The US Should Ban all Firearms

C1) Suicides Con replies to this argument by showing that banning guns will not stop all suicides, and that people will still commit suicide through other methods. I agree, but I never argued that banning guns would stop all suicides forever. I argued that banning guns would greatly deter this, which is a huge impact that Con fails to negate. When people are forced to use a different method of suicide, they are less likely to be successful (because, as I have shown, suicide by firearm is the most successful), and thus the person is more likely to survive. After this, they are subjected to depression treatment, which fixes their problem 80-90% of the time [1]. Con has also dropped the fact that having a gun in the home increases their chances of committing suicide. In the end, banning guns saves lives. Con then says that America is tenth in the world in the number of suicides, and that suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in America. This does not change the fact that banning guns would save lives, and thus does not negate my argument, and has no impact. C2) Homicides Con claims that banning guns would increase crime rates. Con backs this up by saying that in Germany and England, the crime rate for rape, break-ins, and burglaries are higher than in America. 1) This claim goes unsourced, unwarranted, and therefore can be thrown out as my case in this contention goes warranted, I win the argument on logical analysis. 2) My contention titled homicides is about homicides. Rape, break ins and burglaries are not homicides, and thus do not negate the argument. 3) This could be the result of thousands of factors, and not the presence of firearms, Con needs to show that guns are the direct cause of this, remember correlation doesn't equal causation. The statistic could be the result of how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, state culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability, etc. Con also says that famous people have body-guards that need guns to protect their boss. The problem is that Con ignores the other non-lethal weapons that body guards can use to protect their boss, such as tasers, clubs, pepper spray, etc. These are far less dangerous than using a gun, and are just as effective. Con then gives a lot of examples of times when governments attacked people without guns and killed them. Con then says that if they would have had guns, they wouldn"t have died. If anything, more people would have died. The victims would have had no chance against the military might of the country, and would have just died fighting instead of executed. And, the soldiers of the governments lose their lives, which is more lives lost on top of those already executed. This argument also assumes that the people executed would have guns, which would cost a great deal of money, and are unlikely to have. My rebuttal of Con"s revolution against a tyrannical government negates this as well. Con then says that if guns were banned, criminals would just make homemade guns, or they would use other weapons such as knives, bows, crossbows, spears, and others. If the criminal were to make a homemade gun, I doubt that it will be as dangerous as one made by a company. It will be less accurate, powerful, and dangerous in general. Even if we accept Con"s notion that if we ban guns, criminals will make homemade ones, it will still reduce the criminal"s effectiveness, and I win the argument. Also, if banning guns would force criminals to use other weapons, as Con admits, then this will reduce crime as well. Spears, crossbows, knives, and bows are not nearly as effective as a gun. Thus, forcing them to use less effective weapons makes criminals less effective, reducing crime. C3) Accidents Con says that accidents happen because people don"t know how to use them. What the judge needs to notice is that Con conceded that firearms cause accidents. What Con does do is suggest more gun safety classes. The problem with this is that research has shown that gun training increases accidents. "Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner." And that, "Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely." [2] As the evidence shows, training does not stop accidents from occurring, they actually increase them. Con fails to prove that gun accidents won"t happen. Thus banning guns would still prevent accident deaths, and the impact stands. [1] http://www.save.org... [2] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...