more guns less crime

I thank 16kadams for his fast response. Resolution: If there are more guns, there will be less crime.He states, in the second round, that this applies to North America only. Think logically. This does show that he is rather desperate to cut off Con's sources. Many websites about less guns means less crime focuses on the UK. Thus, it gives him the advantage. He never clarified about where we were debating about. Therefore, I shall try but with the unfair disadvantage. I shall have to use: logical reasoning and evidence.Rebuttals- Many of my rebuttals hits various amounts of his arguments.Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.I will not try to prove this argument false, but I will say that Kennesaw always had a low crime rate, and 89% less would not make much of a difference because the crime rate was already really low. {5}In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.Because people are required to handle guns, it gives criminals an excuse to buy guns for their sake and to rob/kill. Home invasions happen to 20% of all people. Having a gun for the household doesn't make a huge difference. Home invaders usually come in groups of 5. {6}. Because the 5 people are most likely carrying a gun, 5 against 1 or 2 will not make a huge difference. Even worse, a relative may shoot another relative accidentally. This law will create more successful crimes. This shows that with more guns, there MAY be less crimes, but most of them will be successful. As for less guns, most of them will be unsuccessful.As 16kadams states, "Fewer guns don't necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true." This shows that when passing a law on gun control, it may mean less crime or more crime.As {6} shows, the ban on guns made murder and crimes drop by 10%. This is from the National Rifle Association. It shows that less guns means less crime. He talks on and on about the UK. :(. As we see from 16kadams, Canada gets an increase in crime. We see another UK example.Gun. A gun is easily ready to kill. 1 shot and you may be dead. Why would criminals check to see if their victim is armed? When the criminal just points and presses the trigger, it results in near sudden death. Even worse, banks will now be very cautious and perhaps formidable when people deposit money. It will trigger successful crimes because tellers will not see who is innocent and who is the criminal. We see from {3} that a man disarmed the criminal but was nearly shot by a bystander walking by with a gun. The bystander thought the man who disarmed the criminal was the criminal, but it was all sorted quickly when police came. If we continue with more guns, many innocent people will be shot, mistaken for the real criminal.{1} http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com... {2} http://voices.yahoo.com...{3} http://www.nytimes.com... {4} http://www.rense.com... {5} http://www.spike.com...{6} http://www.nraila.org...==>ConclusionI concede, mainly due to the fact that he never clarified where we would debate about. He chose North America, which I have not found many sources of: less guns less crime. This, is why I have to concede. Though I may show logic, 16kadams has the unlimited resources and evidence. If I search online, sources go to less crime more guns because of the unclear Round 1. Vote 16kadams, but note that I had trouble because Pro did not clarify. Because it only applies to North America, I cannot use many of my sources. Happy New Year.