Gun Rights

My points in this debate will be structured as follows:R2: Opening contentions, discussion of monopoly on force, breaching of such, basicsR3: Rebuttal, further substantativeR4: Rebuttal and summaryOn to the debate.Governmental monopoly on forceLet's consider what this means, and why it's important, then we'll move onto discussion of the paradigms of the USA and Britain, and why there are fewer knife deaths per million in Britain versus America, and why there are more gun deaths per million by 138 times in America[1], while the total crime rate is actually 25% more in Britain than America[2], but the murder rate in Britain is still 4 times less than America[3].Most non-anarchist political theorists begin by stating that the state (usually in the form of a government) has a monopoly on force. This means pretty much that no non-governmental person (henceforth "actor") is permitted to initiate violence, except in self-defense. This is, for instance, why pretty much everyone can agree that the police should exist, in order for the state to use violence in the form of arresting people in order to stop them from initiating violence and therefore committing a crime. This is reasonable.Why guns matter to this paradigmThere will always be those who for whatever reason wish to breach the monopoly on force and commit a crime. It's not terribly effective to simply use your fists as a weapon to attempt to either assault or kill someone, and furthermore, as my opponent acknowledges, potential criminals who wish to obtain a gun in the US are usually able to do so. Therefore, where the state monopoly on force is breached in America, where there is a larger proportion of crimes committed using a gun [4], it's breached with a gun as the deadly weapon. Con is absolutely right in stating that a gun is a tool - just like a knife. A gun has legitimate uses, like self-defense or hunting. A knife also has legitimate uses, like cooking or hunting. Make no mistake, a gun is a tool specifically engineered to kill people. It's very good at that.Conclusions we draw, therefore, from this and that statistics quoted above can only be one inexorable one. When a crime is committed with a gun - in the specific example, where more crimes are committed with a gun there are more deaths even though the violent crime rate is actually lower than the UK, a country with very strict gun regulation. The criminals have found another tool, but that tool is significantly less harmful and where the monopoly on force is breached, it kills fewer people per million.The United Kingdom and its relationship with gunsPerhaps this is an issue relating to "culture"? The Firearm Policy in the United Kingdom is that "All handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited. A few pistols are licensed on a Firearm Certificate for exactly the same reasons as the rest of Great Britain." In other words, pistols and rimfire rifles are tentatively permitted but very hard to get hold of. Knife possession, by the way, is also a crime that carries a reasonably high sentence. Therefore, we can know that where gun laws are stricter, no, it doesn't stop breaches of the monopoly on force but it makes them less severe. The violent crime rate is higher, the death rate is lower, because fewer crimes are commited with firearms.I'll concede absolutely that providing for your family with a gun is perfectly an option, and further I think the government issuing hunting certificates and legalizing certain weapons for hunting is absolutely fine. This leaves us with one point left - self defense. Let's quickly review the chain of logical reasoning thus farC1: Gun crime rates per million are higher in the US than the UKC2: Knife crime rates per million are higher in the UK than the USC3: The overall violent crime rate is higher in the UK than the USC4: The amount of people who die from gun deaths in the UK is lower than the USP1: Therefore, guns mean that violent crimes are more deadlyC5: Gun restrictions are in place in the UKP2: Gun restrictions make it harder, not impossible, to get a firearmP3: Gun restrictions can reduce the deadliness of crimes, not firearms.As such, it can be seen that the case for gun restriction is strong, backed up by evidence. The example used by Pro holds absolutely no water, given that the deadliness of crimes go down when fewer people have guns - home invasion rates are miniscule [5] - 3.7mln home invasions versus a population of roughly 323.1mn [6] people. Furthermore, even if you happened to somehow be alert enough to point and fire a weapon at the invader (presumably you've just woken up) for each and every time a weapon was used in self-defense in the US or in a justified killing, four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. In other words, for each and every justified shot that was taken, 22 criminal, suicidal or accidental deaths occurred.Moving on to mass shootings, the example is simple - the recent Las Vegas shooting contained no less than 500 individuals who were armed and none of them could do anything. This is because when someone has a gun pointed at you, even if you have a gun you cannot shoot them with it because you will die instantly. This is because guns are very good at killing people. Knives aren't quite so good.Normative caseYour case here is that every person ought to carry a weapon. Even if we were to assume all of this is true, the breaching of the monopoly on force occurs in a more deadly way where the gun restrictions of the country are lesser. The normative case for carrying a gun is refuted.It's clear that your whole case is either refuted or irrelevant therefore conceded.1.)http://www.nationmaster.com...2.) Ibid.3.) Ibid.4.) Ibid.5.)https://www.bjs.gov...6.) google7.) http://archive.jsonline.com...