Contention #1: Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Not Work Area of Analysis #1: Gun Control Facts:

Existing Gun Laws Would Reduce Crime, But These Are Not Enforced Matt MacBradaigh Policymic: Mic Network Incorporated
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced

The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws. In 2007, candidate Barack Obama said, "We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in 2008, including calls for stronger background checks. When President Obama addressed the people of Newtown, he asked, "can we honestly say that we're doing enough?" and answered, "If we're honest with ourselves, the answer's no. We're not doing enough," adding, "surely we can do better than this ... if there's even one step we can take to save another [life] then surely we have an obligation to try." But President Obama has apparently forgotten the words of candidate Obama. President Obama would have to look no further than a mirror to see who is responsible for not doing "better than this." Strong enforcement of existing gun laws has not been a priority. CNN's John Avlon writes, "before the Newtown shootings, the Obama administration had not made enforcement of existing guns laws a political or policy priority" and cites Arkadi Gerney, an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on illegal guns from 200611 who said, "during the Clinton administration there were efforts to fully enforce the gun laws we have." "During the Clinton administration there were efforts to fully enforce the gun laws we have through innovative crime gun tracing projects, partnerships with state and local law enforcement and tough prosecution initiatives," said Arkadi Gerney, an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on illegal guns from 2006-11. "So far, the Obama administration has failed to live up to that legacy and has not used its executive powers to the fullest to fight illegal guns." Area of Analysis #2: CONGRESSS FAILURE TO FUND THE ATF PREVENTS ATF FROM EFFECTIVELY FIGHTING GUN CRIME Mayors Against Illegal Guns Organization
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/advisory_7_atf_funding.pdf

Failure to Fully Fund the NICS Improvement Amendment Act Has Left our Gun Background Check System Incomplete In the wake of Virginia Tech, where the shooter was able to buy a gun and pass a background check because his mental records were not added to the FBIs National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICS, there was a national consensus to require better reporting of mental health records to the NICS system. Congress responded by passing the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, 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 reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding. Federal appropriators have granted only 5.3% of the authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011:

Area of Analysis #3: It's Time to Emphasize Pragmatic and Achievable Gun Law Reform Cory Booker Huffington Post; Mayor of Newark
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cory-booker/gun-law-reform_b_2346911.html

Providing for all sales to be screened for prohibited purchasers through NICS takes us a long way towards keeping guns only in the hands of the law abiding, mentally stable people who should be allowed to purchase them. The next step is ensuring that NICS has the mental health data -- documentation of whether an individual has been, for example, involuntarily committed -- it needs to make those determinations. The Tenth Amendment restricts the federal government from compelling states to provide all necessary data, which has meant, for example, that 19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds since the implementation of NICS in the early 1990s. We can do a better job of inputting federal data into the system, and should start there, but the real gap exists because of several states' failure to provide their data. The federal government has employed a carrot and stick approach to improve state participation, but the current incentives and penalties need to be strengthened. The Fix Gun Checks Act, mentioned above, will go some of the way in addressing this issue. The best solution, though, is for citizens in states that do not provide robust data to demand more of their state government (visit http://www.demandaplan.org/FatalGaps for an interactive map that will give you a sense of how comprehensively your state is reporting mental health prohibited purchasers). A bipartisan poll released in January of 2010 revealed that 90% of gun owners supported addressing such data gaps. NRA leadership has actually shown glimmers of support for this issue, as recently as this morning's press conference, and should make it a real priority. First, we need to pass a law that makes gun trafficking a clear, substantial, and practically enforceable federal crime. Law enforcement currently uses federal provisions that prohibit engaging in the business of selling guns without a federal license, which, as recently noted by the bipartisan coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, carries the same punishment as for the trafficking of chicken or livestock. The impact has been that federal prosecutors do not prosecute these cases as often as they do many other significant crimes. While polling data for this specific question is not available, 99 percent of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members have expressed support for punishing traffickers to the maximum extent of the law. Area of Analysis #4: Three areas where Biden and NRA can find common ground John Avlon CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/avlon-obama-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Likewise, the NRA has long championed Project Exile, a pilot program first implemented in Richmond, Virginia, which prosecuted serious local gun crimes committed by felons under federal law, putting repeat offenders in federal prisons far away from their communities. This get-tough approach, which inspired President Bush's national initiative Project Safe Neighborhoods, ended up cutting the "gun carry" rate in half and reducing the murder rate in Richmond by more than 60%. The five-year mandatory sentence for committing a crime with an illegal gun changed criminal behavior. Similar initiatives have been implemented in cities throughout the country, but the coordination has been spotty and the Obama administration has failed to follow through on the model or add innovations to it. Finally, President Obama could order the Justice Department to increase the prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. In 2009, the FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns. But the Justice Department prosecuted just 77 cases -- that's about 1/10th of 1%. A lack of follow through from the federal government is letting these gun criminals walk, and that sends a message about lack of enforcement that only encourages systematic disrespect for existing gun laws.

