I thank Virtuoso for engaging with the debate. He has provided definitions and although I would have preferred it if he asked if the definitions were okay beforehand, I nonetheless accept the big boy definitions.
Guns provide protection against criminals and the potential of a tyrannical government. Whenever an area bans guns, law abiding citizens tend to turn in their guns but criminals still hang on to their guns, because criminals don't care about the law. Can you imagine what happens if a criminal is armed and a law abiding citizen(LAC for potential future reference) isn't? The LAC might gets robbed, raped, shot, or multiple of these things.
You might point out a site that states that guns increase rape, however non partisan reports confirm the opposite. Chicago repealed their handgun ban in 2010 and their rape rate fell by about 10% in that time(5
2: Guns in the hands of LACs reduce homicide as stats confirm:
DC banned guns in 1976 and their homicide rate stayed constant at best and skyrocketed at worse (1
). This means that gun control does nothing to stop homicide and may even increase homicide rates. When they repealed their tough gun laws, the homicide rate fell. Chicago's gun ban fails to prevent murders according to NPR, a center left source:
Guns are also useful in hunting, which can prevent some families from starving to death which saves lives from dying a very painful starvation based death.
The program would pay 1.5% of the market value rate.
1.5% of the market value rate would not be enough compensation for their means of individual protection. This would mean that if the gun was worth $250, then the gun owning citizen would get merely $3.75 back for the gun. This would not be good restitution for losing a gun. How did you come up with 1.5% for the gun anyway?
Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution states gives the government power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
This is a reference to the fact that we should have a strong military. It states, "Common Defence". If it meant to take away our guns, then not only would the 2nd amendment not exist as we know it, but this part of the constitution would say, "provide for the common and individual defence" or just "provide for the defence". It states that the government would provide for common defence but individual defence is up to the individual. This defence is provided by guns.
This is, on average, 109 gun deaths every single day.
As tragic as the loss of life is, it is also extremely rare and would be more common if guns were banned. Vox stated that an increase in guns leads to an increase in homicide, however, on that chart that they posted, none of these countries banned all guns for all uses. Even the UK allows shotguns with a strict permit(4
). Also, this easily could be due to other factors, such as Americans tend to be more culturally violent, aggressive, and ambitious then Europeans and this results in higher homicide rates. A better comparison would be to compare an area before they abolish guns and after they abolish them or vice versa to see how the homicide rate changed. As I stated earlier, when D.C. and Chicago repealed their gun bans, their homicide rate plummeted.
The claim that "gun bans work"
I read the site you stated and it merely advocated for gun restrictions, not a gun ban. It stated that:
that these overhauls generally included:
- Banning "weapons that are actually very powerful", for example, automatic weapons.
- Implementing background checks.
- "They all required permits and licenses for purchasing guns," Santaella-Tenorio told Vox.
So the site doesn't advocate for gun bans, but merely advocates for restrictions on guns. This debate isn't "Do we ban semi automatic weapons" or, "Should we have more background checks" but it's "All guns should be banned" including a rifle that can only shoot one bullet at a time. This even includes banning guns for the government. You stated:
When it comes to hunting there should be strict control over guns for hunting. I would put guns in a government-run armory that allows guns to be used for hunting and then require the hunters to return the guns when they are finished.
This means that even you support some parties owning some guns in some situations, which is contradictory to the position that you took in this debate.