On balance, a ban on civilian firearm ownership would be beneficial to the United States

Thanks for the debate, Mr. Keller!It's been a challenging one, for sure. == NEG CASE ==1. Correlation vs. CausationCon has totally neglected to address the central objection I was making. I'm not trying to question the authority of his sites; I am objecting to how he is using his data-- it is a blatant example of correlation/causation fallacy. His approach of looking at only two variables (gun ownership and homicide rates) fails to take into account *any* of the other factors which can affect violent crime rates, such as poverty, ineffective government, or internal strife. The only time Con attempts to contextualize his data is when the correlation is not in his favor (e.g. Great Britain, 1980s), otherwise fully accepting the correlation for what it is. Unless he is applying some sort of double standard, this means that he acknowledges that correlation alone is not a reliable indicator of the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rate, yet Con's *entire* case is based upon correlation alone. Without addressing this fatal weakness in his evidence, his sources become meaningless, thus causing his entire case to fail and losing him the debate. 2. General ObjectionCon has entirely missed the point of me bringing this objection up at all. But before I get into that, I would like to note that Con has failed to contest *either* of the observations I made in this objection; since it is too late for him to do so now (final round), he has essentially conceded that 1) guns do facilitate homicides, and 2) that guns are rarely useful in self-defense / crime-deterrence. With established, we see that original purpose of the argument was *not* to serve as an independent reason to favor a gun ban, as Con seems to believe, but rather to serve as a further critique of Con's data use. The point was that, since guns are logically only capable of increasing violence rates (in accordance with the two initial observations), it is extremely implausible that Con's correlations carry any significance. And since Con has basically conceded the two observations this objection is based on, he allows another fatal blow to be delivered to his case.3. Specific RebuttalsHere, Con attempts to use loads of specific evidence to try minimizing the impact of other variables on crime rates... Firstly, all his evidence focuses on debunking the poverty-violence link, but that is only one of many variables that I mentioned, so none of Con's focus on this really helps his case much... Secondly, to suggest that poverty doesn't cause crime is just factually inaccurate, as there is an established causal relationship between the two-- unemployment, a lack of education, social discrimination, and need for basic resources do, indeed, drive impoverished people to resort to measures such as violent crime [1]. Thirdly, all of Con's attempts at disassociating economic well-being from crime rates are either based in more correlation/causation fallacy or misconceptions:-- He claims that because crime rates in the United States didn't go significantly up during the recession, poverty must not be linked to crime. Yet again, this ignores other factors involved in decreasing crime rate; it is widely known that a major contributing factor to the recent decrease in US crime rates is the massive increase in prison incarceration [2], given that "the number of incarcerated citizens in the US has more than quadrupled" since 1980 [3]. -- He applies the reverse of that logic to Jamaica, claiming that Jamaica's economy has greatly improved in recent years despite increased violence, but he relies on crude numerical measures of economic health such as GDP and unemployment rate to reach this assessment. In reality, looking at the country's economic history we see that it has been plagued with money problems since its founding due to political strife, failed welfare programs, and a lack of affordable education. "Today, the Jamaican economy is faced with several long-term economic problems including high interest rates, exchange rate instability and increasing internal debt" [4].Sub-conclusion: Con's data has been thoroughly debunked. There are most certainly many other variables affecting crime rates, and Con's extensive use of correlation/causation fallacy completely ignores them all. Moreover, those correlations contradict basic observations about the nature of guns (which he has conceded), thus logically invalidating any possibility of his evidence negating the resolution. == AFF CASE ==In response to my BOP argument, Con attempts to give some mild criticisms of my sources and make us prefer his evidence to mine. But before addressing those, let's first note that given how Con's own data has already been shown to be extremely questionable, my sources already have the advantage. 1. Con claims that because he cannot review the specific numbers or methodology behind my studies, we shouldn't trust them. Firstly, the actual numbers *are* available in the publications that I have cited-- the fact that Con does not have access to those publications is out of my control. Secondly, there are several specifics provided within the quotations themselves regarding the methodology used in those studies, so Con's complaints in that respect are illegitimate. Furthermore, it is reasonable to trust that data gathered by such reputable institutions is generally accurate for the same reason that a satellite photo of Earth taken by NASA can be generally be considered reliable evidence of the Earth being spherical.2. Con claims that his methods can be "seen and tested" and are therefore superior, but that really doesn't hold *any* value if those methods are fallacious to begin with. Thus, this observation does not serve as a reason to prefer Con's sources. 3. The fact that the 1990s were a time of increased violence around the world should not have any real bearing on the observed results in my cited study-- if Con's claims regarding guns reducing violence were true, then even in times of widespread violence, the areas with higher rates of gun ownership would have lower levels of violence. But, as expected, such a trend does not exist. 4. A short-term time frame isn't necessarily a reason to reject a study unless Con is able to show that there were abnormal conditions during that time (2001-2003) that would have significantly altered the results. The researchers did a very thorough job of accounting for external variables in that study, so there is really no reason to question this study on that basis alone. The same goes for small sample size with regards to source 4.5. Besides his own opinion, Con gives no real reason to believe that ThinkProgress or MotherJones are biased to the extent that none of their information should be accepted.== CONCLUSION ==Despite all of Con's data, he has not at all shown that a lack gun ownership has actually caused an increase in violent crime in any case; unlike in the studies I cited, this fallacious numerical approach abjectly fails at accounting for the various external factors affecting rates of crime, and for that reason alone, my evidence is much more reliable. Morover, Con has essentially conceded my 'general objection', which takes out all of his correlation-based evidence in one shot with its compelling rationale that guns cannot logically prevent crime, so it is ridiculous to suggest that a lack of guns somehow caused more violence. Considering that, along with my evidence that guns facilitate higher homicide rates, we are lead to the conclusion that a gun ban can only be beneficial to the United States.The resolution is affirmed!Vote Pro :)[1] http://www.poverties.org...[2] http://online.wsj.com... *[3] https://news.vice.com...[4] http://plato.mercyhurst.edu...* (Control-F "one obvious answer")