Do firearms decrease crime

However, as merely a wild guess at what what PRO is trying to achieve, it seems vaguely that he advocates that guns are weapons that give further advantages to 'women', for which according to PRO, are in danger from individuals who possess weapons. In such a context, we find the central thrust of his arguments to be the deterrant effect of the presence of firearms. However, even as PRO brings up himself, it is the intrinsic nature of my intention that causes crime, instead of the presence or mere possession of firearms. Now, as I will be introducing this as a main argument as well, I would like only to briefly touch upon such a point in passing refutation of my opponent's only point. Now, it becomes explicitly clear that an obvious contradiction exists within the premises and assumptions of my opponent's case. Indeed, he states that in the case and hypothetical situation where the individual is missing a gun due to the illegal nature and ban of firearms, and yet is deterred from invading a home where the target has a firearm, the obvious contradiction resides in the contrary assumptions. If firearms were indeed illegal, then the target her/himself would be devoid of possession as well, and as such the deterrance as he states is invalid. Indeed, the central thrust of my opponent's case resides in such a point, and only just a point. As such, I have not only provided sufficient refutations against his hardly coherent argument, but also provided the justification for the implausibility of his contradictory statements. Crime ------- As such, I would like to present only a single argument, as my lack of time due to real-life concerns only allows me to do so. Now, I would like to point out the inherent point that the intrinsic nature of a crime is dependant upon the intent of the violator. The intrinsic intent of the perpetrator of the crime is the deciding factor for whether or not the crime is committed. To exemplify such a fact, an individual, if he/she actually possesses the intrinsic intent to perpetrate a crime, would not be deterred by the spectrum or limitation of choice of weapons. The inherent intent of the perpetrator determines on a social context whether or not he/she actually chooses to do so. Firearms are only a medium by which such perpetrators of crime may convey their true intent to commit crime and violate social harmony. Indeed, it is only a group of weapons for which forms only a miniscule portion of the variety of objects that may be used as weapons for crime. As such, it thus actually only comes down to the intrinsic intention of the individual that forms the deciding factor for whether such an individual turns into the perpetrator of a crime or merely another innocent resident in our social community. Now, as my opponent, as PRO, fails to make not only a coherent argument, but also one with a valid and adequate justification, on the contrary a contradictory one, there remains no argument actually for which we may look to on his part. And as I have provided sufficient reason for which firearms in of themselves do not serve to decrease crime, due to the dependance upon the intrinsic intent of the perpetrator, not the medium, I strongly urge a CON vote. Thank you.