We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearms. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov....... So criminals with guns are hardly an issue, as most just don't have guns, which in your society, they will. This is to say that ninety percent of the non fatal violent crimes does not involved firearms. One, it assumes that the attacker did not have a fire arms because he did not brandish it. Many times it is unnecessary for the criminal to show a weapon. Two, many of the crimes would be deterred completely if the potential victim simply brandished their gun. The bad guy could have a knife, pipe or is simply much stronger than the potential victim. A gun serves as an equalizer. Third, one never knows when they will confront that 10 percent or less that brandish their firearms. I argue that the 10 percent or less would be less likely to commit the crime in the first place if everyone was carrying firearms. Thus, people of sound mind would all be safer if all people of sound mind has firearms. When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations. One, it assumes that the 15 to 24 year old is a law abiding citizen and not a criminal. Some of the homicides might be justified. Two, guns should be limited to people of sound mind and judgment which might not be the case for some kids 15-17 years old. The ones that are of sound mind would not concern me. Third, this assumes that every homicide committed upon a person from the age of 15 to 24 would have been committed had more of them of sound mind had firearms. This is to say, that many of those homicides would have been averted had the perpetrator known that everyone had a gun. Fourth, the argument is one that suggests that if we had no guns we would be safer from gun violence. However, that's not possible, so who are the people that we should limit guns to? And even if you limit the guns to those folks, whats to stop them from getting one illegally. Moreover, there are other factors that may contribute to more younger people being victims of homicides in the United States--specifically the illegal drug trade and the profits forthwith comes to mind. Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems. And, for every accidental death, Hemenway cites research that indicates 10 more incidents are sufficient to send someone to the emergency room. This is the only valid point that the opponent makes. However, it is possible to teach better gun safety to owners having children and thereby drastically reducing the number of accidental deaths related to poor gun safety. Young children that are not of sound mind should not have guns. Many more children lives are saved by way of detterence than the ones killed as a result of accidents. Suicides are more likely to be successful when guns are involved , even though most people who survive such an attempt don't generally try a second time. To be honest, I really don't care about people committing suicide. These people have nothing to live for and therefore it might be better they kill themselves than someone innocent. Second, if they really wanted to kill themselves, they don't need a gun. There are sleeping pills, bridges and buildings for which they could jump off. people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels. I would argue that the hot head with a gun might keep his cool if he knew that everyone including the subject he was thinking of shooting was armed. The coward would know that he couldn't just shoot in run. Again, many crimes would be deterred simply because everyone knew that everyone had guns. Why give these cowards the upperhand? This is especially true for women. In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides." I would argue that the person that kills their wife is most likely not of sound mind when committing the crime. However, assuming they are of sound mind, what is to stop them from illegally obtaining a gun? Once a person decides that they are going to kill their spouse or lover, legality goes out the window. Nonetheless, I maintain that the numbers for lives saved due to guns would increase if more people had guns due to the deterrence factor. The numbers I posted bares that fact out. In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house;no protective effect of the gun was found." Most of these women killed don't have a gun on them at the time their attacked. In many cases, the male kills not only the woman but their children too. I argue that many of these woman might use the gun on that abusive husband first if they had access to the gun. Even, if they killed him more lives would be saved because he would not be able to kill her kids and possibly other relatives. Moreover, the only valid point this argument makes is that attacks would be less lethal if guns were not involved. As I have noted, a person that has made up his mind to kill his wife with a gun will do so whether or not we make it legal or illegal. Thus, this is an argument for the banning of all guns. In cases, wherein the spouse kills the other spouse in the heat of the moment. It is tragic. However, overall we are all safer by having guns in our homes due to the deterrence factor. Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor. My opponent seems to contradict himself. He says he agrees with the current gun laws, yet his central argument is that one should not keep their gun at home--that's laughable. I assume that it is legal for him to have firearms at his home in his state. I, however, live in the Nazi state of New Jersey and here its very hard to get a gun permit--just to protect my family. Forget about conceal and carry rights even though numbers suggest that we would be safer if given that right. Many people here are denied a gun permit because of a misdemeanor when they were a minor. In this state, the police policy is to deny a gun permit whenever possible. It seems that my opponent is arguing that I should not have a right to protect my family because some people use the gun for suicide, some people kill their spouse or some people allow their young children to have access to their guns. We don't need Mr. Government protect us from ourselves. My opponent says he has two guns, I would like to know where he keeps those guns at night? Are they safely locked up at a storage facility or hidden in the woods at night? No, I assume that he has those guns in a location where he can get to them if some low life attempts to harm him or his family. A person of sound mind does not commit suicide. A young child is not of sound mind and should not have a gun. A person that has made up his or her mind to kill his wife is not of sound mind. I think the numbers that I posted clearly demonstrates that we would all be safer if people of sound mind all had firearms.