Gun Control should be administered

In the following my refutations to the affirmative's arguments:Refutation of 1st Argument: Guns lead to a higher crime rateThe affirmative does not provide any evidence for this claim but instead only gives two examples of homicides that allegedly wouldn't have happened without access to a gun.The following study clearly refutes this claim. This Harvard study [1] with the title "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?" shows not only that there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but in fact shows that there is actual a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases murder and suicide decreases.According to the authors: "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not."Furthermore: "Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."and “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”I strongly recommend everyone interested in the issue to have a look at the study.Refutation of 2nd Argument: It is not really that easy to defend yourself with a gunThe two given examples seem quite ridiculous. No one suggests a) not to use their common sense with regards to the decision when to use a gun to defend oneself and when it would be safer not to do so and b) not to go through some kind of training when owning a gun for the purpose of defending oneself. Everyone who prefers owning a gun has the responsibility not to act stupid. Furthermore some regulation could be introduced insuring that every gun holder undergoes some basic training.Refutation of 3rd Argument: Guns are very dangerous weaponsThe affirmative again contents that the number of homicides would come down with a ban of law because it is more difficult to kill somebody without a gun.The previously mentioned study refutes that. Two reasons that could explain this is:a) other weapons are substituted for guns b) criminals obtain guns in the black market. As i suggested earlier, criminals (by definition) are much less likely to abide by the law then non-criminals.With regards to children: Children shouldn't own a gun, nor should they have access to it. That comes back to the training and responsibility of the gun owners.In the following I will defend my earlier arguments:1) Every citizen should be protected against violent assaults. Since no government can provide perfect protection they should not prevent the citizens to protect themselves.The affirmative objection is that a stun gun would do the job. My response to this: If all criminals knew there are only stun guns out there, would they really be deterred from offensive acts of violence?2) A ban of guns is likely to lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes (e.g. to kill or rob somebody) and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes since the former will be more likely to ignore and circumvent the law than the latter. Thus citizens who want to protect themselves are ultimately the one who would be put in a disadvantaged position.The affirmative's objection is that "by banning guns, no citizen would own a gun and therefore cannot own it for offensive purposes. No one would be put at a disadvantage as both sides do not have guns."That claim fails to take into account the fact that - as stated earlier - criminals by definition are much less likely to abide by the law and thereby much more likely to own a gun than law-abiding citizens. Thereby a ban on guns would lead to a skewed distribution of guns to the favor of criminals.[1] http://www.law.harvard.edu...