Citizens should be able to own guns.

What I'm essentially arguing is that you average 18+ citizen without a criminal record (in other words, able to pass a background test) should be able to obtain guns such as handguns in order to protect themselves. 'll keep my argument brief for round 1 so I can see how my opponent will respond. 1. Why gun control doesn't work. The reason gun control doesn't work is because guns are used for protection more than they are used for crime. That is the most basic, but true, reason why it doesn't work. Gun control may save some lives, but in the end it ends more lives than it saves. 1A. Evidence that guns are used for protection. Guns are used about 8,000 times for self-defense every day, or approximately 3,000,000 times a year[1]. This is a astonishingly high amount, and will form much of my main argument. Though some may criticize my blurbing of statistics, it goes to show why gun control doesn't work. I will address "more than they are used for crime" in later arguments. 1B. Guns are a very effective method of self defense. Imagine the destructive force of a gun. It is able to easily kill anyone it fires at. This weapon is the true great equalizer. A small child could take on the most hardened of criminals if he or she has a gun. It is probably the most powerful self defense method available, and is therefore one of the best methods of self defense for the weak. After all, "God didn't make everyone equal, Mr. Colt did". And there is evidence that guns are a very effective method of self defense. About 90% of the time guns are used for self defense, they stop the criminal simply by brandishing the gun[2]. Just think about it. 90% of the time, simply brandishing a gun is enough to scare the criminal away. Especially if we are talking about the less physically fortunate, guns become very effective. With what else could a grandma protect herself, and scare away 90% of criminals simply by brandishing? There is literally no real way to attain the 90% rate, short of hiring a bodyguard or with guns. 1C. Police are not a very effective source of self defense, and guns are the best method of self defense. The average police response time to 911s is 8 minutes, 30 seconds[3]. When seconds matter in crime, 8 minutes and 30 seconds is not acceptable, especially when a handgun provides people with round the clock protection. If you are carrying a handgun, you do not have to wait 8 minutes and 30 seconds to use it. You simply pull it out and scare the criminal away. How would the cops protect you if a mugger suddenly pulled a knife on you? Unlike cops, handguns provide you with round the clock protection and thus will be almost always a better option for self defense than relying on the cops. 2. The ultimate argument for gun rights. Guns are used approximately 3,000,000 times a year for self defense. Not only that, about 80% of the time, the criminal lacks a gun. When you look at the fact that guns are used 1,000,000 times a year for crime, gun rights become the obvious decision. What this effectively means is that there is 3 times for crimes prevented with guns than helped by guns. There is no effective argument against this statistic. It is fairly simple. The criminal attempted to attack the victim, the victim pulled out a gun and scared, wounded, or captured the criminal. Conclusion Guns are one of the best, if not the best, method(s) for self defense. They are used 3,000,000 times a year for self defense in the US alone, and scare away the criminal simply by being shown about 90% of the time. They are a lot better than other self defense options, especially the cops. Not only that, they are used to prevent crime about 3 times more than they are used to instigate crimes. Considering all of this information, why should we deny citizens an effective self defense option that has been proven to prevent more crime than it causes? Sources [1] http://gunsafe.org... [2] http://www.foxnews.com... [3] http://www.washingtontimes.com...