Guns should be banned in the united states.

I stand in negation. I will allow my opponent to open.

I will endeavor to show 2 things:
(a) Civilian ownership of guns serve little utility
(b) Any utility is outweighed by the dangers of firearm misuse.

I will not bother debating constitutionality and whether a gun ban violates the 2nd amendment. First, firearms are already restricted, in several ways, in the USA. Second, the Constitution is made for Americans; Americans are not made for the Constitution. If I present justification that a gun ban benefits rather than harms Americans, the constitution can be changed, if so needed.

Moving on to my arguments:
(a) There is no concrete evidence that gun ownership lessens violence or robbery. (i) Criminals will simply transfer their violence to the population without guns. (ii) Desperate criminals will still attack people, gun or no gun.
(b) Gun ownership will increase violence in several different ways. (i) The owner might go crazy and shoot enemies. (ii) Even if the owner is stable, guns can be stolen and misused. (iii) Robbers, intimidated by guns, will be more likely to pursue a policy of "shoot first, steal later." (iv) Encounters between armed citizens and thugs will result in cases of violence and death in what would otherwise have been a non-violent theft.

Given that gun ownership benefits little, but threatens all, I urge you to vote neg.

I will first attack my opponent's case, and then move on to state my own.

"There is no concrete evidence that gun ownership lessens violence or robbery."

Now, while there not be actual numbers to prove this, guns are still necessary to protect the home and self. As my opponent stated, criminals will rob/attack people whether or not guns are around. The problem is: When guns are banned, only criminals will have them. This would only further the vulnerability of the citizen. (Besides being unconstitutional, which I will address later)

"Gun ownership will increase violence in several different ways."

My opponent says guns will be misused. Please realize this is true with any and all weapons, including fists. There will always be crazy people out there, guns or no guns. Again, if guns were banned, only the criminals and "whackos" would have them, further putting the general population at risk. This again would be unconstitutional. On to my argument.

1. Guns are necessary for the safety of a home to protect yourself and your property. 2. Guns serve as a weapon for self defense when ever the police fail to provide the services of protection to the general public. 3. Guns should not be banned because criminals will now be the only ones who have the guns, holding the general public's safety in danger. 4. Guns should not be banned in case of government oppressing the citizens. 5. A gun ban is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that US citizens have the right to bear arms. My opponent refuses to argue this, but he is unable to do so since the constitution applies directly to this debate. Please note the resolution says "in the United States." How is a country just if it contradicts the very document that it was based on? Banning guns would be hypocritical, and a violation of the citizens' rights.

"Resolved, Guns should be banned in the United States."
Negated.

Well, seeing how my opponent has forfeited, I have won the debate, and urge a negative ballot. Thank you.