'd certainly try Clayton: http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html

Best wishes on your project.

some more

http://www.gunssavelife.com/
and http://www.handgunlaw.us/
and http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/
andhttp://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
and if you are interested in how this all came about you can to and read the Federalist papers along with a heap of other stuff here http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/

and

www.guncite.com

good luck and welcome to thr, we will be glad to help, I'm sure

zonda,
What is the opening resolution statement? (just curious)
edited to add... might it include the following words you posted?

...the ineffectiveness of gun control laws in the united states and abroad. Also any information about the legitimacy of gun control laws...

Click to expand...

Which then leads me to ask are you preparing to argue both Pro and Con and doing research for both? Or are you only preparing for the Affirm. or the Neg. POV?

Hkmp5sd said:

The FBI stats appear to have lost Florida.

Click to expand...

From the "Data Declaration" page regarding Florida, "The SHR data submitted by Florida and Washington, D.C., did not meet UCR guidelines and were not included in this table."

Remember to begin your argument with the statement that the effectiveness of such laws are irrelevant to the fact that they violate a Constitutionally protected right. However, such laws, even if Constitutional, are ineffective.

I forget the term but just say that it doesnt matter what they think cause the 2nd Amendment precludes any for for of gun control legislation. Refer them to this opinion prepared for the AG in 2004. Great reading by the way guys!

http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

No need to put yourself into a can't-win position. Arguing that anti-gun laws are ineffective is trying to prove a negative... an impossible task. All you need is some clown explaining why the law isn't effective: "That's because they didn't (do the following..."), and you're bogged down.

The fact is that the "anti" position is based on subjectivity. For example, you don't hear any gun-banners calling for limits to automobile driving by the general public, even though the numbers of those people needlessly killed and maimed by cars dwarf the statistics for people shot by law-abiding civilians.

Bowman was correct in suggesting you stick to the main point... anti-Second Amendment laws violate one of the most fundamental Constitutionally protected rights... specified even before those basic rights such as freedom from unreasonable search, and the right to a fair trial. Remember, personal arms are the only implements specifically protected by the Constitution; even printing presses are protected only by implication.

It is the unrelenting attacks upon the Second Amendment that has opened the way to vitiating our other constitutional rights.

Research is the backbone of a good debate, but then comes the resolution under discussion, it's slant and then whichever position you are to defend, the Affirmative or the Negative.

During your 1st Aff. Constructive you set your ground base, as do you when stating your, or listening to your opponents 1st Neg. Constructive.
Most debaters realize that (usually) a debate is won or lost in the 1st Aff. Rebuttal when you shred the NC (Neg Construct), unless things have changed in H.S. Debate in 35 years (which is possible).

zonda, make sure to include research on the racist history of gun control laws in not only this nation, but international laws; coupled with genocide by governments once said minion's were in fact, disarmed.

As others have pointed out, the US 2nd was written and included within our Constitution for a good reason, so include in your research some background on it's origins (British Common Law) and rationale that the founding fathers utilized in it's affirmative construct.

This info is a bit dated, but still makes an excellent point:

Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes the
person seeking death to use another means. While gun-related suicides
were reduced by Canada's handgun ban of 1976, the overall suicide rate
did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by
an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges.

Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American Journal of
Psychiatry, March, 1990

I've just noticed something about GunFacts...
It'll go on well for a while, maybe six statements with references...then make a statement that doesn't have any references.
e.g.: page 2, just before the myth about people with CCW are more will commit crimes.
Again on the next page, about Oregon Licensees. (second from top of page)
On the same page, the second and third statement in the Texas holders section about the VPC...
No resources cited.
Am I missing something?

here's more on "assault weapons"

Good info to address the sure-to-be-made argument that "some guns are too dangerous to own."

"Death by Gun Contol"

http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

In the 20th Century:

* Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
* Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

Click to expand...

see you have some responses already. I don't know if you got this one or not. I haven't read the whole thing yet but it looks like it should be helpful.

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62