A complete gun ban in the United States

A strong refutation by con. I believe it is time for me to address the main issue in this debate, and they are as follows: protection, collection, and risk Now, i personally feel that it is an entirely different topic altogether to discuss the practicality of the matter, and i would like to take your example, "If we were debating under the following resolution: "Should we travel to Mars?" a valid contention would be that we do not have the necessary technology to travel there, so if we were to attempt to land a spacecraft on Mars, it would likely be a failed mission." as a point on why feasibility is not an issue. In the 1960's, the United States put a man on the moon, yet at the beginning of the decade, the technology was considered unfeasible and highly theoretical, yet we decided after much debate to go forth and achieve it. Now in the debates, practicality was NOT an issue, as this was an argument to merely set a goal and work to achieve, not to design the entire program at once. Now with have been said, i shall provide the con with a practical plan of disarmament as there has been much demand to see one. The plan would be as follows: 1. The gun ban is adopted across the United States 2. As gun ownership is now a crime, local law enforcement throughout the country now have the right to access the national registry of gun ownership 3. Local police departments would set areas where guns would be collected and processed, in exchange for complete amnesty for ownership. This phase would last for 6 months 4. After the 6 months have expired, law enforcement would seize weapons from any registered owner who refused to comply at they would be fined for each offense. 5. After another 6 months, any gun found would be seized by law enforcement, and those who broke the law would face jail time 6. Local law enforcement would expand it's patrols in order to guarantee the safety of the citizens Now on to the protection issue, the murder rate would plummet following a gun ban, because while the con was quick to bring up how little handguns contributed to murder, it was a lie through omission that legally owned guns contributed little to violence, as handguns are but one type of firearm, in fact 3/4 of guns used in mass murders an shootings were legally purchased. We would also see an end to the disturbing trend of rising gun related injury and homicide. And that is despite all of the advancements in treating gunshot wounds and the resulting trauma. Besides a majority of the population favors these bans on weapons. To be exact, 54 percent or 17 million more voters are in favor of a total ban. Now on to the final point risk. Yes the pro was very quick to make a mockery of my stance that an automatic assault weapon capable of firing multiple rounds per second with an easily re-loadable magazine capable of penetrating police body armor and with effective range of 200 meters is dangerous. That must have been a foolish to think. In the united states, every day, 289 people are shot and 86 people are killed by guns daily on average. Now let say we were to ban guns, and lets say that 30% of guns are then illegally smuggled, which of course is a gross overestimate, we would save over 20,000 people a year! But what about the benefits you may ask? People feel in control and as a result make poor decisions. A study conducted by the NRA stated that at the shooting of Charlie Hebdo, if everyone was armed, there would have been more casualties suffered by the staff, not fewer as was the popular misconception. I'm am in no saying we should ban everything dangerous, i merely stating that guns tend to put people in high risk scenarios and does very little to actually protect them. This may be iconoclastic, but it is simply the truth, guns offer very little benefits while putting the lives of everyone at risk. My next contention, con says, "Pro states that these angered people would definitely kill people if they had access to guns - yet provides no evidence for it." I really did not want to discuss these ad events, and if the con wished to see the effects of anger and gun violence, i would urge to look at the news every now and then. I would like to thank the Con for this wondrous debate, and i wish him best of luck in the last round of debate which i shall waive as per agreements. Your move con! Sources: http://www.thewire.com... http://usnews.nbcnews.com... http://news.discovery.com... http://www.gunpolicy.org...