All firearms should be banned.

1. My opponent stated that "Guns in the home are far more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder. .. " He stated that "two-thirds" of killings are caused by spouses, lovers, neighbors, or friends. What I found was that the information by Frank Zimring was rather outdated, dating back to 1967. What pro failed to understand was that Chicago is known to have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, requiring a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) that includes extensive background checks and processing that takes anywhere from 3-12 weeks for any type of firearm. Pro also failed to state the exact number of the "two-thirds" of the killings occur with, and the type of firearms the murders occur with. He is also implying that because a majority of murders in Illinois (a state with some of the highest crime in the nation) happens between people who know each other such as family, friends, or neighbors, then it must be a problem in states where the problem is less prevalent. Pro also states that guns "facilitate killings that would otherwise not be possible," as well as "guns are used exclusively in police killings. " While both statements are true, the fact that "guns are used to facilitate killings that would otherwise not be possible" can also be applied to countless every-day objects. It is impossible to drown without water, it is impossible to get run over without a car, and is impossible to suffocate if there is no oxygen the same way no one can be shot if there are no guns. The point I am trying to prove is that there are many potential dangers in the world, and guns are being targeted simply because they are "scary. " While the fact that "guns are used exclusively in police killings" may be true, Pro stated earlier in his proposal that "a firearm ban among the general populace would carve out exceptions for the military and special police units (like SWAT TEAMS). " This leads me to assume that the police are outmatched by civilians and criminals alike, which rather degrades their degree of training. However, this also displays hows police would be obsolete in protecting the citizens from crime when guns are banned, because guns will still exist in the hands of criminals under the black market, assuming it is criminals (not LAW-ABIDING citizens) who kill them. Even if a gun ban were to happen, there are 90 million in-counting gun owners It is quite obvious that higher caliber guns are deadlier than lower-caliber guns, but Pro failed to be specific on what types of guns he was referring to. It is only assumed that "higher-caliber" guns refers to weapons such as hunting rifles or shotguns, and "lower-caliber" refers to handguns. However, Pro failed to state any facts or statistics that proves this point. While altercations may be more likely to result in fatal injury, the fact that guns are used between 1.8 million to 2.5 million times a year in self defense (which may include many deadly altercations) overrides this theory, because it is simply stupid to endanger that number of people in order to make family arguments less deadly. It is simply absurd when Pro states that "gun ownership is followed by increased homicide rates. " What Pro failed to understand was that homicide is the murder of a human being by another human being, and that it includes both self-defense and murder. Pro also failed to do was explain which concept is more prevalent in "increased homicide. " However, the balance tips in favor of self-defense seeing as the 2.5 million times guns are used to save lives remains consistent. 2. Although the "bullet control" would indeed be effective, the inflation may not be as prevalent as theorized. For example, illegal drugs such as marijuana and meth are constantly being imported and produced into the U. S. People manage to smuggle and deal them at prices even average teenagers could afford. The marijuana is grown and the meth is created in labs secretly in houses, in underground hideouts, or countless other methods in hiding. The same would happen with bullets and guns. When American firearm/ammunition companies (such as Winchester or Remington) or foreign companies (such as H&K, Glock, or Wolf Ammunition Industries) as well as countless more are shut down due to the ammuntion/gun bans, their products simply won't disappear. Especially in an economy crisis like the one in the United States, many employees will be looking for alternative ways to manufacture and sell their products. Worldwide, there are billions of guns (I've found inconsistent numbers between 12-36 billion), which most likely means there exists ammunition at an exponentially higher number. Even with bans and legislations, those guns and ammo will not simply disappear. They will continue to circulate in the same fashion they were before, but since they are illegal, it will be under a massive black market. A good example of illicit trading is the Bakaara Market in Mogadishu, Somalia, where fully-automatic AK-47's, as well as rocket propelled grenades (RPG's), mortars, and other arms are sold. Some manufacturers may even develop a way to once again effectively mass produce bullets and guns like they did before they were banned. There are, in fact, methods for reusing already-fried ammunition (called reloading) as well as availability of other materials needed. Even though the price and demand may rise, it will not be so exponential that not even a common criminal can obtain it. A box of 9mm (a common handgun round) that contains 50 rounds is between $10-15 USD depending on the quality and brand. If it is outlawed, the inflation may slowly go towards $60-70, maybe more, but if teenagers, criminals, or average people can buy marijuana for up to the same amount of money for a bowl (it is surprising how many people are willing to pay that much), I don't see much of a problem of them buying ammunition. Not to mention 50 rounds is far more than enough to rob at least a dozen houses. Eventually, this rising inflation would rise to people using these outlawed products against each other to claim each other's money and products as inflation slowly rises, the same concept as the "now I got the money AND the weed" situation. To sum everything up, over a period of time, a gun ban would cause a disaster in underground dealing, as well as creating more criminals who don't want to give up their guns, and as a result, keep them illegally. Authorities would be at more danger as well, as they are attempting to confiscate deadly weapons that could readily be used against them in the event of a raid or other confiscation method. As a brief summary of my findings, the heated arguments between families, friends, neighbors, or loved ones should be at their own discretion, and not blamed on guns. Even though fatalities occur from these situations, the 2.5 million times a year guns save lives far outweighs these events. I have also theorized that crime would evolve into a network of manufacturing and selling illegal guns and ammo, and would inflation would eventually lead to the industry falling into disaster, presenting a danger to civilians, criminals, and authorities alike. Citations: . http://www.isp.state.il.us... . http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... (Please see comments section for a Myth: Gun Control reduces crime video) . http://www.thearmedcitizen.com... . http://www.pulpless.com... . http://www.guncite.com... . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...