All firearms should be banned.

My opponent made some fairly good points and pointed out many issues I failed to identify. He also pointed out that the 2.5 million times guns are used in self-defense is my only positive impact I managed to provide on guns. I noticed my opponent overwhelmingly cites other sources rather than my method of theorizing and analyzing. I will adjust my argument as such in this last round. 1. My opponent seems to be confused what the definition of "self defense" really is. In my own words, self defense is simply the prevention of bodily harm of oneself from a threat. Pro himself stated some instances of "self defense" that were rather absurd in how they were told, which I fully agree with. However, the scenarios would be great examples of self-defense only if the men who were scared off were actually threatening either of the people brandishing guns. We can't let plain stupidity like this be the reason that guns are prohibited if they ever are. Guns can be used by others to protect others as stated by Larry Elder: "...Moore, legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, pulled out his gun, and shot and killed the ex-husband. Ms. Cordoba survived the brutal attack and is recovering from her wounds." (Elder) Larry Elder also criticizes how Dr. Kellerman, who stated the risk of homicide is greater with a gun in the home (which my opponent stated several times), failed to include some factors, which he identified, making his argument obsolete. "The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's website displays this oft-quoted "fact": "The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns." Their website fails to mention that Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the "expert" who came up with that figure, later backpedaled after others discredited his studies for failing to follow standard scientific procedures. According to the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Kellermann now concedes, "A gun can be used to scare away an intruder without a shot being fired," admitting that he failed to include such events in his original study. "Simply keeping a gun in the home," Kellermann says, "may deter some criminals who fear confronting an armed homeowner." He adds, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide – i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat." Police, with or without guns, cannot be there in time to protect someone from a crime. Whether the person is under attack by a family member, a friend, a neighbor, or lover is irrelevant. As stated: "Police officers are armed precisely because guns are an effective means of protecting life and preventing violence. However, police can't always be there when a violent crime is in progress -- in fact, criminals plan it that way. Nor would it be desirable to grant police a monopoly over armed self-defence." (Joly) My opponent stated that between 1976-2005, 14% of murders were "stranger." Using information from DisasterCenter about murders between those years, I have averaged and estimated the number of murder per year in the this time period to 23771. Again using math, my opponent states that a 20444 of those murders are from a non-stranger. I also acknowledge that self-defense is NOT included in the equation. While it is commonly believed guns are only used for taking lives, they are also used for hobbies, such as trap-shooting, target shooting, and hunting (which is necessary in order to survive for some people). According to UnitedJustice, 114 people, or 41610 people, die a year from car accidents. According to DrugWarFacts, every tobacco kills 435,000 people, and alcohol kills 85000. I am aware of the inconsistency of car deaths between UnitedJusice and DrugWarFacts, but the numbers are still higher than guns. Even though my opponent makes good points about domestic violence, he continually alienates gun deaths compared to many other things that kill a larger number of people. However, my actual argument toward the non-stranger murders remains the fact that the right to self defense should not be taken away. Pro emphasizes every situation as the participants in the altercations are blatantly having firearms during their argument, but as seen above Dr. Kellerman excluded many factors that he later identified. Even if people are murdered by familiar people, they are no different than a criminal, because "battery" as my opponent would say, would make the family member/friend/neighbor/etc. a criminal. It's quite sensible for a person with a disadvantage, such as a 120lb woman with a violent, 250lb pro-wrestler as a husband, to have some sort of self defense method, which may include a gun. In scenarios where a non-stranger blatantly attacks, breaks in, robs, etc. a victim, just because they are a family member does not make the idea of self defense with a gun obsolete. The fact stated by Pro that violent altercations that are made 7 times more dangerous by a gun is limited by the numbers it shows above. It should be left to the discretion of the people involved in any situations both my opponent and I have mentioned on what to do, what not to do, and how to do it. With or without guns, the altercations could still become deadly in a variety of cases including but not limited to blunt objects, physical size and strength, etc. My opponent's ideas as only a hope no one is killed or injured in the event a deadly altercation whether or not it involves a gun. 2. I have noticed that my opponent acknowledged many possibilities of what could happen in the aftermath of a gun bath. The next paragraph works in conjunction with my previous argument, and should be compared as such. My opponent states that 5.5% of the 7 billion people on Earth own a gun, which equates to 385 million people. My opponent states his points as if this many people will hand over their guns, and all who don't will be found and persecuted over a long period of time. What my opponent and I both neglected to mention was that many people are dedicated to their right to bear arms, such as the United States and the Bill of Rights, or Switzerland and their requirement to own a gun. The number of people with guns outnumbers the combined world military. It should be a safe assumption that the members of said military powers who observe their rights may break away and become renegade, providing an advantage with any stolen military equipment that could be commandeered, along with the overwhelming number of people who will not give up their weapons. The search and seizure of weapons, driving up of gun costs, and an overall long-term effort to disarm citizens, as my opponent had stated, would result in a disastrous and deadly wave of protest, which in turn could lead to rioting, which may eventually lead to a full-scale rebellion. Despite whether the governments or rebels are victorious, the effects would be devastating on the people and the economy of the world, which ultimately would cost many more lives than the gun ban was meant to save. An almost guaranteed assumption would be that gun owners will not go down without a fight. Illicit guns was a rather tricky topic to debate, since both my opponent and I are speculating "what would happen." Note that since I purely speculated about the economic results, and I did not cite sources for it. I wish my opponent luck in the last round, and the voting period. Citations: http://www.wnd.com... http://www.pierrelemieux.org... http://www.realclearpolitics.com... http://www.disastercenter.com... http://drugwarfacts.org... http://www.unitedjustice.com... http://www.legal-explanations.com... http://www.americanthinker.com...