Gun control

1. In the last round, I made the point that studies reveal felons have admitted that knowing a victim owned a gun would have severely hindered their committed crimes by at least 56 percent. Pro said that my article was faulty; however, I never intended to cite a specific article - I specifically pointed out a fact (the one I've mentioned) which Pro has not and did not refute. Then Pro went on to say that we should treat all people as if they are potential criminals by limiting their access to guns. By that logic, we wouldn't let people access things like vehicles or knives either. There are plenty ways you can hurt or kill others; it is unrealistic to assume that we could prevent murder from happening. Moreover, people are born into a free country as free people with the right to own a firearm. The government as an entity has no right or obligation to restrict that right from law abiding citizens. Plus, our very own constitution established and reaffirms this right. Pro didn't touch any of these points. 2. In the last round, I pointed out that our second amendment grants us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from any type of radical government tyranny. Pro's response was, "Please don't condone illegal behavior. We've had 4 presidents assassinated." Clearly this is a complete straw man and manipulation of my argument; nowhere did I ever say that we should assassinate anybody. I pointed out examples of where the government acted tyrannical to the point of taking away rights right here on American soil. This was proof that government tyranny is still possible. With that in mind, the citizens should have a right to arm themselves in case that their livelihoods are ever in jeopardy. Pro agrees with me that the right to bear arms was intended to apply to a citizen formed militia, but what Pro doesn't understand is that this point still applies today. We still might need to form a militia someday, we should be able to form a militia if necessary, and or ability to form a militia will make officials think twice about screwing with our rights. As I said in the last round, if not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government. Therefore, their rights would exist only at their government's discretion. 3. Pro says, "I would rather be shot than shoot someone, but I would really rather do neither. That would be a whole lot easier if we didn't have guns legal." I seriously fail to see how this establishes anything. Pro made no point here. 4. Yes, Hasan bought a gun from a gun store. This still wouldn't eliminate the issue of the black market (including gangs, violence, etc.) which Pro concedes. However, I've said that gun stores are responsible because they implement various background checks, and they register every gun owner as part of a system. That makes it easier to catch and find criminals in the instance where a gun has been used. 5. My 5th point commented that sometimes shooting someone was morally justified, i.e. in self defense. Pro responded with, "Well, I would rather be optimistic and say that we should try and reduce crime instead of saying that we should just let it be." Once again, this rebuttal is off topic and doesn't argue my point at all. Again, in the last round I discussed necessary crime. 6. In the last round, I mentioned that it is kind of unrealistic to expect to be able to defend yourself from an intruder with a gun if you don't also have a gun. Pro implied that people could always run away. That's silly. So then in R3, he said, "As I said, I don't want anyone shot. Ideally, they would temporarily incapacitate the perpetrator. If not, you give in and then call the police once they leave." So I guess Pro and I agree - we don't want anyone shot. However, if having a gun will minimalize crime and therefore the probability that someone will get shot (since statistics show that gun ownership deters crime), then I'm all about protecting one's self. 7. Pro clarifies that we as civilians should not have the same weaponry that the military has. I agree completely, so this is a moot point. I'm not saying that citizens need to be armed with tanks and machine guns. However hand guns are another story. 8. Again, the government shouldn't be oppressive. We shouldn't shoot government officials. All of this we can agree upon. This is another moot point, I guess. 9. In R2 I said, "I stand by my argument regarding people's right to make and sell gun products. We live in a free society; selling those things does not violate anyone elses rights and thus should be legal." Pro responded with, "And I stand by may argument that they shouldn't. It does violate other people's rights, because I have the right to not be shot." Clearly these 2 points are completely irrelevant. Yes, Pro has the right to not be shot as we all have our right to life. However, legalized firearms do NOT infringe upon that right. Only people killing you will be infringing upon that right. Of course if someone did so, they would be penalized. But more than that, if someone killed Pro with ANY means then that right would be violated. Again, you can't criminalize anything that could potentially kill. One owning a gun for their own comfort, safety, protection or entertainment (hunting or range shooting) does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Instead, prohibiting them from this ownership infringes upon THEIR rights to own something; especially something guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the U.S. 10. Pro didn't make a point here either. CONCLUSION: Pro is making a hasty mistake in comparing all American citizens to Hasan. We uphold a very important value in this country that implies innocence until proven guilty. In other words, our legal system is dependent on the concept of giving people the benefit of the doubt. By owning a gun, people aren't doing anything inherently wrong. Sure, the gun is a tool by which a crime could be committed; however, we can say that about anything. Should cars or alcohol be illegal because drunk driving was the number 1 cause of death in teens? No, neither of them are illegal. Should the internet be illegal because of how many people do shady things there (like meeting under aged kids and raping them, or looking at child porn)? No. The internet is not illegal. So, we can't criminalize things just because they could potentially be dangerous. I've proven this throughout the debate. Moreover, I've established how removing legal gun stores (which has benefits such as keeping records of gun owners and doing background checks) would just perpetuate crime in the black market. Statistics show that gun ownership is useful at deterring crime. Keeping all of these facts in mind, it's obvious that you should vote Con and acknowledge our right as law abiding American citizens to own guns to protect ourselves from a plethora of attacks (i.e. even government tyranny). Vote to uphold our constitutional rights, people. And thanks for the debate, Pro.