That we should ban guns in urban areas

Contrary to my opponent's claims, I did respond to his material and refute his points. Of course, I can see how he might have misunderstood, since the entire concept of rights is meaningless to a liberal. And facts showing that guns are often used to protect people are not "vague statistical points," they are evidence that guns fight crime. 1. First of all, 2.5mil cases of self-defense annually is not "rarely." You claim that someone's right to life includes the right to take away someone else's rights. This is clearly an inconsistent view of rights. Would you consider it my right to steal someone's kidney to save my own life? If not, why is it not OK to infringe on another's rights in that situation, but OK to do so when you're taking away a person's right to self-defense? I claim that the right to self-defense on one's own property does not infringe on anyone else's rights, and it clearly does not. If someone is concerned about accidental shootings, then they are free to simply not use guns or associate with people that use guns. If someone is concerned about criminals, then they should be free to own a gun, which is an effective defense against home invasions. (See statistics in 2. of my previous round) As far as police protection from crimes goes, this claim is ridiculous. How does Pro expect the police to get to a house and intervene in time to stop someone from being assaulted or murdered? They do sometimes arrive in time to catch criminals, but rarely do they stop violent crimes before someone gets hurt. But don't take my word for it. The police themselves overwhelmingly oppose strict gun control laws. Asked about a proposed ban on assault weapons, 78.6% of police said that they opposed the ban. [1] There aren't any surveys that asked if police would support your proposed total ban, but it's safe to assume that very few would if only a small fraction supported a mere assault weapons ban. Even the very people that Pro believes would protect us say that they can't, at least not as well as we can protect ourselves. [1] http://www.guncite.com... Pro asserts that the chances of the U.S. becoming a police state are so low that the idea isn't even worth considering. Well, if he doesn't think that that situation is likely, then he's free to not own a gun. I merely suggest that those of us that see the creeping fascism in our midst should be allowed to defend ourselves and our families. It isn't so unreasonable to want to protect oneself against fascism. Genocides throughout history would not have been possible with a well-armed populace. Even the United States has a history of persecuting defenseless minorities and mass murder. During WWII, Japanese-Americans who had committed no crimes were sent to internment camps. The Supreme Court ruled that this was acceptable because we were at war. Nowadays, all sorts of tactics, from warrantless GPS tracking to the President's ability to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without a trial, are perfectly legal. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people, minding their own business and not hurting anyone, are arrested and jailed every year because their drug of choice happened to be one of the incorrect ones. The United States has killed millions of civilians worldwide, and continues to kill civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA has installed dictators throughout the world. What's stopping fascist tactics abroad from turning into fascist tactics at home, disguised as another anti-terrorism measure? Potential fascism in the U.S. is clearly not "so improbable that the point isn't worth contemplation." 2. Here, Pro completely misunderstood my paragraph. I said that before 1920, neither Britain nor the U.S. had any significant gun control laws. During that time, before 1920, the U.S. was much more violent than Britain. Therefore, the fact that the U.S. is STILL more violent than Britain proves nothing. 3. Perhaps some petty criminals would have moderately less access to guns under Pro's plan. However, since law-abiding citizens would have NO access to guns, this is something that would increase the relative power of criminals. 4. Guns are not the lifeblood of criminal gangs, unjust laws are. As you said, alcohol prohibition led to the rise of organized crime and a rise in crime. Gun prohibition would lead to a similar increase in the power and profits of criminal gangs. Pro also seems to mistakenly believe that gangs are currently legally using guns, and if we just ban guns, police will be able to prosecute them their gun ownership. The reality is that most gang members that own guns own them illegally. Why would they legally purchase a gun that could easily be traced back to them when they could just use an illegal and therefore less traceable gun? Furthermore, this law would decrease the power of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against gangs, as only the criminals would have guns.