Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

Thank you Feu for your points. There seems to be a slight problem with my links in Round 1 so I will include them at the bottom of this argument again. I now begin with my rebuttals. ___ 2nd Amendment "as the 2nd amendment is a law, the law must be followed" Just because something is law, does not mean that it is always completely correct or ethical. Although we are always striving for a perfection we can never achieve, we have to admit, there will be faults, even in our (well, the American) justice system. That is why countries hold referenda in order to change and improve their laws. For example, in Ireland, one of our most recent referenda was the referendum on same-sex marriage. Before that, it was illegal (ie. against the law) for homosexuals to marry. Now, because of the votes of the Irish people, it is legal. Using your strange logic, it would appear that the Irish government should not have held the referendum in the first place because nobody should ever question the law (according to you). The 2nd amendment may be a law but it is obvious that a lot of Americans are unhappy with it as we can see clearly from the charts in source labelled 15. From the charts, we can see that each year, more and more people are dissatisfied and want stricter gun control in the US. I would also like to thank ThinkBig for providing me with this link. I would have liked to copy the charts directly onto this debate but I don't know how to and since I'm on my phone, I don't want to risk it. "A law is a law, so we can"t ban guns so the resolution is negated, and vote for Con" This I believe, is an example of circular logic. You are saying that a law cannot be changed simply on the premise that it is a law. Therefore, it is logically incorrect and the resolution as a result is not negated. Self-defence "Some people say that there are around 2 million cases of self-defense each year. Some people think 3.6 million. Some say around 75,000 [5], and reasonably, I think it"s either of 75,000." I don't really understand or see the point of those odd statistics but okay. From my source labelled 9 in the previous round, we know that the number of guns used for self-defence each year is actually less than 70,000. I know that your source is definitely unreliable because when I clicked on it, there was a notice from Wikipedia saying "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Seems to be copy/pasted from another site and is not in Wikipedia's style (July 2015)". "It"s whenether guns *can* save lives, or *can"t* save lives (...) one life is important, we should not ban guns, because guns save lives, and if we ban guns, these lives will be lost." The main problem right now about guns is not the risk of getting attacked by armed people. It is in fact, suicide. From my source labelled 5, it clearly shows that the rate of suicide in the US is increasing dramatically. I have already explained in Round 1 how easy people can commit suicide on impulse. Please see the map which clearly shows the link between firearm suicide rates and gun ownership (see source labelled 5). Therefore, banning guns will save lives and if we allow guns, these lives would be lost. "A robber comes in you house, (...) "Give me all the money (...) in this house, or I will shoot your head with a gun!!! (...) So you have two choices, give everything to the robber, or get shot by the gun. You can easily die if you get shot by a gun. If you have a gun though, you do have lots of chances to defend yourself..." First, if guns were banned, there would be a less likely chance of the "robber" carrying a gun in the first place. In Ireland for example (where guns are banned), most robberies occur when people are out of the house [12] and even if the burglars are caught, they usually try to run away as fast as possible instead of grabbing the first thing they see and using it as a weapon. Second, if you find a burglar with a gun in your house, it's very unlikely as I mentioned in the previous round that you will have a firearm handy near you perfectly ready for defence. Gun culture "Americans love guns, I can"t use this as a source, because this is plainly obvious." I'm very sorry to say but you are making an obvious bare assertion. From the graphs (source 15), it is clear that Americans in fact, do not "love guns". "There are many poachers and hunters with guns in the US, and if we ban guns, they can"t do this, and it will have an impact on their life." If we ban guns, it does not mean that every single firearm is literally banned. The police force, army and of course, appropriate hunters will still be allowed to use guns (just like in any country). Waste of time "Guns are used by too many people of the U.S. Even though we ban them, some people will still have them illegally. Even though we ban them, they will still use them. Banning will do not point. It will cost more money if you ban it, but not much need because no one will follow it, and they can"t check over 300 million guns." That is another bare assertion. Yes there will always be people who break the law but most people don't. For example, do you think there will be more people doing drugs if it were legal or illegal? Exactly. What you said there was basically that rules shouldn't exist because they will be broken. Laws should be followed as you stated yourself in your first point. You have just contradicted yourself. Guns reduce crime "We are not sure if it is because of guns, but we know that banning guns don't cause crime. Though the only change is guns, so reasonably, but not 100 % sure, guns make higher crime rates." Our sources differ and as a result I am slightly confused. You are also uncertain as you say you are "not 100% sure". However, I am 100% certain that guns make higher suicide rates, at least in the US [5] which is what this debate is about. Economy "contribute 33 billion dollars to the U.S. economy. If we ban guns, then all of the jobs will be thrown away, and all the money, which is 33 billion dollars to the economy will be thrown away into the drain, and it will disappear" Most of the guns in the US aren't even bought by Americans [13][14] so I highly doubt it would result in such a dramatic and exaggerated event like you mentioned. Conclusion Guns are the leading cause for the increasing suicide in the US. From my points and rebuttals, it is clear that banning them is right now, for the best interests of American citizens. Thank you for reading. Vote Pro! Citations: [1] http://www.nij.gov... [2] https://ucr.fbi.gov... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.unodc.org... [5] https://www.bradycampaign.org... [6] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [7] https://img.njdc.com... [8] http://www.latimes.com... [9] http://www.hopesandfears.com... [10] http://www.ibtimes.com... [11] http://www.aacap.org... [12] https://www.insuremyhouse.ie... [13] http://edition.cnn.com... [14] https://news.vice.com... [15] http://www.gallup.com...