Citizens Should Be Permitted To Own Guns

"If you focus solely on mass killings, no doubt guns make it much harder to kill many more people. Australia saw hasn't seen much in the way of mass killings since they banned guns. However you must weigh the total extra people killed as a result of owning guns versus the total people who have been or could be saved by guns. Remember, our goal (should be) to reduce as many people killed as possible. Roughly 50 people are killed each year in mass shootings. Given the results of the Australian and British gun bans, the chances of there being a high rate of substitution for single killings is likely to be high. " Bottom line is most murders are used with guns. You said substitution for other methods would occur but none can be comparable to the use of a gun. "How many extra people die as a result of citizens owning guns? I don't think anyone has an exact answer to this, but there will be a high substitution rate so perhaps not too many. Nonetheless the Kleck Study estimated 162,000 people would have died had they not had a gun to defend themselves. No doubt this number is an overestimate, but even if only 10% of the cases were true, 16,000 people were saved by guns whereas at MOST around 11,000 people would be saved if we did not have guns (assuming the substitutions rate is 0). That means, if we're extremely generous, 5,000 less murders as a result of private firearm ownership." First of all an important thing to mention is kleck's study was in 1995, before all of these mass shootings occurred. Bottom line is that I have already mentioned many shootings that occurred recently including the very recent shooting that occurred at Santa Monica College on friday. At this point, my opponent has not provided anything as recent as 1997. So even though your numbers from 16 years ago maybe higher, more and more shootings are occurring and they are with guns. And also like I mentioned before my numbers are still with some sort of regulation. If I have to advocate a complete gun ban I think you should advocate a case where it is easy to get guns. "Also, the mass knifing sprees tend to discredit the deadliness of knives. The main reason those people don't tend to die is because they usually get immediate medical attention afterwards and the would-be killer isn't focusing on killing as much as stabbing as many people as possible. As far as using a knife to kill someone, they are still quite deadly. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1,694 people were killed by knives in 2011." How is this relevant? So what if they get medical attention? Point is they are not dying. The fact remains that a gun is 30 times more deadly because the number of deaths are around 30 times higher. Your argument against my argument of knife against knife. You spent about two paragraphs explaining how a gun is better than knife for self defense. This is without a doubt true. But with guns the attacker could take the gun from the defender and kill him. You also mention that knife fighting is difficult. I agree with this but you could run away and just use swing the knife if he catches up but by then you might be able to get help. I am not saying no deaths would occur but the way it is laid out it is safe to assume less deaths would occur this way. "Given that Australians and Britains didn't use guns for self-defense nearly as often as American do, it is likely that we could see many more people killed if we completely banned guns." Alright truthfully I am ignorant about this so please provide a source for this so I can analyze it. If Britain's gun ban was successful there were no deaths with guns? "Unfortunately criminals don't act rationally as far as their victims are concerned. The rational thing to do, obviously, would be get their valuables and leave them alone. If they intended to kill you, rationally they would have done it right away and stolen your valuables off your corpse. But criminals aren't always rational, if they take your stuff without harming you they may still decide to kill you are injure you afterwards." Why is it relevant if criminals act rational? "Ultimately the means by which you are least likely to experience harm, as long as they already don't have a knife to your throat or a gun to your head, is to present a gun." Agreed. I am not arguing that but I would rather have a world where citizens don't own guns because as of now I don't have a gun and many shootings have occurred. I don't think as many people would try to kill someone or rob someone with a knife because I don't think that many people have the confidence to go far with a knife. And also another good reason for a gun ban is think about how much easier it is for police. Any criminal with a knife, they just draw their gun as oppose for them to have shootings. Imagine if the people responsible for the Boston Bombing didn't have a gun; no policeman would have been killed or injured. Personally, I would rather go knife versus knife against a criminal because 1. By the time he breaks down my door the police will be on their way. 2. I could run and I am pretty fast but not everyone is so that is irrelevant. 3. You could threaten to call the police as he is breaking the door down. To summarize, you have so many more options in a knife versus knife situation than a gun versus gun situation. And in a gun versus gun situation if you end up shooting, you might have to go to court to defend yourself and deal with murder on your hands but in a knife versus knife situation there is a less of a chance that anyone gets killed. So I feel this is a better outcome.