Citizens should be able to own guns.

Reconstruction: 1A "The US violent crime rate for 2008 was 20 per 100,000[1]. That means for the 999,980 people per 100,000 who weren't committing crimes were using guns to protect themselves. What this means is that people with guns are MUCH more likely to use guns to protect themselves than use guns to aggravate crime." This is a prime example of my opponent's repeated misunderstanding of statistics. From that statistic, he assumes that every single human being in America has a gun (20 who use guns for crime, 999,980 using guns to protect themselves). He goes on to say that my points would only be valid if over 154,000,000 people [1] in America were violent, gun-wielding criminals. To that, I need only say that 150,000,000 violent gun-wielding criminals would be reason enough to prohibit guns. 1B Wait a minute, let me keep track of the contradictions you just made. Firstly, there would be less gun crime, but overall crime would increase. Secondly, there would be less guns but people wouldn't be able to protect themselves. Now I guess my question is, if the crimes perpetrated didn't involve guns, why can't the victims defend themselves? Here are some ways to defend yourself without a gun: [2]. 2. First off, "English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape". That's how you advocate guns? Saying there's more murder and rape in a country that outlaws guns? Am I missing something here? Secondly, I checked the source, but couldn't find anything that said "English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape". Maybe you could point it out for me. What I did find, however, is this: Regarding the comparison of crime rates between America and England, "last year it was 3.5 times"[3] that of England. So you cite a source telling us that a country with prohibition against guns has 3.5 times less crime than a country where it's legal to own guns, and that's a reason that guns SHOULDN'T be outlawed? The first thing Pro wrote: "I will be arguing that the average citizen should be allowed to obtain guns for self defense (and other purposes), but NOT that there should be no gun laws at all (i.e. age limits and background checks)." What Pro wrote last round: "I do not have some fantasy that only law abiding citizens will have guns. I know that criminals break the law, and I know that background checks will not 100% prevent criminals. In fact, I never even stated anything along the lines of 'only law abiding citizens will have guns'". Pro is pettifogging the issue, saying that because he wasn't wasn't quoted that criminals wouldn't have guns that that notion wasn't what he was implying. Also, a little further down in his debate, he says, "law abiding citizens", so yeah... Rebuttal: 1. This may be the most useless information that I've ever read on this website. I don't even know where to begin breaking this point down. First off, 162,000 households "believe" someone would have died without a gun? Are we really going to change government policy because of how 1 in every 695[4] feels? That's 0.14 percent represented. What's next, we're gonna elect a politician because he gets 0.14 percent of the votes? 1A. Are you kidding me? You say you're not sure they're estimates but then go on to explain why they're estimates? I'm not even gonna rebut that, it's so ridiculous. "Firstly, in 82% of the DGUs, the criminal did not have a gun[5]. Not every criminal has a gun." Good. Let's keep it that way. "You say that you do not want guns in a environment with 8,000 violent crimes a day. How so do you propose that citizens protect themselves? " In response to that: [2]. "After all, guns scare away the criminal 90% of the time simply by being brandished. What else could attain such a high rate of protection?" Didn't I already mention a pride of vicious lions? What the hell? 1B. How many times are you going to repeat your one and only point? Honestly... Fine, I'll bite. Yes, guns are used for self defence. They're also used for murder, rape, assault, extortion, mugging, robbery, theft (I've got more but I only have 7 hours to finish this)... You know what else can be used for self defence? Trinitrotoluene. That's dangerous. That's scary. That'd stop any compos mentis criminal. The mere fact that it's dangerous and scary isn't enough of a reason to have it be legal, and nor are the statistics you brought with you today(the same stats you've used in the last 3 debates you've done, all about gun rights. What, are you gonna keep doing the same debate with the same arguments, hoping to improve your skills?). Regarding most people being, "rational, law abiding citizens", are you saying that the majority of people in America have never loitered, littered, talked an a phone while driving or any number of the many small crimes that many of us break every day? Neither of us have that stats on that, nor could we, so I guess I'm appealing to reason and logic, suggesting most people in America have at some point in their life broken a law. "As I have shown, the number of law abiding citizens who will use guns for self defense greatly outnumber the criminals." Actually, you haven't shown that, looking at your sources, 1. You believe every human being in America owns a gun 2. You skipped 2 and went to 3, I believe. 3. The sources said that American crime rates were "3.5 times" higher than England's. You said "English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape", according to stats taken 16 years ago. Yes, 16 year old statistics. 4. 0.17 households believe something and you think that should effect government law 5. You acknowledge most criminals don't use guns, yet you wish to make it possible that any criminal CAN use a gun. "Sorry, I worded that wrong. I meant, "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 is used in?" Prevent is used as preventing the crime while it is taking place. Forgive my wording error." I accept your apology and will allow you to rephrase your broken argument. Unfortunately for you, your rephrasing is equally broken. Your new argument states that in crimes that where the criminal didn't have a gun, if the victim did have a gun, he or she was able to prevent the crime. First of all, they don't prevent crime, they change the name of the crime. Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime. Secondly, you're allowing that for every one of those situations, BOTH the criminal and the victim have the deadliest weapon known to man. That's not a way to prevent murder. That's not a way to run a society. "40% of criminals had decided not to commit a crime because they thought or knew the victim had a gun[4]. Guns most likely do lead to less crime." You're saying most criminals committed a crime regardless of whether or not they believed the victim had a gun. Good to know. As I have said, self defence is important and there are many other ways to defend one's self without a deadly weapon. Wait, you're saying a criminal can attack without a gun, but a victim can't defend without a gun? I love how you mentioned "law abiding citizens" 3 times after saying that's not who you were implying would have a gun. As I've said, most citizens are to some extent criminals. Not wishing to pettifog. What this debate comes down to is logic v.s surveys and cherry-picked statistics. My opponent's stats are flawed as I have demonstrated and hand-picked because he believes they are one-sided(they arn't), and I believe my logic is sound. I would address his conclusion but I am running out of characters and he only has one point. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4]http://quickfacts.census.gov...