The United States Ought to Ban Firearms
This will be a rematch of this debate
"Ban" means to officially prohibit.
The first round is acceptance, no new arguments in the final round.
Tajshar2k is an awesome guy, this ought to be a good debate. Peace and Love
I accept. Thank you Hayd for hosting this rematch which was long expected. I hopefully can avenge the defeat that I suffered at your hands.
May the best debater win.
The firearms is a largely controversial subject, with large impacts. Regardless of which side you are on, the public policy decision on firearms will affect hundreds of thousands of lives. Thus, debate on this issue is paramount. I’m glad I can debate tajshar2k on this, as I know that both of us are very adamant about our views, but also have the logic to back it up. I look forward to the discourse!
My framework for this debate is simple. Governments ought to operate upon utilitarian means. The policy that creates more benefit than cost ought to be enacted and the policies that create more cost than benefit ought to be repealed. Banning firearms will result in thousands of saved lives, and outweighs the amount of lives that may be ended as the result of the policy, thus the US ought to ban firearms.
My plan for affirming the resolution is thus; the production, sale, transport, use, and possession of firearms for regular US citizens (excluding military, law enforcement, etc.), will be made illegal. Citizens will have a set amount of time to turn in their firearms to a collection center (they would be in the parking lots of grocery stores, that kind of stuff), and if they are found doing one of the things above, they will be punished by whatever punishment is put in place. Searching houses for firearms would work the same as searching a house for illegal drugs would work, the law enforcement would get a warrant from a court if they have adequate reason to believe that the household contains firearms, and then they can search the premises. I’m not going to go extremely specific into the plan because I want the debate to focus more on the concept of banning the possession of firearms than nitpicking a plan. I want to debate the bigger picture.
But continuing off from before, the first reason that firearms ought to be banned is to reduce the amount of suicides. This is because firearms are the most common, and the most lethal method of suicide. Suicide by firearm is almost always fatal. When an individual possesses a firearm, they are more likely to attempt suicide than someone who does not possess a firearm.
“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.” 
This is due to the psychology of suicide. Most suicide attempts are done impulsively, with little planning during a short-term crisis . If highly lethal means such as firearm are made unavailable to the attempter then they will either have to use less lethal means or postpone their attempt. If the former is chosen, given that the other most common methods of suicide have under a 5% mortality rate , the attempter is very likely to survive. And given that 90% of all survivors never attempt suicide again, and have their depression successfully treated . And if the latter option is chosen, given the impulsiveness of suicide, the individual is unlikely to attempt suicide again.
To see the number of lives saved we can take the amount of firearm suicides: 21,175 , and given that the lethality will be reduced by 95% (will have to use a less lethal method, lethality of 5%), 20,116 of those suicides will be unsuccessful. 90% of these attempters will be successfully treated, so then reduce that 20,116 by 90%. That ends up with 18,104 lives saved by banning firearms. And that's not even accounting for the amount of suicides that will be deterred by not having a gun in the home. Given that gun ownership makes someone 3 times more likely to commit suicide , taking away guns would further reduce the total amount of suicides by one third. And then this is not even accounting for the people that would be deterred from attempting because of the impulsiveness of suicide. In the end, not only save thousands of lives by preventing suicide, but also prevent the suffering brought to communities and families as the result of the suicide. Banning firearms has the potential to prevent large amounts of suffering.
The second area would be in reduced gun accidents. Because of the inherent deadliness of firearms, they cause thousands of accidental deaths per year. "In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…”  The four states with the highest gun ownership has seven times higher mortality rates than the four states with the lowest gun ownership . For every one time that a firearm was used for self-defense, there were four accidental shootings . And increased training or education doesn’t reduce the amount of accidental shootings; as gun training has been found to increase the owner’s likelihood of storing firearms loaded and unlocked . Banning firearms, and thus removing the firearm from the home, would completely eliminate all firearm related accidents. Therefore, around 15,000-19,000 lives will be saved every year.
