Banning guns is a bad idea

Great topic of debate. First, I would like to say that I DO believe people should have guns, BUT I think some restrictions and maybe background checks should be put in place. That said, let's begin. "When those criminals break into our houses, rape, kidnap and murderer us good people with the guns they got illegally or even with out guns we won't be able to defend our selves." Let's be honest. It's late at night, a guy breaks into your house. What are your chances of finding your gun, finding the intruder and killing the intruder before he finds and kills you? Slim. "Criminals love gun free zones because no one there can stand up to them when they do their illegal activity" I see your point, but almost anywhere (except a gun range) can be considered a gun-free zone. Not many people carry guns around with them. "Yeah they don't kill you with a gun they kill you with a brick." The difference is that with a gun, you can kill 20 people in 30 seconds. You cannot do that with a brick. "Would you rather have someone steal your stuff and sell it for drugs or scare them off with a gun?" When a person is addicted, risk does not matter. They're on the road to death. Whether or not you have a gun, they will steal to buy drugs. Let's take this to a more general level, stealing in general, regardless of purpose. As stated, not many people carry guns with them, so the risk that the thief is taking is still very small. "They might use a knife or a plastic bag bit they'll do it." As mentioned before, you can kill a lot of people in a short period of time with a gun. The opposite can be said with melee and improvised weapons such as those you mentioned. "We need access to all guns even fully automatic." Look at how many people can be killed in school shootings for example. Now imagine if they have a machine-gun. The violence and death rate would go up drastically. "If 10 guys are coming at you you can't reload every second you have to kill all of them." I agree, but what is the chance that you alone will be confronted with 10 men? Very slim. I cannot think of a single situation where you would be faced with such odds. I do not see why anyone (other than soldiers) would need an automatic weapon. "I can't use a knife or talk someone out of killing me" Talk your way out of it? Probably not. Having a knife is a definite chance. Especially in your home where it's close quarters. If he has a gun, you still would not be able to get to yours unless you hide it under your pillow. "There was a case in Connecticut where a man was angry at someone and went to their house where they were having a party and fired several shots." This is an example of a situation in which having gun control is good. People (especially those with mental/anger issues) will get angry or moody and may not be able to control themselves. They will kill out of anger. If there was gun control, they wouldn't have a gun to do that with in the first place. "Where I live there are lots of coyotes (not in our city but in the rural areas) that occasionally venture into our neighborhood. While I'm a vegetarian and strong animal rights advocate and would shoot an animal as a last resort I'd still rather shoot the animal than have it eat our cat. For people who love in florida where there are lots of alligators (in florida your more likely to be attacked by an alligator than someone with a conceal and carry permit) or Alaska or Montana where there are very big, aggressive grizzly bear and moose. What about a pack of dogs? Should I kill all 10 dogs with a knife or my hands or a gun" Attacks (on humans or their animals) a very rare. Even if a coyote's intent was eating your cat, the coyote would accomplish that. Unless you go everywhere with your gun, your cat would be in ribbons before you got your gun. Alligators can run up to 9 mph on land for short distances, meaning not only is it a hard target to hit if it's mad, but you also have little time to do it. Especially if it's moving, your chances of shooting and killing the alligator before it gets to you are zero. Not only does it have a thick skull, but even if you do hit the head, chances of hitting the brain and killing it are even smaller because the brain itself is very small. Bears? Search up stories of bear attacks online. A bear probably won't attack you, but if it does, you won't kill it. My opponents "defense against animals" argument above is almost impractical. These occur very rarely. http://www.csmonitor.com... http://howtokillthings.com... https://www.google.com... My opponent mentions riots killing people. If everyone had guns, then riots would be even more dangerous because all of the "participants" are armed. Violence would skyrocket. Many points that my opponent makes (like the sex-slaves to Mexico one) are not only very rare and unlikely, but even with a gun, you would not be able to defend yourself. In order for my opponents idea to work, everyone will have to carry guns at all times, be very well trained and sleep with one under their pillow. This is unrealistic. Let's take a look at numbers. A researcher found that in the US, states with stricter gun control laws have much less gun-related violence. Also, more guns means more homicide and murderers. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Now let's compare countries with guns and how violent they are versus countries without guns and how violent they are. The US has about 89 guns per 100 people. That means that the US should have the "safest" citizens because they can protect themselves from rapists, murderers etc. right? Apparently not. A study showed that the US has more gun-related deaths than any other developed country in the world. 10 people per 100,000 die from a bullet. Japan, on the other hand, only has 0.6 guns per 100 people, and, not surprisingly, only 0.06 deaths per 100,000 from a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://abcnews.go.com... Although my opponent's argument seems to make logical sense, it is invalid. Experience shows that the more guns a country has, the more violence there is. In most cases of shootings, the shooter has mental problems. This suggests that even if there is a risk that someone might have a gun, the shooter will still go for it. On the other hand, if guns were banned (or kept away from people with mental/psychological problems) the chances of them obtaining one and using it are smaller. The simple fact that "the more guns, the more violence" refutes any argument my opponent can make about self-defense. In many of the examples my opponent provided, using a gun to defend yourself is impractical because your opponent has a large advantage by already having a weapon in their hands. Guns are unnecessary and restrictions should be put in place about their ownership. More people die because there are more guns. Why should we add even more? I would also like to note that although my opponent gave some statistics, absolutely no sources were provided.