Banning guns

Firstly, I am not arguing that guns' presence decreases crime. I know that if there were no guns, there would be less crime. I am arguing that a legal ban on them would be purposeless and would increase crime. Anyway, Crime Rates: My opponent stated that in the 1990's, the number of guns went down, as did the crime rates. I beg to differ, and you can check out the National Safety Council's study to be sure, that the number of guns actually increased by roughly 40 million, and the murder rate decreased 40%.[1] Also, in every single case in which guns have been banned, crime has risen. You cannot give me a single definite example against that. You may give me a case where guns have been banned and give me the low amount of crime afterwards, but you will avoid the amount of crime before the ban. Because in every case, crime goes up.[2] Again, I will not deny that guns make it easier to commit crimes. But with so many in the system, the only ones that will be affected by a ban are the legal ones owned by law abiding citizens. My opponent also gave the example of suicide, and that is irrelevant because he did not give me a source demonstrating his argument, nor has he likely ever considered actually killing himself. He does not know what it is like. And neither do I, but if someone wants to take their own life, it is their right to do so. Lastly, there are many painless ways to kill oneself. i.e. helium asphyxiation. Sitting duck argument: My opponent believes that most guns used in crimes are legally owned, and thus would be affected by gun bans. But the facts show that the majority of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally, off black market sources.[3] These guns are not affected by gun bans. The only guns that are affected by gun bans are those owned by law-abiding citizens, and so the citizens relinquish their weapons. The criminals do not. Even if criminals did obtain most weapons legally, they would likely not turn them in. [4] Criminals only following certain laws: If a criminal is taking his chances by breaking such a law as murder, which is a very severe crime, what is the incentive for him not to break such a trivial law as a gun ban. If one is willing to kill another human being, he is more than willing to break one more little law in the process. Again, this is not a fact, it is human psychology, and in my opinion, is quite simple to understand. Self-defense: Civilians use guns to defend themselves 2.5 million times a year. More than 80 times as often to defend lives than to take them in aggression.[5] Smaller numbers are based on the numbers of incidents in which the assailant was shot and/or killed. In the majority of these cases, the mere brandishing of a weapon is sufficient to deter an attack.[6] Guns vs. Drugs. I do not consider guns and drugs to be physically similar. They are similar in that they are both simple, common, cheap goods that are coveted by criminals. Also, they behave the same way when banned. When we banned alcohol, crime went up and illegal drinking went up.[7] When we banned cocaine, for example, crime went up and there are still huge amounts of illegal cocaine on the streets. Guns are simple pieces of metal, and it is unfeasible to expect that criminals will comply with this gun ban, as criminals have not complied with the bans on drugs, so why would they turn in their guns? The only way to protect people from these criminals, is not to take away their means of protection. It is to allow them that means of protection. Police officers: My point is not that police officers should not have guns. My point is that if police can protect people and stop crimes with guns, then civilians should be allowed the ability to protect people and stop crimes with guns when the police are not around, because the police cannot always be around. Mass shootings: The monsters that perform these horrible acts routinely plan out their crimes well in advance.[8] It is easy to get an illegal gun in that amount of time. I am for background checks to try and stop these people from getting guns, but bans will not stop them. You assume that these people obey the law when they do these things. They don't. It is illegal for a mentally ill person to buy a gun, but they got them illegally. They stole them from a sane person who owned them legally, yes, but such a great amount of time to plan out these attacks allows them to obtain guns any number of ways. And my opponent has not refuted the fact that mass shooters routinely seek out gun free zones to commit their attacks. In fact, every mass shooting in the past 20 years with one exception, has occurred in a gun free zone.[9] This proves that armed civilians deter criminals. If places where guns are banned attract shooters, why make the united states a gun free zone? It will only increase crime. Conclusion: I have met the burden of proof, regardless of whether or not my opponent believes I did, and have provided irrefutable statistics, even refuting possible counter-arguments he may provide in his next round. 1.National Safety Council, Injury Facts (2000), p. 125. 2.http://people.duke.edu... 3.http://www.gunfacts.info... 4.http://www.gunfacts.info... 5.http://gunowners.org... 6.http://www.gunfacts.info... 7.http://www.albany.edu... 8.http://www.thedailybeast.com... 9.http://www.nashuatelegraph.com...