In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. January/February 2016 ...

187 Pages·2015·1.17 MB·English

Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns
ought to be banned.
January/February 2016 LD Brief*
*Published by Victory Briefs, PO Box 803338 #40503, Chicago, IL 60680-3338. Edited by Jake Nebel and
Chris Teis. Written by Danny DeBois, Rebecca Kuang, Martin Sigalow, Marshall Tompson, Jacob
Nails, SunHee Simon, and Ryan Davis. Evidence cut by Rebecca Kuang and Jacob Nails. For customer
support, please email
Contents
1 Te Victory Briefs Institute 2016 13
2 Danny DeBois: Topic Analysis 15
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Interpretation of the Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1 Handguns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2 Private Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.3 “Banned” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.4 “In the United States” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.5 Generics and Implementation – Everyone’s Favorite Argument . . . . . . 20
2.2.6 Some Final Tings to Be Aware Of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3 AFF Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.1 Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.2 Political Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.3 Criticism of U.S. Gun Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4 NEG Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4.1 Counterplans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4.2 Self-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.3 Racism and Gun Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.4 Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 Martin Sigalow: Topic Analysis 26
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Te resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 In the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.2 Private Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.3 Of Handguns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.4 Ought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2
This product is licensed to
Contents
3.2.5 To be banned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Case Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.1 Afrmative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.2 Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4 Appendix: Full Text Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4 Jacob Nails: Topic Analysis 37
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 Resolutional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3 Afrmative Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4 Negative Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.5 Common Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5.1 Crime/Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5.2 Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.5.3 Self-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5 Rebecca Kuang: Legal Aspects of Gun Control 49
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2 Gun Control Legislation: A Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.3 United States Exceptionalism: Gun Control in Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.4 Te Second Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6 Marshall Tompson: Strategic Philosophical Casing 57
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.2 Afrmative Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.2.1 Ownership as Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Discursive Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Risk Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2.2 Paternalistic Afrmatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3 Negative Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3.1 Self Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3.2 Right of Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3
This product is licensed to
Contents
7 SunHee Simon: Critical Perspectives 65
7.1 Afrmative Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.1.1 Feminism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Hypermasculinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Resolutional Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
7.1.2 Ableism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Mindset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Te Activity (Debate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7.2 Negative Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7.2.1 Black Rage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Method/Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7.2.2 Anthro K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Omission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Te Human/Non-Human Animal Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.3 Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
8 RyanW.Davis: GunControl is the Anti-Gun Lobby’s Conspiracy against Real America 77
8.1 Te Argument from Self-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.2 Te Argument from Personal Liberty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.3 Objections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
8.4 Conclusion: A Conspiracy against Real America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
9 Afrmative Evidence 88
9.1 Accidental Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
9.1.1 Having a gun around the house increases the risk of accident. . . . . . . 88
9.1.2 Young children are eleven times more likely to be killed accidentally in a
gun compared to children in other developed countries. . . . . . . . . . 88
9.2 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9.2.1 Australia is the best comparative case study that gun control works. . . . 89
9.2.2 Australia’s frearm regulations have been a resounding success. . . . . . . 90
9.3 AT More Guns = More Homicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
9.3.1 Te math is terribly simple, and guns are rarely used in self-defense. . . . 90
9.3.2 Gun control will eliminate gun massacres just as antibiotics eliminate
bacterial infections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4
This product is licensed to
Contents
9.4 Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
9.4.1 Symbolic racism is signifcantly related to having a gun in the home. . . . 91
9.4.2 US whites oppose gun reform more than other racial groups, partly due
to symbolic racism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
9.4.3 Attitudes towards guns in many whites are infuenced by illogical racial
biases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
9.5 Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
9.5.1 Te evidence overwhelmingly suggests that more guns = more murder. . 93
9.6 Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
9.6.1 Tere is a high positive relationship between access to frearms and suicide. 93
9.6.2 States with fewer gun control restrictions have signifcantly higher rates
of suicide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9.6.3 Individuals who commit suicide in their own homes are disproportion-
ately likely to own a gun. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9.6.4 Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors are the most efective
frearm regulations in decreasing male suicide rates. . . . . . . . . . . . 95
