Gun rights should be granted all over the world

I am expecting a good one! I would like to remind my opponent that he may be able to successfully put a dispute on all my arguments. However, both sides must share their BoP. So, if my opponent does not, it remains a tie.1. "Leaves people with something to defend themselves with. ""We have less lethal means like mace, stun guns, martial arts, bats, knives, the list goes on and on. We can pretty much use any object capable of being lifted and carried as a defensive weapon should the situation arise. ""This also provides a non-lethal way to dissuade a potential mugger from being killed so that the law officers can sort him out upon arrival. "Indeed. However, keep in mind that if you do not grant gun rights, criminals will not lose possession of them, while legal citizens do; Criminals like to hide the fact that they own a gun because it is something they love to hold on to, while legal citizens choose to follow the law, thus they will turn theirs in. So, non-lethal weapons range very lowly[1], and even more so compared to guns. There are lots of mid-range or long-range conflict scenario if you consider all possible scenarios. And if you were put in one of those scenarios with a very short-range non-lethal weapon, it is very likely that the criminal will kill you rather than you putting the criminal down. "Keep in mind, the scenario you presented is a short-range conflict scenario. "Yes, indeed, the scenario I presented was a short-ranged conflict scenario. However, as I stated, considering all possible scenarios, lots of those will be mid-range and long-range conflict scenarios. And if you were put in one of those scenarios with a short-range non-lethal weapon, it is very likely that the criminal will kill you. "This is especially important in the second scenario Pro presented where he's basically advocating that it's alright to kill whoever charges at you - regardless of if it's a prank or not - because they "should have known better""Indeed; A potential threat is stopped effectively without taking their life considering the possibility that it was a prank. However, again, you are pointing a gun at them, ready to shoot. The person should know that they will get shot if they keep playing out their prank. This is common sense. 2. "Guns should be sold legally. ""Furthermore, even in the United States of America the laws are subjective, with some states having certain restrictions for ownership that other states might not have. "That is so because the governors typically focus on their own state; They are governors, and are put in charge only of their state. However, governors should be sharing their thoughts with others to come to the furthest possible conclusion of a problem, and equally on all states too. There may not be objective standards. However, we only need one that most agree with; These only apply to us humans. So, as long as most of us are fine with it, then it is. "What are we to do if one country thinks it's safe for 7 year olds to come into stores and purchase an assault rifle? This is actually tied into one of my main arguments, but my point is basically that without objective standards for what is the legal sale of guns it's just not feasible. "As I stated, there may not be standards that are absolutely objective. However, there may be standards that is humanly objective; All people agree. And I believe that if my side is considered, this must be discussed with scholars, governors, and presidents, even from other countries. My point is, we do not need standards that are absolutely objective. We just need one that most, maybe even all, agree with; These standards only apply to humans, and if most are fine by it, then it is.3. "It typically works to be better when gun rights are granted than when they are taken away. ""The most obvious issue with these three cases that I ask myself is, "are these three locations enough to justify the implementation to locations all around the world? " I think not. Not every country is the same, heck, not even every state in America is the same. To think that a random correlation for three locations could possibly justify the implementation of gun rights on a global scale is absurd. Why? Because as I said previously, these three locations do not resemble the rest of the world as a whole. "I agree; I gave three locations, which is definitely not enough to justify the implementation to locations around the world. However, [2][3][4][5][6] should be. Check it out. There are many graphs that show that the higher the gun availability, the lower the crime rates. There are some countries or states that seem to have a higher crime rates when the gun availability is higher and lower crime rates when the gun availability is low. However, that is not the majority. For instance:- Shown in the second figure from the top to bottom in [6], the more firearms people own per country, and lots of countries are listed, the more crime rates tend to go down. . http://www.gunfacts.info...; />-Also shown in the second graph from top to bottom in [2], the crimes rates tend to go down the more people own firearms, though this only applied to America. Remember that these were only a few instances to give you an idea about what the provided sources are going to be showing to you. Check all five of them. These sources show that the world as a whole seem to work better with less gun control. I await my opponent's arguments. [1] . http://www.todayssurvival.com...[2] . http://www.infowars.com...[3] . http://www.armedwithreason.com...[4] . http://www.zerohedge.com...[5] . http://www.forbes.com...[6] . http://www.gunfacts.info...