Banning guns

My opponent seems to be misunderstanding my argument. He states it is bizarre, but it is quite sound. I apologize if I have phrased it in such a way as for it to be difficult to understand well. You see, my argument is that banning guns does NOT take them off the street. If you could simply remove every gun from the streets, that would decrease murder rates and possibly other crime also, but since there are so many guns in circulation already, along with the huge numbers of illegally manufactured or illegal guns, banning them legally will not, even under ideal circumstances, remove all of them. It will merely disarm the law abiding, and prevent them from being to defend themselves or deter crime with their presence. Statistics show that criminals are more frightened of running into an armed civilian than an armed police officer[1], and the reason is simple. An armed citizen will be more likely to try and kill the criminal. Versus a police officer, where they will try to take the criminal alive. Crime Rates: While my opponent's argument reasonably holds up in theory, in practice, such actions have always increased crime. In fact, not a single academic study has found a single case in which gun control in any form has been imposed, and crime rates have dropped.[2] In every single case, crime rates have gone up. Chicago, DC, England, Mexico, the list is endless. While my opponent may point to instances where there are strict gun laws and low gun crime, he ignores the fact that the rates of crime were even lower before the ban.[3] Regardless of how low the number of crimes is after the ban, it was in every case, lower still before the law was put into place. An even stronger example of this is how when Washington DC lifted one of its extremely strict gun laws, crime decreased. My opponent states that I have ignored Canada, but to address that, it has less gang related violence, and cultural issues have a part also in crime. But still, as with all cases, crime has increased in canada following its strict regulation. As for suicide, I believe that it is a person's right to end their own life if they so choose. Sitting duck argument: Yes, I was mistaken. I misread my opponent's argument and was led to believe that he stated that most crimes are committed with legal guns. And yes, if that was the case, my opponent's argument would beat mine. But the majority of guns used in crime are either illegally manufactured or imported, or stolen.[4] And I know my opponent will say that stolen guns would not exist because they were legal prior to the suggested ban. But with so many guns out there, it is impossible to collect every gun. Also, even if there are no guns to steal, this drives the substitution effect, which is a phenomenon which would increase the market for illegally imported or manufactured guns, until the black market has achieved its original size.[5] (Also, my opponent states that I have used a biased source, but it is likely less so than an anti-gun website for my opponent's fourth source) The criminals will not turn them in, so they will be the only ones armed. This puts criminals at the advantage, and crime increases. Criminals only following certain laws: Your psychology argument is valid and reasonable, and yes, you are correct, I should have provided you with a source for mine. But you see, I have actually personally met a felon convicted of robbery and he told me that many of his fellow inmates confirm this argument. I cannot give you a written source, but I did get my information from a first-hand person who experiences these things. Self Defense: Many instances of self defense with guns are instances in which the victim used a gun to defend from a knife, a bat, other blunt objects, or fists.[6] These are potentially lethal weapons, but are not very effective at self-defense. Without the gun that the victim had, many innocent people would die. The majority of these crimes are not committed with guns, but the ones that are, almost always take place with an illegal gun. And again, although my opponent is correct in theory, in England, for example, we banned handgun ownership, and heavily regulated long gun ownership, (effectively a ban), and gun crime went up 35%.[7] My opponent's argument clearly does not hold up in practice. Guns vs. Drugs Again, my opponent claims that most guns used in crimes begin legally. But that is the case in many countries. Then, guns were banned, and even without legal, registered guns, crime still went up.[8] On an unrelated note, hunting animals is much less cruel than killing them in a slaughterhouse. Police officers: My argument about illegal gun markets shifting to accommodate a lack of guns to steal holds here too, and my argument is not about police officers' need for guns. It is a demonstration of the need for guns for self defense. Say a police officer was attacked with a knife or another weapon. What would he do? He'd reach for his gun. Because guns are an effective tool for self defense. Although yes, most police are killed by guns, that is a risk that exists in their work. They deal with criminals and their illegal guns. Mass shootings: Shooters routinely plan these attacks well in advance.[9] Such a window of time allows sufficient time to obtain an illegal gun, as was used in columbine, and a few other mass shootings.[10] So the characteristic that the most mass shootings share, is that virtually all of them take place in gun free zones.[11] These are places where citizens are not allowed to carry concealed handguns, and criminals avoid these places. If we allowed guns to be carried in more places, it has been proven to deter criminals.[12] Lastly, an example. Say someone wanted to commit a horrible mass shooting. Guns are banned, so he decides to go get one off the black market, which has grown to import and manufacture illegal guns. He goes to some crowded place, and everywhere is now a gun free zone. He starts shooting. What would you like to see happen? There is only one way to stop him. An armed civilian. Sources: 1. The Armed Criminal in America: A survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice 2. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 3. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 4. BATF, 1999 5. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 6. BATF, 1998 7. The Guardian, Oct. 5, 2003 8. The Guardian, Oct. 5, 2003 9.http://journalistsresource.org...# 10. More Guns, Less Crime; by John R. Lott Jr. 11. http://www.cabinet.com... (this one is very informative) 12. http://www.cabinet.com...