Firearms licences should not be granted to members of the public

With many thanks to my opponent for his eloquent and inform reply, I should like to state that I do not agree that self-defence is a legitimate reason to own a gun. People are entitled to defend their homes and families, of course, but allowing them to use firearms to do so makes the householder the judge, jury and executioner of an intruder. The penalty for burglary is rightly severe, but it is not the death penalty. Whatever punishment is handed down to an offender should be the responsibility of the courts, not the victim. That is why farmer Tony Martin, who shot an unarmed burglar, was sent to jail. http://www.guardian.co.uk... However, that was in England, in the US things are different, but even in Texas you can be sent to jail for shooting trespassers. For example, when Gayle and Sheila Muhs opened fire on two vehicles they believed were violating their property rights, killing a 7 year-old boy in the process, Liberty County Sheriff's Department Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor described the shooting was the most "violent reaction to something so blatantly, blatantly minor" he'd ever seen. http://abcnews.go.com... It is this type of incident that demonstrates the lethal consequences of allowing ordinary people to own such dangerous weapons. Moving on, I am indebted to my opponent for pointing out that elite marksmen have their guns made bespoke and therefore a rented gun would not be good enough for them. I did not realise this. However, the sporting pleasures of a privileged few should not outweigh the security of the many and I'm afraid that moneyed gunslingers will just have to endure the hardship of shooting off-the-shelf firearms instead. However, I do agree with my opponent that, in terms of crime, it is necessary to tackle the root cause of the problem rather than blame firearms for high murder rates. However, in areas where there are high rates of crime, the availability of legal weapons often increases the seriousness of offences and also serves to elevate the fear of crime among law-abiding citizens. For example, if an intruder believes that there is a possibility that the householder may be armed, he is likely to raise the stakes by going in tooled up himself. Indeed, a burglar may even pre-empt an armed response by hunting down the occupants of the property and shooting them in order to enable him to carry out the robbery unmolested. Of course, householders are aware of this and, as a consequence, are often unable to rest easy in their own homes at night. More generally, crimes such as drive-by shootings are difficult to execute without guns, as are armed robberies. More mundanely, pub fights are less violent when the weapons are pool cues and broken bottles rather than, say Glock 26's and Walther PP's. In conclusion, under the responsible stewardship of law-abiding person the possession of a gun may cause few problems. However, when these problems do arise, the consequences are catastrophic. This was demonstrated last week in Cumbria as it is on a depressingly frequent basis on the campuses of schools and colleges in the United States. The fact that most people are responsible and can be trusted with a gun is of little consolation to the families of the victims of gun owners who suddenly lost their tempers and opened fire on innocent people. That is why gun licences should not be granted to ordinary members of the public. Thank you.