The United States Ought to Ban Firearms

=Framework= First, I would like to argue against my opponent’s utilitarian value. I disagree, that government ought to operate on a cost effect. I negate that we ought to look at the topic of gun ownership in this manner, because the value of liberty is of greater importance than a utilitarian one. Allow me to provide an analogy, in regards with property rights. Say there is a family who has an ancestral home that covers several acres of land. The land could technically be used as a community center, and would help thousands of people in the neighborhood. Since the government decided to act on utilitarian means, they forcefully kicked out the people who lived there, and they demolished their ancestral home so the community center can be built. This is an example of a utilitarian approach producing detrimental results and infringing upon the rights of citizens. The government destroyed and forced a family out of their ancestral homes because it benefitted more people. This should not be the path that we should be pursuing, because this paves the way for government tyranny (refer to my argument on tyranny). There is a reason why we have property rights, and this to prevent situations like this. Valuing liberty over a utilitarian approach to this issue is important because rights should be protected. When the government no longer follows their obligation to liberty, they have stopped fulfilling their purpose. Now in relation to the topic of banning guns, we need to realize that banning guns would significantly restrict a person’s right to self-defense. Stats that I had provided have shown that people used guns at least 235,000 times in self-defense. Lets talk about Pro’s arguments. He argue that there are thousands who use firearms to commit suicide, and that banning guns would reduce this. Now, why should somebody lose their right to self-defense because somebody made the decision to commit suicide? Suicide is a personal decision that a person makes. The act itself impacts only one person, yet others would lose their firearms, to keep 1 person from killing themselves. So if we were to operate on on utilitarian principle (under the assumption that Pro’s plan has more benefit) we would stop people from effectively defending themselves from the threat of others, and instead attempt to save people who try to kill themselves. The different is that one side has the choice to be safe, and the other doesn’t. It doesn’t make any sense to focus on helping those who have the choice, by hurting those who didn’t have the choice to stay safe. I hope that voters choose my framework over Pro’s framework, since it makes more practical sense. =Suicides= Regarding suicides, I think we ought to remember that it’s essentially apples and oranges when you compare suicide to homicide. Homicide would be more of a crime issue, whereas suicide would be a more mental health issue. That put aside, let's’ analyse these arguments. Pro is essentially showing us through statistics how he expects to reduce suicides by banning guns. The problem with these stats however, is that these aren’t conclusive. Since the studies are saying something about the likelihood of something, we cannot be certain that banning guns would reduce suicides. None of the studies seem to extrapolate the suicide rate after a gun ban was implemented, so there is no way to say exactly know whether it would have made a difference. I don’t see why a suicidal person doesn’t choose another method to suicide if they don’t have access to guns, after all, the top countries in suicidal rates all have relatively restrictive gun control. (1) So, due to insufficient data to directly pinpoint the amount of lives saved, I don’t think the number provided by Pro is correct and should be considered as evidence. Suicide is primarily a mental health issue, so using a gun ban to stop doesn’t doesn’t seem to solve the issue, especially with inconclusive data which only shows how the likelihood of it. =Gun accidents= So in this argument, Pro talks about how there are thousands of gun accidents every year. However, he comes to a conclusion that these are “gun deaths”. I’m not sure why all these accidents should be considered deaths as Pro had proposed. You can’t save lives when those lives are still alive. That 15,000-19,000 lives that Pro mentions that he will save is simply incorrect. The real number ought to be much lower than Pro mentions, and according to this source (2) There were 505 deaths from accidental death from a firearm. So to conclude, the stat Pro talked about is simply misleading because he conflates gun accidents to gun deaths. The real number of people who died from firearms accidents was 505. =Gun production= Pro seems to think that banning guns would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, but there are already 310 million guns circulating in the U.S. It's also foolish to think that the flow of guns would be affected, because that would only last for a few years. There have been cases of people making and selling firearms illegally and privately, proving you do not need large gun manufacturers to make guns. This is exactly what happened during " The Prohibition" . Demand was rising, and people began to make their own booze, and sell it. There is no reason why this isn't possible with guns. In places like China were a full on ban on guns is enforced, thousands of guns were found in China.(3)Improvised firearms are not a foreign idea. People have certainly been making these for their use.(4). I see no reason why an American market with an incredible amount of demand wouldn't make this their focal point of their illegal arms dealing. It is even possible to use 3D printing to print and make guns. Here is an article that cites a case about this. "Partial receivers provide a way for mass-murderers and other criminals to skirt California’s otherwise strong gun laws, including mandatory background checks and the state’s prohibition on assault weapons. Using a partial receiver allows a person to build a functional assault rifle in a matter of hours. A recent and devastating shooting in Santa Monica highlights this danger all too well. John Zawahri failed a gun-purchase background check before deciding to buy an unfinished receiver and assembling his own assault rifle, which he then used in a terrible attack that left five dead, including Zawahri." (4) A gun production ban would likely do nothing to stop the use of guns.1: 310 million guns circulating in the country2: Past history shows that prohibition does not work.3: Improvised firearms Sources1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2.https://en.wikipedia.org...3.http://www.ibtimes.com...4. http://smartgunlaws.org...