Right to carry arms

In this second Con speech, I will examine the arguments in Pro"s second speech, demonstrating why they are not as powerful as my opponent believes. I must note my opponent never defended his own arguments. This significant drop should be considered by the voters. All of the arguments put forth against his second contention, namely that of correlation v. causation, still apply. Now, let us examine his rebuttals to Side Con"s contentions in full. C1: Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. My opponent first clashes with my critique of NRA reports of self-defense using firearms. He correctly claims this point has nothing to do with Side Pro's argument. The purpose of said paragraph was giving context to the political environment, not to add a false source to side Pro - mere stylistic flair. That being said, Side Pro then produces evidence from the Texas Department of Public Safety. Apparently, there were no murder convictions for Texas permit holders in 1999. My opponent has selectively chosen this number. In that same year (1), CHL holders were found guilty of 4 charges of aggressive assault with a deadly weapon, 1 case of sexual assault, 53 cases of assault causing bodily injury, 15 cases of deadly conduct, 5 terrorism threats, and 34 cases of unlawful carrying of arms. Furthermore, my opponent only looked at statistics from 1999. Considering more recent statistics, namely 2011, there were not only murder convictions, but manslaughter, robbery, child sexual abuse, and multi-murder convictions for CHL holders. There were four murders by CHL holders in 2010 alone. A full swath of CHL holder crimes can be found here (2). My opponent also asserts "Florida statistics show only 18 crimes involving firearms by license holders, out of 221,443 licenses issued between October 1987 and April 1994." This claim only looks at a time period far prior to a more modern, nuanced view of gun proliferation in Florida. Namely, prior to 2005, Florida"s firearm-involved murder rate never topped 3.5 people per 100,000. Since 2005, the number of murders has been higher. In 2011, 70% of all Florida murders involved handguns. Equally alarming is this fact: though Florida has the most concealed gun permits of any state, it still has the 13th highest firearm-involved murder rate in the state (3). Deterrent? The numbers disagree. Later, in support of his first contention, my opponent brings up a quote by David Burnett: "We have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved." At first, this 550 seems 34 lives higher than the 516 killed by CHL holders. Pro seems to win, but the numbers don"t match up. Burnett"s research was not confined solely to concealed carry self-defense instances, but ALL self-defense instances in the 153 documented cases. Thus, comparing this number to the 516 is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Under this comparison, Pro"s self-defense number pales to the total number of ALL handgun murders, including concealed carry murders, a whopping 8,275 in 2010 alone. Burnett's figures for purely concealed carry safety measures are undoubtedly smaller. When the 516 concealed carry murders nearly equal the same number of total self-defense instances found in 26 states, we have a problem. Finally, my opponent claims my statistics involving all handgun deaths are invalid and irrelevant. I profoundly disagree. The resolution states we have a "right to carry a concealed handgun" (Pro 1). If that is the case, we must consider the possibility if every person in the US decided to take up that right; otherwise, we would be adopting the resolution without looking through all possibilities, a prospect my opponent fears. Thus, when we look at the total number of handgun murders, we see how the US population tends to use semi-automatic handguns. Sadly for Pro, criminals are the guns" primary users, as outlined in my first speech. Thus, all points brought up against my 1C have been refuted. 2C: Concealed firearms easily find themselves into the hands of convicted felons. First, allow me to elaborate upon this point. Giving a gun to a convicted felon, especially one convicted of violent crime, is tantamount to giving a cocaine addict cocaine upon his becoming sober. It makes no logical sense, giving the criminal the ability to engage in crime yet again. My opponent correctly asserts I wish guns to prevent convicted felons from acquiring guns. However, he counters on two fronts. For one thing, he claims most will find illegal ways to regain guns. While illegal options are certainly viable, this does not make a legal option for them to obtain firearms any less immoral. Such an option still puts weapons in the hands of convicted felons, who, as my first speech demonstrates, do commit violent crimes. Since the legal option does not decrease the number of crimes these felons commit or the number of illegal arms purchased, it only serves as a detriment to the general public. My opponent"s second counter-argument is even more interesting. "If all convicted felons were restricted from obtaining a gun, there would be around 1.8 MILLION people who committed small crimes but were not able to obtain guns legally. That"s almost the state population of Nebraska!!" My response: why not? So what if 1.8 million people cannot legally own a gun? I thought the fewer guns you have, the fewer murders you have! After all, if Australia has shown us anything, limiting the number of guns available to the population has lowered the number of gun murders to mere triple digits (4) as opposed to the US"s quintuple digits (5)! Since my opponent has failed to demonstrate why preventing these felons from having their gun rights is wrong, this entire counterargument remains utterly unconvincing. Preventing 1.8 million convicted felons from acquiring guns is a huge boon to public safety. Thus, with both arguments countered, my 2C stands. 3C: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. My opponent counters this in two ways. First, he claims the deterrent effect of "shall-issue laws" is very much real, due to statistics in Florida gun violence. Sadly, my opponent utterly ignores the argument I previously put forth: correlation does NOT equal causation. Hundreds of factors " economics, politics, racism, education " affect the reduction in violent crime. Furthermore, the drop in violent crime occurred from 2007 to 2011. Since Florida"s "shall-issue laws" came into effect in 1987 (6), why didn"t this drop in crime happen earlier? Secondly, my opponent attacks a world I promoted in my 3C, where people must reveal their firearms on their person. My opponent believes people could be frightened of innocent civilians. This would be true, but this is not as important as the greater deterrent effect. For an instant, voters, put yourselves in the criminal"s shoes. Who would you rather rob? A. An older woman walking down the street who MIGHT have a gun. B. An older woman walking down the street who visibly HAS a gun. My opponent also claims this would also make the US a "terrorist country." This is false; having a firearm exposed does not make you a terrorist or the US a terrorist country. Soldiers and police officers often have highly visible firearms; they are not terrorists. Such a world is far from IDEAL (a world with NO guns), it certainly deters more crime than the world Pro supports. Unless side Pro can adequately respond to all these arguments, along with those not addressed earlier in the round, Side Con must win this debate. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us... 2. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us... 3. http://www.naplesnews.com... 4. http://www.gunpolicy.org... 5. http://www.gunpolicy.org... 6. http://www.nraila.org...