Citizens Should Be Permitted To Own Guns

"The implication I got from this statement is that if we banned guns all deaths that were accomplished with guns wouldn't have occurred, or 30,000 less people would die each year. This is simply false, even if it did decrease the number of people who died there would still be some people who substituted guns for other methods. If someone premeditates a murder, instead of using a gun they would use some other object such as a knife or a bat. Let's look at each category." Basically my opponent is arguing that banning guns would not significantly prevent the deaths because there are other means. Here's the thing though, no one could go really far with a knife. It is really hard for me to kill a large aggregate of people with a knife, without someone taking away the knife. So after someone kills the first person some people will either run and he would have to catch each individual, or try to take the knife away. Point is, no massacre could occur. I don't anything like the Sandy hook elementary could occur. "Very few people die from accidental gun discharges, and surprisingly Australia saw an increase in accidental gun deaths after their 1996 gun ban." Uh, according to what you said in round 1, this should be disregarded because you said we are assuming the blanket gun ban would work and people would not obtain guns. Gun Suicide I basically concede to this point. I don't think banning guns would significantly decrease because like you said, it is easy to kill yourself meaning there are many means of doing so. The only thing I would argue is that shooting yourself is a pretty quick death and I guess not as scary as jumping off a building. Gun Murders Ah now we are getting down to business. "If we banned all guns then it makes sense that we wouldn't see any gun murders. This does NOT mean less people are being killed however, because people will substitute for other methods. Human beings have been killing each other for a very long time, we will still find ways to murder one another." Unestablished and unproven point. True that other methods will be used, but it is undeniably harder to kill a larger aggregate of people without a gun. And also, just like the argument is used that to protect yourself from people with guns you need guns, so the same could be used. To protect yourself from people with knives, you use knives. "What I cannot argue is that guns most certainly make it MUCH easier to kill other people. However, they also make it MUCH easier for private citizens to defend themselves, and the extra lives saved from defensive gun uses must be weighed against the extra number of murders caused by private gun ownership." This maybe true when criminals have guns but not in the circumstances you mentioned where a complete gun ban would work. When a man just has a knife and you have a knife, you could run and have he comes close you swing your knife so I don't is any harder here. Instead of gun vs gun, it is knife vs knife. And even now, most Americans don't own guns but almost all own knives. Australia and Britain First of all thank you so much for saying where in the source you found your information it's very helpful. But the reason could be simply they weren't banning it well and in round one you said that the gun ban would work. American Gun Crime and Firearm Self-Defense "Typically all that is needed is to show the perpetrator the gun and they run away," Okay but if the perpetrator doesn't have a gun, the home owner won't die without the gun. He might get robbed but probably not killed. "Additionally, many defensive gun uses are probably illegal, but not necessarily immoral. An example could include a women illegally carrying a concealed handgun to defend herself against a rapist. What she did was most certainly illegal, but if it prevented her from being raped then it was not immoral." I find this irrelevant. Maybe you want to explain the relevance and prove me wrong? "Unless I'm mistaken LaL36, 162,000 is a larger number than 30,000, so I haven't lost quite yet." I concede that you haven't lost YET :) But that 30,000 is what some sort of control and regulation of gun. I assume since I have to advocate a complete gun ban you have to advocate a case where it is easy to get guns not neccessarily where there are no rules whatsoever, but where it is easy to obtain a gun at least easier than it is now. So maybe that 30,000 would be even higher. "If we look at Kleck's study where he it says that 162,000 people would have died had a gone not been present," I don't get what it's based on you haven't said. I'm sorry but you can't just throw a source and make me read that really long study, that is your job not mine. Thank you for your response and Good luck to you in the next round :).