The last contention I will bring up in this round is crime. Firearms are a tool that makes a criminal more effective. That is why most criminals use firearms to carry out their crimes; they are effective. Taking away access to firearms, or making it harder to get them would make crime less effective. They would have to carry out crime with less effective weapons such as knives, or bats. Of which are much less fatal to victims. Since the production of firearms would stop, it would lower the supply of firearms to criminals, making it harder to get access to firearms, which would cause *some* criminals to use other weapons. So although not all criminals would be forced to use other weapons, some would. And thus the benefits still follow through. And since we would rather have some criminals use firearms than all criminals using firearms, we ought to ban guns.
That’s all I’m going to bring up in my case. Peace and Love
=Why the United States should not ban firearms=
A1: American use guns for self defense
A study done by the Bureau of Justice, shows that guns have been used in self-defense 235,700 times in a violent crime incident, and 103,000 times in a property crime incident. (1) Before we compare this to the violent crime rate, we need to realize that that self defense statistics are only accounted to law abiding citizens, and not criminals. Why? because there is no way of verifying whether what a criminal did was in self-defense.
Also keep in mind that the data is still very incomplete. 51.7% of violent and property crime is not even reported, and 16.7% of case involve the police not even helping! (1) What does this show? Law enforcement cannot protect everybody all the time. I would post the actual figure, but source only provides a % not a number. Those 235,700 defensive gun uses, could have went the criminal’s way, thus increasing crime. To finish off, the data is still very incomplete to come to a decision on both sides, but on the pro gun side, there is still a significant number of cases where the gun prevented crime.
A2: Gun bans in the past have been followed with increased crime
This debate revolves around the question of whether or not we should implement a nationwide gun ban, but I would argue that past instances of gun bans have already negated this resolution. Places such as Washington D.C. have implemented a gun ban and seen no measurable beneficial results, as seen below.
You can see in this graph, that Washington D.C implemented a handgun and trigger-lock law. (4) The law goes in effect in 1977, but you see the after a few years, the crime rate soars to nearly 80 homicides per 100,000. This is also the time when the entire United States experienced an increase in crime, but the national average was 10 homicides per 100,000 (3). However in D.C this number is at alarming rates.
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower. (4)
To focus on a more nationwide ban, we can easily look at what happened in the UK and Wales.
I'm going to focus more on the 1997 gun control law (2), since it basically outlawed all private handguns from citizens. Right after this was implemented, we see a sharp increase in homicide rates, even as the years went by, the homicide rate never went below the rate it was prior to the 1997 law. Even in a country where gun ownership is nowhere near American levels, the gun ban failed to do anything to stop the crime rate, and infact resulted in an increase. 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban. (5)
A3: Hurts the economy
The gun industry contributes alot to the economy, and a ban on guns would lead to economical reprocussions.
Economic Impact of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Industry in the U.S.
"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. 
"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".
Taxes Generated in the United States
This graph gives us a breakdown of the economic benefits of the gun industry. It creates jobs, and creates revenue. Now, if we were to ban guns, this would be a negative impact on the economy. Those 220,000 jobs will go down the drain, and this will cause a rise in unemployment.
A4: Will create a bigger black market for guns
The idea of a gun ban only gurantees one thing, law abiding citizens will be deprived of their posession of guns. Criminals do not follow the law, and it is very easy for criminals for them to obtain guns.
The biggest issue with having a gun ban, is that it would not deal with the issue of illegal guns. In the U.S only 7% of guns used in crime are legal. The rest are illegal guns, and they account for 93% of crimes committed. Even if a banned was passed, it would only effect 7% of the crime committed. And ignore the 93%. With a ban, the black market will fluorish, and criminals will be the only ones armed, and law abiding citizens, who live in dangerous cities and neighborhoods will be defenseless (7).
We witnessed this happening with alcohol in the 20's and 30's. Alcohol consumption skyrocketed, and it paved the framework for gangsters and criminals to have significant power and influence in society. Al Capone is a name that comes to my mind when it comes to this topic.
