Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Firts, I would like to apologize for missing round 3. I was quite busy. New Resolution: I assume my opponent meant, "Everyone should have the right to keep and bear firearms." I will revise these points to fit the new definition of 'arms'. 1. There will still be weapons whether they are illegal or not. 2. Weapons have commercial interests. 3. Violence can still occur without weapons. 4. There are other ways to harm people without guns. They are now: 1. There will still be guns whether they are illegal or not. 2. Guns have commercial interests. 3. Violence can still occur without guns. 4. There are other ways to harm people without guns. Further, I will consolidate 3 points into one, leaving only two main points: 1. Making guns illegal will not significantly reduce violence or injury. 2. Guns have commercial interests. 1. My opponent has claimed that reducing guns would reduce cases of homocide and murder. However, as already stated, there are other ways to commit murder and homocide without guns. http://www.brusselsjournal.com... Obviously, these crimes occurred before there were guns. http://www.livius.org... Before then, people were killed by strangulation, hanging, poisoning, assault, etc. If we eliminate guns, then there will just be an increase in knife usage in killing. Knives will just replace guns as the weapons of choice, and that's disregarding the fact that guns would still be sold and bought illegally after such a ban. This is because guns don't kill people, people do. My opponent has also suggested that law enforcement have a gun. However, because they fall into the category of 'everyone', they would not be able to have guns under this resolution. That entire argument is void. My opponent has conceded that gun bans have historically increased crime. The proposals of the U.N. are illogical. -If it is illegal to have a gun, then why would they limit people to one gun, and how would they do that? -Having only govenment officials having guns and only law enforcement having guns is against the resolution, as 'everyone' includes them. In addition, for the government to be such as this sets up the probability of a military/fear state of government. To give only the government weapons would result in tyranny. -Worldwide liscensing of firearms by the U.N. wouldn't work because there are countries that aren't in the U.N. that would not be effected by this regulation. These countries would prosper as black market countries. Such countires could make money selling these illegal guns to gangs and terrorists in other countries. In addition, that proposal is void because if guns were to be banned in those countries, they could not be produced. Those proposals would fail and therefore are void. Again, my opponent has brought up this invincible law enforcement. Though this argument is void in this debate, I would like to further argue against it. Why should a government have a military hold over its people? Government is made up of people. Having a government with such a power over its people would by tyrannic. The people would live in fear of the government. This is often called fascism. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Back to the debate: Any civilian can choose to be a criminal. They would have access to such self defense weapons, and so be able to use them violently. People dying from gun accidents is also void. Such an accident can happen with anything that relates to safety. Should cleaning chemicals be banned because children have swallowed then and died? Should commercial flight be banned because a malfunction is possible? Should sky diving be banned because of the possibility of malfunction? Should children's swim lessons be banned because children can accidentally drown? Should people be able to drive because they might slip up and die? The answer is no. If people take the proper precautions, anything can be done safely. My opponent has also used Japan as an example to prove that gun bans work. However, in most countries, they do not. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... A worldwide gun ban would not be efficient. other weapons would just replace them and either anarchy or tyrrany would result. 2. Guns have commercial interests. Self defense weapons would also have a commercial interest, yes, but it would not be as significant. hunting would be less popular as it becomes nearly impossible. A deer cannot be safely approached to be subdued without a gun, as they are quite violent towards humans. http://www.dfg.ca.gov... Further, a crossbow that is lethal against a deer would also be lethal against a man. If these were to become as commercial as guns are now, they would just replace guns. Obviously, guns do have commercial interests. They are bought and used to hunt. They could not effectively be replaced by anything that can kill a cow or a deer, but not a man. If they were replaced economically by something that can kill, then the purpose of the resolution would be defeated. If all things lethal were banned, then it would effect the agricultrural industry as well. If only guns were to be banned, then they would be replaced with something else. Further, hunting helps the environment. Hunting controls the deer population, which would over-eat until extinction without population control. Deer starve when they aren't hunted. http://brianoconnor.typepad.com... Animal meat and animal pelts have commercial interests as well. Overall, a gun ban would be inefficient and would not reduce violence. Guns would be replaced by other items. A self defense weapon could become a weapon of violence easily. There is really no reason to ban guns. in addition, guns have commercial interest for hunters and guns provide power in the economy.