On balance, a ban on civilian firearm ownership would be beneficial to the United States

Rebuttal I: Cause and Correlation. For Pro to bring this up is hypocritical. Most of Pro's case is based off Correlation. In all of R2, his one case was implying nothing but correlation. And he used sources that implied only correlation. In R3, his case was once again based on correlation. Pro's whole case comes together to say "Guns correlate with violence. " Making this argument of his backwards and ironic. His other argument was that "Bad economics, not gun bans, correlate with high violence," again, another correlation that only assumes. Meanwhile, my case comes together to imply that there was NO CORRELATION. The opposite of what Pro is saying. Gun Bans were always followed with Increased Violence. Whether voters believe Gun Bans led to the violence or were unrelated, it's true that the Bans were never followed be decreased violence. Pro- "See this Correlation? "Con- "Nope. See this lack of Correlation? "Pro- "Con's using Cause and Correlation! "Pro's Cause and Correlation argument is not only wrong, and in no way reflects my claims, it actually represents his own arguments well. Pro's case tries to prove correlation. Mine try to prove no correlation. Then using the Cause and Correlation argument against me is unwarranted and hypocritical. Rebuttal II: General objection. Pro is mistaken to assume I didn't tackle those claims. I tackled the claim that Guns Facilitate Violence in Premise I of R2, and Premise II of R3. I need not tackle his one claim in every single Premise. It would be repetitive and wasteful. All of R3 - Premise II went into showing that guns don't equal violence. Pro makes only a half reference to his "Guns don't help in self-defense" case. It's easy to say I didn't refute Sentence A, when Sentence A is reliant on Sentence B (the sentence that I refuted, and by doing so also refuted the sentence that depended on it. ) Here is the full context. ". .. there are a number of practical issues that make it nearly impossible for a civilian to ever effectively use a gun for self-defense. The vast majority of civilians are not well-trained enough to safely handle a gun even in ideal conditions. .. "As we see, the logic runs like this:A] It's impossible to use a gun for self-defense properly. Because. .. B] Civilians aren't trained enough. By taking down Logic B, Logic A stops being relevant. But Pro specifically left out Logic B, as well as Logic A's dependancy on it, to make it look like I never refuted Logic A. In reality, I explained why it was wrong using two arguments. Pro has lied about me not refuting his claims, cherry-picking his own argument and mine to do so. I had, in R2 and R3, fully dealt with both of his claims, dropping neither of them. Rebuttal III: Specific Rebuttals. A) Poverty and Crime. I never claimed that economic stress didn't lead to violence in most nations. In fact, I even said ". .. this might be true in nations with a history of high violence and bad governments. .. "If you read my case, you will see that I said that Pro's claim (regarding Jamaica and the US) was wrong. The US is a full example that economic stress isn't correlating with increased murder rates in Chicago and DC, as 2000-2010 proves in full. Chicago and DC didn't see Violent Crime Rate Increases go any faster in the recession. And that violent crimes rates were almost equal with the US just before the ban, despite high economic stress. This shows that financial problems aren't the cause in those cities. The US also saw no increase in Violent Crimes during the recession. I also pointed out the same case with Jamaica. Pro makes the case that I"m not accounting for the right variables. The first problem is that Pro only ever brought up Umployement and Poverty rates. I brought up Poverty, Unemployment, GPD Real and GPD PPP. So Pro's argument is, again, hypocritical and only represents his case, not mine. Pro again reverts to his article, ignoring the actual longterm economics I introduced. Including info from 20+ back showing that Jamaica's economy had increased in the long-term. ". .. (Jamaica's) poverty is literally half of what it was in 1992" - R3. I never said Economics didn't lead to issues in all nations, just that Pro's excuse that economics explains the high violence rate in the two cities and in Jamaica was wrong. .. And the numbers prove it. Both Pro's numbers and GPD. Pro has not accounted for the economy of Britain and Ireland. B) Incarceration Rate. Pro said "Gun Ownership has correlated with Violence. " When I shown that there was no correlation, but Gun Bans did correlate with higher rates, Pro said "Well it's because of economic problems. " I proved Economics weren't in his favor, and he is now saying "Well that's because of higher incarceration rates. " Excuse after excuse. .. But higher Incarceration rates may explain the decrease in murder rates from the 1990s, it does nothing to explain why violent crime rates never went up with Gun Ownership before or after those years. Rebuttal IV: Source Reliability. NO ONE has access to Pro's sources. The fact that his sources can't be reviewed is everything. We can't see his methods or source of numbers. "the fact that Con does not have access to those publications is out of my control. " -Pro's statement. If you do not have access to his studies and can't review them, this is Pro's reason why you should just trust his sources anyways, while not trusting mine. Pro also claims that there are specifics that we can see on the page. .. I brought up those specifics (such as the years tested) to prove why they aren't reliable. While Pro's sources are locked, mine are open. My methods are visible, as are where my numbers come from, and all 7 studies I did can be replicated on the spot. My methods are not fallacious at all. I have tested every single state, and four relevant nations over half a century. To claim my methods are fallacious is a long-shot when his methods can't even be tested. And regarding his three-year study; I tested 54 years, which included the three years his study tested. My claim that the 1980-1990's were a time of mass violence hold ground here, as his sources almost entirely get information from those years. As I said earlier, using War World II to prove too many people die in war each and every year. Review of The Issues:Pro's arguments were: - Guns Correlate with violence. I proved through 7 different methods and over 54 years from R2 to R3 that this isn't true. There is no Pro-Ban correlation on any level. - Economics is why Jamaica, Chicago, and DC, have high violence. I proved that all three have had increasing murder rates since before the recession (which would have, if Pro was right, caused larger crime rates increases in Chicago and DC). It's one thing to say A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B. .. But to say A happened, then B happened, therefore B caused A? That case is automatically wrong. The only place that might have worked was Jamaica, but I've shown Jamaica's economy is much better now than in 1990, while the murder rates have only ever increased, the opposite of Pro's claim. - My sources are wrong. My sources include highly trustable sites that CAN BE VIEWED AND TESTED. My studies can be replicated and proven just by reviewing the numbers I tested. None of Pro's sources can be tested. To which Pro replied that whether you could check his studies wasn't his concern. Conclusion:I have proven with 7 different methods and studies, that in all 50 States, there is no correlation between gun ownership and violence (except Robbery, but in my favor), even across 54 years. I have proven that Gun Bans do NOT lead to less violence, but has aways been followed by increased violence. It is the voters choice to decide if this means:1) Gun Bans caused higher violence.2) Gun Bans don't effect violence. But without a doubt, they do NOT lead to lower violence. In NONE of the reviewed nations and US cities, over 50+ years, have Gun Bans been followed with lower violence. The Resolution is Not Affirmed.