That we should ban guns in urban areas

America is a nation that has been ravaged by crime, a nation in which homicide rates are, per thousand, almost four times as large as homicide rates in the UK and rates which are pretty only topped in the developed world by countries like Russia. [1]We say this is especially surprising given that the US has a well-funded police force and some pretty tough deterrents like the death penalty for murder. So we say that the underlying cause of these high crime rates is the abundance of guns we see in the USA, which I'll discuss later. I thank LAISSEZFAIRE for taking up the CON side of this debate. The Pro has three main arguments today; whether people have a right to have guns, in the constitution or in a modern society, the decrease in spontaneous crime rates our model will cause and the effects on both petty and organized crime. Firstly, to the right to bear arms, and we have two levels of analysis on this point: the constitutional right to bear arms and the modern right. So firstly, we say that when the constitution was written there was an overwhelming right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment was a descendent of a war-faring, fledgling nation that relied upon civilian militia in its war efforts. However, we say that in a modern society in which we have an established armed forces, a police force and where this model only applies to the urban areas in which these services are readily available, the 2nd amendment of the constitution is obsolete because such different circumstances apply. But secondly, I expect that my opponent will argue that citizens even living in the America of today have a right to firearms. We on the Pro side believe that indeed, the government has a responsibility to restrict this right. The right to having weapons is never absolute, and we can see this in the fact that having advanced weaponry like tanks isn't allowed. But moreover we say that there is no reason why anyone would need a gun. There are two justifications normally given as to why people would need guns; defending against nature and self-defence. On the first point, we stated in our model that the restriction wouldn't apply to rural areas, and we think this justification doesn't really matter. On the second, we say that while some crime will still happen under our model, the need to defend one's self is so rarely used that it doesn't matter, and, furthermore, we say that even when this right is used, it's done so poorly that often the person with the gun or their close family are injured. Furthermore, there are alternatives to guns as far as self-defence goes. And even if our opposition could prove that this right does exist, we would say it needs to be restricted because allowing a free flow of guns endangers rights to personal safety and indeed the right to life itself. We think that a very questionable right to have guns when they are largely unnecessary pales in comparison to the right to personal safety the broader population has. Secondly, we think our model will massively decrease spontaneous crime rates. We say that when there are guns freely available, it makes crime that much easier to participate in. When we consider America's crime rates, as I discussed earlier, we can see that they are much higher than those of other nations. Law-abiding citizens can be led astray by having guns around them, and that they often do make irrational decisions and kill people using guns who they wouldn't if guns were not so easily available. In fact, according to the research completed by emergency doctors, there is a 43:1 ratio of aiming at and shooting an innocent person than an actual criminal. [2] Thirdly, how will our model affect both petty and organized crime? We think that the gun market will be largely eradicated in America. This is because we not only stop people from buying guns in America but we can also stop guns from being imported into the country, which will also be prohibited. The only people who will be able to receive any guns will be farmers living in rural areas. However, I expect my opponent will argue that some gun trade will continue to exist, which we do not accept, but, even so, when you reduce the number of guns legally sold, we say two things happen to the supply of guns; it decreases as whole so less gun crime can happen and furthermore we drive up the price of any remaining guns, which will make it much harder for small-time petty criminals to get their hands on guns. As to the effect on organized crime, we say police will be able to better attack gangs and the like when their very lifeblood is made illegal, and we say that this will stop organized crime. We think that our model will reduce petty and organized crime. Because there is no right to arms and because our model will reduce crime we are proud to propose. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...