A5: Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state.
Lets think about the likelyhood of this, Nearly every American is opposed to an all out ban on guns. In a poll done by CNN, 90% said they opposed an all out ban, and just 9% support it. (8) It can be easily inferred that many would likely not comply with an forced plan to surrender all guns. For the government to simply ignore that, and go on to take away somebodies 2nd ammendment rights is tyranny.
Not to mention, the government needs to follow the proper judicial process to repeal the 2nd amendment, which is pretty much impossible in this current situation. Allowing the government to take away the rights of it's citizens without proper judicial process allows it to do anything as it pleases.
=Summary of Points=
1. Guns were used in self-defense situtations around 235,000 times between an interval of 3 years, and is from data that admits that only 51% of crime was reported. (implying there could be an even larger number of self-defense uses that were not reported)
2. Gun Bans in Washington DC and the UK failed to do anything to reduce the homicide rate, and instead resulted in an increase in homicide rates (73% increase for D.C, and a 17% increase for the UK and Wales.)
3. Economical impacts will occur. Nearly 220,000 people will lose their jobs, and the Federal government is losing about 6.2 billion dollars in taxes.
4. Only people who will be affected are law abidding citizens. 93% of guns used in crime were illegally aquired, which means a ban would only affect 7% of crime, which is insignificant. Since the demand for firearms is very high, this will lead to a black market, where criminals will thrive selling and dealing illegal guns. Crime will most likely rise.
5. 90% of Americans are against banning all guns, and banning guns will lead to a tyrannical government which doesn't follow proper judicial process.
Americans use guns for self defense
Con starts off by bringing up the self defense argument. Con brings up statistics to show how many times that a gun was used for self-defense purposes. The *amount* of times guns were used in self defense is irrelevant; what *is* relevant is whether having a gun increases the owner's safety or not. Even if guns are used in self-defense successfully many times, as long as *on balance* possessing a gun causes more deaths than it saves in self defense, this argument is negated upon weighing analysis.
A study done in Philadelphia had two groups: one who possessed firearms and one who did not. At the end of the study, those who owned firearms were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not own firearms .
Thus, Con's reasoning that owning a firearm brings safety to the owner via self defense is negated by the fact that it makes them *more* likely to fall victim to violence.
Gun bans in the past have been followed by increased crime
Con gives examples of crime and violence rates in places when there is a firearm ban and when there isn't. The examples show an increase or crime when there is a firearm ban, and a decrease of crime when there isn't. The problem with this is that the evidence merely proves correlation, and not causation. The only evidence that is relevant in this debate is causation, as whether guns *cause* an increase or decrease in crime is the question. The evidence that Con gives does not isolate gun bans as the cause of the change in crime. This rise and fall of crime could just as easily be do to how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability, recent immigration/migration, percentage of drug use, prison release rates, and two thousand other factors. Con doesn't prove that the evidence is a result of a gun ban and not the two thousand other factors that would affect a crime rate. Con just doesn't prove anything here.
Hurts the economy
Although the banning of guns would lead to unemployment for many people, which would lead to economic repercussions, the highest value in this debate is lives. Even the prevention of a few hundred deaths would alone outweigh the economic harms. So although this is true, the impact is miniscule compared to the impacts of lives saved.
But more interestingly, the social cost of firearms is fairly high. Through homicides, accidents, and various other harms, it is estimated that firearms cost society (at the most conservative estimate) $600 per household . Considering that there are 124.6 million households in the US , firearms cost society around $74,760,000,000 or $74 billion dollars. This obviously outweighs the $6 billion dollars that Con brought up. And my statistic is still the most conservative amount, the highest being $1,800 per household. Which is would be three times the amount of money, but I don't need to get into that since $74 billion is enough to negate this argument.
Will create a bigger black market for guns
Con argues that only law abiding citizens will be deprived of their firearms, whilst criminals will still have them since criminals don"t obey laws. This will then create a black market for firearms, thus increasing crime and violence.