9.7 AT Deterrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
9.7.1 Guns do not deter burglaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
9.8 AT Lott Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.8.1 Lott’s fndings are riddled with holes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
9.9 AT Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
9.9.1 All rights are limited in scope and most rights are subject to overriding. . 97
9.9.2 Te right to a gun is not a basic moral right. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
9.9.3 Owning a gun is not a fundamental interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9.10 AT Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9.10.1 Te argument from safety is self-defeating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9.10.2 Figures that show guns are necessary for self-defense are infated. . . . . 99
9.11 AT Second Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
9.11.1 Te Second Amendment is a gun control amendment. . . . . . . . . . . 99
9.11.2 Te reading of the Second Amendment as a right to individual weapons
is astonishingly wrong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
9.11.3 Every kind of legislation concerning guns is compatible with the Second
Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
9.11.4 Te Supreme Court has clarifed that the right to bear arms does not pre-
clude signifcant gun controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5
This product is licensed to
Contents
9.12 AT Self-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
9.12.1 Self-defense gun use would be socially undesirable and probably have the
opposite efect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
9.13 AT Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
9.13.1 Te NRA does not have as much political power as it claims credit for. . . 102
9.13.2 Te NRA didn’t win Congress for the GOP in 1994, and it didn’t win the
2000 election. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
9.14 AT Slippery Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
9.14.1 Tere is no reason to believe the slippery slope argument. . . . . . . . . 103
9.15 Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
9.15.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Te most recent evidence shows gun rights increase crime . . . . . . . . 104
Aneja’s study uses the best data and model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
9.15.2 Police Efectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Gun control is key to police efectiveness; the alternative is vigilantism . . 105
9.15.3 AT: Guns Increase Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Gun ownership increases the risk of fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
9.15.4 AT: Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Te Australia example doesn’t support gun control . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
9.15.5 AT: Lott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Lott’s work is based on poor academic scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Lott’s results are cherry-picked and refuted by more recent results . . . . 109
9.15.6 AT: Lott and Mustard (Cocaine) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Lott and Mustard fail to control for cocaine usage; better data shows gun
control reduced crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
9.15.7 AT: Lott and Mustard (Jurisdiction Selection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Lott and Mustard’s results are biased by the “jurisdiction-selection” efect 111
Accounting for jurisdiction selection shows gun rights increase crime . . 112
9.15.8 AT: Plassmann and Whitley Indict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Plassmann and Whitley’s indict is based on egregious statistical errors . . 113
Plassmann andWhitley’s paper is so inaccurate, its own main author re-
jected it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
9.15.9 AT: Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Wilson ignores important omitted variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
9.15.10 Gun Possession Bad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Studies show gun possession increases the risk of harm . . . . . . . . . . 115
6
This product is licensed to
Contents
9.16 Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
9.16.1 Gun Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
America’s gun culture exacerbates racial disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
9.16.2 Handgun Ban Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
A handgun ban is key to stop anti-black hate crimes like the Charleston
shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
9.16.3 MLK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Guns are inconsistent with MLK’s strategy of nonviolent activism . . . . 119
9.16.4 Polls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Polls show that minority groups support gun control measures . . . . . . 120
9.16.5 Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Support for guns is correlated with racist views; this biases gun control
debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
9.16.6 Historical Examples Afrm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
History proves guns provoked backlash, not protection, for black com-
munities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
9.16.7 AT: Historical Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Gun advocates misread history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
9.16.8 AT: Lance Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Lance Hill overstates the role of guns in the Civil Rights movement . . . 123
9.17 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
9.17.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Gun violence is a major cause of violence against women . . . . . . . . . 125
9.17.2 Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Gun control is key to reduce domestic violence against women . . . . . . 125
9.17.3 Mass Shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Gun control should be considered a feminist issue because many mass
shootings are rooted in sexism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
9.17.4 AT: Guns Protect Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Guns don’t increasewomen’s safety; the number ofmurders far outweighs
defensive uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
9.18 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
9.18.1 AT: Replica Handguns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Replica handguns are legally considered not real handguns . . . . . . . . 129
9.18.2 AT: Target Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Handgun bans don’t prohibit target shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7
This product is licensed to
Contents
9.18.3 AT: Self Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Gun control’s key to the right to security, which ismore fundamental than
self-defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
10 Negative Evidence 132
10.1 Armed Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
10.1.1 Gun control laws infuence behaviors of victimsmore than criminals, and
criminals are afraid of encountering armed victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
10.2 Background Checks CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
