Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban

Now to the arguments. Concealed-Carry Laws: I don't think a very minute difference like that would be conclusive evidence, Because correlation does not exactly mean causation. In the research I've done, Concealed-carry holders commit crimes 16% less than police officers. That is how law-abiding they are. [1] In addition, As concealed-carry goes up by the thousands, In the past 20 years, Violent crime in America has decreased by 50%. [2] Gun Laws: Of course they will not have more GUN crime, But people use other things like knives. For this reason, I think you should compare OVERALL murder rates BEFORE and AFTER gun bans, Because each country is different in its level of crime and murder. In this case, Gun bans have proven not to be effective in decreasing murder rates, And sometimes murder spikes after they are banned, Like what happened in England. [3] "Assault Weapons": Before I start, There is no official term "assault weapon. " That is a made up term. What guns are in the "assault weapon" category? Automatic guns have actually been banned since the 1930's, So this is an ivalid argument. In addition, Semi-automatic weapons are basically any gun, Like handguns, Pistols, Shotguns, AK-47, AR-15, Etc. So your "assault weapons" are my average gun, Because semi-automatic weapons which you constitute into this category is almost every gun. Therefore, You basically want to ban all guns. There actually is evidence that guns deter crime. According to an unpublished CDC study, [4] there are almost 2. 5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year(DGU's). As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15. 7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, Another 14. 6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, Let"s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. Since they surveyed 222 participants, The margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4. 8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270, 000 lives are saved by guns, Up to over 500, 000 just counting the "almost certainly people. " If all the "probably" people are right, Then that number goes beyond 800, 000. Moreover, For every firearm homicide, At least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, Then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5]. Most mass shootings, And gun homicides overall, For that fact, Are done with handguns. There are over 2. 5x as much handguns used in mass shootings than any rifle. If we are talking about the number of incidents, Handguns are used 2x as much as rifles. [6] Rifles of ANY TYPE make up less than 300 gun murders per year. Hand guns are the main cause of gun death. The Second Amendment: I agree on background checks and restrictions on guns, Only law-abiding people should get them, Yes, But here is what you later say- "These similar restrictions would also apply to an automatic and semiautomatic weapon because these rifles were also made for the use of military combat, To kill as many people as possible. " Automatic guns are already banned, Which I have explained previously, And semi-automatics are DEFINITELY NOT MADE for MILITARY COMBAT. You would be a fool walking into the military with a handgun or AR-15. An "assault rifle" is defined as a fully automatic machine gun, Which military would use. An AR-15 could be confused with a military M-16, But they are completely different and military rifles are not sold to the public. [7] I would argue concealed-carry is protected by the second amendment, Because the right to protect yourself doesn't just extend to home-defense, But wherever you go in public. Again, Assault rifles are not legal and a very vague term, So that argument is invalid. Finally, My opponent states "A document written hundreds of years ago to dictate a government that had just escaped tyranny and was radically different from our own in modern times, Is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Just because it"s an important law doesn't mean it"s subject to scrutiny. " The Constitution is still in tact and just because it was written 200 years ago does not question its validity. They wrote it knowing that they themselves could go tyrannical. They believed in the basic right to self-defense, And their is a lot of validity to that claim. Just because freedom of speech was made 200 years ago does not mean we should not consider it because the Constitution is too old. Without the second, Their is no first amendment. We have to protect the freedom expressed in the first amendment. I do not think banning guns is a necessary answer to gun violence, But rather mental-illness screening, Promoting gun safety, And making sure the police do their job efficiently. I thank my opponent for making good arguments that I could think about and research more. This is probably the hardest argument I have gotten, So props to my opponent for that as well. Thank you for your patience and civility, And if the sources do not go through, I will provide them through a google doc in the comment section, Like armoredcat, My opponent, Did in round one. Now the torch is passed back to you, My friend. Sources: 1. Https://www. Gunstocarry. Com/concealed-carry-statistics/ (scroll about two thirds down the page, And you will see the statistic) 2. Http://www. Gunfacts. Info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ (go to the graph, You will find it on the top of the page) 3. Https://crimeresearch. Org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ 4. Https://www. Lawenforcementtoday. Com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/ 5. Http://www. Thetruthaboutguns. Com/2017/05/bruce-krafft/more-lives-are-saved-by-defensive-gun-uses-than-taken-in-criminal-gun-uses/ 6. Https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ 7. Https://www. Nssf. Org/msr/