Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

Now I will go into my last round, or techincally the last round of the debate, as my opponent has to waive the next round because she used round 1. I will be using this round for rebuttals of defense, and my conclusion. Crime". .. The fact is, the UK has less crimes and less guns. The US has more crimes and more guns. Therefore, we should ban guns to reduce crime! "I was saying that the amount of guns are different, so we are not 100% sure that the same thing will happen. Also, I said that in the UK, there was an increase of crime, as I clearly showed that the UK had a higher crime level, and my opponent says that is "outdated. " Well that was one of the gun bans, and if it turned out like that, and it was the latest gun ban, then it is not outdated. My point was that the statistics might differ from UK and US. ". .. it is quite clear that in the US, places where there was stricter gun control had less crimes [7]. "In the source, which was hard to see, there was nothing about crime, only about licenses, open carrying guns and non-open carrying guns. There is nothing about stricter gun control having less crimes, unless you mean deaths. There were some states where it was prohibted, but it was still around 9 in the chart. That also isn't 100%, because that is what the citizens think, things can change, and crime can get worse, like my conclusive data. My opponent doesn't refute my crime argument, and doesn't defend hers correctly, so this is a objective win for Con! !! !Suicide". .. But in the United States, a Harvard study shows that the suicide rates are directly linked with the percentage of gun ownership . .. This proves that the accessibility of guns actually encourage suicide. "What my opponent says here is WRONG. There is a higher percentage of suicide rates because guns are effective tools from doing suicides, when like ropes and those things are hard for doing suicides. Guns don't encourage for suicide, they just help you die if you want to be dead, and this is a case for them, because you have a gun doesn't encourage suicide, that's a bare assertion. My opponent also says that suicide is encouraging from guns, but that isn't true, as I said before, and my opponent makes a bare assertion on this, Harvard only made a study that suicides are higher rates if gun ownership, not that guns encourages suicide. This is very different, so that's basically why my opponent's "claim" is a bare assertion. "What's the point of enduring a painful end when you know you're going to die soon anyways? "That's what my opponent says. True, but that wasn't my point of the argument. My argument was about that you are basically giving liberty of life from those two, but not in these cases. Why not? My opponent doesn't answer this AT ALL. Also, another question, which is similar, which is basically the same question. What's a point to live when you don't want to live? Therefore vote for Con. "I believe that women have a choice over what happens if it concerns their own health and in other extreme cases. "Same as the Euthanasia case. You are giving them liberty, but why not in this case? Point refuted. Bad for defense". .. so there won't be much need for guns for self-defence. "This is once again, WRONG. Also showing that the crime thing is wrong, and I already said that because of the black market, and citizens following rules, when criminals do not follow rules, I showed that because criminals buy illegally guns in the black market, the criminals will have guns, when the citizens won't. That will make a less safe community, as criminals will be the only ones to access guns, and the citizens cannot access to guns. "I'm sorry, but I genuinely find it difficult sometimes to understand what you're trying to say. "I said that you said, "70,000 is a little. " I said that not all houses and people get robbed in their lives, so we can't count everyone, only around few hundred thousand, and that is a much. My opponent doesn't refute this argument. "Could you please give sources instead of a random guess? "That isn't a random guess, and it's pretty impossible to get a source. Logically, you can think like this. P1: In the US, there are 120 million households [29]. P2: There were around 75000 self-defense cases in the USP3: Not all houses get robbed. P4: As an logical guess that 1/4 of the households get robbed, as that is a logical guess, it is 30 million. C1: There isn't much a big difference, so self-defense cases are important"I don't understand your logic. In that case, we should just legalise all drugs because even though a lot of people will abuse it, if there are a few people who use it for medical or health purposes, then it should be worth it. "I am not talking about that. It's also about Utility. It needs to bring more good than harm. My logic is that we don't care about the number of cases, whenether there is a case, or is not a case. As a libertarian view of mine, libertarians seek to maximize