Gun rights.

C1: Restrictions on guns will never work. This is simple logical deduction. If my opponent is aware of American history (as I am aware he is not American) during the 20s’ and 30s’. During this period, alcohol was prohibited. However, statistically, this did not stop alcohol consumption. In fact, it went back to normal almost immediately after declining, despite the laws remaining in effect several years afterwards. Alongside it not working, it increased income and influence for organized crime. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that complete prohibitions of tangible items would never work. [1] C2: Gun control does not lower crime rates, statistically. “Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions. * Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, ‘Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.’ * Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. ‘The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic,’ says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. ‘Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.’ * England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. * Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say ‘Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low.’” [2] As can be seen through this quote (supported by several sources), gun control in several countries has failed to lower crime rates and, in fact, has increased them. To further support the claim that gun control increases criminal activity (which also supports the idea of C1), I shall proposed the following: “A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.” [3] The reported explanation for this was because criminals were smuggling in guns and ammunitions from legal countries into Britain. Britain’s gun laws after the Dunblane massacre clearly did not solve the problem of gun rights. Police areas which had low levels of legal guns, more than half had above average armed crime rates; areas with high levels of legal guns reported only that only a tenth of the police area relevant had above average gun crime rates. “Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.” [4] reported John R. Lott, Jr., an academic speaker and advocate of gun rights. It is clear from the above quote that gun control did not work in control-heavy countries, more specifically, Australia. C3: Gun rights lower government corruption. http://pajamasmedia.com... As can be seen through the graph [5], guns per capita decrease corruption levels (the higher the number, the least corruption is taking place, as is explained in the source). http://pajamasmedia.com... The same can be seen in this graph [5], with the same explanation: higher numbers mean less of it occurring (which means countries like America, which offer free gun rights, feature lower rates of corruption and lower homicide rates, while countries like Syria have high corruption and high homicide rates). C4: Gun rights lowers crime, statistically. “Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI. The FBI recently released its Crimes in the United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders — which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 — have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.” [6] As is shown in this quote from the Daily Caller, gun sales within America directly correlate with a decrease in overall crime; the NRA also provides similar statistical information. [7] http://www.fbi.gov... This graph from the FBI’s report in 2010 involving the decrease in violent crimes [8] clearly shows that crimes went down significantly, despite the fact that gun ownership hit an all-time high, as explained in Source 6. Furthermore, gun rights decreases: suicide rates, economic limitation, and corruption. [5] Guns are 60 times more likely to be used in acts of self-defense against violent or sexual offenses; furthermore, police have an 11 percent error rate in the potential for shooting innocents, while armed citizens get an error rate of 2 percent. [9] Conclusion: Gun rights is a positive in society; it decreases gun violence against one’s self and others and decreases corruption rates. Furthermore, gun control does not lower crime rates, and prohibitions of any kind never work, as can be seen in the prohibition of alcohol in America, the war on drugs in America, and gun control in much of Europe. [1] http://www.albany.edu... [2] http://gunowners.org... [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://www.usatoday.com... [5] http://gunowners.org... [6] http://dailycaller.com... [7] http://www.nraila.org... [8] http://www.fbi.gov... [9] http://www.fff.org...