Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Counterarguments: Weapons may be something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy. Based on this definition, I have to conclude that any body part may be used as a weapon. However, my opponent actually wants to debate on gun rights. In this context of this debate, arms will refer to firearms or guns. Therefore, my opponent will argue on this resolution: Everyone should have a gun as the right to keep and bear arms. 1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it. Declaring anything legal doesn't not stop it. However, we try to reduce the number of cases and I already have stated that without laws, people will be encouraged to do anything they want. Without justice, there wouldn't be society and then everyone would start trying to kill the other. Therefore, if we ban guns, we have less cases of homicide and murder. The law enforcement could have a superior weapon or even a gun, because even though they fall under the category of "everyone", the guns could be restricted to law enforcement ONLY. Regular civilians won't have guns so they can't commit a crime without being defenseless from a gun. So if civilians don't have guns, they couldn't commit the crimes. Therefore, we would have less cases and the almost invincible law enforcement. There is the old saying that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Britain is already taking further measures against outlaws who use guns and have made an intensified effort against illegally smuggled weapons and a determination to punish criminals who use guns. For further information, go to . http://www.gunblast.com... Although crime rates in England and Australia have skyrocketed since the gun limits went into effect, the U. N. (also called the United Nations) have proposed ways to keep criminals from obtaining them from being sold in illegal trade and the black market. These proposals include: *Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule; *A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges; *Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U. N. computer bank. "The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun – every single gun worldwide – to be under U. N. and government control," warns LaPierre. "And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation. " If the U. N. have every single guns worldwide under their control, criminals will be prevented to have guns. This will reduce all the cases concerning guns and criminals will have to find another way to kill enemies. I doubt that those criminals are intelligent enough to develop guns on their own, especially since criminals buy guns and if no one is making guns, no criminal will have access to one. For further information, go to . http://archive.newsmax.com... 2. Weapons have commercial interests. Self-defense weapons also have commercial interest if guns were banned. Guns can still be used to kill people even after reforming, regulating, and/or consumer awareness. Criminals are aware that guns kill people and won't need to listen to the dangers of the weapon. They are more interested on executing crime than to listen to people's advice on how to use it for self-defense. People who carry them for just self-defense and hunters have other supplies that they can use. In my second round, I stated that people can own self-defense weapons that aren't lethal such as quality martial arts weapons, home security products, instructional fighting DVD, and even fun sporting goods such as blowguns, crossbows, and Airsoft BB Guns. For more information, go to . http://www.naselfdefense.com... Hunters have other alternatives to hunt down other animals. They could use self-defensive weapons such as the pistol crossbow supplied with cyanide-tipped arrows as an alternative to rifles or handguns. For more information, to to . http://www.naselfdefense.com... 3. Violence does not even require weapons. (Your next point is exactly this point reworded. ) Banning guns will help reduce violence, because of the almost invincible law enforcement. How can you kill 5 to 30 people without a single gun? How can you defend yourself against the law enforcement who has guns? If self-defense weapons are truly stronger than guns, the law enforcement has the advantage. Not many criminals who use guns know martial arts like you do. Even if criminals are physically strong like Bruce Lee, I don't think they can fight against a self-defense weapon from a civilian or a gun from the law enforcement. Therefore, banning guns will reduce violence, because either criminals will have to know martial arts or be invincible against any attack from a gun or a self-defense weapon. I will also further elaborate in later rounds. The opponent of the my Wikipedia sources who is citing sources will most likely check the link themselves. Virtually every time someone posts a link, you would be a fool to just accept the information, rather than examining it yourself. If I post inaccurate information that I used from Wikipedia, then you should have found evidence against my arguments. However, I think that anyone can make a website just like Wikipedia and edit their website, so information from any website is not always accurate.