New Member Tournament: Gun Rights Debate

ARGUMENTS1) Increases risk and fearPro does not argue against this. I understand if he wants to make a short closing. But he provided no rebuttal at all to the fact that increasing gun use does not make people feel safe. More guns floating around in society increases risk to individuals. It also increases risk of suicides. I have shown suicides to be impulsive, so the person committing suicide would have changed their mind if they did not have that easy access to a gun. This just proves my point that guns kill people, not people, because without the gun, there would not have been a killing.2) Criminals obtain guns easilyThe source I showed was a study to determine how criminals get their guns. The entire US population can't be part of the study. Also, Pro gave no competing evidence, instead speculating on how criminals steal guns with no sources whatsoever, so my evidence stands. "as you said, it’s a simple process and almost impossible to catch the criminals behind it, criminals can get guns regardless of strict gun control laws. "Pro completely misrepresents what I said. I didn't say that it was impossible to catch criminals who obtain guns illegally. What I said was: It is impossible to catch someone doing straw purchases. Recall that Straw purchases occur when a criminals friend or family members buys a gun (legally) and gives it to the criminal (which is illegal). The Right to Carry allows the friends and family of criminals to buy guns undetected and pass it on to the criminal. Without the legal right to carry guns, we can prevent 46% of the guns from getting into the hands of criminals. So this is a huge disadvantage of the RTC. And since Pro provided no other evidence for how criminals get guns, my contention that the biggest chunk (46%) of the criminals get their guns through straw purchases stands. 3) Increased domestic violence It is not conclusive whether someone the gun-owner knows will have access to their house. Some would, some wouldn't. Those that would should definitely be added to the list of family members making it even bigger. Even if they are not added, the percentage of victims murdered by family members is still greater than the percentage of victims murdered by strangers. So, on balance, having a gun in the house is worse. Also, extend that self-defense against the surprise attacks of strangers is not effective (although a family member can easily take the gun and murder the victim in their sleep). Pro doesn't address the UCLA study which shows that having a gun in the home increases risk for being shot fatally or committing suicide with a firearm at a ratio of 1.41 is to 1. With this, I have proven that people shouldn't be keeping guns at home as it isn't safe. REBUTTALS1) Self Defense from PolicePro does not address my point that brandishing a firearm at a cop will do more harm than good. This is not a benefit of the RTC, if anything, it is a harm. As for the point about the Nazi's, Pro doesn't address the fact that likelihood must be taken into consideration, and effectively drops this point. Extend both points.2) Self Defense from Criminals(A) "an 8-year-old sees 2 men raping and assaulting his mom one night, his dad isn’t there, he phones 911, but he’s a child and he has no idea what to say, what are the possibilities that the operator will believe him? " Well, far more likely than the 8 year old finding his father's/mother's gun, having the courage to point it at the attacker, and actually aiming right and hitting the attacker rather than his mom. Should 8 year olds get training on how to use a gun? The point here is that even with a gun in the house, the only sensible thing for the 8 year old to do would be to call the police. Expecting a kid to handle a gun correctly is completely unreasonable. In the scenario, two men are raping his mom, they must be moving around quite a bit. Do you really think he would correctly aim and shoot? Shooting his mom by accident adds to my argument about risk. This is precisely why more guns floating around in society is worse for society as a whole. (B) Police protectionCon doesn't deny that police response time is short. Just waiting that short time is better. I must add that having a gun in the house might actually encourage kids to use them in the scenario above and shoot their mom by accident. So, that is a disadvantage of the RTC. Without RTC, there is no possibility of these accidents hapenning. "with guns near your reach, you can stop the perpetrator from taking your life"Just an assertion, no proof. I have shown that self-defence is ineffective due to surprise attacks. The gun have the gun taken away and turned on them. The American Journal of Public Health concludes that a person with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault than one without a gun. Pro offered no competing evidence. Pro makes a case about Warren v DC in round 2 which he uses to say that police have no responsibility to protect citiznes. I refuted it showing that it actually says "no special responsibility to any individual" but still a responsibility to the public. In Warren v DC, the police arrived at the victims house but were sued anyway. Pro drops the study. Again, I do understand that he wanted to make a short closing but dropped many points that were refuted by me.3) Crime DeterrentPro cites John Lott saying that RTC deters crime. I have explained in great detail how Lott was using fraudulent data and offered a competing study from the Journal of the American Institute for Economic Research showing that RTC actually increases instances of aggravated assault. Pro made no attempt to defend Lott, neither did he offer any other evidence corroborating Lott's claims presumably because there isn't any. How can there be when John Lott Phd. was using falsified data to prove his claims? In summary, the Right to Carry does not deter crimes but increases them. This point is enough to show that the disadvantages of the Right to Carry outweigh its benefits. Pro also says that people feel safer having a gun which I refuted many times. Pro doesn't deny that 59% of people actually feel less safe, only 12% feel more safe with guns in the community. 4) Sport Pro still offers no evidence, and shows no unique benefits of the RTC. He says that shooting sports can be used for training but its effectiveness is dubious because of my point about surprise attacks. Pro's "Closing"Pro says that statistical evidence can be inaccurate. Yes, it can as I have clearly shown John Lott's study to be falsified. I have also presented far more reliable sources which Con doesn't refute. "I did state some arguments based on statistics, it’s just to add more effect to what I’m arguing, but we need to assume that guns do save lives, people kill, guns don’t. It all depends on the person using it. "I fail to understand how making assumptions is better than using statistics to prove general trends. Statistics must be analyzed, and their deficiecies examined and defended within a debate, rather than ditching statistics in favor of mere assumption. "regardless of statistics, depriving guns away from the public doesn’t lessen the criminals. "I have already ahown that criminals get guns from their family and friends who are able to buy guns because of the right to carry. So, yes, it will lessen crime as I have proved above. "If an armed assailant has knowledge of his victim being unarmed . . "I already pointed out that it is just as likely that the assailant would shoot because the person is armed to protect himself. This increases risk of violence escalating and someone being killed. ConclusionGuns do not deter crime but rather increase it, they don't make people feel safer, they in fact, make most people feel less safe, they are not effective for self-defense due to surprise attacks. The disadvantages of the RTC greatly outweigh its benefits. jm_notguilty, it was a pleasure debating with you.