All firearms should be banned.

2.5 million self-defense episodes with guns per year This is really the only positive benefit my opponent has demonstrated from guns. However, his own arguments prove why these numbers cannot possibly be true. If guns are so dramatically necessary as a deterrent against crimes, studies should show massive increases in violence in cities that ban or restrict gun ownership, like Chicago. However, these cities follow broader crime trends in the rest of the nation (crime is cyclical and empirically relates to trends in poverty/demographics). In addition, this 2.5 million number, widely touted by the pro-gun lobby, is preposterous. It is based on a survey done by Gary Kleck, asking people to self-report how often they used their guns in self-defense. According to The Times Online (UK), "Of nearly 5,000 American adults polled, 1.326 percent -- or 66 -- were determined by Kleck to have relied on guns for personal protection against criminals in the previous year. The rest is basic math -- too basic, some statisticians argue. Take 1.326 percent of all U.S. adults not incarcerated, and you arrive at the conclusion that Americans use their guns 2.5 million times a year for defense." [1] However, a similar survey that actually asked respondents to describe their "self-defense" episodes found that most of the episodes were actually "hostile gun displays" such as a gang flashing their guns at another gang (supposedly to "deter a fight"). The Times Online continues: "‘Who knows what `self-defense' means?' asked David Hemenway of Harvard University's Injury Control Center. For instance, a thug who shoots in a gang clash might argue he was just defending himself, Hemenway said. So Hemenway crafted surveys of his own. From interviews conducted in 1996 and 1999 involving about 4,500 total respondents, Hemenway found that most acknowledged acts of self-defense were ‘hostile gun displays' rather than ‘socially desirable' moves to halt a crime. Hemenway recently flipped through stories told by respondents describing their acts of self-defense. Here's one: `The police called. The alarm in my building went off so I went there to shut it off. Two men were outside my building, so from my car I shot at the ground near them.' Hemenway paused. ‘That's self-defense?' he asked. ‘Here's another,' the researcher said. ‘A 58-year-old male is watching TV with a holster strapped on him. He tells us, `I was watching a movie, and he (an acquaintance) interrupted me. I yelled that I was going to shoot him, and he ran to his car.' ‘I'm thinking, are these the best stories they can tell?' Hemenway said." [2] So these 2.5 million self-defense episodes per year are actually extrapolated from a survey where 66 people claimed to have used their guns in self-defense, without providing the scenario for what they defined as "self-defense." Surveys that ask respondents to explain what they mean by self-defense find that the majority of the self-defense episodes were actually hostile gun displays. A gun ban would reduce homicides: My opponent takes issue with the widely acknowledged fact that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than someone you do not. Not only does this make intuitive sense, since strangers are not as likely to have a strong motive for killing each other, but it is also backed up by all the data. The FBI crime statistics record all homicides with a category for "relationship to the victim." The overwhelming majority of murders are "non-stranger" murders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, examining national data from between 1976-2005, in only 14% of all murders were the victim and the offender "strangers." The vast majority of murders were executed by a "spouse, other family, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other acquaintance." [3] The logical conclusion is that a gun ban makes it much less likely that a heated argument between a spouse, lover, or friend will turn into a deadly altercation. My opponent has no response to the Zimring (2003) evidence that assaults (threats/arguments) are 7 times more likely to turn deadly if a gun is involved. He also has no response to the Kellerman (1993) evidence that people are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than one without a firearm. Kellerman excludes "self-defense" homicides from this calculation. Illicit guns: My opponent points out that when a gun ban occurs, many bullets and guns will still exist from previous legal production. I acknowledge that a gun ban would not result in the immediate disappearance of all guns. However, police routinely seize large black market gun shipments and destroy the guns in a furnace. As the world adopts such a standard with both guns and bullets, within 10-20 years, most non-military, non-police guns and bullets will have been destroyed, driving up the price to such an extent that criminals can no longer afford the weapons. My opponent takes issue with not all police having guns. This is fine. A gun ban would allow each country to choose what non-civilian exceptions to adopt. I merely described the system England currently employs. My opponent claims that there are anywhere between 12 and 36 billion guns worldwide (no citation). This is empirically false. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, there are roughly 640 million guns worldwide, 40% of which are operated by government militaries. [4] Considering that there are roughly 7 billion people on the planet, and thus only 5.5% of them own a gun, a concerted long-term effort to disarm citizens, disrupt illegal drugs sales, and drive up the cost of guns (through harsher sentencing laws) should be effective. My opponent has no answer to my harsher sentencing laws argument, that if a "gun enhancement" meant an automatic life sentence if a gun was used in commission of a crime (regardless of the crime committed) much fewer people would commit such crimes. In addition, harsh sentences for gun smugglers would deter them from gun smuggling (Chaudri and Geanakoplos of Yale say they would likely turn to drug smuggling if gun smuggling became too difficult). My opponent says, "Some manufacturers may even develop a way to once again effectively mass produce bullets and guns." However, they would make easy targets for the military/police if they were mass-producing guns in a giant factory. My opponent then does some analysis that since drugs are illegal and still bought (despite prices being drive up), then the same must be true of guns. However, first, this disproves his own argument: if drug smuggling is more profitable than gun/bullet smuggling, people will engage in the former and not the latter. In addition, the demand for drugs is inelastic (addicts are willing to pay anything to get a "fix" and are not price sensitive). However, I cite 5 studies proving that the demand for guns is very price sensitive (elastic): McDowell (1983), Epstein (1999), Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006), Cook (2004), and Bice and Hemley (2002). In fact, Cook has shown that due to high local prices, "Guns are quite scarce in some American cities, and scarcity reduces gun use in crime." Lastly, empirical evidence shows that drug legalization could makes drugs up to 5 times cheaper, which shows you what a comparative "illegality premium" might look for guns and bullets. If guns and bullets were 5 times more expensive 10 years from now, their use would effectively stop, based on the price elasticity of the demand for guns calculated by Bice and Hemley. Much more expensive guns as well as a newly legitimate effort to disarm non-state groups would solve genocides like in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, saving up to 500,000 lives per year. My opponent has yet to show any sort of good impact for guns that could outweigh this benefit. [1] http://www.thehighroad.us... [2] Ibid [3