Gun Control

In this round, I will be responding to my opponent's initial arguments.= Rebuttals =SuicideGuns are just one among numerous dangerous instruments used in committing suicide. There are many methods for one to kill themselves, such as drowning, hanging, suffocating, etc. Banning guns will not reduce suicide - the person will just find another way to carry out the deed. The suicide by firearm rate will decrease, but the overall rate will stay the same because suicides committed in other ways will increase to make up the difference. People don't kill themselves because there are firearms available, they do so because of their life circumstances that put them in that position.I decided to research the issue myself and see if this claim was true. What I found was a Harvard study stating that there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates[1]. The study focused on the countries of Europe and each with its different rate of gun ownership per 100,000 people. From page 691 comes the following quote: "Sweden, with over twice as much gun ownership as neighboring Germany and a third more gun suicide, nevertheless has the lower overall suicide rate. Greece has nearly three times more gun ownership than the Czech Republic and somewhat more gun suicide, yet the overall Czech suicide rate is over 175% higher than the Greek rate. Spain has over 12 times more gun ownership than Poland, yet the latter's overall suicide rate is more than double the former's." From this we can conclude that gun ownership does not increase overall suicide, thus rendering gun control ineffective.AggressionPro's explanation of George Zimmerman's account of the shooting of Trayvon Martin is false. According to Zimmerman, he had been walking at night toward his destination until Martin came out of the dark, confronted him, and punched him in the face, knocking him down and began beating his head against the sidewalk. Martin saw Zimmerman's gun and said something to the effect of "you're gonna die tonight mothef--". With Martin on top of him and Zimmerman beneath, the two struggled over the gun until Zimmerman managed to get ahold of it and shoot Martin. Zimmerman appeared to the police shortly after with a bloody face, saying he had shot Martin in "self-defense"[2][3]. According to his account, the possesion of a gun saved his life.The validity of Zimmerman's account is another story, one that is irrelevant to this topic, so it is best that we prevent that branch from growing here.Witt and Brockmole's study is not necessarily an argument for gun control, because the outcome can be spun from a different light. The fact that people who have a gun are more likely to identify someone else as armed is a good thing, because it helps civilians become more aware of criminals and the danger they present. A person's lack of a gun could be the factor that makes them ignorant toward a threat from someone else, potentially rendering them vulnerable to assault and homicide. Guns help people become self aware, as Pro proved, thus leading to more conscious thought.DeadlinessI would like to point out that shootings tend to happen in gun-free zones. Schools are almost always gun-free. The Sandy Hook shooting occurred at a place where firearms were prohibited. Criminals don't go where the citizens are armed, they almost always occur where guns are not allowed. John R. Lott sums it up nicely: “Killers go where victims can't defend themselves. In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting,out of the seven theaters the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same.”[4] Pro's claim that civilians do not have enough time to get their gun out is false. Many people place their gun in a carryholder at the side of their waste, and can take it out within a few seconds. In scenarios such as school shootings, the criminal must aim at one person at a time, and will not be able to defend himself if one or more people are pointing guns at him and he is not noticing. Criminals do not always shoot immediately - sometimes they hesitate as they are unsure who to aim at first or think whether or not pulling the trigger will cost them their own lives.My opponent also mentioned that stabbings can only occur at short range. This is true for criminals and law-abiding civilians. If a criminal is at one side of the house and you're at the other, you can't use knives, tasers, or karate moves to hit him all the way over there (unless you're really good at knife throwing, which only a few people are). Guns have the best aim and are the most efficient way of defense. Also, more civilians have experience with guns then with knives or tasers, so allowing them to arm themselves will be good in the angle that many won't have to receive extra training - not as much as they would need to with minor weapons.SummaryGuns are the number one efficent means of self defense, and are necessary for shielding from harm. Prohibition of gun use will leave law-abiding citizens defenseless and vulnerable.Sources[1] http://www.law.harvard.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://web.archive.org...[4] http://www.usatoday.com...