That we should ban guns in urban areas

43:1 is the ratio Con wants to defend. 43 people who are shot accidentally or unlawfully for every one guilty person shot in the name of self-defence. Today we've seen a Con that can't acknowledge the right of the broader population, whereas we on the Pro side wish to balance these rights. There have been three big questions in today's debate: the balance of rights, the effect on spontaneous crime and the effect on petty and organized crime. Firstly, to the balance of rights in this debate. From the very start of this debate, we on the Pro told you that our model would protect the right to life and the right to personal safety. My opponent never refuted the idea that guns infringed on this right, and he failed to discuss it in the last round, so I have no reason to think that he has not. In return, my opponent discussed the right to bear arms. He accepted that the constitution wasn't really of relevance to this debate. But my opponent did offer two different justifications as to why people should be allowed guns: 1)Defence against the police 2)Self-defence On the first point, which can fairly accurately be described as fear over America becoming one like to one controlled by Hitler and Stalin. My friend, the day you believe we are such a totalitarian state so as to justify shooting an American soldier is the day you can make this point. In the meantime, it is just too impossible. Furthermore, if this totalitarian state were established, it could not be defeated by gun-toting citizens; it would likely be too powerful. The second justification was much more valid. The Pro concedes that guns may be used as self-defence. However, as the Con admits, the ratio of times in which the right to self-defence is used to the number of times the rights of others to personal safety or to life is 43:1. My opponent says this statistic may be inaccurate, but, even if it were reversed, even if it were 43 people shot in self-defence to 1 innocent person that was shot accidentally we believe the sanctity of human life is so great that we would still move to ban guns. In answer to the question of the hierarchy of right people have, the Pro argues that life sits well above the ability to tote guns. My opponent also tried to argue that anyone who was particularly concerned about personal safety could simply not buy a gun. But this just didn't take into account the fact that these injuries are of other people, not of the person who has bought the gun. We say that the right to self-defence is important, but that human life is more important, especially when our trade-off is 43 innocent people to one guilty one. [See round 2 for statistics] The next issue of this debate was the impact on spontaneous crime, to which my opponent has only partially responded to. We made it very clear in this debate that when guns are around, it makes it that much easier to spontaneously commit unplanned homicides [1]. My opponent never disputed this line of reasoning. The only thing he refuted was the actual rates and why they were there, using a line of reasoning based upon statistics from the 1920s. He said that America still had a much higher rate of crime than Britain in the 1920s, and that this was still the same; that it was unconnected to gun crime. However, the only reason America had such a high rate of gun crime in the 1920s was because prohibition had allowed a gang culture to develop. Much more accurate statistics are from, say, our own time; the fact that America has an extraordinary rate of homicide compared to that of other nations. I asked my opponent to give me a reason for this other than the relaxed gun laws. He neglected to. We conclude that this is the factor that has led to large increases in homicide. It simply makes sense for the availability of murder weapons to increase murder rates. People kill people, but guns help a lot. Thirdly, to the effect on criminal groups. In terms of petty groups, we argued that guns would not be available to these groups because prices would increase as supply lessens and risks taken to get guns rise. This would put guns out of the price range of petty criminals. In terms of organized crime, for the same reasons, the supply of guns to them would be lessened. My opponent claimed that organized criminals would gain profits from the ban because they could sell guns. However, the only group that we believe will be able to buy gains is organized crime itself, so this point seemed to assume that crime gangs would sell guns to themselves. Com misunderstood my argument as to why it would help to combat organized crime; the argument was that police could simply arrest anyone who had a gun rather than being forced to consider its legality. Furthermore, we think that the power of criminals with guns over the population would not be increased because there would be many fewer criminals with guns and they would be much easier to crack down upon. Good luck to my opponent. http://gunc