Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

Thank you Feu! I now begin with my defence. ___ Crime "My opponent argues that if we ban guns, then there will be a reduce of crime (...) First of all, there are way more guns in the U.S. then England, so we cannot say it is the same as the U.S., and it isn"t, because there are 310 million guns in the US [1]. Per 100 people, there are 112.6 guns in the US [1] [2], when there are only 6.6 guns per 100 people in the UK [2]. So I have shown that the rates of guns are very different, so we have no guarantee that there will be less crime." Just to tidy up your paragraph, this is what you're basically saying: -There are way more guns in the US than the UK. -We cannot guarantee that there will be less crime in the US if we ban guns because the rates between the two countries are too different in order to compare them. I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me. The fact is, the UK has less crimes and less guns. The US has more crimes and more guns. Therefore, we should ban guns to reduce crime! "I will be talking about the 1997 gun control law. After the 1997 event, crime rates went up way higher than before." That is a very long time ago and therefore outdated. What we are debating is about whether guns should be banned in the US right now. From my more recent source, it is quite clear that in the US, places where there was stricter gun control had less crimes [7]. Suicide "even though we ban guns, there will still be suicides. The people who want to suicide will still like jump off a 10 story building, or something creative." Yes of course there will still be suicides, I agree with you. But in the United States, a Harvard study shows that the suicide rates are directly linked with the percentage of gun ownership [6]. This proves that the accessibility of guns actually encourage suicide. "So why can"t the ones who want to suicide, suicide? They want to not continue on living, so we should let them do as they please, which in this situation for them is killing themselves." Encouraging suicide is encouraging cowardice. Obviously, there are situations where this is not the case but in general, allowing people an easy way out of their life problems is not going to help a society. People who handle stress better are more successful than those who cannot and I think therefore, banning guns in the US would be very beneficial to the American people. "my opponent is Pro Euthanasia and Pro abortion [14], I don"t get why she wants suicides banned and decreased, when it is almost the same thing." Euthanasia is defined as "the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition." What's the point of enduring a painful end when you know you're going to die soon anyways? Suicide is mostly an escape for those who are too weak-minded to push through their troubles (and I don't say this lightly). Euthanasia and suicide are therefore two very different things. As for abortion, I believe that women have a choice over what happens if it concerns their own health and in other extreme cases. That is very different to suicide. Bad for defense "My opponent makes an argument that guns are bad for defense. This is false, as I already showed 75,000 self-defense cases where there, and my opponent argues basically near that number also." Yes but banning guns will reduce crime as I explained earlier [7] so there won't be much need for guns for self-defence. "My opponent says that is few, considering there are 310 million guns in the US. First of all, not all houses get attacks from robbers, or the opportunity to get robbed." I'm sorry, but I genuinely find it difficult sometimes to understand what you're trying to say. What is the point you're making here? "So, counting all 310 million guns is unreasonable. Around 80 million is a reasonable answer, and there is still lots if you count it like that." Could you please give sources instead of a random guess? "We don"t really care about the *number* of self-defense cases, only *if* there are self-defense cases, or *if* there aren"t self-defense cases." I don't understand your logic. In that case, we should just legalise all drugs because even though a lot of people will abuse it, if there are a few people who use it for medical or health purposes, then it should be worth it. "America doesn"t have these licenses, and if they do have gun licenses now, accidents can increase by a lot of percent, because only people who have licenses will have guns." That is a bare assertion because of your lack of citations. Also, it goes against everything you've just said. Up until now, you've been arguing that guns will still be available in black markets despite banning them. Then all of a sudden, you agree to ban guns but want to implement a special license in order to acquire them? That doesn't make any sense to me. "Also, the number 15,000-19,000 is incorrect." I couldn't find this figure, could you please show me where you got it from? Accidents "Although unintentional or accidental shootings account for a small share of firearm related mortality and morbidity, these deaths and injuries are highly preventable through proper design of firearms." I don't think you read my arguments properly. I didn't say anything about bad-quality guns and I don't think accidental shootings as a result of a faulty gun is a large percentage of the problems caused by guns anyway. As I said in Round 1, approximately one million children in the US bring guns to school each year [11]. Young children do not understand the dangers and the seriousness of guns and they could easily cause accidental shootings due to immaturity regardless of the gun quality. Also, this ties in with my previous point on suicide. Suicides by guns can be impulsive due to the speed at which it kills and its painlessness. A lot of these impulsive deaths can be considered 'accidents' because if it was a different method of killing, for example, using a knife, it would require a lot more thought and decision. In the US as I mentioned earlier, the percentage of gun ownership is directly linked with the suicide rates [5] [6]. "I can have a counterplan with this also. We can make the children by not getting the guns, like putting them in high closets where kids can not reach the guns." That is so terribly obvious and logical, I don't think anyone regardless of intelligence would not be able to think of that solution. However, the sad reality is that numerous children still have access to guns despite common sense. I'm going to restate my quote- "Nearly 1.7 million children live in households where guns are stored either loaded or not locked away according to the Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence." [10] "We can also put them in a safe, and put a password that a child does not know to put the guns out of the children"s reach (...) This will make children not get guns, which will lead into less accidents." Supposing that was the case, what would happen if a robber came to your house (using your previous example about self-defence). I highly doubt you would have sufficient time to run all the way to your hidden safe, put in the code that your children do not know about, extract the gun and use it for defence. As firearms are currently still legal in the US, it would be very likely that the robber would also have a gun and as a result, shoot you before you have time to enter your code. Therefore, the gun is still useless. "It is the parent's responsibility to actually care for their child. It is her/his child, and he/she must care for her, because the it is the parent"s child (...) it his their responsibility, and we should not ban guns and harm others because of the irresponsible parents." That principal could be applied to anything. Certain toys and products aren't meant for children under a specific age due to small parts that could easily choke them etc. Using your logic, certain toys shouldn't be banned for young children simply because it's their parents' responsibility and they should be making sure that their children don't choke or injure themselves. "I have shown that my opponent"s arguments are ALL wrong, and I refuted all of them (...)The resolution is negated, therefore vote for Con!!!" Well you seem very confident :D Conclusion I have managed to successfully rebut all of my opponent"s points. I have proven that guns should be banned in the US because they are dangerous and banning them will reduce both crimes and suicide. Thank you for reading. Vote Pro! Citations: [16] http://www.dictionary.com...