liberty, and they care about every single person, and if there are harms. From this, as if we ban guns, then the number of the self-defense cases, and those people will be harmed. From the libertarians view, that harms their liberty, and security, therefore we should not ban guns. "That is a bare assertion because of your lack of citations. Also, it goes against everything you've just said. Up until now, you've been arguing that guns will still be available in black markets despite banning them. Then all of a sudden, you agree to ban guns but want to implement a special license in order to acquire them? That doesn't make any sense to me. "First of all, that wasn't a bare assertion, I showed an example of Iceland. I didn't say to ban, I said to make licenses to make less accidents, et cetera. So my opponent's assertion of my bare assertion, and what she thought is WRONG. THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR THE ACCIDENTS ARGUMENT, NOT THIS SELF-DEFENSE ARGUMENT JUST FOR A HEAD'S UP. "I couldn't find this figure, could you please show me where you got it from? "This is an argument for accidents, but from my laziness, and that my opponent put it here. This is plain sh! t. Didn't my opponent just see my source [15] of Round 3? Unless she just skimmed over the argument, she must have saw it in the "accidents" section, but she put it here wrong, as she made a mistake. Accidents"I didn't say anything about bad-quality guns and I don't think accidental shootings as a result of a faulty gun is a large percentage of the problems caused by guns anyway"All I can say about this is What are you even thinking about? You were talking about accidents. I was talking that the accidents can be about bad-quality guns, etc, and faulty guns, etc. I just gave a few examples of that. I know that you never said anything about it, I was just saying some examples of why accidents can happen, /ENDRANT. And just to say about waffling, at least I waffle in one paragraph, you said about suicides in almost every hell argument in this debate! !! ! "That is so terribly obvious and logical, I don't think anyone regardless of intelligence would not be able to think of that solution. However, the sad reality is that numerous children still have access to guns despite common sense. "First of all, even though it is terribly too logical, we can restrict children from touching the guns, and that we keep the parents responsible, because it is their children, and to keep their young to be safe, they need to be responsible for it. " Supposing that was the case, what would happen if a robber came to your house. .. "But how was their self-defense cases? Also, when a robber comes in, the person won't just come in shoot, and go and steal stuff. Also, we can just stop that idea, etc. There are too many ways we can stop that from happening, so this argument is refuted. "Using your logic, certain toys shouldn't be banned for young children simply because it's their parents' responsibility and they should be making sure that their children don't choke or injure themselves. "In my logic, I never said "ban". I said that we need to restrict and make parents have responsiblity to care for the child, I never said "ban". ConclusionIn this debate, I said that Banning guns will violate the 1. 2nd amendment, 2. self-defense, 3. Americans use guns in daily life, 4. economic impact, 5. waste of time, the black market, 6. gun reduces crime. My opponent said that 7. Gun increases crime, 8. about suicides, 9. bad for defense, and 10. about accidents. I showed the rules of the 2nd amendment, about the number and if there are self-defense cases, about Americans love guns, and americans use guns many times, that guns have an economic impact on jobs, etc. , and about the black market. Also, I have showed that Gun reduces crime. My opponent's crime argument was about of UK's crime, but I showed that my crime graph, and my argument outcomes it. My opponent's suicide argument was by reasons that guns encourage suicide, and I rebutted that from saying that it doesn't encourage, only makes easier, and we should allow suicide from liberty. My opponent's bad for defense argument is rebtuted because I have shown that there are many defenses, and the self-defense impact and about the people who use guns overcomes this. My opponent's accidents argument is rebutted because by Util, my self-defense argument saves more people than the ones who died by accidents. So my impacts outweighed my opponent's impacts. So, because I'm winning every point, and he's winning no points, I won and he lost. Vote for CON. I can't give a proper thank you because I am so low on characters, but thanks for the debate mllemozart, I really enjoyed it, and win or lose, it was fun, and I hope you think the same as I do, as the debate was a fantastic one. You have to waive the last round, and thanks for the debate. Vote for CON, Thanks to the voters who will vote. Sources[29] (. http://tinyurl.com...)[30] (. http://tinyurl.com...)