Gun Bans

"A gun ban suggest a ammunition ban" It is impossible to ban something you cannot find. If you were to say that we have 2 bullets for every gun, their is 540,000,000 (07' see bottom for link) bullets you would have to track down. Now its obvious that we have more bullets for each gun. Their can be over 48 bullets in each pack for one of the most common guns in America, the shotgun. My opponent's argument against the above will most likely contain the simple idea that the innocent civilians will give up their guns and ammo. I can ensure you their isn't a hunter or true southerner that will give in either. "Unlikely. If your "civilian" profile is accurate, civilians will immediately turn in their guns." My "Innocent" civilian profile says that the innocent civilian will not murder. My innocent civilian profile does not suggest that they would give up their culture, hobby, and safety to prevent a murder that wouldn't be committed by them. I feel as though I must refer back to R1 because my opponent obviously didn't understand one of the points I made. My opponent solves no problems by suggesting the ban of ammunition. The civilians would still be without guns, and the criminals would still be with guns. My opponents ban only disarms the innocent. "The same way I can suggest killing the high-emission auto industry". My opponent compares guns to cars. My opponent says we can kill the gun industry just as we can kill a high emission auto industry. My opponent lacks the proof that suggest the ban would work, yet he suggest harming the economy to find out for sure. This idea is reckless, but perhaps the gun ban would be more reckless. My opponent has failed to realize the obvious. Taking guns away from all who will give them up, is disarming the innocent and not the assailant. "How can you keep people from possessing stolen property?" My opponent is failing to realize the size of this event. With stolen property, you are looking at a select group of criminals. With guns, you are looking at criminals and civilians alike. Such policy can only lead to resistance against the government and law enforcement. One can only imagine that a resistance would cause much violence and only increase crime rates. It is also highly possible that law enforcement would not willingly remove guns from innocent and free civilians. 92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes. Lets look at some final facts before we end R3, my final round. FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. FACT: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons: * Murder rates drop 8% * Rape rates fall 5% * Aggravated assaults drop 7% FACT: After Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibited handgun possession for self defense, the "breaking and entering" crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. FACT: In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms. My opponent has failed to prove that a gun ban would indeed work. He has even suggested a fairytale idea.. He suggests we find billions, possibly trillions of bullets to make the ban possible. His whole debate was based on the idea that we could find trillions of bullets and millions of guns. He even shows a belief that the American public, the same public Obama says "clings to guns and religion", will willingly give up their 2nd Amendment rights. My opponents debate was fairytale at best. Oops I almost forgot! Contention 3) Without guns we would not have the blessed mix of guns and girls. Curious? Go to gunsandgirls.com to see this heavenly mix. Or go to youtube and type "guns and girls". http://www.youtube.com... Resources: http://www.gunblast.com... http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com... http://www.Youtube.com... http://www.Girlsandguns.com...