Guns should be legal for home defense in the U.S.

There is a fundamental right to self-defense I cited the American founders, Jefferson's “No [citizen] shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands....” I acknowledged “the right of self-defense is not absolute” and pointed to the Supreme Court's decision that while the right to defend one's home could not be infringed, there could be gun free zones elsewhere. Con said that Locke derived the right of self-defense from a right to liberty, which is fine with me. Con then dropped discussion of rights, saying I had conceded something. I didn't. We are talking about defense of one's home and family. It is not a question of weighing the harm that might be dealt to the person breaking and entering against the harm the criminal might do to you and your family. The right of self-defense takes precedence. Con pronounces the castle doctrine immoral. I suspect he misunderstands the doctrine. In all cases of self defense, both in the home and outside of it, a jury must decide that the person using lethal force reasonably believed he was under threat of great bodily harm. The castle doctrine says that there is a legal presumption that if a criminal breaks into your home – not wanders in because you left the door open – that there is a reasonable presumption of threat of harm. The presumption can still be overcome. If the person breaking and entering is reasonably identified as posing no threat, then the presumption is overcome. For example, if its a sunny day and the homeowner sees that the person breaking and entering is an unarmed child, then use of potentially lethal force is unreasonable. The doctrine only has effect when there is doubt, as with an unidentified break-in at night. The castle doctrine is a fine point of law. Some states have it and some do not. The resolution is whether there are any circumstances when a homeowner should be allowed to legally possess a gun for self-defense. Guns are the only practical means of self-defense One might argue that while there is a right to self-defense, that guns could be banned in favor of some other means of self-defense. I argued that there is now no practical alternative to guns. That's what the Supreme Court ruled in the Washington DC case that voided the District's prohibition on guns. Con did not contest this point, and did not offer any alternative effective means of self-defense. I believe that once Con grants a fundamental right to self-defense and further grants that guns are the only realistic means of self-defense, then the resolution is affirmed. You cannot have a right to self-defense and then ban the only means of asserting the right. It would be like affirming a right to free speech while denying all use of communications media. Con seems to recognize this situation. At the end of the last round he didn't assert that all guns should be illegal for home defense, but rather only asserted that there ought to be more restrictions. I will continue with the practical arguments, although they cannot deny the resolution. The benefits of guns outweigh the disadvantages Con dropped my arguments that banning guns would have a negligible effect on suicide rates. Japan has twice the suicide rate with a strict gun ban, and the suicide rate in Washington DC was unchanged by a gun ban. Con dropped my argument that accidental deaths from guns are way below the levels of other hazards that are not banned. Con argued a fundamental right was inconsistent with background checks and safety training. I argued that minimal restrictions can be placed upon fundamental rights, so long as they are not a significant impediment to practicing the right. That's true of all fundamental rights. However, the resolution is to completely abolish the right by making self-defense illegal. Illegality would not eliminate guns In the last round, Con argued that he if guns are made illegal in the US they will not be available illegally. He cites evidence that guns have became scarce in the UK and Japan after being made illegal, so he imagines that might be the case in the US as well. He did not respond to my previous argument that drugs have been made illegal in the U.S. and despite vigorous attempts at enforcement there are plenty of illegal drugs available. Nations differ in the forces of cultural and tradition at work. Drugs are illegal in Japan, and sure enough there are few illegal drugs available illegally there. Not so in the US. I pointed out that drugs are an easier problem in the sense that a continuous supply is required, while guns are durable. During the civil war in Northern Ireland, large numbers of illegal arms were smuggled into the U.K., despite vigorous enforcement attempts. It cannot therefore be the case that enforcement is easy. The problem has to with what the society as a whole wants and tolerates. Con argues that in the US most guns ultimately come from legal sources. Even if broadly banned in the U.S, most guns would still ultimately derive from legal sources. Russia and South Africa are two sources of export, for example, and guns are not hard to get in Canada. Our debate is about guns for home defense. The probability of total gun ban in the U.S. is zero because hunting is so common, and so is use for protection from animals. People hunt for basic food in Alaska, parts of the northern Rockies, and in the rural South. In Alaska, people carry a 45 pistol to go to the bathroom – the bathroom being an outhouse and Alaska having 50,000 bears. In my area in California, a man shot a mountain lion perched in a tree above a school bus stop; the event merited only a single paragraph in the local paper. There are now about 300 million legal guns in the U.S., and with most unlicensed there is no prospect of rounding them up. Studies show effective deterrence The data I cited on defensive use of firearms was prepared by the Center for Disease Control at the request of President Obama. There have been more than a dozen studies of the use of weapons for self-defense, and the CDC concluded that defensive use, mostly to scare off criminals, vastly out numbered offensive use. The CDC study is likely because the CDC is expert in statistical analysis, has no apparent prejudices, and looked at all of the surveys done in the field. If they do have a bias, it would likely be an anti-gun bias in trying to please a liberal president. Con did not address the CDC study. Con cites criticism the DGU. I have no idea what that is. The criticism is that more rapes are claimed to be deterred than were reported in a separate crime victims study. Many of these surveys depend upon just how questions are asked. A deterred rapes may be significantly under reported in a victims survey. Con cites Kellerman. The study compares the rare event of a self-defense shooting in the home with more common events like suicides. [19. http://tinyurl.com...] There were only seven cases of self-defense shootings in the study, so the ratios are misleading. The study shows that citizens are careful, and that guns are usually used to scare off criminals rather than shoot them. Con cites Cheng and Hoekstra. That paper confuses castle doctrine laws with stand-your-ground laws and mixes data from non-confrontational crimes unlikely to be affected. “Cheng and Hoekstra suggested these laws affect crime rates. If true, the data show adopting all three “castle doctrine” laws causes a noticeable decrease in violent crime. “ [20. http://tinyurl.com... ] Con charges that gun ownership is a “crutch, or even a fetish.” No it's just cultural. Shooting is the national sport of Switzerland. About 30% of Swiss households have guns, compared to about 42% in the U.S. The Swiss have far more fully automatic weapons. They openly carry guns to the various shooting festivals and consider it a sign of wholesome living. [21. http://tinyurl.com...] They have a non-violent society. Guns do not cause violence. ------- Con may not introduce new arguments or evidence in his final round. [DR 4]