All firearms should be banned.

Weighing mechanism: As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. When weighing the round, the judges should decide whether my opponent has proven that firearm legality has more benefits than detriments. As such, pretend he is actually affirming the resolution "firearm ownership should be allowed." He must win his case to win the round. Since the topic is non-U.S. specific and theoretical ("should" not "could"), Constitutionality arguments should be excluded. A firearm ban among the general populace would necessarily carve out exceptions for the military and certain special police units (like SWAT teams). Since this is a controversial topic, I implore my judges to set their personal beliefs aside and evaluate only who did the better debating, since debaters are often forced to defend positions they do not agree with. 1. Effect on homicide rates It is widely accepted that you are more likely to be raped by someone you know than by a stranger. The same applies to being killed by a firearm. Guns in the home are far more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder because as far as homicides go, you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a stranger. According to an article in University of Chicago Law Review by Frank Zimring, a criminology expert at UC Berkeley, more than two-thirds of killings are caused by spouses, lovers, friends, or neighbors. [1] Zimring examines crime statistics in Chicago and breaks the numbers down by type of weapon, number of wounds, and location of the wounds. He finds that when the wound location was clearly intended to cause death, the use of a firearm instead of the next deadliest weapon (a knife) increased the chance of death of the victim by a factor of 5. This is called the "instrumentality effect" of guns. In a broader analysis in Guns in America, Zimring and Hawkins continue to debunk the myth that if guns were not widely available, people would just find another way to kill each other (the classic "guns don't kill people, people do" argument). They point out that "if this were so, knife attacks in cities where guns were not so widely used would show a higher fatality rate" due to the expected substitution effect. But no such trend exists. Guns simply facilitate certain killings that would otherwise not be possible. As an example, Zimring and Hawkins explain that since guns are both more deadly and more versatile (can be used from a distance), they are used almost exclusively in police killings. Lastly, Zimring/Hawkins cite another study proving the instrumentality effect of guns: comparing wounds in the same location, attacks with higher caliber guns were much more likely to result in death than attacks with lower caliber guns. [2] Without guns, altercations (usually between family members, neighbors, and friends) would be much less likely to result in a fatal injury. In addition, a study by Kellerman (1993) found that people were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than in a home without one, further underscoring the predominance of family/friend murders among the homicide statistics. [3] For the same reason, a regression analysis done by Mark Duggan in "More Guns, More Crime" found that looking at time lag data, local increases in gun ownership are soon followed by localized increases in homicide rates. [4] To understand the next study, we must first explore an important legal distinction. A common misconception is that "assault" means an attack. However, in terms of the legal definition, "battery" means a violent attack and "assault" is a THREAT of bodily harm. Normally, an assault should result in nothing more than a heated argument, but the presence of a gun makes it much more likely than an assault will turn deadly. Zimring (2004) found that assaults (read: threats) were 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor possessed a firearm. [5] All of the above studies combine to show that a gun ban would result in fewer homicides. 2. Price elasticity A ban on all guns would necessarily drive up the price of purchasing a gun because legal producers have many advantages over illegal producers, such as the ability to operate large factories that enjoy economies of scale and mass production technology. For this reason, most guns on the black market actually come from legal sources. 90% of the guns used by the cartels in Mexico actually originated from legal dealers in the United States. [6] In addition, a study commissioned by Senator Chuck Schumer found that 9 out of 10 guns used in crime originated in the legal market, and in fact pinpointed 140 gun stores that were responsible for selling 20% of all the weapons that eventually ended up on the black market. [7] For all these reasons, a gun ban would drastically reduce the supply of guns and make the remaining guns much more expensive. In economics, there are goods where the demand is inelastic (people are not very sensitive to price) and where demand is elastic (people are very price sensitive and are likely to switch to another similar product [a substitute good] if the price rises). A number of scholars have measured demand for guns and found that the demand is elastic, meaning when price goes up significantly, people either stop buying guns or shift to another related product (a knife, axe, pepper spray). McDowell (1983): "gun demand is income elastic"; Epstein (1999): "the demand for guns is elastic"; Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006): "elasticity of demand for guns is very high." [8] "Philip Cook, a Professor of Economics from Duke University, noted . . . ‘Criminals' demand for guns is elastic, . . . and to decrease gun violence, we must make guns a liability for criminals, rather than the best, most cost-efficient weapon available.'" [9] Lastly, Bice and Hemley (2002) find that: "The demand for handguns is elastic; a 1 percent increase in the price of handguns lowers the quantity demanded by 2-3 percent." [10] By this calculation, a roughly 50% increase in gun prices would effectively eliminate demand. In addition, a gun ban would make bullets significantly more expensive because bullets could no longer be mass-produced in large factories. "Bullet control" can be even more effective than "gun control." In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders." Although cottage industries can produce small numbers of guns, they cannot possibly create large numbers of bullets. With a gun ban, bullet prices could soar to the point where Chris Rock's vision is realized, where bullets are no longer affordable, even though guns might be. Bullet bans have empirically been more effective than gun bans, such as the ban on civilian ownership of armor piercing bullets. Countries would start adding "gun enhancement" laws to their books, as well. The laws would state that dealing illegal guns would be punished by life in prison, and using a gun in a crime (like robbery) could change the sentence from a 5-year sentence to life in prison. This would deter gun use in a world where guns are banned. Lastly, depriving non-state groups of guns (by making guns and bullets too expensive) would solve militia problems, such as in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, such as the Taliban. 500,000 people are killed worldwide each year by guns. [11] [1] http://www.saf.org... [2] Guns in America: A Reader, page 219 [3] New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 1084-1091, October 7, 1993 [4] Journal of Political Economy, 2001, vol. 109, no. 5 [5] Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 32 [6] http://www.vpc.org... [7] NY Times, Criminals Black Market in Guns Detailed [8] http://cowles.econ.yale.edu... [9] http://www.udel.edu... [10] U Chicago, Journal of Law & Economics