Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals.

Thank you for your strong refutes, Robert. I would like to point out though that: a) I am a guy/male/boy (whichever you prefer) b) I am "TheMysticEgg" not "TheMistyEgg", and c) My name is Jacob, if you'd prefer that. Now, on to my arguments. My opponent starts by stating that "The government should stay out of it as it [gun control]". I have a reverse opinion but I believe that is a debate issue for another time. I will respect my opponent's views however and assume that the government would not pay for the guns and ammo. Clearly, we run into some mathematics problems. This leaves the household very open in its choice of gun and I cannot take averages to calculate. As a result, I will consent this argument to my opponent. Contention 2 (a) My opponent accepts my argument straight away ("Yes, it is easier for me to kill you with a gun") before leading me onto a red herring fallacy of how easy it is to kill people with cars. These statistics, though true, do not somehow reduce the easiness of killing with a gun. My opponent stated that he accepts my contention and then cites some different facts. Contention 2 (b) My opponent states that "[owning a gun] does not give you more opportunity [to kill me]." I disagree. My opponent does (quite correctly) state that I could stab him with a ballpoint or slit his throat with a knife. However, he implies that these potential feats somehow reduces the increased opportunity given to me with a gun than without a gun. This is not true. I think that my opponent may have misinterpreted my argument to mean that: "More opportunity [to kill you] with a gun than [to kill you] in general." whereas I actually meant that: "More opportunity [to kill you] with a gun [to kill you] than without a gun." I apologise if I caused any confusion. Contention 3 My opponent quickly (and quite forcefully: "SUPPRESSOR") pointed out my "ignorance of firearms." I apologise, but I have never handled a gun in my life so I did take the films on faith. After my opponents rebuke I will consent this argument to my opponent. Contention 4 My opponent states that "It is an insulting insinuation that the mere presence of a gun will lead a gun owner to shoot someone when they might otherwise let a perceived slight just roll of their shoulder." I agree, although I did not say this. I simply stated that "power corrupts" and "absolute power corrupts absolutely". I did say that "not everyone will stay the same when in possession of a gun" which I back up with research[1]. It seems that people are more aggressive when owning a gun[1]. "[pro-gun advocates] say that gun ownership is higher than ever in the U.S., and not coincidentally, the murder rate has fallen 49 percent since 1991 [source: National Rifle Association]." However: "The 2012 General Social Survey says that household gun ownership has hit a 35-year low, coming in at just 34 percent compared with 43 percent in the 1990s, which would counteract the correlation between ownership and a decreased crime rate"[1] Contention 4 My opponent states that "Unlike Misty I believe gun owners own guns precisely because they know they are not safe." I do not dispute this, nor did I state otherwise. My opponent appears to be misinterpreting my argument and/or making assumptions. I clearly stated that people will (falsely) believe they are safe once they are in possession of a firearm. "The man in the video sought out extra training that showed him that situational awareness and being assertive were two areas where he needed work." I do not dispute this. I would however like to highlight that word *extra*. My opponent implies that standard training is not enough. His first run through before his *extra* training resulted in him getting monstrously murdered. I agree with my opponent on this, as it supports my argument that people are in a false sense of security without extra help that many do not seek. Once could argue that after his extra training he's fine. I, however, think that he probably killed the person (indicating higher fatality rates if everyone acted the same) and that he was only so jumpy because he knew beforehand that this person was going to attack him with a knife. In reality, very little people know when they are about to be attacked. As for my opponents argument. I agree with my opponents definitions - no refutes needed. As for the "more guns=less crimes", it would seem that my initial belief is unfounded, so I concede that . This is not a certainty however and it comes down to personal opinion. Studies show that in communities, firearms can make it safer, doesn't mean that it will always be safer. This poses a risk that people might not want to take. my opponent states that: "My point is that the belief that the presence of a gun makes every disagreement turn into a murder is absurd." I agree; I never stated otherwise. [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com... Thank you; I will await your next arguments/refutes.