Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

My arguments will be slightly changed from my usual gun debate arguments, but it will be mostly similar, at the most. (It’s kinda funny that we are talking about the US, when we are both from Europe) I will be using the same as what missmozart used of underlines, etc. Framework My framework will be centered around some laws that will be important, like the 2nd amendment, and self-defense. My framework will mostly be centered around 2nd amendment, and self-defense, and I will give definitions for both of these, then go onto my arguments. Self-defense: the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as bycountering blows or overcoming an assailant [1]. 2nd amendment: he Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms [2]. Now I will move onto my arguments. Argument 1: 2nd amendment My first argument will be about the 2nd amendment. Here is what it says in the 2nd amendment [3]. And in the shorten definition above, it shows that the 2nd amendment shows that people have the right to bear arms, or basically, have guns. If we ban guns, then that means that we are violating the second amendment. Socrates says, “A bad law is still a law [4]”. The second amendment isn’t a bad law, though it is a law, as socrates says, a law is a law, and laws must be followed. And as the 2nd amendment is a law, the second amendment from the U. S. Constitution, the law must be followed. Therefore, we should not ban guns, because of the 2nd amendment, and if we do ban guns, we are directly harming this law, and doing the opposite of it. A law is a law, so we can’t ban guns, so the resolution is negated, and vote for Con. Argument 2: Self-defense My next argument will be about self-defense. Some people say that there are around 2 million cases of self-defense each year. Some people think 3.6 million. Some say around 75,000 [5], and reasonably, I think it’s either of 75,000. Now, we don’t care about the *number* of self-defense cases per year. Yeah, there are a lot of self-defense cases, but that’s not the important part of this argument. It’s whenether guns *can* save lives, or *can’t* save lives. In the statistics above, it shows that there are self-defense cases each year, which show that guns *can* save people. Because it can save people, and one life is important, we should not ban guns, because guns save lives, and if we ban guns, these lives will be lost. Lets give an example of this. A robber comes in you house, and demands for money, jewelry, or something precious. Like, "Give me all the money you have in this house, and all the diamonds, and everything precious in this house, or I will shoot your head with a gun! !! " Then you will be very frightened because of the man. Let's say that the robber has a gun, because he bought it illegally (will be explained more in my 4th argument), and you don't, because you are a citizen of the U. S. , and don't buy guns illegally, because you follow the rules. You need to defend yourself. The things you bascially have are knifes, baseball bats, golf rackets, etc. This is harder to defend yourself if you have these things, because firearms are the best defensive weapon. So you have two choices, give everything to the robber, or get shot by the gun. You can easily die if you get shot by a gun. If you have a gun though, you do have lots of chances to defend yourself, by shooting the other one. That's shouldn't be immoral, and not justified, because it was a self-defense act. I forgot where I heard this, but I heard that US thinks of self-defense acts good. Argument 3: Gun culture My next argument will be about gun culture. Americans love guns, I can’t use this as a source, because this is plainly obvious. Guns are part of our culture, and if we ban guns, then that means that the people who will use guns will make some people get hurt, because they can’t use their guns which they used daily. There are many poachers and hunters with guns in the US, and if we ban guns, they can’t do this, and it will have an impact on their life. So… who cares about their life? We need to care of their lives, because if we ban guns, their culture, and our culture of using guns will have severe impact to many, and the government needs to help the citizens, not harm them by taking away their culture. So, we should not ban guns, because it will harm, and make many suffer. Argument 4: Economy My next argument will be about economy. If we ban guns, then it will make an economic impact, and the economy will suffer. Let me give a chart first, then some quotes. Economic Impact of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Industry in the U. S. Direct Supplier Induced Total Jobs (FTE) 132,584 65,180 90,222 287,986 Wages $5,513,898,500 $4,355,521,100 $4,581,758,300 $14,451,177,900 Economic Impact $19,533,701,800 $14,998,408,400 $14,755,836,700 $49,287,946,900 That is a graph from this source [6]. My quotes will be on this same source also. "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 [6] [7]. " and also, from another source "All told, the firearms industry contributes more than $33 billion to the U. S. economy and supports about 220,000 jobs, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation [8]. " Here is a picture in the same source s://lh3. googleusercontent. com. .. ; alt="" width="491" height="455" /> According to all the sources and pictures I have shown, guns give over 150,000 jobs in the US alone, and contribute 33 billion dollars to the U. S. economy. If we ban guns, then all of the jobs will be thrown away, and all the money, which is 33 billion dollars to the economy will be thrown away into the drain, and it will disappear. Not only the economy, there will be a black market formed. Guns will be bought and sold illegally. It is said that over 90% of guns are illegal guns. So if we ban guns, then only illegal guns will be left. Illegal guns will go to the black market, of course, and citizens, who follow rules will not have guns, when robbers who do not follow rules will still have guns, which makes citizens less safe, as criminals still have guns, when they don't. The impact of this argument is clearly shown. Vote Con. Argument 5: Waste of time Let’s first see how many guns Americans have. “According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all [9]. This computes to 93 guns per 100 people. In the same article: "But that doesn't mean every man, woman and child has a gun. The number of armed households has actually declined to about 1 in 3. So an ever larger number of guns is concentrated in a shrinking number of homes. " The graph shows a decline from 50% in 1975 to 31% in recent years. [10]” Guns are used by too many people of the U. S. Even though we ban them, some people will still have them illegally. Even though we ban them, they will still use them. Banning will do not point. It will cost more money if you ban it, but not much need because no one will follow it, and they can’t check over 300 million guns. This does an impact to the resolution, because if we do actually ban, it will be pointless because of the numbers, people wil still use guns. Argument 6: Gun reduces crime As the short amount of characters, I won't really be talking about this argument a lot. It will be my most short argument. It is that gun reduces crime. I thank Taj for telling me this argument. As there are sources for bot UK, and New York, and this is an America debate, I will be using the New York one, as this is an US debate. s://lh5. googleusercontent. com. .. ; alt="" width="624" height="428" /> As it shows in the diagram above, let's look at the 1976- 1978 ban. After the ban of guns, and a few years later, crime rates go over 80, when it was less than 30 before the gun ban. We are not sure if it is because of guns, but we know that banning guns don't cause crime. Though the only change is guns, so reasonably, but not 100 % sure, guns make higher crime rates. Conclusion I have shown that guns are protected by the 2nd amendment, self-defense, that guns don't reduce crime, that banning guns are a waste of time, and banning guns will cause the economy go down very low. I have shown why guns should not be banned, and why they should be legalised. This is a clear win for Con, therefore please vote for Con! !! Thank you for the debate mllemozart, and the debate goes back to you! !! Sources [1] goo. gl/GUbz2G [2] goo. gl/FXajpo [3] goo. gl/mLdcYn [4] Book of History, Ancient Greece Philosophers, Han Chae [5] goo. gl/BbHiAr [6] goo. gl/4qtCYt [7] John Dunham and Associates, New York, December 2015. Direct impacts include those jobs in firearms and ammunition manufacturers, as well as companies that manufacture products such as ammunition holders and magazines, cases, decoys, game calls, holsters, hunting equipment, scopes, clay pigeons and targets. Direct impacts also include those resulting from the wholesale distribution and retailing of firearms and ammunition in sporting goods retailers and variety/mass merchandise stores. [8] goo. gl/CQtv7r [9] goo. gl/I2MTNL [10] goo. gl/qTgQMR [11] goo. gl/jOSYgN Therefore, vote for Con! !!