To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense.

Many thanks to my opponent for replying in such a comprehensive and somewhat amusing manner! My opponent wrote: "A right is endemic to the individual. Govt. can - and often does - suppress a right, but it cannot erase it" and "I and I, alone, can determine when and how and in what circumstance it will become necessary to defend myself." This is a classic argument put forward by gun lobbies around the world, especially in states where gun ownership is restricted. They believe they have a "fundamental right" to carry firearms for the purpose of self-defence. However, in countries where carrying guns is illegal, the majority of the population (at least if it is a democracy) do not believe that this is a fundamental right – if they did, they would vote in an administration that promised in it's manifesto to make carrying firearms legal. In a democratic society, one cannot pick and choose the laws one abides by. For example, a paedophile may believe that he has the fundamental right to have consensual sex with a fourteen year-old old girl. However, this would be illegal in the UK and the US and he would face prosecution if he were caught. He could, though, go and live in a country such as Spain where the age of consent is only thirteen and have sex with adolescent girls perfectly legally. Similarly, a British citizen who believes that carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defence is a fundamental right could go and live in the US and take pot shots at trespassers to his heart's content! Nevertheless, everybody does, indeed, have the right to self-defence and that is enshrined in the laws of all civilised nations. However, that right is mitigated in the sense that the amount of force employed should be proportionate to the threat. My opponent gave two examples where he had used firearms to defend himself. As it turned out, no harm was done to the intruder but it could have been very different. True, burglary is a criminal offence and burglars should be punished. However burglary does not carry the death penalty, and even if it did, it would be for the judicial system to decide the offender's fate – not the victim of the crime. Carrying guns just escalates the level of violence in society. I will give you an example of what I mean from my own personal experience. On a recent visit to the US, I was involved in an argument with a man over a girl in a beach bar. As the confrontation became more heated it became clear to me that we were not going to settle the matter amicably and I mentally prepared myself for a fistfight. However, the other bloke suddenly pulled a gun on me! As I wasn't armed, there was no way for me to defend myself and I was, therefore, obliged to forfeit my right to self-defence and the other bloke walked off with the blond stunner in question – which isn't fair, but at least nobody was killed as they may have been if I had been carrying a gun myself. My opponent continued: "Hitler voiced an argument, very similar to yours. The German people tu(r)ned in their guns. Gun deaths did go down - slightly. Alas OVEN deaths went up - slightly." This is another old chestnut from the gun lobby - if Jews, gypsies and the disabled had been armed, they may have been able to resist being imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. True, these unfortunate people may have been able to offer some resistance to Hitler's Storm Troopers, but the Nazi paramilitary's superior firepower would have meant that the "Untermensch" would just have been killed in their homes rather than in concentration camps. The only advantage I can see to this is that the resulting saving in gas would be good for the environment! My opponent's then wrote: "The availability of cancer surgery makes an American cancer victim thousands of times more likely to die from cancer surgery than a cancer victim in the mountains of Chile, where surgery is unavailable. I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from cancer surgery related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to receive cancer surgery." Please forgive me if I have failed to follow the reasoning behind this, but I think my opponent is making the point that life is full of risks and that a cancer sufferer may die from the surgery that was intended to save his life. I suppose this is true. Similarly a cancer patient in Santiago being transferred to hospital by ambulance for surgery could be killed in a road accident en-route because the driver had spent all morning in the bar supping pipeï¿½o! That is why society has rules, such as not driving under the influence of alcohol, which we all should abide by. That said, drinking and driving is legal in some countries and so is carrying firearms for self-defence, but neither are fundamental rights. My opponent's final argument that most gun deaths occur as the result of criminal activity and that citizens should be allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves from these villains. I do not deny for a moment that shootouts are more commonly associated with warring gangs than squabbling neighbours in leafy suburbs. However, if the availability of guns were restricted, the number of shootings would decrease. Here in the UK, anyone found carrying a gun receives a mandatory five-year prison sentence. If the gun is loaded, the sentence will be considerably higher. Even carrying a knife is illegal and is likely to land you in jail. Crime still exists, of course, and some criminals still carry weapons, but they are the hardened minority – for the average crook, the risk of being caught in possession of a firearm just isn't worth the biscuit.