Severe Gun Control.

My opponent first talks about a 9 year old shooting her instructer however I'm gone ask the audience first would stopping a 9 year old from using a gun really be severe gun control? Severe is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as ' very great; intense:' -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... having said that let's examine what Pro is saying , he is trying to make the claim that gun control is needed because 1 instructer has died . The fact that this story is popular shows how isolated the case itself is . That scenario is such an incredibly isolated case that it cannot serve as an argument for severe gun control , as this simply does not happen often. The Logic here is 1)A girl shot her instructor 2) Don't allow gun training for children , This would only be a reasonable approach if such a scenario happened often , it is not reasonable to stop millions of parents from making sure their children can defend themselves not just from criminals but from a possibility of a future tyrannical state because one instructor died due to his own stupidity. (For more info for why it's the Instructors fault - ) . ' There have been other incidents such as a man in Florida, shot a person for having to be on the phone while being in a movie. Apprantly, a police officer who did this was not a criminal. He had a spotless reocord and he was being threatened. (Apprantly, being threatened means being thrown popcorn at). The trigger was fired and a life was taken away.' Gun Free zones are often the reason why shootings occur in places like Cinema's , some would claim it to be the main reason. Holmes, the Aurora shooter, for example , had 7 theaters to choose from . He did not choose the one that was the closest to him but he chose the only one that had signs banning concealed handguns. -() (13 minute mark ) . What would happen if in that cinema the person shot had a gun to defend himself with? maybe the story would be completly different and again this is a very isolated case . Guns are used much more often in the name of Self-Defense - 'According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are about 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America every year.' -() (around 16 minute mark). (http://rense.com...). Now let's go into the second part of Pro's arguments . 'Now, this part of my argument holds no evidence, but I would like to bring it up. Now, morally speaking, a person being attacked, is morally better than a person being dead. (Speaking from a moral point of view, not a personal). If a person was attacked, there are other forms of defense as well such as pepper spray. (Which I will go deeper into my argument later). Some forms of weapons, do not kill and thus making them morally superior. If another person had a gun, then it would turn into a gun fight, resluting in more deaths if in public. Again, this part of my argument were mostly assumptions so I will not go into it any deeper.' Is a person attacking really entitled to not being killed? should he expect to be treated with respect? Guns are more effective in dealing with criminals (Assesment of the effectiveness of pepper spray - http://www.safetyed.org... ) . Do you think a criminal is likely to be scared of robbing someone's house if they have pepper spray or do you think they are more likely not to rob someone if they know that the person has a gun? . 'The National Rifle Association estimates, based on data from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country. ' -(http://thomas.loc.gov...) . 'it does not mean that if you do not have a gun, and someone breaks into your house, your done for. There are other forms of defense such as' I just showed using statistics that guns are more effective. ' This is a form of gun control---increasing age. As I stated beofore, a nine year old had shot an insutrctor in the head. Gun ages vary from different ranges. In 30 states, a child or minor can own a rifle or shotgun. Which is one of the reasons why there should be some form of gun control. . .Increase the age so perhaps child related accidents do not occur.' I have already addressed this at the beginning of my rebuttals . I would just like to remind my opponent we are debating 'severe' gun control not just increased gun control . My opponent asks me to elaborate on 'severe' , However I posted the definition from the Oxford Dictionary which will hopefully be enough information. Many Thanks . SebUK