Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

I appreciate Con's arguments, and will begin with direct rebuttals.1 - Con asserts that by limiting accessibility of handguns we will prevent outcomes that are inevitable as explained by the framework of meta-ethics. Con is suggesting that the presence of a handgun can act as a cause for an inevitable outcome. I propose Con hasn't provided any logical reasoning for this viewpoint.2 - I fail to see any connection between regulations and increased crime rates. Con is stating that regulations assert his position, yet these regulations serve to prevent those who have shown themselves criminally-inclined from obtaining handguns.Con's Rebuttals1 - Con asserts that differentiating moral values serves to show that any regulations we put in place only assert that each person is capable of crime. Yes, every person is capable of crime, but whether or not a person becomes a criminal isn't a matter of odds. It is a matter of choice. The regulations only serve to keep handguns out of the hands of people who have already shown themselves inclined to act violently. In this regard, it can be said that those who are approved for permits are more likely to not commit crimes, because the average probability of that particular pool of people has been reduced by removing criminals with a higher probability. Con also fails to provide any reasoning why lack of a handgun would reduce probability. I propose that even without a handgun, a person will still be just as capable of committing crime.2 - Again, capacity to commit crime is not the same as probability. If this were the case, we would see constant instances of people, who have led a peaceful life, suddenly deciding to become criminals. This is clearly not the case. People with a history of criminal activity are more likely to commit crimes than people without a criminal history. This is because people are not walking chance. A person who is trying to be a good citizen doesn't have a random number built into their minds that can roll 'criminal' at any given time. And, Con still hasn't shown why handguns would increase crime rates. The assumption is that Con is stating that handguns increase the likelihood that someone will commit a crime, but I can easily show this to be false. In Florida, the number of citizens with carry permits has increased from nearly 0 to over 800,000 from 1987 to the present time.[1] Despite the dramatic increase, there hasn't been an increase in murders. In fact, the murder rate has fallen 54%.[2] According to Con's argument, the increase in the number of handguns available should have increased the probability of murders. Con's attempted meta-ethical arguments aren't in line with historical statistics, and I assert that the reality of what the murder rate is from year to year is more correct than any meta-ethical argument about the probability of what the murder rate should be.Con stated:" Indeed, having easier accessibility of firearms/handguns will not only decrease crime rates, but for the values concerning ethical subjectivity that I have shown, will only aggravate and increase probability of crime rate." Con states that increased accessibility of handguns will decrease crime rates, but will only aggravate and increase probability of crime rate. This clear contradiction holds no value to Con's assertion.2 - Pro states that the perpetration of a crime depends on the existence of the handgun. We can clearly show that crimes are committed without handguns. Indeed, the hijacking of airplanes on September 11 was done without the use of handguns, or firearms in general. Obviously, crimes can still be committed without weapons. Pro also fails to realize that even if all guns were completely banned, criminals would be able to get access to illegal weapons. After all, drugs are illegal, yet millions of pounds of drugs are smuggled into the US every year. In any case, the issue at hand is not a total firearm ban, but allowing citizens to carry handguns on their persons. Con fails to address my presented situation with two banks, one armed and one not. I assert that a criminal is more likely to attack an unarmed bank than one which has guns inside.Con presents statistics that actually argue the Pro position. From 2000 to 2007, with the number of handguns increasing in the US, the total number of firearm deaths decreased.Again, Con starts to argue that the solution to firearm deaths is the complete removal of firearms. This is not the debate. Con's position is that allowing citizens to obtain permits to carry guns increases crime rates. I have shown the crime rate to decrease as the number of guns carried increases. This refutes Con's position that increased guns would increase crime rates.My previous point 7 showed unequivocally that when the number of handguns carried increased, the murder rate decreased. Con's position is that if the number of handguns carried increases, crime rates would increase. Con doesn't address the study by Kleck and Gertz, showing that citizens use handguns 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes. In addition to this study, I present as evidence a study by the Department of Justice that determined guns are used between 1.5 and 4.7 million times per year.[3]"By saying that individuals who have the capability to commit crime and perpetrate such an act are not extremely likely to do so goes against our rational framework on a whole as well as even the resolution itself."I propose that it is irrational to say that someone is 'extremely likely' to commit a crime simply because they are capable of it. If that were the case, the vast majority of Americans would be criminals. I assert that handguns can be, and are used by responsible citizens to prevent crimes, as supported by the cited studies.[1]http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us... [2]http://www.disastercenter.com... [3]http://www.tscm.com...