The United States Ought to Ban Firearms

=Why the United States should not ban firearms=A1: American use guns for self defense A study done by the Bureau of Justice, shows that guns have been used in self-defense 235,700 times in a violent crime incident, and 103,000 times in a property crime incident. (1) Before we compare this to the violent crime rate, we need to realize that that self defense statistics are only accounted to law abiding citizens, and not criminals. Why? because there is no way of verifying whether what a criminal did was in self-defense. Also keep in mind that the data is still very incomplete. 51.7% of violent and property crime is not even reported, and 16.7% of case involve the police not even helping! (1) What does this show? Law enforcement cannot protect everybody all the time. I would post the actual figure, but source only provides a % not a number. Those 235,700 defensive gun uses, could have went the criminal’s way, thus increasing crime. To finish off, the data is still very incomplete to come to a decision on both sides, but on the pro gun side, there is still a significant number of cases where the gun prevented crime.In 2008, President Barrack Obama had used executive orders to give federal funds to the CDC to study gun violence. This study is unbiased, and contains data used by both sides in the gun debate. In this study, it was found that, " Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive gun uses" The article also acknowledges the 300,000 figure provided by the Bureau of Justice. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys (7) . A2: Gun bans in the past have been followed with increased crime This debate revolves around the question of whether or not we should implement a nationwide gun ban, but I would argue that past instances of gun bans have already negated this resolution. Places such as Washington D.C. have implemented a gun ban and seen no measurable beneficial results, as seen below. You can see in this graph, that Washington D.C implemented a handgun and trigger-lock law. (4) The law goes in effect in 1977, but you see the after a few years, the crime rate soars to nearly 80 homicides per 100,000. This is also the time when the entire United States experienced an increase in crime, but the national average was 10 homicides per 100,000 (3). However in D.C this number is at alarming rates.During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower. (4)To focus on a more nationwide ban, we can easily look at what happened in the UK and Wales. I'm going to focus more on the 1997 gun control law (2), since it basically outlawed all private handguns from citizens. Right after this was implemented, we see a sharp increase in homicide rates, even as the years went by, the homicide rate never went below the rate it was prior to the 1997 law. Even in a country where gun ownership is nowhere near American levels, the gun ban failed to do anything to stop the crime rate, and infact resulted in an increase. 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban. (5)A3: Hurts the economyThe gun industry contributes alot to the economy, and a ban on guns would lead to economical reprocussions. Economic Impact of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Industry in the U.S. Direct Supplier Induced Total Jobs (FTE) 132,584 65,180 90,222 287,986 Wages $5,513,898,500 $4,355,521,100 $4,581,758,300 $14,451,177,900 Economic Impact $19,533,701,800 $14,998,408,400 $14,755,836,700 $49,287,946,900 "Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 132,584 people in the country and generate an additional 155,402 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in companies supplying goods and services to manufacturers, distributors and retailers, as well as those that depend on sales to workers in the firearms and ammunition industry. [6] "These are good jobs, paying an average of $50,180 in wages and benefits. And today, every job is important. In fact, workers in the United States face an unemployment rate of 5 percent. This means that there are already nearly 8 million people trying to find jobs in the nation and collecting unemployment benefits." "The firearms and ammunition industry generates sizable tax revenues. In the United States the industry and its employees pay $6.2 billion in taxes including property, income, and sales-based levies". Taxes Generated in the United States Tax Impact Business Taxes Excise Taxes Federal Taxes $3,658,277,000 $676,958,534 State Taxes $2,547,540,400 Total Taxes $6,205,817,400 $676,958,534 This graph gives us a breakdown of the economic benefits of the gun industry. It creates jobs, and creates revenue. Now, if we were to ban guns, this would be a negative impact on the economy. Those 220,000 jobs will go down the drain, and this will cause a rise in unemployment.A4: Will create a bigger black market for gunsThe idea of a gun ban only gurantees one thing, law abiding citizens will be deprived of their posession of guns. Criminals do not follow the law, and it is very easy for criminals for them to obtain guns.The biggest issue with having a gun ban, is that it would not deal with the issue of illegal guns. In the U.S only 7% of guns used in crime are legal. The rest are illegal guns, and they account for 93% of crimes committed. Even if a banned was passed, it would only effect 7% of the crime committed. And ignore the 93%. With a ban, the black market will fluorish, and criminals will be the only ones armed, and law abiding citizens, who live in dangerous cities and neighborhoods will be defenseless (7). We witnessed this happening with alcohol in the 20's and 30's. Alcohol consumption skyrocketed, and it paved the framework for gangsters and criminals to have significant power and influence in society. Al Capone is a name that comes to my mind when it comes to this topic.A5: Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state.Lets think about the likelyhood of this, Nearly every American is opposed to an all out ban on guns. In a poll done by CNN, 90% said they opposed an all out ban, and just 9% support it. (8) It can be easily inferred that many would likely not comply with an forced plan to surrender all guns. For the government to simply ignore that, and go on to take away somebodies 2nd ammendment rights is tyranny. Not to mention, the government needs to follow the proper judicial process to repeal the 2nd amendment, which is pretty much impossible in this current situation. Allowing the government to take away the rights of it's citizens without proper judicial process allows it to do anything as it pleases.=Summary of Points=1. Guns were used in self-defense situtations around 235,000 times between an interval of 3 years, and is from data that admits that only 51% of crime was reported. (implying there could be an even larger number of self-defense uses that were not reported)2. Gun Bans in Washington DC and the UK failed to do anything to reduce the homicide rate, and instead resulted in an increase in homicide rates (73% increase for D.C, and a 17% increase for the UK and Wales.)3. Economical impacts will occur. Nearly 220,000 people will lose their jobs, and the Federal government is losing about 6.2 billion dollars in taxes.4. Only people who will be affected are law abidding citizens. 93% of guns used in crime were illegally aquired, which means a ban would only affect 7% of crime, which is insignificant. Since the demand for firearms is very high, this will lead to a black market, where criminals will thrive selling and dealing illegal guns. Crime will most likely rise.5. 90% of Americans are against banning all guns, and banning guns will lead to a tyrannical government which doesn't follow proper judicial process.=Sources=1:http://www.bjs.gov...2:http://www.law.harvard.edu...3:http://www.disastercenter.com...4:http://www.justfacts.com...5:http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...6:http://www.nssf.org...7:http://www.gunfacts.info...8:http://www.pollingreport.com...