Citizens should be able to own guns.

That is a very significant concession there. If you agree that guns are very effective at self defense, even if you say no to gun rights because they are dangerous, then I have a very workable case. Basically, more people are law abiding citizens than criminals, and so guns will be used for self defense more than crime, thus saving lives and preventing crime. Rebuttals 1A. Our "philosophies" Yes, I do believe that if you equip millions of people with the most dangerous weapon around you will create non violence, and here's why. Not all people are criminals just waiting to commit a crime. Most people are law abiding citizens. Secondly, most criminals, without access to a gun, will go to the next weapon, i.e., a knife. The US violent crime rate for 2008 was 20 per 100,000[1]. That means for the 999,980 people per 100,000 who weren't committing crimes were using guns to protect themselves. What this means is that people with guns are MUCH more likely to use guns to protect themselves than use guns to aggravate crime. Your worries would be applicable if the violent crime rate exceeded 50,000 per 100,000 as then over 50% of guns would be used for crime rather than against. Obviously, this is not the case. Secondly, I have the 3,000,000/1,000,000 argument, which pretty much proves that guns mainly are used for self defense. 1B. Less guns=less gun crime. If there was less guns, there would obviously be less gun crime. However, there would be more crime overall. The 3 million who protect themselves would no longer be able to, and crime would rise. 2. Criminals own guns. First off, the US is not a "notoriously dangerous and homicidal nation". It does have a higher than normal murder rate, but by 1995, English rates of violent crime were higher than the USA's in everything except murder and rape[3]. Secondly, yes, criminals will have guns. Criminals will probably have guns, just less of them, with gun control as well. However, as I have shown, there is more law abiding citizens than criminals, and more law abiding citizens will use them for protection than criminals will use for crime. I do not have some fantasy that only law abiding citizens will have guns. I know that criminals break the law, and I know that background checks will not 100% prevent criminals. In fact, I never even stated anything along the lines of "only law abiding citizens will have guns". 1. More guns=less death. More guns does equal less deaths. There's about 11,000 gun committed homicides per year, and 162,000 households believe someone would have died without a gun[4]. This means that even if 93% of the households were wrong, there would still be more lives saved by guns than ended by guns. 1A. 3x crime argument. I would not be too sure that those are "estimates". The facts come from Targeting Guns, and the reason that it is 2,500,000-3,500,000, or an "estimate", is that crime and DGUs(Defensive Gun Uses) are not constant. Just as there is 1,00,000 violent crimes in which guns are used. That could be an "estimate", but I would hazard a guess that it has to do more with the fact that there is not exactly 1,000,000 violent gun committed crimes a year. There is most likely some variance, and the 2,500,000-3,500,000 fact most likely also comes from the fact that DGUs (and the reporting thereof) are not constant each year. Firstly, in 82% of the DGUs, the criminal did not have a gun[5]. Not every criminal has a gun. You say that you do not want guns in a environment with 8,000 violent crimes a day. How so do you propose that citizens protect themselves? After all, guns scare away the criminal 90% of the time simply by being brandished. What else could attain such a high rate of protection? 1B.Guns are powerful. The reason I want gun rights is because guns are used for self defense, and I predict much of our debate will be over whether or not guns are used for self defense and not as much crime. Anyways, I agree with you that guns are dangerous. And that is precisely why they are a great candidate for self defense. A little child can suddenly take on the most hardened of criminals, and criminals can no longer easily prey on the weak. The lethality of guns is why we should have millions on the street. Most people are rational, law abiding citizens, and will not go running around like maniacs once they obtain guns. As I have shown, the number of law abiding citizens who will use guns for self defense greatly outnumber the criminals. Gun control may be effective if there was a more or less equal number of criminals and law abiding citizens, but there isn't. "Pro hasn't proved that without guns there would be more crime." Sorry, I worded that wrong. I meant, "Considering all of this information, why should we deny citizens an effective self defense option that has been proven to prevent more crime than it is used in?" Prevent is used as preventing the crime while it is taking place. Forgive my wording error. I am proving that guns protect people, not that they cause less crime. However, I will address this point. 40% of criminals had decided not to commit a crime because they thought or knew the victim had a gun[4]. Guns most likely do lead to less crime. It probably is impossible to prove without a doubt that guns cause less crime. But why is self defense negligible? Shouldn't self defense be a good thing? It may not lead to less crime, but it does lead to less people being hurt because of crime. Would you prefer that the 3,000,000 people who defended themselves to be the victim of the crime, instead of scaring the criminal away? "Con because limiting the amount of tools used for violence limits violence" It does not limit violence. If a criminal isn't scared of the gun, he is now free to commit the crime. If the criminal is not scared away by the gun, he is now free to assault/rob/rape/etc. the victim. Secondly, if the criminal doesn't have a gun, he will use a knife, or something similar. "Pro because the ability of someone to kill with guns is a reason why millions of Americans shouldn't have guns, not the other way around." The problem with this is that it assumes that most citizens are criminals, not normal, law abiding citizens. I have shown this many times already. My Case Guns are used in 1,000,000 crimes a year, while guns are used to prevent crime 3,000,000 times a year. Why should we ban guns if they stop 3 times more crime than they are used in? Guns are used more by law abiding citizens than criminals. In 82% of DGUs, the criminal did not use a gun[5]. I have proven that guns prevent (sorry, stop) more crime than they are used in, and how do guns lead to more crime? Conclusion I have shown that guns are used to stop crime 3 times more than they are used in crime. My opponent has basically said that "guns are dangerous, and if it's dangerous, it leads to more crime". However, this is not true. I have disproven this with facts. Con has made largely rhetorical arguments, using little, if no facts, to back up his statements. Not only that, he has failed to successfully address the fact that guns are used to stop 3 times more crime then they are used in. He has said that you do not want lots of guns, because that leads to more violence. However, he offers no facts to back that up, while I have used facts to show that guns are used more often in self defense than in crime. Thank you. Sources [1] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [2] https://spreadsheets.google.com... [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://www.justfacts.com... [5] http://gunsafe.org...