Right to carry arms

As Pro, I wish to start by contesting Con"s first argument " Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime " 1) My opponent starts his first argument by saying that the NRA loves to tell stories about concealed handguns to say they have saved lives. However, the information I give is not produced by the NRA, but by the Texas Department of Public Safety & Florida state records. The Texas Department of Public Safety released a study in 1999 that showed that in that year the rate of murder convictions for permit holders in Texas was zero percent. There were NONE. Florida statistics show only 18 crimes involving firearms by license holders, out of 221,443 licenses issued between October 1987 and April 1994. 2) My opponent then gives an example of a killing by a citizen with a concealed firearm, which is followed by the fact that 516 people have been killed this way. This may be true, but according to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are approximately 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America each year. However, this study was disproved and it was shown that he was greatly exaggerating. I tell you this to confirm the authenticity of the information I am about to give you. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated almost 70,000 defensive gun uses annually. "We have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved", says David Burnett, who tracks incidents of defensive gun use. This shows the difference between the lives saved and the lives lost are definitely in favor of saved. 3) My opponent then says that we have an alarming amount of deaths from handgun usage. This point says nothing against the negativities of concealed carry, those are figures related to handguns in general. Therefore his argument is invalid. Next, I wish to put forth my second point - Citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them. Since this point clashes with my opponent"s second point, I will rebut it in this way. According to my opponent"s argument, convicted felons are also allowed to regain gun rights, and therefore this becomes a danger to the rest of the population. So, ideally, my opponent wishes guns to be banned from convicted felons. 1)Firstly, most criminals would not bother to get a concealed carry gun permit. There are many ways for criminals to get guns without obtaining a permit. 2)Secondly, this idea for guns to be banned from all convicted felons can be put down another way - in the US, as of 2010, there were a little more than 2.3 million convicted felons. Out of those, 700,000 were for violent offenses. Out of these, 400,000 commit crimes for the second time. 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! ! In my opponent"s third argument, he discredits the "alleged" deterrent effect and proceeds to advise that the guns should be exposed instead of concealed. There are 2 flaws in my opponent"s reasoning. Firstly, the "alleged" deterrent effect, as my opponent calls it, has reduced crime all over the country. For example, the report from ABC News shows that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history. Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011. I don"t think it can still be called the "alleged" deterrent effect. It is real, and it definitely works. My opponent"s second flaw is that if guns were allowed to be exposed, people wouldn't"t be warned of criminals coming their way, as he could be an innocent civilian as well. Also, think of the effect it would have on our nation. The United States of America is not a terrorist country, for people to be walking around with, and I quote my opponent, "with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle". The government considers all these effects before putting a law into place, and I think my opponent should too. With that, I close my argument for the second round.