Gun rights

To clarify, we aren’t debating about whether guns are good. In a controlled environment, I can even agree that guns can be awesome. [1] I disagree, however, that gun rights are a good idea. To the contrary, enshrining a “right” for every individual to actually own deadly weapons is incredibly stupid and dangerous.1. More guns leads to more violent crimeThe most obvious reason there shouldn't be a right to gun ownership is the simple fact that guns facilitate violent crime. International studies have shown that homicide rates are strongly correlated with firearm availability. [2] The United States - with some of the most lax gun laws in the world - not surprisingly has one of the highest murder-per-capita rates. The explanation for this isn't very complicated. A criminal with a gun is obviously far more dangerous than a criminal with an inferior weapon. Guns empower would-be criminals to attempt crimes they otherwise wouldn't. Guns also act as a deadly catalyst in confrontational situations that would otherwise result in a mere fight. With guns, drunken arguments can escalate into homicide at the blink of an eye.It comes as no suprise, then, that almost all police unions support stronger gun control laws.2. More guns leads to more suicidesThe second argument against gun rights is the fact that gun ownership dramatically increases the likelihood of successful suicide attempts. My opponent argued that people can attempt to commit suicide by a variety of means, but guns present the most effective method of suicide. While more than 90% of suicide attempts using a gun are successful, the success rate for jumping from high places was only 34%, while the success rate for deliberate drug overdoses was only 2%. [3] Again, with its notoriously lax gun laws, it comes as no surpise that the United States has the highest per capita suicide rate in the world. [4]3. Guns provide little redeeming value to justify their dangerAs the statistics from my first argument demonstrate, widespread gun ownership causes far more crime that it actually deters. My opponent bears the burden of showing otherwise, but he hasn't.4. There are safer alternatives to gun ownershipMy opponent mentioned that people own guns for (1) protection, (2) target shooting, and (3) hunting, but those needs can be fulfilled in safer alternatives. For example, people can still go target shooting or hunting by temporarily renting weapons from a facility. And people could protect themselves through home security systems or self-defense classes. In any event, clamping down on the availability of guns (as police unions strongly support) makes people safer regardless of what safety measures they take on their own.5. Gun ownership is not a human rightIn the last round, my opponent pointed out that “the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” While I wouldn’t characterize a bitterly divided 5 - 4 decision as a “definitive” holding [5], my opponent is indisputably correct that private gun ownership is a right currently protected by the U.S. ConstitutionBut why does that matter? The same Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment also drafted another provision requiring states to return fugitive slaves back to their owners, [6] so the U.S. Constitution can hardly be considered an infallible authority on the nature of liberty or justice. If my opponent wishes to make a legal argument that applies to the other 95% of people on Earth, a better question to ask is as follows: is there a human right to own guns? Here, the answer is an unequivocal NO. Gun rights aren't codified in any Due to time constraints, I must unfortunately pause my argument and wait until Round 3. So sorry. Sources:[1] http://www.youtube.com...[2] http://www.gun-control-network.org...;[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...;[4][5] [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7]