The US should adopt a ban on all semiautomatic firearms

Since the premise of this debate is based of reducing gun fatalities and implementing a gun buyback program, I will make arguments according to that hypothetical scenario. (1) Gun owners will likely not comply with a buyback program The United States had achieved its independence through violence, and the rifle is a sentimental tool that is instilled in American culture. Unlike many other countries, owning firearms is a right, and polling data shows that 87% of Americans are not in favor of banning weapons [1]. Since a buyback program would force people to give up their guns, it’s highly doubtful whether most gun owners would comply. The 2nd amendment mentions “a well-regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state”, which means the right to bear arms is there to prevent tyranny. Historical incidents involving Nazi Germany and the British Empire have shown how those governments took away arms as means to control a certain population, so any buyback program imposed on Americans would be interpreted as tyranny. Given this situation, it’s unlikely that many gun owners will give away their guns, unless it is done by force. To do that, the U. S government needs to violate the 4th amendment, and it will not be a peaceful transition. Before we even debate the effects of a buyback, it’s highly doubtful whether it will properly take place! (2) Only affects gun owners who are law-abiding The problem with banning semi-automatic fire-arms is that most gun owners use them responsibly and are in no way a danger to other people. If a ban were to be put in place, it would only affect those who use these weapons lawfully. What incentive do criminals have to turn over their guns? According to a study done at Cook County Jail in Chicago, of the 70 inmates who had possessed a firearm, only 2.9% had bought it at a gun store [2]. Now, this may only be a study done in one city, but most of America’s gun crimes are committed in the inner cities, so it’s reasonable to assume that similar trends would be observed in other crime hot-spots like Memphis and Detroit. If we assume that only 3 % of gun crime is committed by legal obtained firearms, the math should show the following: Out of 414,562 gun crimes committed annually, just around 12,440 of those crimes are committed by those who legally bought those weapons. Now consider that there are roughly 80 million legal gun owners in the U. S. Out of those gun owners, just 0.0001555% of them used it for crime. It would be outrageous to create any legislation that addresses a crime figure that is so insignificant, while taking away the rights of 80 million gun owners (approx. ). (3) Legal gun owners use fire-arms for self-defense A good reason not to ban semi-automatic firearms is that law-abiding Americans use them for self-defense. There is a major caveat that ought to be mentioned and that the real number of self-defensive gun use cannot be accurately predicted. The reason for that is often, gun owners manage to thwart of their attacker by merely brandishing their weapon, and there simply is no incentive for them to report it to the police. The lowest SDGU estimates range from 55,000, all the way to 4.7 million times per year. There has been dispute on the real figures from both political sides, but the most commonly cited figure comes from Gary Kleck, who’s research has estimated around 2.5 million SDGU annually (3). To understand what these numbers mean, you need to compare it to the total gun crimes committed by gun owners. Say we take the lowest possible SGDU figures, that number is still 4 times greater than crimes committed by legal gun owners. Therefore, the positive impact that is created by legal gun ownership outweighs the negatives are caused by it. (4) Gun bans in other countries had no effect on their homicide rates Countries such as Britain and Australia have outlawed or severely restricted semi-automatic firearms, but data on their homicide shows that the ban had no measurable impact. [4] In the cases of both countries, there is an initial spike (could be attributed to another factor) but the trend before and after the bans are relatively the same. It only goes on to prove that banning guns doesn't really affect the overall homicide rate. It should allow be mentioned that during this time period, the U. S experienced a greater drop in homicide than Australia. [5](5) Illegal gun market Guns are in incredibly high demand, especially when talk of potential regulation arises. By completely banning them, you open the doors illegal gun trading. The U. S federal government has abysmal record when it comes to prohibition. Alcohol was banned in the 20’s however it didn’t much to prevent the demand and allowed crime bosses like Al Capone to make billions from illicit trading. It was such a failure, that the 18th amendment was repealed. Now we are currently facing the poorly managed “War on Drugs” which hasn't done much to stop the drug trade amongst gangs. If we were to declare a “war on Guns”. It would be even more disastrous. Guns are not like alcohol and drugs where you need to replenish after you use them. A gun can last for several decades if used properly, so criminals can already gain access to the 320 million firearms that are already floating around in the U. S to commit crime, and it will last them for a long time. If the government has already failed to stop illegal drug usage, it can't do much to stop illegal gun trading. Even if we hypothetically agree that the government somehow manages to confiscate all firearms, the rise of 3D printing and private gunsmiths assure that criminals will still find a way to get access to guns. Even in China where private gun ownership is banned, 15,000 illegal firearms still made it's way to those who wanted them. Prohibition is no gurantee of success, especially in America where gun culture thrives. [6] (6) Economic impact An interesting angle to consider is the economic impact of banning guns. "Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 132,584 people in the country and generate an additional 155,402 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in companies supplying goods and services to manufacturers, distributors and retailers, as well as those that depend on sales to workers in the firearms and ammunition industry. [7] "These are good jobs, paying an average of $50,180 in wages and benefits. And today, every job is important. In fact, workers in the United States face an unemployment rate of 5 percent. This means that there are already nearly 8 million people trying to find jobs in the nation and collecting unemployment benefits. " "The firearms and ammunition industry generates sizable tax revenues. In the United States the industry and its employees pay $6.2 billion in taxes including property, income, and sales-based levies". While I'm certainly not suggesting that profits should be valued over human life, the trickle-down affect of unemployment shouldn't be understated. If a gun ban is passed, most of these people will lose their jobs, and the economy will lose billions, which could have been reinvested for other purposes. Unemployment undeniably is connected to poverty and crime, and we only need to observe cities like Detroit, where the manfacturing industry was hit hard by the 2008 recession. Sources:1: . http://www.pollingreport.com...2:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...3:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...4:https://mises.org...5:http://www.gunfacts.info...6:http://www.ibtimes.com...7:https://www.nssf.org...