Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

I will now be making my rebuttals of my opponent’s arguments. Crime My opponent argues that if we ban guns, then there will be a reduce of crime. She shows that the UK has low rates of gun crimes because they banned guns. First of all, there are way more guns in the U.S. then England, so we cannot say it is the same as the U.S., and it isn’t, because there are 310 million guns in the US [1]. Per 100 people, there are 112.6 guns in the US [1] [2], when there are only 6.6 guns per 100 people in the UK [2]. So I have shown that the rates of guns are very different, so we have no guarantee that there will be less crime. Also, I had not enough characters in my last round to talk about the UK’s gun rates, but I will just make it here as a rebuttal because it makes sense. s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="Homicides Reported By Police in England and Wales" width="624" height="424" /> That is a graph of the gun crime rates [3]. I will be talking about the 1997 gun control law. After the 1997 event, gun rates went up way higher than before. Even in the 1968 gun control law, after it, there were still non-drastic changes of higher rates. So what my opponent said about crime rates going down after a ban is false, when showing my UK statistic, and my New York statistic in my 2nd round. “Guns are a very effective way of killing, therefore, it is clear that banning guns would decrease the crime rates in the US.” What my opponent says is false here. As I showed above, guns do not decrease the crime rates in New York for example, as criminals will still have guns, as I showed in my black market argument, so gun crime rates will actually increase. This argument is refuted, by me showing that crime rates actually increase if there is a gun ban. Suicides My opponent’s next argument is about suicides. My opponent shows that guns are the easiest to make suicides, so we should ban guns. First of all, even though we ban guns, there will still be suicides. The people who want to suicide will still like jump off a 10 story building, or something creative. I will give the definition of suicide. Suicide: the act of killing yourself because you do not want to continue living [4]. So why can’t the ones who want to suicide, suicide? They want to not continue on living, so we should let them do as they please, which in this situation for them is killing themselves. People have self-ownership [5], and has the control of his/her life. They want to do suicide, and we are harming their self-ownership if we don’t let them suicide. They want to suicide. If we ban guns because of suicide *actually*, it will bring less happiness because the people who want to suicide can’t, which brings less happiness for them. That is why Euthanasia [13] and Abortion [12] are such big deals, for example, because we don’t have self-ownership and liberty, and my opponent is Pro Euthanasia and Pro abortion [14], I don’t get why she wants suicides banned and decreased, when it is almost the same thing. Bad for defense My opponent makes an argument that guns are bad for defense. This is false, as I already showed 75,000 self-defense cases where there, and my opponent argues basically near that number also. My opponent says that is few, considering there are 310 million guns in the US. First of all, not all houses get attacks from robbers, or the opportunity to get robbed. So, counting all 310 million guns is unreasonable. Around 80 million is a reasonable answer, and there is still lots if you count it like that. Also, as I said in my argument. We don’t really care about the *number* of self-defense cases, only *if* there are self-defense cases, or *if* there aren’t self-defense cases. And my opponent also agrees, there are around 70,000 self-defense cases, and that is a lot, therefore we can’t say that guns are bad for defense, the self-defense cases do occur. So I have shown that it is not bad for self-defense, and we don’t care if it is bad for self-defense, or if it is good, we just care about if there are self-defense cases, and there are. There are even many lists of guns that are good in self-defense [9] [10] [11]. With these guns, which are good for self-defense, self-defense isn’t even a problem. Therefore, this argument is refuted, as I have shown that guns are good for self-defense. Accidents This is perhaps the hardest argument to rebut, but I’ll try. "Federal law imposes no design safety standards on domestically produced firearms. As a result, many firearms are manufactured and sold in the U.S. without undergoing appropriate safety testing and without including basic safety features [6]." And also, "Although unintentional or accidental shootings account for a small share of firearm related mortality and morbidity, these deaths and injuries are highly preventable through proper design of firearms [7].” This shows that because the firearms were badly made, it is why accidents happened. And, also I can have a counterplan with this also. We can make the children by not getting the guns, like putting them in high closets where kids can not reach the guns. We can also put them in a safe, and put a password that a child does not know to put the guns out of the children’s reach. There are many other ways to make children not touch guns. This will make children not get guns, which will lead into less accidents. And, we can also make gun licenses, like Iceland. “A license is required to own or possess firearms. National government safety course required before applying for a license. Special license required to own pistols [8].” That is Iceland’s law for forbidding lots of gun accidents, because they give a special license, and obviously they give it to people who can handle guns well. America doesn’t have these licenses, and if they do have gun licenses now, accidents can increase by a lot of percent, because only people who have licenses will have guns. It is the parent's responsibility to actually care for their child. It is her/his child, and he/she must care for her, because the it is the parent’s child. So the parents must handle and make the child responsible and not make him/her touch guns, because it his their responsibility, and we should not ban guns and harm others because of the irresponsible parents. Also, the number 15,000-19,000 is incorrect. There is much less gun deaths and accidental deaths than that. Only 505 people died from accidental deaths [15]. That is very different from the number that many people propose. I think my opponent didn’t say, but knew or thought it is 15,000-19000 people, but it is not, it is much less than 15000-19000. My impacts of self-defense and economy also outweigh this impact, because there are more people who are getting harmed. Therefore this argument is refuted. Conclusion I have shown that my opponent’s arguments are all wrong, and I refuted all of them. 90% of Americans don’t want to ban guns, so we should do the same, and not ban guns!!!! The resolution is negated, therefore vote for Con!!! I thank Pro for the debate so far. “Secret Team” Sources [1] (http://tinyurl.com...) [2] (http://tinyurl.com...) [3] (http://tinyurl.com...) [4] (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) [5] (http://tinyurl.com...) [6] (http://smartgunlaws.org...) [7] (http://www.jhsph.edu...) [8] (https://en.wikipedia.org...) [9] (http://guncarrier.com...) [10] (http://www.washingtontimes.com...) [11] (http://urbansurvivalsite.com...) [12] (http://law.justia.com...) [13] (http://studentsforliberty.org...) [14] (http://www.debate.org...) [15] (https://en.wikipedia.org...)