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

Let me first address Misty's initial contentions one by one, and then add a few of my own. Cost: Of course someone who is anti-gun goes straight for the government answer. The government should stay out of it as it leads to registration, then to confiscation. In just the past century confiscation resulted in 56 million dead because their government used gun control against them.[1] But what about cost? You can get a Hi Point 9mm on budsgunshop.com for $169[2] . The average "poor" household has air conditioning, cable TV, an Xbox, two television sets, a microwave, etc.[3] Buying a $169 handgun and paying the fee for a background check is not a stretch and does not require a government subsidy. Easier to kill: Yes, it is easier for me to kill you with a gun than it is with a knife. But it's just as easy for me to kill you with a car, as evidenced by the over 33,000 motor vehicle deaths in 2010, almost triple the number of firearm homicides committed the same year.[4] But it does not give you more opportunity. You have the opportunity any time a person is within arm's reach. If I wanted to kill you I could stab you in the throat with a ball point pen; I could slit your throat with a knife; I could bludgeon you to death with any number of objects that are commonly found in your home or office. Having a gun doesn't provide opportunity, simply being in proximity to another human being does. When Misty talks about the use of a "silencer" in a crowd she displays her ignorance of firearms. I can only guess that she gets her impression of how a SUPPRESSOR works from the movies, where the only thing you hear is the cycling of the weapon and the brass hitting the floor. This is far from the truth. I have shot many suppressed weapons and not a single one of them was I able to comfortably shoot without hearing protection. The fact is that even suppressed weapons are loud. They're just not as loud as their unsuppressed counterparts. Power corrupts: It is an insulting insinuation that the mere presence of a gun will lead a gun owner to shoot someone when they might otherwise let a perceived slight just roll of their shoulder. In fact if this were true we would not see a continuing trend of decreased crime[5] while there is a continuing trend of increased gun ownership.[6] In addition, those with carry permits in this country tend to be among the most law-abiding segments of the population.[7] As evidenced by Florida's stats (the state with the most permit holders, which enacted its "shall issue" system in 1997) about .3% of all issued permits have been revoked due to any type of criminal conviction, with about .0009% (9/10,000 of 1%) of them being revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm. (National data of this type are almost impossible to find.) There are over 80 million households with approximately 270 million firearms in this country.[8] And the U.S. firearm ownership rate is at its highest since 1993 and climbing while the overall violent crime rates and murder rate are both declining. Therefore Misty's assertion that "[c]early, if hundreds, maybe thousands, of the USA now has access to a gun, these [murder rates] will rise," is demonstrably false. False beliefs: Unlike Misty I believe gun owners own guns precisely because they know they are not safe. The video to which Misty links makes that point quite clear. The man in the video sought out extra training that showed him that situational awareness and being assertive were two areas where he needed work. However, once he realized that it was obvious that a gun in his hands was not only an equalizer against an attacker with a knife but put him at a great advantage. Instead of showing a gun is not an effective means of defense, the video shows that there are other skills needed to survive a violent encounter, but that the gun is the best tool to have at your disposal. And while it is technically possible that arming more citizens could make the country more dangerous there is ample evidence to the contrary. Now on to my arguments. The title of this debate, "Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals" raises several questions that must be answered or addressed in order to come to a reasonable conclusion. Among them, what is meant by "arming citizens with guns"? And what is ideal and does arming citizens against criminals meet the definition. As to the question, "What is meant by arming citizens with guns"? This would seem rather straightforward but in truth there is so much hyperbole surrounding the issues associated with gun ownership and carrying that I feel it is imperative to define the term in order to fairly and accurately frame the debate. When we talk about arming citizens it should be agreed that we are talking about only arming citizens who are of legal age and meet the minimum legal requirements to own a gun. In all 50 of the United States it is illegal for a firearm to be owned or possessed by anyone who is a convicted felon, is a fugitive, is subject to a restraining order, etc.[9] By definition, anyone who meets one of these criteria and possesses a firearm is a criminal and therefore the very ones against whom we are protecting ourselves with firearms. Now we must determine if having a gun is the ideal weapon to use in defense of persons or property, as opposed to other alternatives such as knives, batons, pepper spray, or even just giving a criminal what he wants. So what is ideal? According to Webster's Online Dictionary, ideal can be defined as: "Conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence; embodying an ideal."[10] While there is not a single perfect example that exists today that is a perfect deterrent or perfect defense to crime, what we are asking is, “Is a gun the best available, the closest to ideal tool available to protect ourselves against criminals?” I will show that it is. Note: For the remainder of this debate, I will be using the term "ideal" to mean the best available, not perfect. In order to determine if a gun is the ideal tool we must determine whether it has a deterrent effect against crime or, absent a deterrent effect, e.g. because the gun is concealed, that it can effectively be used to prevent crime or save lives. If you want to get the truth, they say that it is best get it straight from the horse's mouth. "In a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982, 34% reported having been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."[11] Keep in mind that survey was conducted in 1982 when licensed carry was a fraction of what it is now. Aside from what can be referred to as anecdotal evidence, several studies have also shown that permitting citizens to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms also results in an overall reduction in crime. Among the most noted among these studies are John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime and its follow-up study, The Bias Against Guns. In these studies Mr. Lott does extremely in-depth statistical analysis of the effect of various guns laws, both permissive and restrictive, on crime. His studies conclude several things, among them that not only do laws that permit citizens to carry guns deter criminals, but that gun control laws actually increase crime by making it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves. While correlation does not equal causation, it is noteworthy that in 2007 Kennessaw, Ga, which passed a law in 1982 mandating gun ownership by all residents who are legally allowed, celebrated 25 years without a single homicide. After the law was passed gun control advocates predicted a "Wild West" atmosphere. In an article titled "Gun Town USA" Art Buchwald incorrectly predicted that even the most trivial disagreements would end in bloodshed due to the use of firearms.[12] Of course Mr. Buchwald was wrong. In fact, according to police Lt. Craig Graydon, “When the Kennessaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then.”[13] In Kennessaw crime levels are far below both the state and national averages.[14] By way of comparison one only need look as far as the gun control meccas of Chicago and Washington, D.C. Both of these far exceed the national averages in most crime statistics. Since the beginning of the war on terror Chicago has seen more Americans killed than Afghanistan.[15] [16] So contrary to Misty's belief, the mere presence of even large numbers of firearms in a community does not make it a more dangerous place. Nor does the absence make it safer. My intention is not to say that Kennessaw safe ONLY because they enacted this law. My point is that the belief that the presence of a gun makes every disagreement turn into a murder is absurd. [1] http://jpfo.org...[2] http://www.budsgunshop.com...[3] http://www.heritage.org...[4] http://www.cdc.gov... , http://www.cdc.gov... (page 19, table 2)[5] http://www.fbi.gov... [6] http://www.gallup.com...[7] http://www.justfacts.com...[8] http://www.reuters.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://www.guncite.com... [11] http://websters-online-dictionary.org...[12] http://beforeitsnews.com...[13] http://www.wnd.com...[14] http://www.cityrating.com...[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...[16] http://www.defense.gov...