On balance a ban on guns would not be that effective in the US

Thank you for this debate. Let me begin by saying: Pro made some interesting points, however, he made a few fundamental mistakes through assumptions. C1) Reviewing the intent of a gun ban Mikal stated: “Obvious the goal of a gun ban is to reduce the amount of violence that occurs yearly. This is not just violence that is related to guns, but violence in general.” This is not the full case, however. Violence, as defined by the Mariam-Webster dictionary, is “the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.” [1]. As defined by a direct google search, violence is: “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something” [2] From those statements, the following conclusion can be made: {P1} Violence is intentional harm However, as per my point, a ban on guns not prevents violence {P1}, it also prevent unintentional injury.As shown by statistics from smartgunlaws.org, unintentional deaths is a large problem. “In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people...From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.” [3] This may seem like only a small drop in the bucket, but these are the lives of innocent people, being taken by accidents that would not have occurred if the homeowners did not have a gun accessible. Thus, the statement can be made: {S1} A ban on guns prevents violence, and accidental injury. Assumptions by ProThroughout his round, Pro made a series of assumptions. Let’s begin with this one: (Assumption 1) “It would be far less effective in the US than any other possible country because of how intertwined the US is with guns. Guns are apart of culture, they are engraved in it.” To put it in context, Pro said that since the gun ban was not as effective as those in Australia would have hoped, the ban would not be effective in America. Not a conclusion, but rather an assumption. With a nation that has so many guns in circulation, there are certainly many who would support them being taken away. We know that many are willing to give up guns, because gun buybacks are still popular. (Assumption 2) “Buy backs and Gun bans would never work in the US with how fascinated the culture is with guns. People love their guns and would never be willing to turn them even if there was a buy back.” Once again, an assumption made based on one’s own beliefs.The following article [4] shows that gun buybacks are indeed successful. One man, L.C Stevenson Sr., expresses the point that many are yet to realize: {P2} Guns are no longer needed He says, “It's a hand-me-down gun. Never used it. Never shot it. I don't need a gun in my house anyway." The testimony by a single man is similar to the ones made by many others. There is no longer a civil war, no red-coats to worry about, no Nazi’s or Russian spies. Guns are simply no longer needed. In addition, gun buyback programs are still popular, and will continue, as long as success continues. [5] [6] (Assumption 3) “When and if we were to ban guns, the only thing it does is force people to get them through more illegal means and in turn cause desperate people to find more desperate ways to kill who they want to kill. “ Once again, Pro makes a point that is not true, but rather one that he predicts.The following article [7] shows otherwise. “ The power of this recent episode lies in its more mundane nature: Person with gun gets angry, loses control and shoots an unarmed person. It’s a more common occurrence than gun advocates care to admit.” What recent episode is the author of the article alluding to? The situation where a man was jokingly taunting another person by throwing popcorn at them in the movie theater. How did the person react? The man shot the other one; a man, simply looking for a joke, was shot by an aggravated gun-owner. This situation, and many others, come to show us: {S2} Possession of a gun makes one more likely to use it, even when not necessary. My fellow citizens, I have shown through extensive sources, articles, and statistics, that a ban on guns would indeed be effective. The main points I made- {P1}; {P2}; {S1}; {S2}- and all their sources and support show why this resolution is incorrect, and prove that a ban on guns would be effective in the United States. Thank you. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] http://smartgunlaws.org...[4] http://www.jsonline.com...[5] http://bpdnews.com...[6] http://www.nyc.gov...[7] http://www.nationalmemo.com...