New Member Tournament: Gun Rights Debate

Thanks to jm_notguilty for instigating. Due to lack of time, I will just use this round for a brief overview, and expand on these points in round 3. REBUTTALSC1) Self Defense from PolicePro says it is necessary to protect against police brutality and cites the Nazi regime. The current government cannot be compared to the Nazi regime and has come far from the days when the gas chamber was legal.Allowing citizens to have guns does not reduce police brutality. The police always check to see if the suspect has a weapon before apprehending him. If an innocent suspect has a gun, it will be taken away anyway. If a guilty suspect has a gun, it is only a negative and will cause violence. Pointing a gun at the police will not make the situation better in any way. C2) Self Defense from criminalsYes, guns can possibly be used for self-defense, but the question is: do the benefits outweigh the harms? Guns kill people, not people. If guns weren't readily available, the fight wouldn't escalate. The ready availability of guns is what kills people.The police do need to protect citizens as it is their job. I will address Warren vs DC in the next round.C3) Crime Deterrent Guns can also be taken from the person by a smart criminal. If the citizen does not know how to use to gun or is weak, the criminal can grab the gun and use it againt the citizen. For the same reason, police walking into a prison cell go in unarmed with other officers for backup holding guns for the same reason. A gun is not safe in everyones hands. Only trained personnel can safely use guns. A gun is a like a bomb waiting to go off in the midst of society. Can the person feel safer and more confident?C4) SportsPro's arguments here are that shooting sports are safe and beneficial. The "beneficial" part is really a stretch. Physical strength etc can be gained by working out in a gym. It is not required to play shooting sports to get those benefits.Pro also says that shooting sports are safe and compares them saying that you are more likely to be injured in a swimming pool or in a car than by a gun. A lot more people ride cars and go swimming than own guns so this isn't really accurate. It is the same as saying "In the U.S., your chances of getting killed by lightning are 30 times greater than dying of a shark attack" [1]. This is an inaccurate analogy since most people don't live near the coast. People also use their car far more often and for a variety of purposes such as work, and school than they use their guns. The "safe" analogy simply doesn't work. Guns aren't safe and they are certainly not as safe as cars.ARGUMENTSThere are many harms due to the individual right to carry guns which outweigh its benefits.1) Increases riskThere is no doubt that the individual right to carry guns increases the number of guns floating among society. This increases risk. 2) Criminals obtain guns more easilyMaking it difficult to obtain guns discourages the criminals. The notion that criminals break the law anyway so will obtain a gun is false. Allowing them to get guns without jumping through hoops is a clear disadvantage of the right to carry. There are different kinds of criminals and not all lawbreakers are willing to break the law to get a gun.3) Increased domestic violence Most murders are caused by people that the victim knows. Having guns easily accessible increases the violence. Sources[1] http://www.infoplease.com...[2] http://reason.com...[3] http://www.google.com...[4] http://www.policyalmanac.org...[5] http://www.pulpless.com...