The US should ban all firearms

I accept. I hear your friends with my soon to be husband so this will be interesting.

1st reason: Guns are dangerous, and well if there are guns then there is death and I personally don't know anyone who is for death. some people don't understand death is taking someone's life forever.

2nd reason: I just watched mission impossible 3 yesterday and well there was an assassin with a firearm in her jacket and she walked up right to the agent and killed him.

These are my reasons for this round. Now please hurry up because I am not going to get any younger! :P

As stated in round one I said 1st round acceptance. My opponents points are therefore irrelevant, and she must re-post them next round for them to be relevant. But I recommend she edits her case a little.

– My case will revolve around 2 main ideas:

1. Gun bans are ineffective
2. Gun bans increase overall violent crime rate

The constitution leads to many what if arguments, so this will make it so we can rely on data and facts.

C1: Gun control and gun bans are ineffective

Gun bans historically have been highly ineffective in preventing higher crime rates, in other words gun bans fail to lower crime. This point is actually devils advocating for me, as this tries to claim gun bans have little effect.

Studies done by the harvard school of law and public policy have shown (whilst examining international evidence) "there is no societal benefit from banning guns". Everyone agrees, though, that guns in the hands of criminals are not beneficial to society. We also agree that getting guns away from these criminals is a good thing, but where we differ is the effects of banning guns to the average citizen. The average citizen is not a law breaker, so giving guns to all of the law abiding citizens would not raise crime, likewise arming every criminal would likely increase it. But, however, where we disagree is the overall effect. We agree disarming criminals is beneficial to society, but my argument is gun control fails to disarm criminals and only disarms citizens.

Now there is not just assumptions based in the paragraph above, it is supported by empirical data from Russia as well as other European countries. "As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use."[1]

In other words, the criminals can still obtain weapons, the same way they do many things. THEY BREAK THE LAW. It is a simple concept, they break the rules with rape, robbery, murder larceny, arson, and private property, why would we think another law would disarm them? Even if we assume we can disarm them, we can still argue they will still obtain them via a black market. So the people, not the criminals, would be disarmed.

But also based on other evidences, the amount of gun ownership has no effect on crime. In Canada, for example, crime rates where falling before the law was passed. They continued to fall at the same rate after the ban, but not relative to the US (our drop was more substantial).[1] So based on this, we can conclude a gun ban would have no effect on crime, and therefore there is no reason to ban weapons. When it came to ownership, some studies concluded only a 5% difference (the increase of crime on a ban is under 5%), which is statistically insignificant relative to the crime rate dropped in Keensaw Georgia after a law was passed requiring all people to own a weapon (the drop of crime was 70-80%).

C2: Gun bans increase crime

Now comparing countries from Europe to the US suffer many problems, mainly the societal difference. So comparing those two continents is a failed experiment. Comparing European countries together, though, works as their society is similar. (meaning comparing regions is ok, comparing across oceans is not)[1]. Lets look at the data:

Belarus - guns banned - murder rate 10.40
Poland - guns allowed - murder rate 1.98
Russia - guns banned - murder rate 20.54[1]

As we can see banning guns is correlated with higher murder rates. And I am well aware of correlation/causation fallacies, but as this is reproductive over many other gun laws (all gun control laws based on my research have lead to higher crime) the correlation is strong enough to cause many progressive scientists to actually turn against gun control. Most notably Gary Kleck.

Now many tougher gun laws have been recently passed by countries to attempt to curb violent crime, and after these laws pass the already increasing crime rate increases. (meaning a normal crime fluctuation goes out of control, kinda like "global warming")



see source[2]

As we can see, a moderate crime cycle has turned into an abnormal rise in crime. "As the graph shows, after the passage of Ireland’s firearm control laws, the murder rate rose from about 10 a year to 50 a year in the space of just three years."[2]

Esentially saying crime before (if it continued at the prior rate) would take 50 years to get to the point in 1973, but the gun ban made it increase that much in 3 years, and then crime continued to increase. Meaning it was an unnatural increase in crime, and is statistically linked to the gun ban, meaning less guns more murders.

A look at Jamaca:


see source 2 again

The maker of the study then concludes it is hard to see what other gun bans do, other then raise crime. He said the unnatural icnreases mean the law must have had an effect, unless it is coincidence. (which is unlikely as almost the same exact results happened in ireland, therefore the replication means gun laws must have had a increasing crime effect, now the question is how much.)


see source 2

ignore the american line, look at the blue one.

We see right after the gun ban, a soar in violent crime rates. as we see, again, gun laws do have an effect on the unnatural increase, unless it is coincidence. Which is unlikely as I have shown the same thing happening after every gun ban.

Basically when guns are banned, crime increases! its very simple.

"After the introduction of British-style gun laws in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland and Jamaica, violent crime in all of these countries has not fallen but typically has increased"[2]

Cool with the foreign correlations 16kadams, you need to talk about the US!
Fine.

In Washington DC, 1977-2005, there was a decrease in populaiton by 20%. At the same time, crime increased relative to itself and the overall US, note according to certian statistical regressions (populaiton accounted for – no surge in pop. to account for the rise) murder still rose a significant amount. Simiar results happened with chicago, when the ban on handguns was put in place their crime rate rose relative to the US as well as itselfs. [3]

CONCLUSION:

Gun bans raise crime and should not be implimented, vote con.



[1] Kates, Don B. and Mauser, Gary A., "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (May 2006).
[2] "How Governments Create Crime, AN OVERVIEW OF CRIME CONTROL, GUN CONTROL, PEOPLE CONTROL AND THE LOSS OF RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE" by Dr. Lech Beltowski (NZ)
[3] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.