Guns should be more difficult to obtain

Final Round Also, since Pro has mentioned it, I feel I should point out that round 5 is the final round, and per the rules of the debate, I will provide no new evidence or refutations. In fact, I intend to offer no arguments or refutations whatsoever in the final round (also per the debate rules) and will simply type “no arguments as agreed” with perhaps some sort of departing salutation. If Pro intended round 4 to be the last round for Con, then he should have stated that clearly in the opening round. As written, it can be ambiguously interpreted in different ways. I might have planned on new arguments in round 4, since it is not the last round of the debate. Fortunately, I had no intentions other than to continue developing previous arguments and refutations. I encourage the voters to consider docking conduct as necessary if Pro attempts any shenanigans in regards to this issue in the final round. Suicide? Pro is still conflating suicides using guns with gun deaths due to criminal activity. He has not shown that reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of suicides. I agree a reduction of guns will reduce suicides using guns, but what about suicides overall? Let’s say we ban guns, will we reduce a particular method of suicide and the overall suicide rate drops or will we simply reduce a particular method of suicide? If banning guns does not reduce the number of suicides, then we have sacrificed the many benefits of firearms to false statistics. My chart showing the preferred method of suicide in England (which has a gun ban) is rope in more than 50% of suicides. In other words, guns are not available but rope still is, and it is preferred as an efficient method by those wishing to take their lives. Pro still has a long way to go before he will show firearms have anything to do with suicides – at least as anything other than one method among many. Pro provides a bit of special pleading as to why rope as a method of suicide provides more “time to think” over a gun. Going down to your local Walmart, paying a small fee, driving back to your house, loading the gun and shooting yourself can take just as much time, if not more, than killing yourself with a rope. This is a weak argument from Pro. Failed Analogy As to Pro’s smuggler analogy, he fails to realize someone willing to break the law by smuggling would also be willing to deal with criminals willing to break the law (selling him guns illegally). He would have no need to buy guns legally, thus running end round the new laws Pro wishes to establish. These laws would be pointless in this regard. Pro is naïve if he believes guns bought legally need to be smuggled out of the country. Reasons for guns Guns protect people – Let us look at what the CDC says about how guns protect people: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i. e. , incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies… “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year. ”[1] Firearms provide a means of defense which is statistically less likely to end in injury than any other method. This particular method is used between 500,000 and 3 million times every year. For the sake of fairness, let’s take the average between the two (1.75 M). 1.75 million people defend themselves with guns every year. That means almost twice as many people are saved by guns than killed by them including suicide, and 4 times as many people are saved by firearms when suicide is rightly taken out of the statistics altogether. Basically, we can take Pro’s online magazine advocating against firearms with speculation, or we can take the study of the CDC on this issue. I view the CDC to be a much more objective source. Red herring Pro acknowledges his tactic of distraction in the genocide statement, but challenges: Does the tool not having true inherent morals really warrant us to give it out to someone who has "evil" intent? To which I would respond – Who is handicapped by legal restrictions, and who is not? The non-“evil”, or ‘righteous’ (to keep with the vernacular), are harrassed by legal restrictions more so than those willing to work outside of the law. Thus, banning/restricting guns hurts the ‘good’ more than the ‘bad’. Firearms for food Pro misinterprets my arguments or deliberately misrepresents it. I clearly stated hunting can help supplement the diets of rural societies in the US. That is not a generalization, as it is qualified. Secondly, utilitarianism will support hunting especially for population control. Killing an animal found close to human habitation can help decrease suffering in many ways. The general population of that species of animals will benefit by more chances for food, more chances for mates, and due to less competition there is less need for animals to venture into areas inhabited by humans (and their cars). In addition to this, if these prey animals are kept from close proximity to civilization, then we will also keep predators such as coyotes, bears, bobcats, etc. , from being in close proximity to humans – so human suffering is minimized as well. Lastly, the animal killed can be eaten by the exact same low income rural societies I mentioned in the last round or given to the needy. This decreases suffering for the gretest number. If this argument interests you, check out my animal rights debate. . http://www.debate.org... Forgive my shameless plug! Tyrannical government Pro misses the point of the Battle at Athens. It is not against the law to oust a corrupt government, and that is exactly what the GIs did. It is an excellent example of how Americans can use armed force in extreme cases. Firearms cannot be banned by the government thanks to the foresight of our founders. Just like the checks and balances built into the government branches, our forefathers built checks and balances between the governed and the government. Giving up or allowing firearms to be restricted is to give up power to the government and welcome tyranny. It is the inalienable right of liberty that firearms protect. Thus, It is quite relevant to this debate, especially if Pro is an advocate for gun bans. (which would be a significant means of restricting access to guns) Slippery slope Cars provide benefits for our society, but overall they actually take many more lives than guns. If we apply Pro’s logic and include all deaths attributed to methods of “driving around”, then self-controlled land transportation (ATV, motorcycle, automobile) are statistically far more dangerous (1 in 72 chance of death) as compared to assault by gun (1 in 300 chance of death), and should be restricted much more so than firearms. [2] Also Pro is using a graph (which I provided) that is not about the US – it is referring to statistics of suicide in England and Wales. He badly is misinterpreting it. Since I was unable to find any reliable statistics on police shootings (much less suicide by cop) I will drop my second example. Conclusion Firstly, I would like to point out, Pro has provided no laws which would be a significant restriction to obtaining guns. He suggested a new and improved back ground check which will ask the crucial question ‘What do you need a gun for? ’ His background check sounds no different than the ones we currently have in place, except they don’t ask a question already answered by the Constitution. Secondly, Pro advocates for non citizens being disallowed from possessing a gun, but this would make no noticeable difference for citizens of the US. Lastly, he suggested private transactions must be forced to complete a background check which essentially works on the honor system. We can expect law abiding citizens to follow this request, but it is completely useless for the purposes Pro desires. It would take a spectacularly stupid criminal to abide by this law knowing his name on a background check would be likely to set off a few flags on his transaction. Criminals would simply ignore this law just as they might neglect to pay taxes on cash transactions. Pro's current arguments have failed, and he is allowed no new arguments in the final round, just as he reminded me. This would disallow any additional suggestions for laws or more reasons why guns should be more difficult to obtain. Keep him honest voters! Has Pro shown guns should be significantly more difficult to obtain? No, not in the least. He has used skewed statistics by counting suicides, which will happen whether firearms are available or not, in with violent crimes. As I have pointed out, this is an unfair and is essentially demonizing a beneficial tool as little more than an instrument of suicide. I have established 3 ways in which guns are extremely beneficial: 1. Protection – Firearms are used many times more often to protect than intentionally harm. 2. Hunting – Population control of prey animals serves a definite purpose. From a utilitarian view, it decreases the overall suffering of animals and humans in a major way. Thus, it has a strong benefit. 3 Tyranny – Firearms are the people’s power against a corrupt government. The intentional premature deaths of those without hope should not be used to damn those who continue on. Suicides should not be used to bring about the death throes of life (right to life = right to protect it), liberty (freedom from tyrants), or the pursuit of happiness (utilitarian reduction of suffering). Back to you, Pro! [1] . http://www.cnsnews.com... [2] . http://www.medhelp.org...