The problem with this, and the difference between the banning of alcohol and the banning of firearms, is that firearms have to be manufactured in a factory, or at least in large quantities. Banning firearms would entail manufacturing firearms illegal, and thus the supply of firearms would, in essence, end. Thus, criminals are only left with the weapons that are already in the system, and as these start to dwindle the value of them will rise, resulting in extremely high prices for firearms, which has been shown to happen in research . And since the majority of criminals are poor, they simply can't afford to pay for the firearms, or at the very least are deterred from acquiring them. Instead they will use what is available, knives and clubs, of which is much less effective at carrying out crime than a firearm.
If anything, the banning of firearms only helps end the already existing black market on firearms, but it definitely does not cause or expand the black market.
Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state
Con argues that most Americans are against an all out ban, thus it is unlikely that most citizens would comply with a forced ban. The problem with this is that, logically speaking, most people are law-abiding citizens. Thus, most people will abide by the law. Regardless, arguments like these shouldn't be brought up in the debate because this debate is meant to discuss more of the concept of a firearm ban. Saying that most people don't agree with it isn't exactly relevant, and not what we should be debating. Otherwise, I could just bring up statistics about most people disagree with abortion, thus we ought to make abortion illegal. If this would be allowed to be a valid argument, then there would be no point to debating the specifics of what makes abortion good or bad, or even knowing what abortion is in the first place. Arguments like these just aren't what we should be discussing.
Con's second argument, that a gun ban would have to go through the judicial system is entirely irrelevant because it is an argument based on whether a gun ban *would* happen, rather than whether a gun ban *should* happen. And this also goes back to my previous point, its just not valid conduct wise to throw out unpopular views on the basis that they are unpopular views and would never happen, as this isn't indicative of whether it is a *good* policy or not, or *should* be implemented. Ruins the entire point of debate.
Anyways, that's all I've got. Peace and Love
First, I would like to argue against my opponent’s utilitarian value. I disagree, that government ought to operate on a cost effect. I negate that we ought to look at the topic of gun ownership in this manner, because the value of liberty is of greater importance than a utilitarian one.
Allow me to provide an analogy, in regards with property rights.
Say there is a family who has an ancestral home that covers several acres of land. The land could technically be used as a community center, and would help thousands of people in the neighborhood. Since the government decided to act on utilitarian means, they forcefully kicked out the people who lived there, and they demolished their ancestral home so the community center can be built. This is an example of a utilitarian approach producing detrimental results and infringing upon the rights of citizens. The government destroyed and forced a family out of their ancestral homes because it benefitted more people.
This should not be the path that we should be pursuing, because this paves the way for government tyranny (refer to my argument on tyranny). There is a reason why we have property rights, and this to prevent situations like this. Valuing liberty over a utilitarian approach to this issue is important because rights should be protected. When the government no longer follows their obligation to liberty, they have stopped fulfilling their purpose.
Now in relation to the topic of banning guns, we need to realize that banning guns would significantly restrict a person’s right to self-defense. Stats that I had provided have shown that people used guns at least 235,000 times in self-defense. Lets talk about Pro’s arguments. He argue that there are thousands who use firearms to commit suicide, and that banning guns would reduce this. Now, why should somebody lose their right to self-defense because somebody made the decision to commit suicide? Suicide is a personal decision that a person makes. The act itself impacts only one person, yet others would lose their firearms, to keep 1 person from killing themselves. So if we were to operate on on utilitarian principle (under the assumption that Pro’s plan has more benefit) we would stop people from effectively defending themselves from the threat of others, and instead attempt to save people who try to kill themselves.
Regarding suicides, I think we ought to remember that it’s essentially apples and oranges when you compare suicide to homicide. Homicide would be more of a crime issue, whereas suicide would be a more mental health issue. That put aside, let's’ analyse these arguments. Pro is essentially showing us through statistics how he expects to reduce suicides by banning guns. The problem with these stats however, is that these aren’t conclusive.
