Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals.

On the question of 2a, I will concede that it is easier to kill someone with a gun than some other means. But by the same token it is also easier to defend someone with a gun for that exact reason. Man's survival instinct means that the risk of losing your life really isn't worth the reward of some kind of payday you will never get to enjoy if you die of "lead poisoning." On the question of whether it is easier to kill someone with a firearm if you are in possession of one than if you are not: Is that really an argument? It's easier for me to beat someone to death with a wet noodle if I have a wet noodle than if I don't have a wet noodle too. So what? That doesn't mean that a gun is not an ideal defensive weapon any more than it means a wet noodle is an ideal offensive weapon. If I am missing some hidden point I'm afraid my opponent will have to lead me by the hand because I'm not seeing it. Contention 5: I think my opponent needs to reread the paragraph. I talked about awareness, the fact that the FPD trainers obviously have some advanced fighting skills, and the fact that guns are used every single day in this country to defend lives. I never mentioned any other country in reference to this argument. In reference to the scenarios: Scenario one: The gun is still the best weapon here for two reasons. The first one I highlighted above (i.e. risk vs. reward). The scenario obviously implied that the attacker is a potential rapist. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But if the female produces a gun most rapists are going to rethink their initial plan for the evening. I do agree that a XREP (I'm assuming this is what you meant, as opposed to XERP) would almost certainly incapacitate an attacker. The downside to them is they require a 12 gauge shotgun to fire them at an attacker.[1] If you think a handgun is not ideal I can't imagine that you think a 12 gauge shotgun is. But hey, I will at least give my opponent credit for recommending a solution that requires a gun. But let's talk other kinds of tasers. In general, the ones available for self defense use fall into two categories. The first requires you to touch the electrodes to an attacker and it delivers an incapacitating shock. The second has two electrodes attached to thin wires that are fired at an attacker, burying themselves in the skin and deliver the shock. Used successfully each of these is a powerful weapon. But the each have their drawbacks. The first type requires an attacker to be within arm's reach. As shown by my opponent's own video link, this is somewhere you never want an attacker to be. You want an attacker stopped as far away from you as humanly possible. But I don't think he was talking about this kind of taser. The second kind, while giving you that barrier that is so desirable has its own inherent drawback. You MUST hit your target the very first time you pull the trigger. If not you must reload it. If the attacker is close enough to be hit by the projectiles he is probably close enough to close any gap that existed quicker than one whose adrenaline is pumping and therefore has lost fine motor skills and peripheral vision can reload.[2] With a gun, even a compact one, I have at least six shots in case my first misses. My personal carry gun during the summer give me 8 (7 in mag +1 in the chamber)[3] rounds, and during the winter I have 17 rounds. (16+1)[4] I would much rather have more chances to defend myself than give up my best defense just because someone who couldn't care less about my life might lose his. Probably even more important in my mind is that, according to the research referenced above by Drs. Kleck and Gertz, more than 1/2 of all DGU were against more than one attacker. I'm sure even my opponent would agree that a taser is of little comfort against two, ore maybe more attackers. Regardless, DGU result in a low percentage of deaths to their attackers. John Lott's research and Kleck and Gertz's research confirm that in 92-95% of DGU the attacker is stopped merely by brandishing a firearm and/or firing a warning shot. Among the remainder only a small number are fatal. But if a gun is not ideal because you don't want to potentially kill an attacker, than neither is a taser.[5] If the only measure of an ideal defense is that the attacker is allowed to live then perhaps it is just best to give them what they want. Just as long as the attacker doesn't get hurt. Unless of course an attacker will accept nothing less than my child. Or my wife's body. Wouldn't I then be justified in using whatever force were necessary, even up to and including deadly force to protect me or my family? Scenario two: See above. Same answer. Same reasons. My point is, the gun is the great equalizer. It puts a person in a wheelchair on equal footing with an able-bodied attacker. It puts a woman on equal footing with a potential rapist. And it puts a child who has been educated in the proper use and respect of firearms on equal footing with a person who is invading his home. Let me ask this of my opponent: Does he believe that a gun is the ideal weapon for a police officer to carry to protect himself? If yes, let me pose another question. If a gun is the ideal weapon for a police officer to carry, why is not the ideal weapon for me to carry? After all if I am forced to call the police he will potentially be protecting himself from the same threat I just faced. So why should I have any less firepower to protect me and mine than he has to protect him. Because he is agent of the government? Because his life is worth more than mine? And since, as I have shown the police do not have a responsibility to protect me from criminals, on whom then does that responsibility fall if not me? [1] http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...... [3] http://www.kimberamerica.com...... [4] http://www.springfield-armory.com...... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org......