That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.

==My arguement and rebuttal== ::"My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet. ":: How do we know this is true. Maybe criminals would become more agressive and in return citizens would be more agressive. This would cause alot of distress on society. ::"If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? ":: Maybe not directly! But I doubt this would halt the criminal but rather look for more secluded route to accomplish the fact that he is a criminal and will continue to be. 'Gun control‘ means the efforts of the government or the authoritarian body to keep a check on the selling-purchasing and using of the guns by the citizens within their jurisdiction area. They encompass the sale, purchase, ownership, usage and the distribution. The subject of gun control has always created a political and social debate regarding the restriction and availability of guns and firearms. In American politics for instance, gun control has been a controversial issue that has not been easy to manage or control. Gun control is a law that is used in deciding whether a citizen can own a gun or not. It is a law established to ensure that guns are not owned by criminal minded people but by people who are victims or are helpless against crime. :Pro stated: "The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these "laws". : Those people, who are in support of gun control, say that a gun is meant to kill and the less available it is in the society, the safer the society will be, while those against it say that whether guns are restricted or not, it does not change anything because guns do not kill, people do. Those in support say that gun control will ensure that guns will not fall into the hands of children and teenagers, while those against it argue that with gun control those children and teenagers will not be able to defend themselves in the face of crime because they are not protected. One of the common arguments for gun control is that it helps to reduce the ability of criminals, juveniles, kidnappers, bandits etc to own or posses a gun, firearms and ammunition. These advocates for gun control argue that the availability of guns can be successfully reduced only by strict federal measures. Many a time, crime and morality statistics are used when it comes to dealing with the debates on arguments for gun control. For instance the number of murders committed per year, with a gun, by people within the age range of 14-24 years, increased at a rate of 173% from the year 1985 to the year 1993 and later, it went down by around 47% from the year 1993 to the year 1999. On the contrary, my opponent is a segment of population that does not believe in Government imposing laws over acquisition of gun. :Pro states,"If we let the government disarm us, whats next? ": What's next is the absence of guns altogether. The fact that there is a gun in a household is also a threat a family member can use it to perpetrate one crime or the other, which is why a lot of people are in support of the implementation of strict federal measures of gun control with penalties if anyone goes against the law. Federal government should insist and ensure that citizens comply with and adhere to those gun control laws, to reduce the rate of gun related deaths and make the society safe for citizens. ::"No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves. ":: This inclination by my oppoent is with this culture reflected in our movies, television, music and various other creative forms such as art. Which is based upon the theme of the so called ‘gun culture'. Hence, they have been supporting the laws corresponding to the arguments about gun control and have been insisting the government to enforce them more strictly to lessen the chances of gun going into the hands of wrong people or children or young adults, so that the innocent people do not have to bear the brunt of fire-arms. I do not think my opponnt have given us a real good arguement for why 'gun control' is not needed. I thank my opponent for this debate. I send it back his way!