10.2.1 Comprehensive background checks make criminal acquisition of
frearms substantially more difcult. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
10.3 Crime Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
10.3.1 Data across jurisdictions with varying gun laws and gun ownership rates
prove that gun laws increase gun homicides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
10.3.2 Te most rigorous and comprehensive study in gun control literature
fnds that gun laws increase crime rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
10.3.3 Increased availability of guns to the general public should result in de-
creased violent crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
10.4 Liability CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10.4.1 We should make handgun owners liable for harm caused by the use of
their guns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10.4.2 Te CP encourages more responsible use of guns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10.5 Moderate Control CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
10.5.1 Te following regulations on guns should be imposed. . . . . . . . . . . 136
10.5.2 Tese regulations are distinct from a gun control “ban”. . . . . . . . . . . 136
10.5.3 Moderate regulations should include universal background checks. . . . 137
10.5.4 Assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips should be banned. . . 137
10.5.5 All new gun owners should be required to get a license. . . . . . . . . . . 137
10.5.6 Te ATF should be restored. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
10.6 Permit to Purchase CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
10.6.1 Permit to purchase laws decrease diversion of guns to criminals. . . . . . 139
10.6.2 Permit to purchase laws were the most dramatic deterrent to interstate
gun trafcking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
10.7 Personalized Guns CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
10.7.1 Personalized frearms prevent anyone but the owner from fring the gun. 140
8
This product is licensed to
Contents
10.7.2 Legislation should require that all handguns sold afer a certain datemust
be personalized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
10.7.3 Many gun deaths could have been averted by personalized guns. . . . . . 141
10.8 Right to Own a Gun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
10.8.1 Te right to own a gun does not imply the right to own other weapons. . 141
10.8.2 A gun ban would be a serious right violation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
10.9 Self-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
10.9.1 Studies show that guns helps victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
10.9.2 Guns help 65% of the time when defending against violent crime. . . . . 143
10.10AT Ban Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
10.10.1 Te sale of guns is not morally wrong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
10.11AT Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
10.11.1 No studies show that gun ownership would increase the likelihood that
ordinary citizens commit murder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
10.11.2 No studies can prove conclusively that gun control reduces rate of violent
crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
10.12AT Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
10.12.1 Russia banned handguns, yet Russian murder rates exceed those in the
United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
10.12.2 Various European examples disprove the idea that handgun bans
decrease murder rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
10.13AT Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
10.13.1 Police protection is a myth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
10.14AT Solvency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
10.14.1 Most law-abiding gun owners would not comply with a frearms ban. . . 148
10.15Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
10.15.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Gun bans increase crime; every historical example proves . . . . . . . . . 148
Gun control increases homicide rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
10.15.2 Consensus of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Consensus of evidence shows gun control doesn’t solve crime . . . . . . 149
10.15.3 Economic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Economic models show gun possession is uniquely efective at deterring
mass shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
10.15.4 Mass Shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Handguns reduce the frequency and severity of mass shootings . . . . . 151
9
This product is licensed to
Contents
10.15.5 Rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Gun rights laws reduce the rate of rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
10.15.6 Media Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Media shows an anti-gun bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
10.15.7 AT: Crack Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Crack cocaine doesn’t bias study results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
10.15.8 AT: Police Efectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Gun possession reduces the risk of police death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
10.15.9 AT: Highest Murder Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
TeUS is nowhere near the most violent country, and gun control would
make violence worse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
10.15.10AT: Lambert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Lambert falsifes evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
10.15.11AT: Hemenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Hemenway’s wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
10.15.12AT: DeFilippis and Hughes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
DeFilippis and Hughes misrepresent data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
10.15.13AT: Ayres and Donohue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Ayres and Donohue’s study shows guns reduce crime; they misread the
results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
10.15.14Lott Prodict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Lott’s studies are the most reliable data on gun control . . . . . . . . . . 159
10.16Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
10.16.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Te legal right to use frearms is an important step toward racial justice . 160
10.16.2 Over-policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Empirics prove gun laws disproportionately harm African Americans . . 162
10.16.3 Mass Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Gun control is used as a pretext for enhanced policing and jail sentences
directed at minority groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
10.16.4 Gun Rights Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
TeDred Scott decision shows gunswere considered a fundamental right
of citizens denied to blacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
10.16.5 Historical Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Gun laws are grounded in a history of racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
10
This product is licensed to