Guns should be more difficult to obtain

General Rebuttal:Overall, my opponent’s analysis shows many flaws in his reasoning and understanding of the information presented. For instance, he has completely disregarded (and misinterpreted) the statistics I provided for the consistency of suicides (rates), and how availability of firearms make no difference of actual deaths to suicide. Instead Pro has dismissed them outright. Failing to deal with an underlying problem (depression) before advocating against guns is a biased approach and illustrates an agenda. The right to bear arms is allowed for in the second amendment. Pro has suggected the second amendment is controversial, but I don't find it as such. It is the law of the land, and has been since 1791. I will cover reasons why the second amendment and firearms are necessary a little bit later. Moving on! Pro has not addressed how the possibility of an inappropriate use of a tool, a tool which can help provide essential benefits necessary to the rights and welfare of US citizens, justifies eliminating it or severely restricting it. Essentially, Con is arguing 7 out of 100,000 people committing suicide (with this tool) means we should make sure the 999,993 still left must be protected from themselves. My point has been that eliminating guns (much less restricting them) will not change the fact that people commit suicide. And my graphics have shown that the suicide rate does not fluctuate greatly. When we look at Pro’s calculations for 2012, then we realize exactly what he is advocating. He said there were 1 million deaths due to firearms in 2012, but when we consider the population of the US, we calcluate that less than one third of one percent (.317%) of the entire US populations was affected due to firearms in 2012. We must consider the benefits firearms provide and not just a particular way in which people may misuse them. Pro argues that this small percentage of the population affected is justification to limit the rights of 99.638% of the population. Pro speculates as to why my graphic on the suicide rates of Canada and the US is inadequate. I used this graph (based on information from the CDC and CANSIM) as an example of the fairly consistent rate or suicide. If Pro has statistics which contradict it, then he must present them. Any speculation as to how it might be inadequate is irrelevant. Pro has suggested that my third graph is irrelevant to this debate, but that is simply false. I grant that is information is not in regard to the US, but the point stands. Rope is not to be blamed for the suicides anymore than firearms should be. In addition to this, Pro suggests that rope as a method of suicide is less likely to result in death, but (as much as I hate to be graphic) death by rope (if done properly) results in breaking the neck and does not necessarily rely on suffocation, as such, 'time to reconsider' is not neccesarily a given, nor are we able to completely limit choices for suicide to slow methods. Suicide using guns is simply not a good reason to argue against firearms. Pro argues someone from England could buy guns and smuggle them back to England, but this is an argument relying on special pleading. If the laws against smuggling illegal firearms would not stop our would-be criminal, then how would making laws regarding the sale of legal firearms make any difference? A Few Benefits of Firearms My opponents has naively suggested guns might only be used to “to protect yourself against invaders, Native Americans, bears, or just for hunting”. Given this argument from Pro, I realize I should have convered this earlier. So let us look at the reasons Pro has supplied, and explore them and one crucial reason he has left out for benefits of firearms. 1. Invaders – I see invaders to means burglars, thieves, rapists, foreign attackers, murderers, etc. All of these groups exist today, and all wish to take something that belongs to their victims. In many cases, firearms can make the difference between an unarmed victim, and a person who is able to defend themselves against more powerful attacker. I have provided a link of an 18yo widow with a child who is able to defend against two attackers due to a simple shotgun. [1] 2. Native Americans – This is a red herring and Pro builds a strawman of it. Individuals who support gun rights do not advocate genocide any more than peoples who only knew of swords. Guns are a tool, and the misuse of a tool does not correlate to an inherent evil nature in the item itself. In addition to this, guns were on both sides of the conflicts between Native Americans and the US calvary. For instance the battle of Little Bighorn didn't go too well for the 7th Calvary and Custer due to the repeating rifles of their adversaries. [3] 3. Hunting – in opposition of Pro assertions, hunting is necessary. Hunting can help supplement diets of low income rural families. He is an example in Northern Wisconsin:"This region of the state is also overwhelmingly rural, with stores few and far between: While there are a few food co-ops that help to fill the healthy food gap, when that food is accessible, it’s expensive. For families living on the economic margins and committed to a healthy diet, it’s often more practical to garden, forage and hunt than it is to go for an exclusively store-bought diet. "[4] Hunting is also necessary for population control of animals encroaching into human urban and residential areas. Without firearms, the suffering of various human populations in the US would increase either due to malnutrition, starvation, property damage, or death. Firearms prevent this. 4. Tyrannical government – without firearms, there is no protection from a corrupt government. The second amendment was instrumental in the McMinn County War in 1946. "The McMinn County War, also called the Battle of Athens, was the name given to an outbreak of violence as returning GIs from World War II clashed with entrenched political interests in order to deliver the county from a corrupt system. ""On Election Day, August 1, 1946, two hundred armed deputies loyal to Cantrell watched the polls, physically beating GIs and a black man attempting to vote. A crowd gathered as deputies moved the ballot box to the local jail. The angry GIs took weapons from the local armory and fired upon the jail for half an hour until ammunition ran low. The deputies in the jail surrendered at about 2 a. m. " [2] All of these are valid reasons for firearms, and why I strongly object to attributing suicides to guns. Suicides do not cancel out the benefits. As a simliarly absurd example, if we find that motor vehicles are being used in suicides, exactly how many are necessary to eliminate this method of transportation or limit the privilege to drive thereby stripping away the benefits (freedom, convenient transportation for work, tourism, emergencies)? What about suicide by cop – How many suicides in this manner are necessary before we tell police officers they cannot protect themselves thereby restricting the effectiveness of our law enforcement? Essentially, the negative associated with a tool must outweigh the benefits before we can discuss eliminating or restricting it. Pro is conflating something that is a negative associated with firearms into something that makes firearms inherently negative. It is a non sequitur. That being said, the wrongful actions of criminals are not a valid reason to disallow legal protection of life, property, and liberty to those who have not established themselves as 'law-abiding' from actual criminals. If that were the formula by which we restrict guns, then crimanals behaving badly will produce laws to restrict non criminals, and make life easier for the criminal. It is illogical. Making laws which essentially punish non-criminals for the acts of criminals is unfair and assumes all gun-owners are criminally minded. While this may not be said directly it is certainly implicitly understood, and we should avoid this type of thinking. Back to you Pro! [1] . http://abcnews.go.com...[2] . http://www.tennessee.gov...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://modernfarmer.com...