So, due to insufficient data to directly pinpoint the amount of lives saved, I don’t think the number provided by Pro is correct and should be considered as evidence. Suicide is primarily a mental health issue, so using a gun ban to stop doesn’t doesn’t seem to solve the issue, especially with inconclusive data which only shows how the likelihood of it.
So in this argument, Pro talks about how there are thousands of gun accidents every year. However, he comes to a conclusion that these are “gun deaths”. I’m not sure why all these accidents should be considered deaths as Pro had proposed.
So to conclude, the stat Pro talked about is simply misleading because he conflates gun accidents to gun deaths. The real number of people who died from firearms accidents was 505.
Pro seems to think that banning guns would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, but there are already 310 million guns circulating in the U.S.
It's also foolish to think that the flow of guns would be affected, because that would only last for a few years. There have been cases of people making and selling firearms illegally and privately, proving you do not need large gun manufacturers to make guns. This is exactly what happened during " The Prohibition" . Demand was rising, and people began to make their own booze, and sell it. There is no reason why this isn't possible with guns. In places like China were a full on ban on guns is enforced, thousands of guns were found in China.(3)
"Partial receivers provide a way for mass-murderers and other criminals to skirt California’s otherwise strong gun laws, including mandatory background checks and the state’s prohibition on assault weapons. Using a partial receiver allows a person to build a functional assault rifle in a matter of hours. A recent and devastating shooting in Santa Monica highlights this danger all too well. John Zawahri failed a gun-purchase background check before deciding to buy an unfinished receiver and assembling his own assault rifle, which he then used in a terrible attack that left five dead, including Zawahri." (4)
Con starts by arguing against the framework of utilitarianism. Con does this by saying liberty ought to be valued higher than a utilitarian one, as in the liberty to own a gun. This argument doesn"t work because the value of life intrinsically and inherently outweighs the value of liberty; without life one cannot have liberty. Thus, if banning guns saves lives this would outweigh the value of losing the liberty to own a gun.
Con elaborates upon the argument by bringing up an analogy and explaining that the government ought to honor liberty in order to prevent government tyranny. Con"s justification for this is that, "When the government no longer follows their obligation to liberty, they have stopped fulfilling their purpose."
But doesn"t the government also have the obligation to life? The United States Declaration of Independence declares the purpose of government to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Liberty is definitely important, but life is more important because without life one cannot attain liberty, and a life with slightly limited liberty is better than no life at all. This argument just doesn"t work because the government has a higher obligation to life than they do to liberty, and thus a utilitarian approach (which would still include liberty in the calculation) ought to still be valued.
Con next brings up the self-defense rebuttal that I had last round under his framework section, so I"ll address it here as well. Con essentially argues that it would be unfair to force people to give up their right to defend themselves with a firearm in order to save lives of people committing suicide that it was not their fault in the first place that they are going to commit suicide. The problem with this logic is that it assumes that owning a gun is a right, which it's not. And Con has not made any arguments for the notion that owning a firearm is a right, and the Constitution doesn"t count since that is an appeal to authority and is/ought fallacy. Con has to explain logically how citizens have a moral right to own a firearm, not cite a source just saying that it is with no warrant behind it (such as the US Constitution.) Con hasn"t done so, thus his argument is built entirely upon an unwarranted assumption. Of which is not true, owning a gun is not a right, it's a privilege. That is because rights are guaranteed by morality, such as the right to your life. Thus violating your right to life and killing you would be immoral, or torturing you for no reason. You have rights to ways to be morally treated, but you have no right to own a gun. The closest a gun gets to a right is being a right to property, but the right to life outweighs the right to property, and regardless Con hasn"t made any argument for violation of right of property. This argument just doesn"t work because owning a gun isn"t a right, the right to life is, thus the US can definitely take away someone"s firearm in order to save lives.
