I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations!

I will just post my arguments as they disprove many of yours. C1: More guns less crime (usually) "The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low. " [1] So when gun ownership rose, crime decreased. "The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent." [2] When gun REGULATIONS EXPIRED crime decreased. Therefore more guns/less regulation f guns = less crime. "It shouldn't be to surprising that Chicago's murder rates rose after the ban. Every time gun bans have been tried murder rates have risen. In the United States, gun ban proponents have blamed this failure on easy access to guns in nearby states. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give gun control supporters such as Mayor Daley and some of the members of the Supreme Court some pause." [3] A ban, extreme regulation, didn't work. More guns = less crime. C2: Gun control doesn't work Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns. [4] Didn't do what it was supposed too. Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. [4] Even with gun bans they have very high crime and shootings. Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. [5] DOES NOT WORK! C3: conceal carry lowers crime John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. " [6] On average, right-to-carry states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are right-to-carry states. (Data: FBI.) [7] C4: crime in countries with gun control doesn't = it's gun controls fault. People like you like to cite some areas with gun control have low crime rates, that is a fallacy: "This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. "[8] Let's look at the UK: A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. [9] From a British source. Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime. [9] So 20 areas with little guns had high crime rates. C5: Switzerland, Israel, and Norway "Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world." [10] It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation. [11] It has low gun crime and little other problems, in spite of those gun laws, which you think lower crime, little restrictions here = almost no crime. Israel: Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate. [12] Both claim the most guns. Either way, still both have low crime. Norway: Homicide -- whether gun-related or otherwise -- is rare in Norway, which reports one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates in Europe. [13] The rate of private gun ownership in Norway is 31.32 firearms per 100 people [14] In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Norway ranked at No. 11 [14] They have a low crime rate and high gun ownership. C6: gun accidents 600 gun accidents fatal a year 43,000 car accidents a year. [15] Wanna control guns b/c of accidents? Then we need to control cars too aghhhhhhh!!!!!!!! No really if you used that argument it would have looked like that to me. So if you want to ever use that argument, gun accidents, then it is a fallacy. If that is a reason then that is a reason to control cars, yet no one talks about that. So really that argument sounds like the funny sentence above. =conclusion= More guns less crime. I have proven high gun ownership and low regulation crime. Also i have proven gun regulation DOES NOT WORK. VOTE PRO (really you mixed up pro and con :P ). See these funny pics: http://www.squidoo.com... http://www.nraila.org... [1] http://www.nraila.org... [2] http://biggovernment.com... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.kc3.com... [5] http://www.guncite.com... [6] http://www.nraila.org... [7] http://www.cato.org... [8] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [11] http://www.fff.org... [12] http://articles.latimes.com... [13] http://www.gunpolicy.org... [14] http://www.guncite.com... [15]