The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm.

And now to respond to my opponents 3rd round. >> "To begin with, I have to immediately counter Con's claim that the 31 states that allow concealed carry on firearms have a 24% lower violent crime rate etc. There are actually 48 states which have laws which allow the concealed carrying of firearms of one sort or another. " - While this may be true, the article differentiated between shall-issue and may-issue states, with shall-issue states, which allow permits for concealed carry to be obtained more easily than in may-issue states. With easier access to permits for concealed carry, the crime rates in these states are lower. >> "Con also claims that the homicide rate increased once laws against handguns came into effect. This is being extremely selective with the figures he chooses to publish to support his argument. Homicide actually decreased equally in a number of areas which had no lifting of any bans (Maryland, fairfax VA to give but two examples). http://www.texasguntalk.com...... I put forward that there was no relation between the lifting of the band and the decrease in homicides. This is merely con being selective with figures. " - Firstly my opponent cites a less than reliable forum poster as his source for his claims that Maryland and Fairfax's homicide rates dropped. Without any valid source for this I find this claim negligible. >> "You have given example of England where you say an increasing gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes. I refute this as being untrue. However if you look at the difference in gun crime statistics, you will find that gun crime in the USA is several times more common than England and the UK in general (as an example I gave in my opening argument demonstrates). " - And as I pointed out, the crime rates in the U.S. and England are converging [1].>> "Gun laws also provide potential criminals with arms. They make potential murderers of people. Con is defending the right to bear firearms in general, not merely handguns. The idea that a citizen has the need for an AK47 or a Sweeper (which are both legal in many states) is simply ridiculous. " - Firstly, as I cited earlier, guns are used 5 times more in self-defence than criminals use them [1]. This would suggest that even if every gun owned by criminals was legally purchased, citizens use them more than criminals. Clearly freedom of access to guns benefits citizens more than it benefits criminals. >> "I can't criticise the supposed 'security' the legality of private ownership of guns is supposed to bring without drawing on another statistic. Each year 10,000 people in the USA alone are involved in 'gun accidents'. http://www.buzzle.com... you consider guns are only used in approx 60,000 of 'defense' incidents each year added with the many crimes committed as a result of being able to access guns (which number in the 10's of thousands also per annum), it strikes me as obvious that guns result in more danger for the individual than security. " - My opponents point here is weak. If a person purchases a gun, they do so at the chance of being involved in an accident with said gun. If the accident is not their fault, they an sue the gun manufacturer or whoever is at fault. It is the individuals right to take this risk. 70,000 accidents doesn't stack up with the 2 millions times a year guns are used in self-defence annually. If my opponent is concerned with safety, perhaps he'd like to look at lawnmowers first, which cause 200,000+ injuries annually. [3] Overall, guns cause crime rates to drop and provide security to the individual. Guns are used more in defence than in crime annually and it's clear that gun control does nothing but harm individuals and their liberty. [1] = http://reason.com...[2] = http://www.roanoke.com...[3] = http://www.amputee-coalition.org...