Gun Rights

First off, I am sorry for my mass listing of statistics, but they do help my point in a way, which I will elaborate on later. Instead of blurbing out statistics, I will largely focus on points 1Aa, as well as my opponent's contentions in this round. A1) While some statistics may not be directly impacted by gun control laws (or the lack thereof), and it may be impossible to truly know whether or not gun control laws cause spikes or drops in crime rates, they do go to show the general trend. After all, in most countries with gun control, there is more overall crime rate than in countries without gun control. However, there is one major point that you did not address. It is point 1Aa. Americans using guns for good. This statistic really goes to show the effectiveness of gun rights. 11,000 people are killed with guns a year, while 162,000 households think someone would have died without a gun. That means that even if 140,000 households were wrong, there would be DOUBLE the lives saved by guns than killed by guns. This alone should be enough to implement right to carry laws and significantly reduce gun control. If gun rights save 150,000 more lives than deaths they cause, or save approximately 15 times more people than they kill, then gun rights seem like the obvious choice. There is no real reason to implement gun control laws when faced with this fact. A2) Let's continue with my opponent's example. Canada has double the crime rate of the US[1]! This just goes to prove my point. Yes, there is more gun crime, but the crime rate is lower overall. However, this point doesn't even matter much when faced with contention 1Aa, and my opponent would probably refer me to his correlation-causation argument. A3)Actually, the reason I chose London and NYC was because that was the only comparison of Britain and America I could find. If I could have found a overall comparison of Britain and America, I would have used that. However, I now have a better comparison of Canada and America. As for sites with bias, all of my facts came off a site known as justfacts.com, which is hardly a biased site. I cannot really reply to statistical overload except with my argument 1Aa. B1) I will concede that gun control does have some effect on criminal ownership, but it saves so many lives that it makes it worth it. Not only that, with gun control, it is now some hardened criminal with a knife versus say... your grandma. Your grandma would have a much better chance with a gun than without. As for points 2,3, and parts of 4,5 and 6, part of my opening argument in 1Ae. was that some gun control laws should be common sense, and that citizens should have access to firearms. B2) The "and now that your average citizen can't obtain guns" was talking about a hypothetical example of what would happen if gun control laws were implemented. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. Your second point says that there is other self defense options. While I will concede that they can be effective, the links talk about putting up lights to deter crime and taking self defense and rape prevention classes. If you suddenly meet with a hardened criminal, it won't matter how many karate classes you took or how many lights you put up, as they won't exactly save your life like the round the clock protection of a handgun. Could being a karate expert or surrounding your house with light really have the same chance of saving you as something that can instantly deter a criminal if you brandish it or they think you have it? After all, 34% of criminals had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" and 40% didn't commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun". I'm sure the numbers of criminals deterred by light fixtures or karate wouldn't be anywhere near that of guns. a) Yes, but there is no real way you can disprove argument 1Aa. There is 11,000 people killed by guns a year in the US., and in a survey 162,000 households believed someone would have died if there wasn't a gun. There is no claims that one causes the other. All there is in that statement is two hard facts. b) But can gun control ever have the effect of something which can give any citizen something that instantly deters criminals? It can prevent some crime, but it mostly causes other crimes when criminals are no longer as scared of assaulting/killing/stealing from others. c)You aren't helpless without a gun, but you are a lot more helpless without a gun than if you do have a gun. After all, if a hardened criminal confronts you, you'd much rather have gun than 20 years of karate under your belt. Conclusion Though some statistics may or may not support gun control, there is one statistic that cannot be refuted. Gun rights save 15 times more lives than it ends. Without gun rights, you are a lot more helpless than you would be with gun rights. Obviously, gun rights is the way to go. Sources [1] http://archive.newsmax.com...