I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations!

Alright, since we both have valid sources we will just have to debate which logically is better. My opponents contentions: C1. More guns=less crime As I explained, in crimes involving guns, the main guns used are handguns (revolvers, pistols, etc.) According to the US Justice Departments, 86% of crimes involved a handgun (1). So just giving a correlation between murder rates and gun ownership does NOT prove that more guns=less crime. As you have not answered the question of how many of these guns are hunting rifles? Rifles are the least likely to be used in a crime (3%) and therefore, we cannot use our statistic with any certainty until it is known what percentage is rifles. Without that all you know is that an increase in rifles=a decrease in crime. And as I stated above in my arguments, people are neither more likely or less likely to purchase handguns because of crime or other factors. Since this is true, we now must assume this increase in gun ownership is an increase in rifles with the handgun ownership staying constant. These regulations you speak of are regulations on buying handguns. Rifles have always been easy to get. But, as I stated above, making it easier to get a gun does not mean more people will buy the gun. Furthermore, do any of these statistics you cite keep in mind police presence? According to professor of Criminal Justice, Wendy DiMarco (BA, MA, L.D) at The College of New Jersey , Police presence is a larger deterrence to crime than law-abiding gun owners. The more police there are the less crime there will be. C2. Gun control does not work. My opponent has not proven here that these murders, in Chicago, would not have happened if it was not for the gun laws nor have they proven that without the gun bans murder rates in Chicago would go down. Now as for Australia goes, in 1996 laws were passed as a result of mass shootings around Australia. Since that time there have been no mass shootings and "In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 1672 firearm homicides (annual average 92.9). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 389 firearm homicides" (3). Homicides have been going down. C3. Conceal carry lowers crime. People do not care about Concealed Carry laws. Therefore, it cannot have a great impact on the crime rates. C4. Crime in countries with gun control doesn't = it's gun controls fault You state it's a fallacy but, I have provided a study performed by a reputable institution proving the exact opposite. There is a correlation. UK: Guns were banned in 1997, cuts to the British police force began in 1997, police have a more impact on crime than guns. C5. Switzerland, Israel, Norway Switzerland: just because there is little gun crime and little regulation does not necessarily mean that it is the lack of regulations that is the cause of this crime. Crime's have roots in socioeconomic problems. Crime is solved by getting rid of these problems. Switzerland does not have as much crime because it has one of the highest per capita incomes ($66,367), one of the lowest unemployment rates (3.4%), and only 4.2% of people are classified as "working poor." (4, 5) This is much higher than the US's per capita income ($39,945) (6), lower than the US unemployment rate (8.5%) (7), and much lower than the US's poverty rate (16.6%) (8). There are less socioeconomic problems in Switzerland thus, there is less crime. Israel: it's been at war with most countries in the area since it's founding. As such, a majority of it's population is in the military because of this there will be less crimes related to guns. Soldiers are trained and kept to a much higher standard. Also, these soldiers realize that every single man counts in their effort to stay a separate country and not just be overrun by say Iran. Norway: Once again, Norway does not have the socioeconomic problems the United States has, so obviously they are going to have less crime (9, 10). C6. gun accidents. Your argument is a fallacy here's your logic. S1. Guns, x, cause fatal accidents. S2. Cars, y, cause accidents which may or may not be fatal. S3. x is regulated. S4. y is not regulated. C. Neither should be regulated because one is and the other is not. So my question is why not regulate both? You never stated why we should not regulate cars and guns to stop potentially fatal accidents from occurring. Even so there are already regulations with cars. You cannot drive drunk, you must get a license at a certain age before driving, car manufactures have to put certain safety features in the cars, the list goes on and on. In fact, cars are regulated more than guns, and ARE safer than guns. I declare my opponents argument rebutted and await his response. (sorry about mixing up pro and con haha) Gun regulation does work and should be implemented. 1) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... 2) https://www.ncjrs.gov... 3) http://injuryprevention.bmj.com... 4) http://www.state.gov... 5) http://www.swissworld.org... 6) http://bber.unm.edu... 7) http://www.google.com... 8) http://www.census.gov... 9) http://www.state.gov... 10) http://www.google.com...