Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

"I made a grammatical error. I meant to say ' I am assuming you are saying he shouldn't argue for it'" Grammar errors are bad, yes. Obama can argue all he wants; he just shouldn't actually disarm us, for the reasons I have listed. "Just because it cannot happen does not make it wrong. We are debating if a gun ban should happen, not if it is possible. " And it should not happen, because the states are against Obama on this issue, and this debate is about whether Obama should remove our guns or not. "I disagree. If you make it extremely hard to get a gun, you will be able to easier track suspicious activity. " It will be easier, but it will not be easy. The number of attempted crimes may go down, but the number of successful crimes will go up. "Or use a dog or pepper spray or martial arts. " One shot kills a dog. Pepper spray is harder to hit long-distance, and needs better aim. Martial arts is close-range. A gun can kill you before you can punch him. "Crime rates are lower in countries with gun control. The US crtime rate is 80 (Italy is 30, Japan 19, Spain 22)" Again, this source does not identify which countries support gun control. It would help if the source marked the countries that banned or highly regulated guns. Also, a quote from your source that makes data questionable: "Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a 'crime'. Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime. " "Or deadly, they are extremely dangerous" Nuclear bombs are more deadly and more dangerous. But they aren't nearly as efficient for defense against a home invasion. "Oh, no! A robber! I'm going to throw a nuke at him! " *throws* BOOOOOOOOOOM! Everything within a ten-mile radius explodes. "The majority of murders in the US were from arguments in 2007. Not robbery. By having the gun, that allowed someone angry to just kill someone else. The majority of murder is not planned out. By taking away the gun, you nearly completely eliminate that. " What, so instead of shooting, you think that they should have strangled each other? Drowned each other? Guns don't kill people. People kill people. "Yep, but I hope we will understand eachother now. " We understand each other. Hopefully, this debate has been fixed. "Thank you. " You're welcome. IN CONCLUSION: Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns. 1. It is unconstitutional, and there is no way that 38 states would suddenly repeal their own amendments within the next eight years. 2. People who hunt for sport, or protect themselves with guns, would be severely hurt by a gun ban. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. 3. If random people in a store are carrying guns, a robber is less likely to want to rob that store, and much less likely to succeed. Thank you for this debate.