All firearms should be banned.

I begin by refuting my opponent's arguments. My opponent's Kellerman indict is true of Kellerman's statistic that "you are 22 times more likely to be shot by the gun in your own home than use the gun to shoot an intruder. " The same indict, however, does not apply to the statistic that "people are 2.7 times more likely be killed in a home with a handgun than one without. " A methodology problem in one area of a study (the self-defense section) does not invalidate the entire study. My opponent points out that other things besides guns kill people. Firstly, two wrongs do not make a right. If the topic were: the U. S. should legalize private ownership of nuclear weapons, my opponent could point out that cars and tobacco have killed far more people than nukes have. That is not a good reason to legalize private ownership of nukes. In addition, applying a utilitarian framework: cars have more benefit than detriments in terms of ease of transportation and productivity gains in the commute to work. In addition, I refer you to an example my opponent used in a previous round: "it is impossible to drown without water" (arguing that guns are just a tool). However, the benefits of water (the ability for all of us to live, instead of dying from thirst) outweigh the harms of drowning. My opponent has yet to prove that the benefits from guns outweigh the harms (500,000 deaths per year). Self defense First, it needs clarifying that the Zimring (2003) evidence is saying that when the AGGRESSOR during an assault (threat/argument) has a gun, the victim is 7 times more likely to die. This turns my opponent's point against him. A 120-pound woman has a better chance against a 250-pound wrestler husband than she does against a 250-pound wrester husband who is pointing a gun at her head (note: men have much higher gun ownership rates and are also much more likely to be the aggressor in an altercation). My opponent points out that the aggressor could use other instruments, but remember the instrumentality effect of guns (guns are more deadly). Zimring actually finds that in many cases of single bullet wounds, the attacker regrets his or her action. An impulsive (and later regretted) knife slash is much less likely to result in death than an impulsive (and later regretted) finger pull on the trigger of a gun (because guns are much more lethal). Secondly, my opponent does not answer the crux of my argument: self defense as a justification for gun legality presumes that the two primary usages for guns are 1) self-defense and 2) criminals trying to kill/harm us. These assumptions are not true considering that 86% of homicides are committed by a spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, family member, or acquaintance. Therefore, removing guns from the household make it less likely that someone close to us will accidentally or purposely shoot us during a heated argument. My opponent claims, "An almost guaranteed assumption would be that gun owners will not go down without a fight. " According to Time Magazine in "Locked & Loaded: The Secret World of Extreme Militias," the number of people who join private militias and would/could seriously defend their right to bear arms are a tiny fraction of gun owners. They would not fair well against U. S. military tanks, drones, and close air support. Our military's superior technology is what allowed us to easily take over Afghanistan and Iraq during the initial stages of the invasions. A few high-profile displays against extreme private militia groups (using all our military's firepower, if they refused to acquiesce) would quickly convince all gun owners to give up their weapons without a fight. Lastly, my opponent points out that: "both my opponent and I are speculating" when it comes to the black market. While my opponent's arguments in this area are actually pure speculation, I would rather term my analysis "informed conjecture. " I base my predictions on 5 different studies showing that the demand for guns is elastic, meaning that when prices go up, people buy fewer guns. Cook even went to cities, like Chicago, where illegal guns are hard to buy and expensive, due to strong gun control laws, and found that due to higher prices, far fewer guns were used in crime. Because demand for guns is elastic but demand for drugs is inelastic, smugglers would find drug running much more profitable than gun-running, and the number of black market guns would quickly shrink. Round summary: When evaluating this round, you as the judge should remember that my opponent (the instigator) has the burden of proving that guns should be legal. You should weigh the round using a utilitarian framework: would banning all guns result in the greatest good done for the greatest number. My opponent has nothing on his side of debate at the end of the round, except one vague anecdotal example of a gun that was used in self-defense. With his "2.5 million self-defenses" number completely debunked, it is impossible for us to know, as far as this debate goes, how many legitimate self-defenses there are each year using guns. In fact, most of those 2.5 million "self-defenses" are actually a reason to vote for my side of the debate: upon further review, a majority of them were actually dangerous incidents, such as gang brandishing or aggressive threats using a gun (Hemenway). Without an exact number to weigh, my opponent cannot make a case against the 500,000 lives per year that could be saved by banning guns. My opponent agrees that most homicides are committed by people we know, not strangers. He also agrees with the Zimring (2003) evidence that when the aggressor has a gun, a verbal altercation is 7 times more likely to turn deadly. Therefore, my opponent agrees with the analysis of why having a gun in your house makes you more likely to die than not having a gun in the home: because when family/friends fight and the fights get extremely heated, it is much safer when there are no exceedingly deadly objects (like guns) nearby. A gun ban would prevent countless such homicides from occurring. In addition, my opponent agrees with my analysis that within 10-20 years, guns can be largely eliminated from the world. By passing gun enhancement laws, countries can dissuade criminals from using guns (automatic life in prison) and from selling illegal guns (automatic life in prison). Because fewer people would be willing to sell guns (especially since drugs would be more profitable and a lighter prison sentence), the number of illegal firearm dealers would decline immensely, shrinking supply. As gun shipments are captured/destroyed and legal factories are shut down, the global supply of guns/bullets will further diminish, drastically driving up the price of guns/bullets. Because purchasers of guns are price sensitive (according to 5 studies), when prices massively rise, people will choose to pursue other sorts of weaponry or forgo buying a weapon altogether. When the price of guns on the black market has soared to astronomical levels, non-state groups (like the Janjaweed in Sudan and the Taliban in Afghanistan) can be disarmed and will not be able to purchase new weapons. This will solve most global conflicts, saving up to 500,000 lives per year. At the end of the day, as long as I prove that at least 2 deaths could be prevented by a gun ban, that outweighs my opponent's one anecdotal example of a self-defense occurring with a gun. And remember, self-defense would not be necessary in a world where guns become too expensive for criminals to afford or in a world where criminals are too afraid to use guns, fearing life sentences from "gun enhancement" laws. In order to achieve a gun-free (except military/police) world, I urge you to affirm. I leave you with the immortal words of Chris Rock: "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders. " Let's make this a reality.