Guns ought to be banned for the purpose of decreasing violent crime.

I also apologize for not responding until the last minute, hopefully the next round will be a bit more punctual. My opponent's entire argument is based on the premise that guns kill people. Again I do not deny this, but rather I argue that banning guns will not significantly prevent criminals from acquiring guns, and even if it does make guns harder to acquire, criminals will simply use other means to achieve their ends. My opponent tries to get out of this by saying, "I deny that banning guns will stop violent crime, also. But that is not the argument. The statement reads, Guns ought to be banned for the purpose of DECREASING violent crime. The ease at which guns are acquired these days is phenomenal. If violent offenders are forced to use more personal means of attack they will think twice about it. Human psychology is complex, but seeing that gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides and over half the suicides, ( Bjerregaard, Beth, Alan J. Lizotte (1995). "Gun Ownership and Gang Membership), it really isn't that much of a stretch to assume that rates of violence WOULD go down." First, my opponent tries to make a psychological claim, without a psychological warrant. Second my opponent makes the assumption here that banning guns will make them significantly harder to get. My opponent states: "True, but it would add another barrier to the acquisition , one more deterrent to crime. I wonder how many crimes are motivated BECAUSE the perpetrator has a gun?" Has the banning of marijuana in the United States made it significantly harder to get? My opponent again makes a psychological claim, that somehow having a gun destroys people's capacity to reason, or in some other way causes them to make crimes. In fact it is logical to conclude that the more guns there are in a society, the less likely a criminal would want to mess with a random, potentially armed, bystander. My opponent then agrees with my next point! What sort of police overhauls are you proposing any how? Because my opponent doesn't explain this point at all, its irrelevant and the fact still stands: Banning guns will increase the power of gangs. My opponent's next statistic is very important. "Results from a 1991 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of some 2,280 handgun-using state prison inmates support Wright and Rossi's observation that the illicit firearms market exploited by criminals is heavily dominated by informal, off-the-record transactions, either with friends and family or with various street sources (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993). The 1991 survey found that only 27 percent of the inmates who used a handgun in crime that led to their incarceration reported they obtained the handgun by purchase from a retail outlet. (http://www.nap.edu......) A vast majority of gangs use illegally obtained weapons almost exclusively anyway, so this point is moot." This statistic completely contradicts their case that banning guns some how makes it significantly harder for criminals to acquire guns. "Both Kellermann and Reay (1986) and Rushforth et al. (1974) compare fatalities caused by self-defense and other motivations. Both studies find that people using guns in self-defense account for a small fraction of fatalities in the home. Kellermann and Reay find that there were nearly 5 times as many homicides and 37 times as many suicides as perpetrators killed in self-defense. They go on to conclude, "The advisability of keeping a firearm in the home for protection must be questioned." Rushforth et al. (1974) found similar results and drew similar conclusions. (http://www.nap.edu......)" What my opponent fails to take into account is the uncountable number of homicides that DON'T happen, because a criminal is deterred by the fact that their victim could defend themselves. My opponent's next batch of statistics suffer the same assumptions as the rest of their argument, that it is based on the premise that guns kill people. Again I do not deny this, but rather I argue that banning guns will not significantly prevent criminals from acquiring guns, and even if it does make guns harder to acquire, criminals will simply use other means to achieve their ends. Also, remember I told you in my last speech that, none of my opponent's facts compare a society with and without guns, and thus none are relevant with the topic. These statistics are inherently biased in that they compare the United State's society to other societies, with wildly different values and laws. They also only compare gun violence, not all violent crimes which is what the resolution is dealing with. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to have such an interesting and educational debate with them, and wish them good luck on their next round, and in future endeavors. I thank any voters for spending their time reading this debate, and hope they vote objectively. I would appreciate it if my opponent didn't bring up any new arguments that I cannot respond to. Good luck!