MPA Classic Debate – Affirmative Constructive – Gun Control
For too long, the gun lobby in the United States has controlled the public debate over
gun control. Claims of an absolute right to bear arms have obscured discussion of
reasonable options to mitigate a tremendous threat to the lives of countless Americans.
Clearly, it is time to put political considerations aside and formulate a more effective
public health policy for the United States.
My partner and I stand resolved that: Stricter gun control would make the United States
safer.
Our positions are simple. First, the United States faces a gun crisis. Second, there are
reasonable gun control options that would be both feasible and politically viable.
Finally, these options would save lives and make America safer. We begin our defense
of the resolution with:
CONTENTION I: US faces a gun crisis.
Our so-called “gun culture” has spiraled out of control; leaving us with unprecedented
rates of both gun ownership and gun violence.
Subpoint A. High rates of gun ownership and gun homicides
We cite international politics expert and columnist Fareed Zakaria in the August
20th, 2012 issue of Time.
Gun violence in America is off the chart compared with every other country on the
planet. The gun-homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 30 times that of Britain and
Australia, 10 times that of India and four times that of Switzerland. When confronted
with such a large deviation, a scholar would ask, Does America have some potential
cause for this that is also off the chart? I doubt that anyone seriously thinks we have 30
times as many crazy people as Britain or Australia. But we do have many, many more
guns.
There are 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the U.S. In second place is Yemen, with 54.8,
then Switzerland with 45.7 and Finland with 45.3. No other country has a rate above 40.
The U.S. handgun-ownership rate is 70% higher than that of the country with the next
highest rate.
Too often, these firearms are used for their designed purposes, which are to inflict
serious injuries and death.
Subpoint B. Guns kill
Michael Grunwald and Jay Newton-Small, staff writers at Time demonstrate just
how deadly these guns are on January 24th, 2011.
Unfortunately, the gun-rights vision of well-armed citizens shooting down an outlaw
like [Arizona’s Jared] Loughner mid-rampage did not come true in this case. Nationally,
less than 1% of all gun deaths involve self-defense; the rest are homicides, suicides and
accidents. In a study of 23 high-income countries, the U.S. had 80% of the gun deaths,
along with a gun homicide rate nearly 20 times higher than the rest of the sample.
America has uniquely high rates of both gun ownership and gun violence. Fortunately,
rational policy options exist to mitigate this crisis.
CONTENTION II: Reasonable gun control measures exist.
No one is realistically suggesting the banning of guns or a policy of confiscation. The
rights of citizens and hunters can be respected while still increasing the safety of
millions of Americans.
Subpoint A. Gun control is public health issue
Columnist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times writes July 25, 2012
Yet if traditional efforts at gun control are at a political dead end, there should still be
room for a public health effort to mitigate their harm.
Take auto safety, one of the great successes of public health. Many car accidents
involve unlawful behavior such as speeding or driving while intoxicated. We prosecute
those offenders, but, for decades, we’ve also taken a broader public health approach.
We’ve required seat belts and air bags, we’ve created graduated licenses for young
drivers, and we have engineered roads and intersections so that accidents are less lethal.
The upshot is that the traffic fatality rate in the United States has fallen to a record low.
Seat belts alone save more than 12,000 lives a year, according to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
So if we can make cars safer, without banning them, then why not try to do the same
with guns?
By considering guns as a public health issue, rather than solely a Second Amendment
concern, policy makers can implement reasonable measure the public with support.
Subpoint B. Public supports reasonable gun control
Andrew Romano and Pat Wingert, staff writers at Newsweek write on March 21,
2011.
Look beyond the hoary Washington logic, and it's clear that the present moment may be
peculiar enough, and the forces at work potent enough, to produce real movement on
gun safety--provided Obama proceeds carefully. That means no outlawing specific
guns. No relitigating the Second Amendment. And no frantic liberal overreach. Just two
precautions that a majority of voters favor, according to a new NEWSWEEK-DAILY
BEAST Poll: background checks for every gun buyer (which 86 percent of respondents
support) and a revival of the recently lapsed ban on the kind of high-capacity clips that
Loughner used in Arizona (which 51 percent support).
CONTENTION III: Gun control increases safety.
These reasonable forms of gun control will prove to be both politically sustainable and
successful in increasing public safety.
Subpoint A. Gun control will make America safer.
We return to Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times, July 25, 2012
A recent survey found that more than 70 percent of N.R.A. members approve of
criminal background checks for would-be gun owners. That suggests broad backing for
one of the most crucial steps: a universal background check for all gun buyers, even
when buying from private citizens. I’d also like to see us adopt Canada’s requirement
that gun buyers have the support of two people vouching for them.
Other obvious steps include restricting high capacity magazines and limiting gun
purchases to one a month. Making serial numbers more difficult to erase would help.
And bravo to California for trying to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp
on each bullet so that it can be traced back to the gun that fired it.
We should also finance research to design safer firearms. Many accidents would be
averted if a gun always indicated if a round were in the chamber. And there should be
ways to employ biometrics or a PIN so that a stolen gun would be unusable.
While there is no way to exactly quantify the impact of these reasonable forms of gun
control, it is clear that they would result in a saving of American lives.
Subpoint B. Gun control saves lives
Andrew Romano and Pat Wingert conclude in Newsweek, March 21, 2011
With a comprehensive "can't buy" database and loophole-free background checks,
neither Loughner nor Cho would have been allowed to purchase firearms: Loughner's
drug use disqualified him from military service, and Cho had a history of mental illness.
And without access to high-capacity clips, Loughner would have stopped to reload after
15 rounds instead of 31--meaning that he would have been tackled and restrained 16
rounds sooner. "Pro-gun people always argue that laws like these wouldn't have saved
any lives," says McCarthy. "But of course they would have. Fewer bullets in Loughner's
gun means that fewer shots would've been fired--which means that fewer people would
have died."
No policy of gun control will be perfect, but that is an unrealistic standard to apply.
Reasonable forms of gun control will make America safer, and that is good public
policy. Please affirm the resolution.