Winter Regular Final: Gun Ban

I agree to Pro"s terms, and appreciate the simplicity in the definitions, this should make for a very straight-forward debate. Because the burden is shared here, character limits will likely be an issue. I ask that Pro focus only on his main points for his own case, keeping in mind that having to refute an opponent"s case while providing your own tends to make for a lengthy response. I will do myself to stick to this standard as well. Because of this, I will stick to two relatively important contentions, and focus the rest of my allotted time and space for refutation. In lamen's terms, no shotgunning fallacies. Argument 1: A ban is not a solution to violence. Do gun bans really stop crime? The answer to the above has so many diverse answers, with different source material to back it up. There is evidence across many countries that differ in gun ban"s. In some Countries in Europe(1),[England, Wales] for example, violent crime increased when a handgun ban was issued. And other countries, statistics show a dramatic decrease of violent crime from a gun ban. Delving into a source war, therefore seems to be widely irrelevant. Commonly, statistics show raw data on a very specific subject, and don"t include many different factors; IE cultural difference"s, societal history and background, specificity of the type of gun being banned, etc. What this goes to show is that showing raw data doesn"t necessarily prove a point, if that raw data varies between societies and cultures or excludes other major relevant details and reasons for crime increase or decrease. In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but from country to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate. (2) But on the other side of this argument, it IS very possible to show the real alternatives to being able to have access to these weapons outside of going into a store and buying one. One of these alternatives is a black-market. There are many common mis-conceptions about black-market"s, however. Many people still think that these markets are very hard to find, and only the most dedicated of criminals are able to get their hands on weapons or drugs from these. This may have been the case 10 years ago, but in 2016, not so much. Many of you may have heard of the infamous bit-coin surge that has swept over America. Any individual from their home computer can download a tor network, and surf anonymously to meet their illegal possession desire(3). While occasionally the government can get in and shut down one of these "major player" online black-market sites, there are so many that it is un-reasonable for them to shut them all down. That"s right, your next door neighbor"s fed-ex"s package could very well contain a few grams of marijuana, or a 9mm. The crazy thing about this, is that it doesn"t even require a lot of technical know-how for you to do something like this. The average American can simply google "Tor browsers" and can start browsing anonymously within minutes and start using bit coin to buy illegal things online to be delivered right to their doorstep. What does this mean? It means that a ban is not solving the problem of gun crime. Does having a legally bought gun taken from you mean that you are suddenly out of options, if you have a real intent to go and cause a drastic scene in a shooting? Maybe for the impulse killers. But the mass shootings that inspire all the heat on gun violence, are mostly pre-organized, well-planned, and thought out. Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path. (4) This means simply banning guns doesn"t prevent death in the slightest. If we talk about banning things that can cause mass death and destruction, we might as well also talk about boxing all Americans into a comfy white room without any sharp objects. The Boston massacre was set off with bombs made from slow-cookers, and household nick nack, and it is obviously un-reasonable to suggest banning crock-pots. "The pressure cookers were filled with nails, ball bearings, and black powder. " (5) Argument 2: Alternatives to a gun ban. At this point you may be saying "Well if a ban isn"t a solution to gun violence then what is? " I get it; gun violence IS a problem, and just because a ban isn"t a solution doesn"t mean solutions don"t exist. A government has an obligation to protect it"s citizens. As of right now, in many states you can own a gun with only a background check. People with mental dis-orders, psychological therapy history, etc can waltz into a gun store and purchase a gun. Or a "level-headed" individual who is radicalized into a belief system bent towards killing innocents, like in the San Bernadino shooting. It is clear that some sort of psychological testing should be done prior to handing out weapons, considering stress levels, medical history, and intentions for owning a fire arm. Register citizens with aggressive mental disabilities and emotional instabilities and increase research for effective treatments and cures. In the United States, car accidents are the 4th highest cause of death in America, where gun violence doesn't even make the list of the top ten. (6) In America, a licence is required however for you to renew every 4 years. That licence can be revoked by mis-use (drunk driving, or other unsafe driving habits). Annual weapon safety certification/re-certification for everyone who owns a firearm. Separate certifications for conceal carry or open carry. This will be used to help fund Homeland Security. And if someone later on suffers from a mental illness or psychological dis-order, it is on record and gun privilege can be removed. And lastly a requirement on child proofing on homes where children are exposed to weapons. Child proofing can be obtained through trigger-locking, or using a safe. Accidental child self harm can be punishable by the gun owner who fails to meet weapon security requirements. Of course the specific details of these actions can probably be fine tuned, but they are a far better alternative then banning weapons from owners who use them for personal protection (either from the citizens, or by constitutional right against government abuse). Guns are dangerous when mis-used, but the biggest mis-conception with them is that they are the problem with violence. Many people seem to view problems the same way as they do with guns, and that is the real problem. Cigarettes and hamburgers don't force themselves into people's mouths to cause health concerns, the same way guns don't pull their own trigger to kill people. Personal responsibility is a factor that seems to get lost on people, but when you look at it objectively, it seems unfair to take away responsibility from a person who commits atrocities by blaming the weapon. A murder with a knife, or home made bomb is still a murder, and it takes a human being to commit a murder. I look forward to an interesting debate, and wish Hayd good luck in round 2 of this debate. Sources: 1. . http://tinyurl.com... 2. . http://tinyurl.com... 3. . http://tinyurl.com... 4. . http://tinyurl.com... 5. . http://tinyurl.com... 6. . http://tinyurl.com...