Should Guns Be Completely Banned In The U.S (U.S Residents Only Please)

P1) Guns increase crime “Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”(1) The vast majority of the research suggests the presence of gun in the home increase suicide, homicide, and accidental risk. If this is correct, reducing the amount of homes with firearms would decrease suicide, homicide, and accidental risks. Another study using “data from 26 developed countries”, the study found “where guns are more available, there are more homicides”(1). Guns are positively correlated with the homicide rate. P2) Gun ownership would decrease As noted above, gun ownership increases violence--both intentional and accidental. This means if the gun supply was reduced, there would be less firearm and overall violence. Law abiding citizens would turn in their firearms. This means fewer accidental deaths and suicides would occur, according to the evidence I provided. 5% of criminals had stolen their firearms, 10% borrowed it, and 8% traded for it (2). This means banning firearms would at least reduce the gun supply by 5%, and maybe 15%. It is also possible they traded for legally purchased firearms, so the gun supply could fall 23%--almost one quarter. This would significantly increase the price of a firearm. Increased prices decrease consumption. Therefore, as gun ownership would decrease in both law abiding and criminal spheres, death rateswould decrease. C) Banning guns reduces the crime rate (1)http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... (2) http://www.pbs.org... == Rebuttals == R1) Overall crime My opponent claims overall crime does not decrease after gun bans. My opponent admits guns are the most efficient way to kill people. If the efficient means are removed, killing becomes inefficient. This means the amount of people killed in, say, mass shootings would decrease as no efficient means exists to kill 3 or more people. Also as killing people with a gun is impersonal--you can do it from feet away, no physical contact--people who are fairly docile can kill people and feel no regret until after they do it. This means guns facilitate overall murder rates, too. It should also be noted “[i]n the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards.” (3) Thus, australian gun laws made the mass-shooting death rate 0. As the firearms death rate fell, so did overall violence. If the efficient method is removed, it is fairly obvious that overall death rates would fall. (3) http://www.loc.gov... R2) Constitution This is a debate as to whether or not guns *should* be banned. Legal constraints don't tell us whether or not something *should* be banned, only if they *can* be banned. Laws *can* be good, but they don’t tell us what *is* good. SO merely because our laws say don’t ban guns does not mean bans *should* not be banned. I provided evidence that bans would save lives--meaning we *should* ban guns. Regardless, the meaning of the second amendment is really debates. Although the supreme court--twice--ruled the second amendment protects individual gun ownership, that overturns centuries of rulings to the contrary. Until those two cases, “the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals.” (4) (4) http://www.huppi.com... On to you, Con.