The United States Ought to Ban Firearms

=Americans use guns for self defense= I’m not sure why Pro thinks the amount of times guns were used in self-defense is considered irrelevant. This is clear empirical data which clearly states how many times guns were used in self-defense. Pro realizes on a study which tries to present the likelihood of something happening, which certainly doesn’t apply to everybody in every situation. Statistically speaking, I’m more likely to be killed living in the Chicago than I would be if I’m in Toronto, but that certainly would not apply to everybody. Pro says “on balance” possessing a gun causes more deaths, but we can’t exactly predict when and how a gun would be used. Number of lives saved from Con’s plan (assuming that they do not commit suicide after banning guns) 18,104 from suicides 19,000 from gun accidents (actual number of people who died is 505) Total= 37,104 people Number of people who saved their lives with defensive self-defense using guns 235,000 from violent crime 103,000 from property crime Total= 338,000 people If we look at this from a utilitarian perspective, there is more benefit on my side of the case. If we were to go by Pro’s argument, it’s clear that at least 375,000 people (including those in property crime) would not be able to defend themselves with firearms. My side clearly has more benefit than Pros, since I’m able to show how many people benefitted from using guns as a form of self-defense. The stats are overwhelmingly in my favor. =Gun bans in the past have been followed by increased crime= It is true that the statistics that I presented do not directly correlate to the gun ban. But it’s interesting that Pro brings up other factors such as education, culture, organized crime. In the places that I presented, both places Washington D. C, and the U. K are very different, when it comes to factors such as organized crime. The U. K generally does not have the crime issues that the United States deals with, yet even with a gun ban, the U. K’s crime rate when up. We just need to picture this in the U. S, to see that the consequences in the U. S could only be worse than what happened in the U. K. In regards to socioeconomic factors such as poverty and income equality, the U. S is worse than what the U. K has, so it can only be reasonable to assume that crime will increase with a gun ban in the U. S. There hasn’t been a single place in the U. S where guns were outright banned, and this resulted in reduction in crime. (1) =Hurts the economy= Pro seems to believe that the economic impacts are very miniscule, but the impacts go much further than a bunch of people just losing their job. Studies have shown that unemployment is a high correlation factor in increasing crime rates. If Pro’s argument is that saving lives in more important, he is conceding that by banning guns, he risks increasing the chance of unemployment which could lead to terrible things such as an increase of crime. (2) Let’s not forget to mention that the economic repercussions itself are pretty big, and impacts many other factors than just saving lives. Pro says that guns do cost people a lot of money, which is true. However, you can’t compare this to the stat I provided because I show that the U. S will lose 6 billion dollars from the gun industry. When you buy something, you aren’t throwing your money away. This money is reinvested back into the economy. That’s how economics work. If I buy an Xbox one for myself, I’m not throwing 300 dollars into the trash. That money is going to various people who developed and built the console. Similarly, when people buy guns, that money is going to the people who build these guns. In my case, if the government decides to slap a ban, all that money is truly being lost. That money is no longer being re-invested back into the economy. Which is why unemployment occurring. (you can’t pay workers (if you don’t have the money to do so) So, to conclude the economic impacts lead to issues like unemployment, which in return could correlate to things like crime. It also is incorrect to compare this to the costs of buying guns, since that money is being re-invested back into the economy, which means it isn’t going to the trash. =Will create a bigger black market for guns= Pro makes an argument that guns are only made in factories, and with a ban, the only guns are those already made, and with supply/demand law, those guns will reach high prices. There is two things wrong with this. Pro seems to assume that guns are only made in factories. This is false. There are about 16k gunsmiths currently in the U. S at the moment. (3) So, it’s fallacious to assume that gun production would stop entirely. It would also make sense to assume that the amount of gunsmiths would likely increase, considering that the demand for guns would sharply increase. The other thing is the improvised firearms, which I mentioned last round, and which Con completely ignored. Improvised firearms are an emerging technology. People have found ways to 3D print guns, and I have shown evidence of people using this to kill other people (Con saying I provided 0 instances is false). So to conclude, the black market for guns will definitely increase. Through future technology, and the likely increase of the # of gunsmiths. =Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state= In pro’s original statement, he clearly states “session of firearms for regular US citizens (excluding military, law enforcement, etc. ), will be made illegal. Citizens will have a set amount of time to turn in their firearms to a collection center (they would be in the parking lots of grocery stores, that kind of stuff), and if they are found doing one of the things above, they will be punished by whatever punishment is put in place. ” This basically is implying that the police would go somebodies house, and forcefully confiscate it. I’m not given any reason to assume that people will just willingly give their guns up, especially since 90% of Americans are opposed to this. Also, pointing out that “citizens are law abiding” pretty much defeats the whole purpose of Con’s case. If they are law abiding people, why do we even need a gun ban? Law abiding citizens follow laws that prohibit violence if we go by that logic. I agree that this shouldn’t be the focal point of the debate, however I do believe that It has some impact into this discussion. We the U. S are a constitutional republic. We elect people to represent us in the government, and there is no point of that if our politicians are going to do some that we despise. Con talks about abortion, but the disapproval rating for abortion is nowhere near 90% (around half), thus it has much less impact in this discussion. I think 90% is a significant amount, that it is worth mentioning. I think it’s reasonable to assume that there is probably something wrong with a gun ban if 90% of the population oppose it. I finish my debate with this. Thank you Hayd for this debate, and may the best debater win. Sources: 1: . http://www.bloomberg.com... 2: . http://jhr.uwpress.org... 3: . http://www.forbes.com...