July Tournament

Guns are a tool, and like any tool, it depends on how it is used. There are major pitfalls with America's "gun culture", but, as the saying goes, guns are not the problem, people are. Unfortunately, guns are a necessary evil in today's society, but banning guns in the USA would only put more people at risk in various ways. I. Absurdity and Catch-22 If the USA were to eliminate all guns, that would leave our military, police, secret service, bounty hunters, and even private bodyguards very underpowered in the event the "enemy" has one for obvious reasons. The resolution states all guns are to be banned, which clearly would include them. In the event Pro did not mean this, then Pro acknowledges the necessity of firearms for these people to combat whatever threat necessities the gun's presence. Whether that be a gang uprising, a terrorist attack, an assassination attempt, or just a run of the mill traffic stop gone bad, clearly there would be reason for police to carry firearms. Why does Pro feel that these people are allowed to carry firearms, and not others? If the government allows these to use firearms, why not allow others that are deemed worthy to possess them, such as off-duty or retired police officers to protect against revenge plots by gangsters, random burglars, or even rapists targeting either them or someone in their proximity? Again, this further states there is a danger to citizens outside of uniform, and, again, a firearm is the solution. So, logically, ordinary citizens are in danger from threats as well, or could use them to protect others. As such, Pro is either stating that guns either must be eliminated 100% by ALL Americans, or he is admitting the lack of guns puts the nation, law enforcement, and the general public itself at some risk to which firearm possession mitigates. II. Protection It is often cited that guns are for protection, and they are an equalizer. While this is true, it is often glossed over what this means. It protects in more than just shooting people, it can shoot things, and it can diffuse a situation by restoring the balance of power. In a world without guns, strength in numbers is just as overwhelming as brute strength. A woman approach by three men with intent on raping her is more likely to be gangraped than if she was approached by a lone would-be rapist. A gun can equalize the situation. Further, defensive gun use has been shown to protect individuals and stop crime. A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700. ” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 . http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... Using Pro's numbers and sources, this means that guns prevent or mitigate more crimes than guns are used to murder, accidentally shoot, or use for suicide. This is clearly a net benefit. III. All firearms are not created equal and neither are their purposes There is a world of difference between a fully automatic machine gun, a handgun, and a rifle, and there are a variety of uses. Aside from protection, guns are used to simply shoot. .. .anything. It can be used for hunting, used for sport like skeet, or just a way to have fun and shoot a target. They can be a displayed and revered for historical purposes, they can offer piece of mind, and they can be used to blow off steam. Pro wants to eliminate all the uses for guns, harmless or beneficial as they may be. I suppose Pro wants the rancher to use a bow and arrow to fend off bears, coyotes, wolfs, rabbits, and prairie dogs, as well as any human poachers or thieves. Gone will be the days of hunting deer or pheasants for meat. And those people in rural or desolate areas where help is not around the corner, well, they better be able to fend off their attacker by sheer wits and strength - it is not a surprise that Alaska and South Dakota have nearly a 100% higher rape rate than other states where populations are more concentrated. In fact, most rural states have a higher rape rate than urban states. . https://www.fbi.gov... IV. Not all crimes use guns, but all criminals prefer to avoid guns As mentioned before, a gun can be an equalizer, and many crimes are committed without guns. For example, let's take the husband that beats his wife routinely. No gun. But, if she had a gun, or a friend had a gun, they could put a stop to this behavior by merely threatening action. In the crimes that the culprits do not have a gun, a gun likely trumps their power, and they will retreat, looking for easier prey, or hopefully, rethink their lives. Criminals often seek easy prey, for whatever their goal is: whether it is to simply rob someone for quick cash, steal some smokes at a gas station, or even if it is just to outright kill someone, randomly or otherwise. This is most noticeable in mass shootings that habitually occur in "gun-free" zones, such as schools, malls, theaters, and even military bases (which have guns, but they are not readily available). In the last five years, mass shootings occurred in gun-free zones 92% of the time. . http://www.breitbart.com... V. Conclusion Gun ownership has increased from 1992 to 2011, and the rate of violent crimes has fallen nearly 50%, the firearm murder rate dropped 39%, and criminal gun use lowered as well 69%. . http://jpfo.org... Also, in this time, there has been "pro-gun legislation", such as "stand your ground" - which allows more leniency for victims to defend themselves instead of making them retreat, repeals of city-wide gun bans in Washington D. C. and New York City, and the wider acceptance of conceal carry laws. In other words, being a criminal is more dangerous than it used to, and as a result, crime has gone down. Clearly, guns are not the problem, it's the way people use them - like with any other tool known to man.