And the right to self-defense would exist regardless, banning firearms wouldn"t mean that people can no longer defend themselves. This is a straw man.
Con argues that since suicide is a mental health issue, it doesn't make sense to solve it via gun ban. But it is irrelevant of whether it's a mental health issue, as long as a gun ban saves lives, the government ought to gun bans as it is a moral thing to do. All entities ought to act morally, the moral thing to do is gun bans, the US government ought to ban guns. Mental health is irrelevant in all of this.
Con argues that my evidence shows a likelihood, not a certainty. This simply doesn"t make sense, and it ignores all of my logic that shows that banning guns would save lives. My evidence proves that firearms cause suicide and uses sound logic to prove that banning guns would save lives. None of my argument is based on likelihoods. Whether suicides are done during or after a gun ban has nothing to do with my sources. And Pro"s counter evidence runs into the correlation/causation fallacy again.
The most that Con"s rebuttal amounts to is saying that the number of deaths is actually 505. Which is true, I misread the source. The amount of injuries was 15,000. As injuries still cause suffering there still is impact.
Con argues that ending the production of guns wouldn"t do anything because there would still be 310 million guns circulating. But as I said in my argument, cutting off production makes guns more expensive which deters criminals from purchasing guns since most criminals are poor. Deterring criminals from getting guns is good, since a criminal without a gun will do much less harm. Con didn"t attack that premise, or the premise that cutting off manufacturing will increase prices thus the point still stands.
Con argues that people have made firearms privately before without citing a single instance. This isn"t true because firearms require manufacturing to make. Homemade firearms take *extreme* skill and time to gather all of the resources needed and have special tools to craft the barrel, and special tools to have the bullet fit perfectly in the barrel. All of this requires factories, making homemade firearms will result in those firearms being of very low quality and thus not dangerous. Even if an effective firearm is able to be manufactured privately it will take incredibly long amounts of time, cost to gather the resources, and skill to craft it. The creator thus has to charge a high price of it which would deter criminals from purchasing it, and this would be rare, thus still significantly decreasing the new income of firearms in the market thus raising prices of firearms and deterring criminals from getting them.
Banning firearms significantly reduces the income of new firearms, thus making the existing firearms more rare and thus more expensive, deterring criminals from getting them. Even if a select few are still able to make them, the income is still significantly reduced since firearms can no longer be made in large quantities.
This is the last round of this debate, so I will not introduce any new arguments.
=Americans use guns for self defense=
I’m not sure why Pro thinks the amount of times guns were used in self-defense is considered irrelevant. This is clear empirical data which clearly states how many times guns were used in self-defense. Pro realizes on a study which tries to present the likelihood of something happening, which certainly doesn’t apply to everybody in every situation. Statistically speaking, I’m more likely to be killed living in the Chicago than I would be if I’m in Toronto, but that certainly would not apply to everybody. Pro says “on balance” possessing a gun causes more deaths, but we can’t exactly predict when and how a gun would be used.
Number of lives saved from Con’s plan (assuming that they do not commit suicide after banning guns)
18,104 from suicides
19,000 from gun accidents (actual number of people who died is 505)
Total= 37,104 people
Number of people who saved their lives with defensive self-defense using guns
235,000 from violent crime
103,000 from property crime
Total= 338,000 people
If we look at this from a utilitarian perspective, there is more benefit on my side of the case. If we were to go by Pro’s argument, it’s clear that at least 375,000 people (including those in property crime) would not be able to defend themselves with firearms. My side clearly has more benefit than Pros, since I’m able to show how many people benefitted from using guns as a form of self-defense. The stats are overwhelmingly in my favor.
=Gun bans in the past have been followed by increased crime=
It is true that the statistics that I presented do not directly correlate to the gun ban. But it’s interesting that Pro brings up other factors such as education, culture, organized crime. In the places that I presented, both places Washington D.C, and the U.K are very different, when it comes to factors such as organized crime. The U.K generally does not have the crime issues that the United States deals with, yet even with a gun ban, the U. K’s crime rate when up.
