Citizens Should Be Permitted To Own Guns

"Bottom line is most murders are used with guns. You said substitution for other methods would occur but none can be comparable to the use of a gun." I think your overestimating the killing potential of guns and underestimating the killing potential of other weapons that would be substituted for guns, such as blunt objects and knives. Most murders are committed with guns because its more convenient to pull a trigger than get in close and swing a bat. However knives and blunt weapons can be just as deadly as guns, and blunt objects may even be more deadly. 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. http://usnews.nbcnews.com... Knives may not be as deadly as guns, but probably because most knives used in attempted murders aren't very long. If you stab someone with a long enough blade, you can damage vital internal organs or possibly cut arteries. My knife fighting instructor showed me several places where if you cut someone in that spot, they'll bleed out in 3 minutes, sometimes 60 seconds. Obviously this is more difficult to do than with a gun, but they're still deadly. In my martial experience, I would actually argue that blunt objects such as baseball bats or metal pipes can be even MORE deadly than guns. If someone is trying to kill someone else with a blunt object, more than likely they'll hit them in the head. Multiple blows to the head from a blunt object can cause serious skull fractures and concussions that can result in concussions, comatose, and often death. This on top of bone fractures and internal bleeding from blunt force trauma can make blunt objects just as deadly as guns, although more effort is certainly required. Conclusion? There are other methods of murder that will be used and will suffice to kill someone without needing a gun. "First of all an important thing to mention is kleck's study was in 1995, before all of these mass shootings occurred. Bottom line is that I have already mentioned many shootings that occurred recently including the very recent shooting that occurred at Santa Monica College on friday. At this point, my opponent has not provided anything as recent as 1997. So even though your numbers from 16 years ago maybe higher, more and more shootings are occurring and they are with guns." 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. https://www.ncjrs.gov... 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). http://megafrontier.com... http://www.motherjones.com... 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. "If I have to advocate a complete gun ban I think you should advocate a case where it is easy to get guns." Done. Simply look up the current US gun laws and you'll find its quite easy, right at this second, to get a gun. There's currently no gun registration, no background checks for private sales, and millions of illegal guns flooding the streets. Whether we should change any of this is another debate, but nonetheless my case for easy firearms acquisition is the current US gun system. "How is this relevant? So what if they get medical attention? Point is they are not dying. The fact remains that a gun is 30 times more deadly because the number of deaths are around 30 times higher." I showed earlier in this round that knives can be extremely deadly, although not as deadly as guns. I'm not really sure where you got the 30 times more deadly from though... "You spent about two paragraphs explaining how a gun is better than knife for self defense. This is without a doubt true. But with guns the attacker could take the gun from the defender and kill him. You also mention that knife fighting is difficult. I agree with this but you could run away and just use swing the knife if he catches up but by then you might be able to get help. I am not saying no deaths would occur but the way it is laid out it is safe to assume less deaths would occur this way." 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. Next, you can and SHOULD by all means try to run away and call the police if your being attacked. The gun is there so that if the police can't get there fast enough, if you can't run away, you can still defend yourself, especially if your opponent is bigger and stronger or if there are multiple opponents. Also as someone who has taken self-defense I implore you to use a taser, mace or even a bat instead of a knife. Knives are some of the worst defensive weapons, tasers are the next best after guns (the only problem with tasers is they can only handle one opponent at a short distance and don't frighten away intruders). 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. Recall Kleck's study, where he says approximately 162,000 people would have died had they not had a firearm. Including mass shootings, there are around 10,000 gun murders each year. Guns most certainly make it easier to kill people, but they also make it much more likely for you to successfully defend yourself. If there is any merit to Kleck's study, guns are used far more often to SAVE lives when being used in self-defense than they are to kill someone else. I don't have much space left to return some more comments you made, but I'll end with this. 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. Guns make it much more likely for the average person to successfully defend themselves, and most criminals will not give up committing crimes because they don't have a gun.