That we should ban guns in urban areas

The Con in this debate simply didn't respond to my material; instead of talking about rights, they theorised about what would happen if America became Nazi Germany; instead of discussing crime he made vague statistical points. But nonetheless there are three main areas of contention here. Firstly, to the issue of the right to bear arms. On the Pro we were always pretty clear on this points; that people don't have the right to bear arms if it infringes on the rights of others to things like personal safety, and this is something the Con conceded when he said, "a right to something that necessarily takes away someone else's rights is not a legitimate right". So the question here becomes whether or not guns infringe on the right to personal safety. My opponent attempted to dodge this question by answering that hurting people wasn't included in the right to self-defence. However, the topic is not whether people have the right to bear arms, it is about the right to have guns, and my opponent must concede the other consequences guns have; of accidental shootings and criminal behaviour. These rights clearly infringe on the right to life and the right of personal safety. We on the Pro believe that, when a gun is used forty-three times to shoot someone accidentally or unlawfully to every one time it is used in self-defence, we should prioritize and realize that the right to life is much more important than the rarely used right to have a firearm. Even if the opposition considers the 1:43 ratio to be inaccurate by a factor of twenty, this is still two accidental or unlawful shootings to every home that was allowed to keep some possessions. Even if the very statistic were reversed and guns were used successfully 43 times to every one shooting, we consider the sanctity of human life to be so great that the right to life is more important. We never said that the right to self-defence is obsolete; simply that when we have protection from a high-quality police force that is often able to intervene in crime and a situation in which that right is used very rarely and often very poorly with resultant accidental shootings, we shouldn't protect it. After this point my opponent attempted to claim that citizens need guns because the police and the government as a whole might start attacking them. This point is simply ridiculous because we are in a stable, democratic system with armed forces from other nations that could help us. My opponent recalling Stalin and Hitler and saying we could someday need protection from their likes is so improbable that the point isn't worth contemplation. My second point in round one was about the decrease in spontaneous crimes that having less available guns would cause, which was something my opponent misrepresented as being about gun-related accidents. I apologize for placing my 43:1 ratio in that point; I meant it to be in my first. I request that my opponent looks at the main body of my second point in round one. The only refutation my opponent ever gave was this one: "I'm glad my opponent brought up the fact that the U.S. has higher homicide rates than the U.K. To see why these statistics are irrelevant, we have to look at the history of gun control laws in Britain. The first major restriction on guns in Britain came in 1920. [1] Before then, both British and Americans had virtually no gun control laws. During the time when neither country had gun control laws, the U.S. still had about 4 times the homicides per capita that Britain had. [1] Gun control, or lack of it, is not responsible for the disparities in crime rates between the U.S. and Britain." The reason the US had high rates of gun crime in the 1920s is that that was the time of prohibition, which allowed gangs to form. [1] But moreover, that analysis is simply irrelevant because it happened so long ago. If my opponent has any plausible reasons for homicide rates being so much higher in the US, I'd be glad to hear them. Thirdly, to the effect on petty crime. My analysis on this issue was neglected by my opponent. On a purely economic level, price will go up because there will be more risks in procuring guns and that there will be, overall, less supply. This means that smaller gangs and individuals who are taking part in petty, low-scale crime will not be able to access guns, something the Con is yet to respond to. Fourthly, in terms of organized crime. My opponent said that guns could flow from the rural areas to the city. While this is true, given that both sides in this debate agreed that organized crime had access to guns, any reduction in supply or making it harder to get these guns would be a good thing. Furthermore, Con never responded to our claims that we could better combat organized crime when their very lifeblood is illegal. Currently, police can't stop organized crime because proof is so hard to find. However when their very lifeblood is illegal, we are better able to stop it. We should ban guns