THW: ban gun ownership by civilians

My opponent asked me to point out that he forgot to add sources in R1 and that he has added them in the comments. This is acceptable to me, hence, voters should consider Con's sources in the comments section as part of his argument. So, on to refutation: " She failed to add the following notion, ' But studies haven"t been able to show a causal relationship " " Correlation-causation is only fallacious when no causal mechanism can be explained. For example: "Premise 1: Ice cream sales increase in June." Premise 2: Sunburn rates increase in June. Conclusion: Ice cream causes sunburn." This line of reasoning is *only* fallacious because there is no plausible causal mechanism between ice cream and sun burn. Clearly, the more plausible explanation is that the weather is hot in June, and when it is hot, people often eat ice cream and also often get sunburn. This, however, is not the case with regards to guns- clearly, the increased availability makes it easier for someone to commit a crime using a gun, and hence, crime rates go up. The causal mechanism is sound, and so the correlation-causation is a perfectly valid inductive argument. Con's statements also beg the question- how exactly would prove, with a study, that an increase in guns causes an increase in crime? The only way I can imagine one could do this would be to create hundreds of identical societies except in half of them guns are legal and in half of them guns are not. Only then could a study prove directly that a change in gun control corresponds to a change in crime rates. Inductive arguments from correlation are, unfortunately, the best either side can do on this matter, but such arguments do suggest that guns are associated with an increase in crime rates. " To this extent, even if all law abiding citizens were armed, crime would not significantly rise." That is debatable, but even if I were to grant Con that premise, the presence of guns makes it easier for those who were criminals to commit more daring and more violent crimes more regularly, as they are armed. Hence, guns are still a huge liability. Plus, "law abiding citizens" can become criminals in a moment; if someone has a gun, and anger management problems, it's very easy for that person to become a murderer or mass-murderer. The presence of a gun makes civilians more likely to become criminals. "Additionally, if one takes the adverse effect into account, removing firearms from public ownership will also have no negative effect on crime rates, given most criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources" The claim "most criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources" is only true in places where guns are illegal, and this is obvious- they couldn't obtain guns legally in places where obtaining a gun is illegal. In some places, you can walk into a department store and buy a gun capable of killing a whole bunch of people for $100. The same gun in Australia, where guns are banned, would cost $36,000 on the black market, and it is also considerably harder to obtain since you'd have to find someone willing to illegally sell you a gun. Banning guns makes it harder for criminals to get guns. Sure, plenty of them still will, but they'll pay through the nose- and take a huge risk- to do so. "To complete this segment, social factors are the prime determinant for firearm crime, not the firearm itself." One cannot commit a firearm crime without possessing a firearm. Of course, socio-political factors play a huge role in crime rates. It would be foolish to deny this. However, the mere fact that all firearm crimes are committed using a firearm ought to be enough of a reason to restrict the access that potential criminals (which, unfortunately, is everyone) have to guns. Con argues that guns deter crime, and I'd agree that of course criminals are much more reluctant to commit crimes against individuals who are armed with guns, but then they're also less likely to commit crimes against individuals with a large dog, or a burglar alarm. The difference is that while a large dog or a burglar alarm protect you, it's also very difficult to weaponize the former and impossible to weaponize the latter- they don't have a corresponding increase in criminals using them to commit violent crimes. Hence, if protection is one's concern, one should focus on other methods- owning a dog, travelling in groups, getting a security alarm etc., and one can use all of those factors to protect oneself against crime even if guns are banned. This would still allow them to protect themselves without opening the door to violent criminals legally owning a gun. Con hasn't addressed my argument that guns are a liability in terms of suicide and accidents, and I feel that doing so would strengthen his case. Any gun which is available enough to its owner that it could easily be used to stop a criminal is also available enough that it becomes a liability in terms of accidents. Any gun which is kept locked away in a safe so as not to be a liability to its owner is useless as protection, as one would not have it on them when needed. Hence, guns are always either a liability to accident due to being carried around openly, or they are useless as protection and also have all the other liabilities such as suicide, and opening the door to criminals. "and also deducts from lawful practices such as hunting" Hunting may be lawful, but it is barbaric and cruel and it should be stopped for that reason, although granted that's a whole other debate. In any case, it's certainly not worth keeping it at the cost of also keeping guns legalised even if we were to grant that hunting is a perfectly acceptable practise- consider the analogy of banning civilians from possessing military tanks even though some people might use them perfectly legally to drive to work- you still have to ban them for those who won't just use them legally. The $7.7 billion Con quoted should be taken in context; Americans spend $20 billion on ice cream (source 1) each year. Numbers like this sound big, but in terms of national revenue, they amount to nothing. In an ideal world, I'd agree with Con's case; it would be great if everyone could own guns if they like. However, we live in a world which is far from ideal, and as the case has been made, guns are a huge liability to the safety of the owner, to those around them, and to society as a whole, through risks of accidents, suicides, and violent crime. Hence, please side with the motion that "THW: ban guns". Sources: 1: https://www.google.co.uk...;*