Citizens Should Be Permitted To Own Guns

"Consider this, according to the BradyCampaign, 289 people are shot every day. 86 die, 30 are murdered, 53 suicides, 2 accidentals, and one police intervention. If we factor our suicides, accidents, and police intervention then if we assume all these shootings are attempted homicides (for simplicity) then 233 people are shot and 30 of that number die. This means that roughly 13% of attempted gun murders are fatal. Guns, especially handguns, are not nearly as lethal as you might think." Does not matter there are still 30 times more murders with guns. My opponent later once again goes off topic and mentions that knives can hurt and kill people. I concede to this but guns have contributed more to hurting and killing people. Unfortunately this is not a part of our debate so I am disregarding it. "Conclusion? There are other methods of murder that will be used and will suffice to kill someone without needing a gun." Again, everyone knows that there are other ways to kill people but guns have contributed to killing people more than any other weapon. "The Kleck study estimated defensive gun use per year, and if you need a study from 1997 here is a link to an anti-gun economist study concerning defensive gun use estimating 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year." First of all, it is your job to provide the content of the source not mine. You use sources to support your argument not to replace them. This is similar to plagiarism which you said in round one is not allowed. Secondly, I didn't want you to provide a source specifically from 1997, I was just saying that you have not provided an occurrence as recent as 1997 meaning everything you mentioned, happened 16 years ago and above where as I provided occurrences that happened just last week. "Next, there have actually been LESS shootings in the United states and violent crime (including murders) in the US has been decreasing for since 1991. There are also roughly just as many mass shootings in the United now as there has been over the past two decades (1-6 per year)." My opponent just threw out two links so this is an unproven point and should be disregarded. Throwing out links without providing the content is not proof. "Next, the studies performed by Kleck are rough estimates. Gun ownership has definitely increased since 1995, whether or not the population percent gun ownership has gone up is unknown. However I do know from experiecne that Obama getting elected drastically increased gun sales and therefore gun ownership is probably much higher, therefore there is a possibility that guns are being used more often for self-defense now than they were in 1995." Wow this a list of unproven assertions. 1. How did gun ownership increase since 1995? You haven't proved that. 2.What does Obama getting elected have to do with gun ownership? Is it because he is democrat? If I am not mistaken aren't democrats for gun control? Even if I am wrong in 1995 Bill Clinton was president and he also was a democrat. 3. Even if the previous unestablished and unproven assertions you have made are true, who is to say that more of these guns are being used for self-defense? You have not proven that. "Ok... the "taking the gun away" is a common argument against gun ownership that doesn't have much merit. In order for the attacker to take your gun from you, there have to be a few conditions met which make this unlikely. Firstly, the attacker must know you have a gun. If your in your home in the dark or if your carrying a concealed weapon, the odds of the attacker knowing you have a gun or where you keep your gun are small. Next, they have to choose to stay and fight after seeing the gun, which almost never happens. Lastly, they have to be close enough to grapple the gun from you and somehow manage to do it without getting themselves shot in the process. The combination of these conditions makes the attacker stealing the gun from you and using it against you extremely small." Wow look how much character space you waste on one of my side arguments. You are right. You convinced me that it is unlikely but you disregarded my stronger argument about why a knife vs knife situation is better so the argument still stands. "As I've argued before, your assuming less people would die if we did not have guns, I say this is FALSE. Lots of people defend themselves with guns in situations where nothing else would do. If your a smaller framed women in your home defending yourself against several potential rapists or robbers armed with bats and knives, your ONLY chance at defending yourself right then without personal injury is a firearm." Well you could lock the door, call for help, or offer them money. But in the instance you mentioned she would not die she would just be injured. And also I am not saying no deaths would occur I am just saying less so I cannot defend every instance. "I don't have much space left to return some more comments you made" I hope voters know why by now. And in my opinion, the ones you did not address were my strongest arguments. "If someone premeditates a murder, they will most likely be just as successful using a gun or if they use a bat or a knife." Unestablished and unproven point. And I think using a bat is much harder than a gun if someone wants to premeditate a murder. "most criminals will not give up committing crimes because they don't have a gun." Not once have I claimed that they will stop commiting crimes. Actually I have mentioned numerous times that murders will continue just not as much. Like my opponent said he has not addressed all my arguments and in my opinion those were my strongest so I kindly request a vote for con. Thanks to my opponent for debating and the voters for reading.