Guns ought to be banned for the purpose of decreasing violent crime.

I apologize if this is a bit rushed, I don't have any time tomorrow or the next day, so I have to squeeze this whole argument out today. I will begin by responding to my opponent's case. First of all, several points that deal with the entire case. My opponent's case seems to prove one thing quite well, that guns kill people. I do not deny that guns kill people, rather I deny that banning guns will stop violent crime. More on that in my case proper. Second, my opponent claims that all of his sources were from the Brady center, however after looking through it, his first fact seems to be missing, though I didn't have a chance to check all of the rest of them. None of my opponent's facts compare a society with and without guns, and thus none are relevant with the topic. These statistics are inherently biased in that they compare the United State's society to other societies, with wildly different values and laws. They also only compare gun violence, not all violent crimes which is what the resolution is dealing with. My Case: 1. Banning guns doesn't make it impossible for criminals to acquire them. Criminals, who have no regard for the law, are not going to be hindered by another set of laws, when they already plan to break laws. Instead of buying guns legally, all this resolution does is force them to buy them illegally. This has several impacts. a) It increases the power of gangs. Whenever a product has been banned by the government, like Prohibition, or illegal drugs today, criminals have been able to gain power through selling it. The demand for guns will not go away, just like the demand for alcohol did not go away in the prohibition. And similarly to how Prohibition funded the rise of Al Capone's gang, a ban on guns will increase the power of gangs. With more ways to raise funds, gangs will become more rampant, and because of the greater amounts of guns in their hands, chances for guns being used illegally will rise. b) Banning guns makes it harder to track criminals. Instead of having concrete evidence when a murder weapon is found, when guns come from the black market, there will be no trail to trace. No records at gun shops or evidence from serial numbers on the guns will not exist any more. This will not only hugely increase the amount of work investigators will need to do to solve crimes, but also make it impossible to solve many crimes. c) When guns are banned law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves from violent attack. This puts the advantage in the hands of the criminal. Think of it from the criminals point of view, would you mug innocent people if you knew there was a chance they had a gun and could kill you? John Lott explains from his book More guns, less crime, "The number of rapes in states without concealed gun arms laws would have declined by 4,200, aggravated assaults by 60,000, and robberies by 12,000" And its not just the legally justified shootings that matter, its the deterrent effect they provide. All of the murders which didn't happen. 2. Banning guns doesn't stop murders in crimes of passion. I have already shown that cold blooded killers will not be prevented from acquiring guns, by banning guns, but in crimes of passion the weapon doesn't matter. Banning guns will reduce the number of gun deaths in crimes of passion, but the number of deaths by other weapons will certainly increase. It is the consequences not the means that a murderer tries for, and banning one means will only result in other means being used.