Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals.

Thank you for your refutes, Robert. Allow me to respond. My opponent starts by talking about contention 2 (b), and he makes no mention of contention 2 (a). I am forced to assume that my opponent has consented contention 2 (a) to me, unless he states otherwise. I still feel, however, that my argument about increased opportunity is being misinterpreted. What I am saying is that if I am not in possession of a firearm, then I have less chance to kill you with a firearm than if I did posses a firearm. This might seem obvious. Clearly, it gives me more chance to kill you with a gun if I actually have one. I am not providing this argument of: Guns vs without weapons gives me more opportunity to kill you than with a weapon. More: Guns vs without guns gives me more opportunity to kill you than without a gun. I hope this clears this up. Contention 4. After my opponent's refute and some of my own research, I will consent that my cited research was flawed and biased; and I will consent the argument. Contention 5 My opponent begins by agreeing with contention 5 ("I will agree with your assessment of the video and the man in it.") [my assessment being my argument.], but he again uses a red herring fallacy straight away afterwards, talking about different countries and their successful gun rates. As my opponent stated that he agreed with my argument, I will await a modification or a consent. When my opponent talks about his situations and scenarios; he puts an obvious bias in there of choosing other options that appear to make the gun ideal. While, with his options, a gun is the most ideal; there are always more options. For example, when using my opponent's scenarios: You are a 110lbs female walking to your car after a late night at work. Your building doesn't have security guards, or if they do tonight you didn't ask for an escort. You notice a really big guy, about 200lbs heading your way and you fear that his intentions are less than honorable. At that moment in time, which do you think would be the ideal tool? A) A cell phone, B) a knife, C) A gun, D) a XERP (a XERP is effectively a long range taser[1]) Clearly, anyone who didn't want to (potentially) kill the guy would choose a XERP. You are sitting in your apartment when all of a sudden at your door there begins an extremely loud banging and cursing from the other side. Someone is pissed and they are trying to get into your house to cause you harm. There is no question about it, this man is coming in and your family is looking to for protection. In this scenario, which do you want? A) An operator on the phone with the police an average of 6 minutes away, B) a self help book to calm down the impending intruder, C) a gun, or D) a XERP Again, a XERP. My point is that the gun is only the ideal choice when you make the limits very bias, making the gun the clear winner. In this regard, the ideal weapon changes with scenarios, but in relatively close situations, such as in an apartment or (apparently) in a work building; the XERP or other, non-fatal weapon is ideal. (Unless you think that a potentially fatal weapon is better, in which case I do not think you should have a gun!). "the correct answer is of course a gun" is wrong in the average situation when you allow for more options. As for the "anti-gun laws deters crime" - I will consent this. I await my opponent's response(s)! [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...