Gun Ban

My rebutalls R1: Suicide For this argument, Pro argues that guns are used in 60% of crime, and by banning guns, you it could “potentially” reduce the suicide rates. First of all, I don’t really see a compelling reason to ban something when it doesn’t effect somebody else, and this is called the Harm principle. The Harm principle states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. Before my argument is mis-interpreted, I want to say, I definitely do not condone suicide, and I find the act to be selfish. The issue here however, is that it’s not the act of suicide that I’m defending, but rather the tool that was used in the suicide. Just because people use guns to suicide, 60% of the time, that isn’t a reasonable reason to ban guns. This is because guns were not created to commit suicide, but were created to high velocity bullets are enemies or other assigned tasks. In the U. S, many people use guns for hunting, many people like collecting antique guns, and most importantly, many people use guns in self-defense situations, far more than they use it to commit suicide. Like Pro argued earlier, .8% or around 300,000 self defense situations involved a gun used in a self defense, far more than they were used in suicide, which is about 60% of all suicides, or 25,000 incidents. To conclude, Pro simply cannot advocate for banning guns based on gun related suicide, since the act of using a gun in suicide does not harm anybody else, and there have been more incidents of guns used in self-defense than there were gun related sucicides R2: Self Defense This argument doesn’t make any sense, because Pro is contradicting himself in this argument. He says banning guns wouldn’t effect self-defense situations, but the nature of banning guns would affect that. Even if guns were used for self-defense once a year, a ban on guns would affect that, thus Pro’s argument is nullified. Even with what Pro said, his statistics are still wrong. Guns were used 300,000 times over the span of 4 years, and in 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. If we assume that this continued for 4 years, 31076x4= 124,304 incidents. Keep in mind, the homicide rate has been on a steady decline, so the chances of that number being the same is unlikely. My rebutall for accidents is the same as above, but there isn’t enough proof that shows that gun bans would solve this. I mentioned in my arguments that a gun ban wouldn’t be sufficient enough to deal with all the illegal guns. Pro hasn’t really addressed how a gun ban would deal would actually reduce accidents. R2: HomicidesPro’s argument is that by banning guns, it takes away a criminal’s weapon. This is false. 93% of gun crime is committed with illegal guns, so how would a gun ban deal with the problem, when it only addresses 7% of legal guns? Pro uses inaccurate comparison to the Iraq War, and this is basically a pointless comparison since there are 310 million people in the U. S, and there wasn’t even 1 million troops in Iraq. R3: CCWNowhere in Pro’s sources does it state 29 incidents of mass shootings involved CCW’s. Pro’s arguments don’t even show that CCW doesn’t reduce crime. I can’t really refute this, since Pro doesn’t even argue what he is trying to say.