Firearms should be banned from possession by civilians.

Banning firearms will violate human rights, increase crime, and threaten personal safety. Therefore, I negate this resolution. == Additional Debate Parameter == As both PRO and the Instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. == The Negative Case == http://www.un.org... From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17: * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Firearms are property, so any ban on them would be an infringement upon Universal Human Rights. Besides the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to property can be seen as an ethical concern for its being a result of labor and its purpose in the pursuit of happiness. To deprive a man of property rightly obtained through the free exchange of labor or other property is a greater crime than to steal that man's labor or traded property, for had he not valued the traded-for property or labor more, he would not have engaged in the free exchange. Therefore, it is more ethical to enslave a $10/hour worker for fifty hours or pick $500 from his wallet than it is to steal his $500 firearm. To deprive a man of the opportunity to govern his property as he pleases hinders his pursuit of happiness, for removing this liberty limits the options from which he may find said happiness. Therefore, in confiscating civilian firearms, the government is removing such pleasantries as hunting and skeet shooting and grounds the very happiness it serves to liberate. To deprive a man of the opportunity to produce property as he pleases hinders his economic utility and productivity, for every service in demand is fruitful according to costs specific, and denying possession denies production. Therefore, an economy is more bountiful when left free to produce desirable property, such as firearms. http://www.law.harvard.edu... From the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy: "One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—'almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.' So it would not appreciably raise violence if all lawabiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use." It concludes that "murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and cultural factors." Clearly, banning civilian firearm possession has not lead to any decrease in violent crime. Logically, one should expect an opposite result. A ban on firearms has always been unenforceable, as seen in the prevalence of gun crime in Chicago during its ban [3]. This means that the only people who will abide by it are the most law-fearing and law-abiding of the citizenry. Those who neglect the law will retain their gun ownership, and be more capable of successfully committing violent crimes themselves. As noted by Harvard [2], "individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use." Thus, there is more incentive for violent crime under a gun ban than otherwise due to the reduced risk of the criminal. Reports Cato.org [4]: "The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states." Because the resolution would abolish the institution of concealed carry, the individual civilian would become a helpless victim to the tyranny of aggression. Because the federal, state, and local governments cannot be expected to provide defense to every citizen (this is unfeasible), people should be free to pursue self-defense and protect their personal safety. "Guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year" [4]; to remove this protection is to make vulnerable those who cannot ever hope to defend themselves, especially the elderly and handicapped. In conclusion, it is neither ethical nor intelligent to ban firearms from civilians. The resolution is negated. == Sources == [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://www.law.harvard.edu... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.cato.org...