Banning all firearms in the US would be detrimental to society

Closing statement- Con"s argument relies on the notion that when gun laws are tightened, killers will no longer use guns to commit their crimes, and therefore will not murder at all. I did extensive research trying to disprove this argument, hopping from MSNBC all the way to Fox News for answers regarding this seemingly logical statement. Then it hit me- The evidence to disprove Con"s statement is in his own argument! Allow me to explain. In his Round 2 argument, Con stated- "The so-called "strict gun control laws" which Pro cites are actually completely ineffectual, so it is to be expected that they would not succeed in mitigating Detroit's astronomical homicide rates." Let"s remind the voters what the topic of this debate is. "Banning all firearms in the US would be detrimental to society" My opponent took the Con side, therefore his goal is to prove that banning all firearms would either have no effect on, or help crime rates in the United States. Assuming that Con is correct in saying "The so-called "strict gun control laws" which Pro cites are actually completely ineffectual," one would get the idea that banning firearms would have no effect on society, therefore not hindering or helping crime rates. This notion, while seemingly rational, is actually absurd, as the idea relies on there being not one legal gun owner, of America"s 88.8 for every 100 citizens [1], has successfully defended him/herself. I was not aware of how extrapolated criminologist Gary Kleck"s study was, but we can conclude, regardless of how far left or right we are, that at least one person has successfully defended themselves with a firearm. Pair that with Con"s statement, and you have a clear example that the presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens does help society. I"m not stopping there, though. Many supporters of gun control laws have endorsed "gun free zones." Unfortunately, gun free zones suck. In fact, "on October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."[2][3].The quote from page ten of the study is below- "Since 2009, only 8 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where civilians are allowed to defend themselves." This can only mean one thing- gun free zones don"t work. Gun free zones are ineffectual for one simple reason. They rely on the idea that murderers will follow the rules. The people who made gun free zones had to be thinking that a madman with an assault rifle will be thinking: "Oh okay. There are no guns allowed there, so let me go kill people in a place where I'm allowed to." It's a crazy notion, and it works in nobody but the criminal's favor. What does this leave us with, then? We have the statement that gun control laws are "actually completely ineffectual" (thanks, Con) and the proof of that in Mr. Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center"s study). When we put these together, we see several ways that banning all guns could go- "We could become like the United Kingdom, who"s handgun ban resulted in this statistic-"The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent. In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled."[4] [5] Also, anyone who hunts for their own food is pretty much screwed. "All of America could become one big gun free zone, and suffer not only domestic attacks, but more terror as well. Look at the Westgate Mall shooting in Nairobi, Kenya. The shooting resulted in 68 tragic deaths. Kenya bans both open and concealed carrying of firearms by civilians. This, of course, did not stop the terrorists. Also, anyone who hunts for their own food is pretty much screwed. "Maybe we get lucky. Con is right and the gun laws do nothing to change our current state. Well, except those who could have defended themselves in a situation like Westgate Mall or Century 16 now cannot, and are killed. This constitutes as harming society. Also, anyone who hunts for their own food is pretty much screwed. "All the gun manufacturers go out of business and become poor. If Con is right, this will also raise murder rates, as he stated in his Round 2 argument that gun ownership rates are "dwarfed by factors such as arrest records and poverty levels." With this in mind, we can (sarcastically, of course) assume that all gun marketers will illegally sell firearms (spiking arrest records), as well as go around killing people, as Con seems to suggest that all poor people do. Also, anyone who hunts for their own food is pretty much screwed. "Con"s best case scenario- all guns are out of the hands of civilians and in the hands of police. Unfortunately, murders are still committed with knives, blunt objects, etc. as they already are. We can base good police response times on that of the "widely-acclaimed police force known around the nation for its efficiency" of Plano (Con is on a roll!). Plano"s police force has an average response time of 7:30 [6]. That"s more than enough time for someone to beat your brains out of your head and make a clean getaway. Also, anyone who hunts for their own food is pretty much screwed. And as for Con"s response to ethan1522 in the comments section, regardless of where you get the animal you"re about to eat, it had to be killed at one point, and I wouldn"t recommend attacking a deer with a blunt object. Many Americans actually hunt for their own food [7] Oh yeah, and Con"s "study which analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide rates across ALL 50 states, over a 10 YEAR period" is from the 80"s. Is that really relevant to today? Well, I"ll let the voters decide. Also, as 16kadams pointed out Con"s Round one graph is about as effective as most gun free zones. He forgot to include places like heavily gun controlled Honduras [9], which has roughly 19 times our murder rate [8] USA: 4.7 murders per 100,000 citizens. [8] Honduras: 90.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. [8] Conclusion: Firearms are used to not only kill innocent people, but to "Put food on the tables of those who hunt either for a living, or for their own benefit. "To defend people against a tyrannical or oppressive government "To fight against domestic crime "To fight against foreign terror "To protect yourself when you can"t wait 7-10 minutes for the police to arrive The point? If Con"s own argument is correct, then he loses. He says that gun control laws are ineffectual, thus proving that society would not be helped. PS: Mother Jones is biased. When I fact check your source, I shouldn't get a pop up saying "don"t let Republicans buy our democracy." Please use more centrist sources. Also, my bullet points and apostrophes are becoming quotation marks for some magical reason. I don"t know why. Vote Pro! Sources: 1.)Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies. "Small Arms Survey 2007" 2.)http://www.breitbart.com... (the study can be accessed from this website by clicking the phrase "CPRC showed") I don"t know how to get the PDF URL. The PDF will be referenced as source #3 3.)The aforementioned PDF 4.)http://townhall.com... 5.)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 6.)http://www.plano.gov... 7.)http://www.statisticbrain.com... 8.)"Intentional homicide count and rate per 100,000 population, by country/territory (2000-2012)" (XLSX). Global Study on Homicide - Data: UNODC Homicide Statistics 2013 (statistical overview). Vienna, Austria: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC. 9.)http://www.