I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations!

I have a few main contentions for why there should be gun regulations. C1. Overall, more guns=more homicide According to a study written by Mark Duggan of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a 10% increase in gun ownership is equal to a 2% increase in homicide rates. He came to this conclusion, by analyzing several different factors that guns which are going to be used in crimes are handguns, rather than rifles, because they are the most easy to conceal. That gun owners are most likely to own handguns because they are the easiest to use for self-defense. He also analyzed the sales of a certain gun magazine and analyzing the places it was bought in found that sale of this magazine and the ownership of a handgun was about 1 to 1. (Every person buying the magazine owns at least a single hand-gun). From this he placed his findings in a complicated algorithm along with the FBI, the states, and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data on homicides and found that a 10% increase in gun ownership relates to a 2.14% increase in homicides. (1) C2. Less guns=less gun homicides Furthermore, between 1993 and 1998, gun homicides fell by 36% while homicides utilizing some other weapon only fell 18%. In this time period, the GSS estimated that the "share of households with at least one gun fell more than 42% to 35%". This suggests that when there are less guns there are less gun homicides. (1) C3. Gun ownership has a greater impact on murder rates than murder rates on gun ownership. Once again using the same paper, people are not much more likely to purchase weapons in order to protect themselves from criminals. Using data from states, the FBI, and NCHS and utilizing a different, much more complex algorithm, it was concluded that a 10% increase in homicide rates only amounted to a .2% increase in gun ownership. Guns increase the murder rate 2.14% while murder increases the gun ownership rate .2%. Shouldn't the 2.14% be protected? (1) C4. Concealed Carry Laws do not impact gun ownership greatly. Between 1985 and 1991, ten states passed laws allowing people to carry concealed hand guns. You would obviously expect that since the benefit of owning a concealed weapon was greater the number of people owning a gun would increase substantially. The results of, once again, a different algorithm, was the number of people owning a concealed weapon increased by .0038% a totally insignificant number. The results are about the same at a county level, state level, and decrease at a national level. Even when limited to a certain time frame. (1) C5. Crime does not decline in high ownership counties. Let's say it is completely true that crime is decreased as gun ownership increases. Then it would be expected that in local areas which have high gun ownership also have decreased crime. We will assume, for now, that criminals can percieve the difference between high gun ownership counties and low gun-ownership counties. If a criminal really needed to commit a crime would they not just go to a low gun-ownership county and therefore crime decreases in one place but, not in another. But, here we run into a problem, "violent crime did NOT decline significantly more in counties...that had high rates of gun ownership." So what does this suggest? More people carrying guns has a negligible impact on the behavior of criminals. More guns=more homicide. Les guns=less homicides. 1) http://www.nber.org...