We just need to picture this in the U.S, to see that the consequences in the U.S could only be worse than what happened in the U.K. In regards to socioeconomic factors such as poverty and income equality, the U.S is worse than what the U.K has, so it can only be reasonable to assume that crime will increase with a gun ban in the U.S. There hasn’t been a single place in the U.S where guns were outright banned, and this resulted in reduction in crime. (1)
=Hurts the economy=
Pro seems to believe that the economic impacts are very miniscule, but the impacts go much further than a bunch of people just losing their job. Studies have shown that unemployment is a high correlation factor in increasing crime rates. If Pro’s argument is that saving lives in more important, he is conceding that by banning guns, he risks increasing the chance of unemployment which could lead to terrible things such as an increase of crime. (2) Let’s not forget to mention that the economic repercussions itself are pretty big, and impacts many other factors than just saving lives.
Pro says that guns do cost people a lot of money, which is true. However, you can’t compare this to the stat I provided because I show that the U.S will lose 6 billion dollars from the gun industry. When you buy something, you aren’t throwing your money away. This money is reinvested back into the economy.
That’s how economics work. If I buy an Xbox one for myself, I’m not throwing 300 dollars into the trash. That money is going to various people who developed and built the console. Similarly, when people buy guns, that money is going to the people who build these guns. In my case, if the government decides to slap a ban, all that money is truly being lost. That money is no longer being re-invested back into the economy. Which is why unemployment occurring. (you can’t pay workers (if you don’t have the money to do so)
So, to conclude the economic impacts lead to issues like unemployment, which in return could correlate to things like crime. It also is incorrect to compare this to the costs of buying guns, since that money is being re-invested back into the economy, which means it isn’t going to the trash.
=Will create a bigger black market for guns=
Pro makes an argument that guns are only made in factories, and with a ban, the only guns are those already made, and with supply/demand law, those guns will reach high prices.
There is two things wrong with this. Pro seems to assume that guns are only made in factories. This is false. There are about 16k gunsmiths currently in the U.S at the moment. (3) So, it’s fallacious to assume that gun production would stop entirely. It would also make sense to assume that the amount of gunsmiths would likely increase, considering that the demand for guns would sharply increase.
The other thing is the improvised firearms, which I mentioned last round, and which Con completely ignored. Improvised firearms are an emerging technology. People have found ways to 3D print guns, and I have shown evidence of people using this to kill other people (Con saying I provided 0 instances is false).
So to conclude, the black market for guns will definitely increase. Through future technology, and the likely increase of the # of gunsmiths.
=Simply undemocratic, and leads to a police state=
In pro’s original statement, he clearly states “session of firearms for regular US citizens (excluding military, law enforcement, etc.), will be made illegal. Citizens will have a set amount of time to turn in their firearms to a collection center (they would be in the parking lots of grocery stores, that kind of stuff), and if they are found doing one of the things above, they will be punished by whatever punishment is put in place.” This basically is implying that the police would go somebodies house, and forcefully confiscate it. I’m not given any reason to assume that people will just willingly give their guns up, especially since 90% of Americans are opposed to this.
Also, pointing out that “citizens are law abiding” pretty much defeats the whole purpose of Con’s case. If they are law abiding people, why do we even need a gun ban? Law abiding citizens follow laws that prohibit violence if we go by that logic.
I agree that this shouldn’t be the focal point of the debate, however I do believe that It has some impact into this discussion. We the U.S are a constitutional republic. We elect people to represent us in the government, and there is no point of that if our politicians are going to do some that we despise. Con talks about abortion, but the disapproval rating for abortion is nowhere near 90% (around half), thus it has much less impact in this discussion. I think 90% is a significant amount, that it is worth mentioning. I think it’s reasonable to assume that there is probably something wrong with a gun ban if 90% of the population oppose it.
I finish my debate with this. Thank you Hayd for this debate, and may the best debater win.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|