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

C1) Reviewing the intent of a gun banAs I noted in the resolution this is about whether a gun ban would be effective (in accomplishing it's purpose) or whether it would not be that effective at all. 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. The Con side will likely argue that by reducing guns, we reduce an outlet for deaths and I will argue that it will be entirely ineffective. So for Con to win this he will have to show that a gun ban will decrease the amount of violence and deaths in the US enough that it is worth implementing. C2) Amount of Guns in circulation in the UsThe estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 [1]. The defense forces of the United States are reported to have 2,700,000 [1]In short there are nearly 300,000,000 guns circulating in private ownership in the Us with nearly another 3 million floating around in the hands of the government. Just take a look at this compared to Australia. There are only around 3 million guns floating around in private ownership. This means the US has nearly 100 times the amount of guns in private ownership than Australia does. The reason I brought up Australia as an example is because it is one of the only countries to use a buy back type program[2] that was semi effective. A note is that they did see some nice results, but even they admitted they did not get the intended results that they wanted[2]. If Australia got results but even admitted the buy back or gun ban was not that effective think about how bad it would be in the US. 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. C3) Guns/Culture in the UsThink about Americas history, it is drowned in gun lore. Anywhere from the original settlers, to the wild west, to revolutions, even to modern day war stories. A great majority of America has always loved guns and will always love guns. They are fascinated with it, and we have had guns in our society openly as far back as the founding of the country. This is even more evident with the promise to bear arms that is written in the second amendment [3]. There is no discrepancy about what arms means, arms is without a doubt firearms and guns. Another way to verify this point as I stated in my previous contention is the amount of Guns in private ownership. View this chartThe only country that even comes close to us with the amount of guns in private ownership is India with a total of 46 million. We are still towering above everyone else at nearly 300 million. We have 7 times the amount of guns in the US in private ownership than any other country including the one in second place [4]. 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. Half the US and especially those in the south would almost go to war if the government tried to remove their right to guns. Our culture is far to obsessed with guns to see similar results from buy backs and guns bans that have been (semi successful and not really even that), used in other countriesC4) Gun Control on Balance has been ineffective in the UsThere are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city , county, state, and federal level[5]. With all these laws in place you would think there would be a reduction in crime or that it would be effective, and that is not the case. Yet the government found nor reason to believe that firearm laws or any combination of firearms laws would be effective when compared to the goal of reducing violent outcomes[6]Most gun control laws were written or started around 1968, yet we see an increase in violent acts and murder with guns in the 70,s , 80,s and 90,s[7]. Also among 15 states with the highest homicide rates 10 of them have very strict or restrictive gun control laws[8]. There are even studies and research that shows that civilians owning guns can decrease the amount of crime that occurs[9]. This was an extensive study done by cato.edu. C5) The root cause of the problemAnother issue we have to look at is the root cause of the problem. Guns do not kill the people, people kill the people. The argument that can be made is that guns act as a catalyst for crime, but banning guns will not solve the problem at hand. Per the resolution the intent of a Gun ban is reduce the amount of violent crimes, not just gun deaths. Reducing gun deaths is futile, if it will just lead to to other forms of death and violence. It will fix nothing and is counterproductive. We would have just wasted countless amounts of money trying to implement and set into place polices and laws that can regulate gun distribution, all to have people find a different way to kill people. This is proven true in other countries as well. When you ban guns or regulate them heavily people will just find others way to commit crime, which is not solving the main problem at hand. " [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" [10]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. C6) Practicality and the NRAThe NRA has the government by the balls. They literally have them in a death grip. By the time any gun control law actually got in place to be passed, the NRA would have whittled it down to being useless thus solving nothing. The NRA has extreme influence within the government and has a huge impact on laws that are passed. Here is just one example [11]. The NRA is also getting more and more extreme with it stances on gun control, so any chance of a national ban actually being passed is so minuscule it is not worth considering. The nra would destroy it before it cold get passed and take it down to where it is virtually useless. We are not arguing about gun control in practice, but whether or not it would actually be effective and for it to actually be effective it would actually have to be passed which it has no chance of doing[12]Sources[1] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[2] http://www.loc.gov...[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] http://www.theguardian.com...[5] http://www.gunfacts.info...[6] http://www.gunfacts.info...[7] http://www.gunfacts.info...[8] http://www.gunfacts.info...[9] http://object.cato.org...[10] http://theacru.org...[11] http://www.cnn.com...[12] http://www.nraila.org...