Winter Regular Final: Gun Ban

FrameworkMy case will focus on the amount of deaths that the existence of firearms causes in America. It follows that taking away firearms will save these lives. Since the value of lives outweigh all other factors (e.g. cost, culture, etc.), the outcome of this debate relies heavily on Con’s ability to refute the following contentions; and which side has more lives saved. C1) SuicidesIf guns were to be banned, this would greatly decrease the lives taken by suicide.“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.” [1]When a person possesses a gun, they are more likely to commit suicide, (3 times more likely) [2]. This is because when someone is feeling depressed, they think of the gun sitting in the closet, and a way out of their pain. This causes them to think about committing suicide, and sometimes they do. When you take away the gun from the situation, they are less likely think about that way out, and are less likely to take that way out. Suicide by firearm is also more likely to successful; more than half of all suicides are done by firearm [3] and 85% of these are successful [4], the most fatal method. If a gun is taken out of the situation, the troubled person will be forced to use a less lethal method. By using a less lethal method, his/her chances of surviving the suicide attempt are raised drastically. For example, the next most used method is drug overdose, which is fatal 6-12% of the time [8]. Now that the person is more likely to survive the suicide attempt, they can get help and receive treatment for their depression, which cures them of it 80-90% of the time [5].By taking away gun rights, you effectively give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back. You reduce the amount of suicides nationwide, saving millions of lives.C2) HomicideEnacting a ban on firearms would dramatically decrease the amount of homicides.Firearms are a criminal’s favorite tool; easily concealed, fast, fatal and easy. No wonder of the 12,765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with firearms, 69.4% of all homicides [6]. Taking away the murderer’s most effective weapon forces murderer’s to use a different weapon, a less effective one, making murders less effective and saving thousands of innocent lives in the process.C3) AccidentsA firearm is an extremely dangerous object. An accidental bump, or brush of the trigger unleashes a high-powered bullet that destroys everything in its path. Firearms claim thousands of accidental deaths every year."In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…” [7]Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave anyone involved with the act a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life. If guns were to be banned, this would not happen.[1] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 4.[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com...[3] http://lostallhope.com...[4] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[5] http://www.save.org...[6] http://www.infoplease.com...[7] http://www.thedailybeast.com...[8] http://lostallhope.com...R1) A Ban is not a solution to violenceCon first argues that it is irrelevant to use raw data from different countries other than the US. This is because there is no way to show that guns are causing the change in crime instead of the other factors that could influence this such as police funding, drug availability, economy, culture, etc. This also makes the effects of gun policy/bans in other countries impossible to apply to the US because of these same differences (culture, economy, etc.). I agree. But this is merely a defensive argument against the use of raw data from different countries and applying it the US. Which neither of us are doing. Con then says that, “In America, we can conclude that private ownership of guns reduces crime...” What evidence does he use to justify it? He cites a website that uses no source to justify the claim. The site just says it [3]. Thus, it can be thrown out as a bare assertion. Con argues that if guns were banned, people would go to black markets for guns, which is very easy to do. And thus a gun ban wouldn’t reduce the amount of firearms and therefore a gun ban wouldn’t reduce violent crime. This is a nirvana fallacy; rejecting a partial solution because it isn’t perfect. A partial fix is better than no fix at all; something is better than nothing. Even if the black market is so accessible and easy to use there is still compelling reason to enact a gun ban. If breaking the law entails punishment, criminals have to internalize a cost factor into their actions. Although this won’t deter the most evil of criminals (first-degree murderers, mass murderers, etc.), it will deter the majority of criminals. Deterring the majority of criminals is better than not deterring any. Besides, citizens who want to follow the law (which is the majority of people), will follow the law, and thus firearm accidents and suicides still prevail. A black market is also unlikely to be created, or used very often. This is because the cost of guns on the black market are double or triple their actual retail worth [4]. As most criminals are poor, this is an expense they cannot pay. They will refer to what they can get; knives and clubs. As I outlined in my argument, this makes crime less effective. Research has found that it is not the actual volume of firearms that produces illegal drug trade, but the flow [5]. This is the key factor in the black market. Disrupting this, disrupts the effectiveness in the black market. If guns were banned, it would be illegal to manufacture guns except for government agencies (police department, military, etc.). Not having an influx of new guns to society disrupts this flow, and thus shuts down the black market industry. Therefore we can conclude that a gun ban would not increase a black market, but actually disrupt it. If we are arguing that we reject laws because it will not have a 100% compliance rate, what is the purpose of having laws at all? By Con’s logic, we could repeal the law against murder and, robbery, rape...anything, out of the fear of violation. This logic devolves into a society lacking any laws whatsoever, an anarchy. It's not sound logic.Con doesn’t propose any good things about guns. It is truism that a gun ban would reduce the amount of guns, even if we accept that a black market would open up. Thus this argument doesn’t have any positive impact for Con, for there is no reason to believe a loss of guns would be a good thing. R2) Alternatives to a Gun BanHere Con proposes all of his counter-plans. Con suggests that people who want to purchase a gun should have to pass psychological testing. But by Con’s own black market argument, people that fail the psychological test could easily just go onto the web and purchase anything they want using bitcoins. This is counterplan is negated by Con’s own reasoning. He must concede one of the arguments; counterplan or black market argument. If he concedes this CP (counterplan), the black market argument is still negated by me on nirvana fallacy. If he concedes his CP, the argument is negated by impact analysis; the amount of lives that can be saved by a gun ban is more than will be saved by psychological tests (it will have a small impact on violent crime, but none on suicides and accidents, outweighing it).This same concept can be applied to Con’s repealed licence plan, the people who lost their privileges can just get guns through the black market. Con then suggests child-proofing guns. Requiring trigger-locks, putting it in a safe, etc. The thing about this is that it is detrimental to safety. Putting trigger locks on loaded guns is dangerous [1], and using either “safety precaution “completely takes away any self-defense argument Con can run. Besides, gun owners are unlikely to follow this counterplan, and it will be nearly impossible to enforce. The counterplan will actually make things worse. “Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner.” And that, “Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely.” [2]Gun training is required to buy a gun in many states, it is the law. This counterplan would only further the problem it wishes to solve. [1] http://www.slate.com...[2] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[3] http://www.gunfacts.info...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...