Banning guns

Con concedes that if there were no guns, there would be less gun crime. He is arguing that a legal ban on them would be purposeless and would increase crime. However, it should be obvious that this makes little to no sense and is self-contradicting. If he admits that no guns would decrease crime, then this would seem to indicate prima facie that harsher bans need to be in place in order to get the level of guns down to a complete minimum. The idea that banning a brutal killing machine would increase crime is just absolutely outrageous. Crime RatesCon argues that even though the crime rates have went down over the past few decades, the amount of guns actually increased by 40 million. However, this is it outdated, as the book sourced by Con is from the year 2000 (the source I posted was more updated). Also, the amount of households who own guns decreased from 1973 to 2010. 30 years ago 50% of Americans owned guns, now only 32% do [1]. Since throughout the decades less households in America have been owning guns, and gun murder has decreased, this shows a clear correlation contrary to my opponent's argument. My opponent also then goes on to say that where there are gun bans, gun crimes increase in every occasion. However, this source he used to back up the claim does nothing of the sort. It simply shows a correlation between cherry picked instances where guns have been banned, and an increase in crime rates. This source he provided is titled "Ten Myths About Gun Control", so it should be clear that we may be dealing with a biased source. Regardless, if Con's argument does go through (which it does not), at best it would show that the common type of gun bans that are being implemented do not work; not a gun ban where guns are completely swept off of the streets and out of civilian hands (the type of ban I am advocating). Thus, this whole argument from Con is a non-sequitur[2] in the first place! Another problem with this section from Con, is he completely ignored my argument comparing Canada to the United States. Canada's gun death rate is extremely low, with gun ownership being extremely low. The United State's gun death rate is extremely high, with gun ownership being extremely high. Another clear correlation. As far as my suicide argument is concerned, my opponent claims that a "suicide bag" (bag containing helium asphyxiation) would be quick and easy as well as guns. I agree, this just means that there needs to be harsher laws with regards to helium asphyxiation. This does not indicate that not banning guns is the most reasonable choice. Sitting Duck ArgumentMy opponent has committed the straw-man fallacy[3]. I never claimed that most gun crimes are committed with legally own guns, I just said that if this was the case Con's argument would be void. Con argues that most gun crimes are indeed done with illegal guns. Does this means that Con scores points here? I would say, no. This is because virtually all illegal guns were bought legally in the in the first place, then ended up in the black market[4]. If those guns weren't available to buy legally, then they would never end up in the black market to begin with. Thus, this self-evidently shows a clear need for some type of harsh gun reform. Criminals Only Following Certain LawsHere my opponent commits the special-pleading logical fallacy[5]. In the Crime Rate section, he accuses me of not backing up my argument pertaining to suicide with sources. However, it was not a fact I was presenting, it was just basic human psychology. Because it was unsourced Con looked at it as invalid. However, when he presents a case based on human psychology instead of statistical fact; magically it becomes acceptable. This fallacy is clear as day. Con mentions that guns are used more in self-defense than in aggressive acts when it comes to civilians. However, as I have argued, most of the illegally owned guns criminals have were legally bought to begin with. This seems to shut Con's entire case down. Guns vs. DrugsCon claims that criminals will not comply with gun bans. However, they would have to. If there are no guns to legally own, then barely any guns would reach the black market. It is a statistical fact that most guns that are illegally owned, were legally bought[6]. This means that if no guns can be legally bought, barely any guns would reach the black market. I am advocating a full gun ban. I do not even believe people should be allowed to hunt for sport, as it is animal cruelty[7]. Police OfficersCon ignores my argument that most police deaths are due to guns. This answers the question as to why guns should not be legal to purchase to civilians, but remain in the hands of police officers. Even if most gun crimes are done with illegally owned guns, the guns were still most likely legally purchased. Mass ShootingsMy opponent argues that all the mass shootings in the past 20 years have been committed in gun free zones, and if there were civilians there with guns to defend themselves, then these mass shootings could have been prevented. This argument fails, because most of the mass shootings were done by people who purchased the guns legally. If the guns could not have been purchased, then these mass shootings would never happen in the first place. Of the 143 guns owned by the killers in mass shootings from 1982 - 2012, more than three quarters were obtained legally[8]. This shows a clear gun problem that needs to be solved by what I call a "clean-sweep" gun ban. ConclusionAll of Con's arguments fail. He argues that that banning guns would not stop criminals from using guns, but fails to realize that it would. Criminals can only use the guns that are available, thus if no guns are available to purchase legally then barely any guns would reach the black market as I already proved. He argues that people are sitting ducks against evil people with guns. This just means we have to make sure no guns are available for the evil people to obtain. There were more problems, however I think the point has been made crystal clear. As it stands, the resolution has been affirmed. Sources[1] . http://www.theatlanticwire.com...[2] . http://www.princeton.edu...(logic).html[3] . http://www.nizkor.org...[4] . http://web.archive.org...[5] . http://www.nizkor.org...[6] . http://www.pbs.org...[7] . http://www.peta.org...[8] . http://www.motherjones.com...