The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

My opponent continues to misunderstand the reasons for my argument. Pro will attempt to reiterate for the better understanding of the opposition. First of all, Pro did attempt to link the argument by citing the Constitution, by stating that the Founding Fathers did believe it to be fundamental right, and by attempting to give a benefit of that right by stating the book by John R. Lott, Jr. and the current publication "America's First Freedom". Therefore, I will again state the benefits of this right: 1) In today's society, there are people who wish to do harm to others through various means. Weaponry of any kind aids law abiding citizens by empowering them with tools by which to defend themselves. 2) Con gave the example of an aggressor approaching with his fists. It is Pro's position that even though a weapon is not seen, that that individual may have a weapon, and thus if I believe my life to be in danger, then I have the right to use whatever means necessary to preserve my own life. Secondly, Pro believes that the owning of weaponry by law abiding citizens does not contribute to more harm in society, as my opponent is mistakenly stating. Weaponry in itself is harmless, a firearm cannot shoot unless someone pulls the trigger. Therefore, an argument from John R. Lott's book, "I'm less likely to break into a house in neighborhood where guns are owned than I am to break into a neighborhood where guns aren't owned" (An interview with a convicted burglar in the book "More Guns, Less Crime". Criminals cause harm, not weapons. If law abiding citizens are free to own and carry weapons, then they are able to prevent harm by intervening in crimes effectively. For more reports of law abiding citizens using weaponry to protect one another, please read some of the articles in "America's First Freedom", there are too many, and are too lengthy, to list here. Thirdly, to respond to my opponents continued "moral agents" claim, weapons in themselves do not cause harm, it is people who cause harm. To take away the right that civilians have to weaponry can and has put them at the mercy of terrible people. Consider modern Iran and Syria, which do not allow the private ownership of weapons. Or China at Tienanmen Square in the 70's. Weapons are a defense against terrible people, and should not be infringed upon. Finally, as stated before, the "viscous cycle" of violence as stated by Con breaks down in an armed society. The reasoning for this goes back to the interview in Lott's book. Criminals are afraid of armed citizens. And as I stated before, in a scenario where I would consider using a weapon to defend myself, I do not know the intentions of the aggressor. Therefore, in the effort to save my own life, and possibly the lives of others, I have a moral obligation to use everything in my power to stop the aggressor. And as I stated in my example, from my previous argument, if I maim, kill, or otherwise remove the aggressor from the equation, the violence stops because there is no more aggressor. Therefore, an armed citizenry has the ability to remove violent aggressors from the equation. And as Con suggested, the book, "More Gun, Less Crime" is a multiple year study done by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. n the impact of firearms and gun control laws in the United States, done on a county by county basis for the years of 1977 to 1994. This study showed those counties, cities, and states with relaxed or nonresistant gun control laws were safer than those areas with heavy restrictions. As for Con's point of not having credible sources, Con cited Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. Whereas Pro cited a book written by a PhD in Political Science, John R. Lott, Jr.