Contention #2: Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Only Make the Present Situation Worse Area of Analysis #1: More Gun Control Won't Reduce Violence Paul Guppy Washington Policy Center; VP of Research
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/opinion/more-gun-control-wont-reduce-violence

A recent P.I. editorial agrees with Mayor Nickels call for more gun control, saying the legal system could do a lot more to control guns. Theres just one problem with this approach - it wont work. None of the recent gun crimes in the Puget Sound area would have been prevented by the proposed new restrictions. The violent criminals who chose to attack others had already ignored existing gun control laws, so how would adding more laws help? When Kyle Huff decided to kill at a late-night party in Seattle last March, 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. Real-world experience shows that adding more gun control does not reduce violent crime. Washington, D.C. has some of the nations most restrictive gun control laws, and one of the worst violent crime rates in the country. Britain, Australia and Canada have all imposed sweeping gun laws in recent years, and violent crime rates have increased dramatically in each country. In fact, imposing 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. For example: 1.) In October, a man walking in Westlake Plaza used a gun to defend himself against a violent assailant who had punched and kicked him to the sidewalk. Only the fact that the victim carried a handgun saved him from serious injury or death (Seattle Times, October 10th). 2.) Also in October, an intruder forced his way into a Texas home and tied up a mother and her 14-year-old son, threatening to kill them. The son was able to get free, retrieve a handgun in the home and shoot the intruder (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, October 9th). 3.) In Denver, a man with a long history of violent crime forced entry into the home of a local schoolteacher by prying loose a window air conditioner. The teacher, using a shotgun, fired on the man and ended the attack (Denver Post, July 20th). 4.) In 2002, a West Seattle man used his roommates handgun to end a violent assault by an intruder who had broken into his home (Seattle P.I., April 26th). In all of these cases, if it were not for the legal use of guns in self-defense, the victims would likely be severely injured or dead. Kyle Huffs murderous assault only ended when a man with a gun, a police officer, appeared on the scene. Violent criminals do not have a right to safe working conditions. Calling for more gun control, which does nothing to reduce violent crime, only fuels public distrust of government, because it misleads people into thinking gun violence is being addressed. The aim of law enforcement policy should be to deter criminal behavior, that is, people who choose to hurt others, and not make it harder for law-abiding citizens.

Area of Analysis #2: Does the United States need more strict gun-control laws? Sean Whittmore The Battalion (Texas A&M)
http://www.thebatt.com/2.8482/con-does-the-united-states-need-more-strict-gun-control-laws-1.1200938

Gun violence in the United States is a problem, but drastic new gun control legislation is hardly the answer. New legislation will only serve to endanger the essential liberty guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This Amendment is inextricably linked to the maintenance of individual liberty in the United States. Nicolo Machiavelli said there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character. How could any liberty be more vital than the Second Amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible. If not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government; their rights existing only at their government's pleasure. To see that is possible in the United States of America, simply review American history. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government. During World War II, Japanese Americans - citizens and resident aliens alike - were stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought. Gun control legislation, as it exists now, with only minor changes, is sufficient to fight gun violence in the 21st century. The federal government requires gun store owners to perform background checks on all consumers wishing to purchase firearms. Some flaws do exist in the legislation. The gun show loophole refers to the absence of a criminal background check for gun sales by private individuals to private individuals at gun shows, not sales by gun dealers to private individuals at gun shows. This oversight allows anyone to walk in and purchase a firearm. Of course, this same oversight would be found wherever private citizens trade handguns. The solution to this problem seems very simple: Require private individuals to conduct background checks as gun dealers do. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System should be made available to private citizens free of charge to perform background checks. Federal and local law enforcement agencies should work closer together to enforce gun laws. With these changes, the right to bear arms - as well as the government's responsibility to protect the people - would be satisfied. Area of Analysis #3: "The best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership." David B. Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli American Rifle Association
http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Of course the more that U.S. government 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. 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.

Area of Analysis #4: Yes, Guns Kill, But How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? Larry Elder Radio Political Commentator
http://www.larryelder.com/b/Yes,-Guns-Kill,-But-How-Often-Are-They-Used-in-Self-Defense/-32631560375056598.html

So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense? Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead. Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number. Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: 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. When asked if additional gun laws would be beneficial or have no effect, most Americans, like Ice-T, get it. They oppose shifting power to the criminal. And they dont need the National Rifle Association to tell them: The only people willing to abide by additional gun laws are the law-abiding.