Gun rights should be granted all over the world

Pro is correct, I must show that gun rights *should not* be granted all over the world. Pro fails to understand that my rebuttals are doing that though. For the sake of upholding my end, I'll gladly introduce some additional arguments aside from just my rebuttals so that this doesn't remain an issue for Pro. I. Leaves people with something to defend themselves with. "keep in mind that if you do not grant gun rights, criminals will not lose possession of them, while legal citizens do"Legal citizens can't *lose* possession of guns if they were never allowed to have them in the first place. Pro's error here is assuming that by not granting gun rights, you are actually stripping guns from citizens. This is based on the faulty premise that there were already gun rights in place and I am taking them away, which isn't the case in this debate. To *grant* gun rights implies that they weren't there to begin with, so no citizens would actually be losing anything since they didn't have gun rights to begin with. You can't *grant* gun rights if they are already in place, so by me arguing to *not* grant guns rights doesn't necessarily mean I'm taking them away. In order for me to *take* guns away, this resolution would have to use different terminology other than *grant* which implies that something was given. "if you were put in one of those scenarios with a very short-range non-lethal weapon, it is very likely that the criminal will kill you rather than you putting the criminal down."Pro now flips this on me by saying that non-lethal alternatives aren't as effective as guns in mid-to-long range defense scenarios. Here's the problem: There is no clarification given by Pro in regards to these scenarios. Sure, if someone has a sniper rifle aimed at you, in a long-range scenario, then mace won't save you. If it's a scenario like that though, there is little that anyone can do, gun or not. You'd literally need a sniper rifle as well, know the location of your assailant, and then take him/her out before they snipe you. It's a silly argument on Pro's part. In regards to the distance mace or pepper spray can reach, there are brands that can reach as far as 35 feet away. [1]It's actually pretty common to see mace or pepper spray that can reach up to 25 feet in the general market. [2]That's most certainly mid-range. So, my opponent really has no grounds in saying that mace/pepper spray are ineffective at mid-range scenarios. The brand I shared in the first source is actually strong enough to stop a bear. In regards to long-range scenarios, you would need to be equipped with a rifle, not a hand-gun. So, while I concede that *certain* guns would be more effective in long-range scenarios, my argument still stands that there are better alternatives to guns for short and mid-range defense needs. The fact remains that guns only stand superior in long-range scenarios, and even then those are extremely challenging to defend against regardless of if they have a gun or not. My opponent then concedes that it'd be better to have a non-lethal alternative - in the case that someone is pranking you - yet still argues that even if they get shot they should have known better. Unfortunately, Pro fails to consider those who are mentally handicap or unable to see clearly due to poor eyesight. In both cases, the person "pranking" wouldn't have the sense to stop and would then be shot, possibly lethally. This is NOT justification, but rather, just Pro assuming that everyone has common sense and that if they lack it, then they deserve to die. Unbelievable. [1] http://www.udap.com...[2] http://peppersprayflorida.com...II. Guns should be sold legally"There may not be objective standards. However, we only need one that most agree with; As long as most of us are fine with it, then it is."Pro concedes that there are no objective standards. A *global* allowance of gun rights would most certainly need a set of objective standards, or else one country's definition of gun rights can totally differ from the next. For instance, gun rights in country A might include hand-guns and ammo only, while the rights in Country B include semi-automatic rifles along with hand-guns, and country C might include grenades, long-distance rockets, etc. That's my whole point, if we grant global gun rights then we definitely need an objective standard, or else we risk having countries with huge differences in their definition of 'gun rights'. "My point is, we do not need standards that are absolutely objective. We just need one that most, maybe even all, agree with."There are inherent flaws with making the assumption that if a majority agree with the standards, then it's fine. In America, that's how it is because we are a democratic nation where majority rules. This is where Pro makes a mistake, not every country is a democracy with majority rules. Some are monarchies, some are dictatorships, etc., To assume that *most* people agreeing is something that will work for every country is nothing short of an error on Pro's part. In countries under dictatorships, allowing the civilians to own guns would undermine the power and authority of the ruler. For instance, does Pro actually believe North Korea will allow their citizens to have gun rights? It's simply foolish to assume that such nations would allow gun rights when the ruling class is barely holding onto power as it is. To give their citizens guns would mean they are giving them the chance to fight back against the leaders who might have been oppressing them for countless years. Pro needs to understand that this is the reality of the world, there are going to be countries that will not grant gun rights. So, Pro arguing that "if most agree, then it's fine" is fundamentally flawed, as it is not certain that "most" will agree. III. It typically works to be better when gun rights are granted than when they are taken away."I agree; I gave three locations, which is definitely not enough to justify the implementation to locations around the world. However, [2][3][4][5][6] should be. Check it out. There are many graphs that show that the higher the gun availability, the lower the crime rates."Sources 2 - 5 all deal with America, so again, there is really not enough evidence to assume that these studies are reflective of the world as a whole. Rather, they are localized studies done on just 1 country, in a world where there are 196 countries. So, Pro is basically saying that because this is the case in 1 country, it'll be the case in the other 195. That's not even a 50% balance in your favor Pro, it's less than 1%. In reality, your studies from sources 2 - 5 cover less than 1% of the countries in the world. If you were curious as to the exact number that the studies on America reflect in relation to the total countries in the world, it is 1/196 = 0.0051%Only source 6 really touches on other countries. In it's own chart though it shows that America has high gun availability and high crime, compared to Switzerland that has high gun availability and low crime. Anyone can see that if they look at your 6th source. This proves that there is no real correlation and that it varies from country to country. Your source then goes on to say:Fact: “… the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”Pro's own source confirms what I stated in the last round, there is no causality - just weak correlation. Pro has still failed to resolve the two issues I presented last round:1- Prove that the low gun laws/restrictions are the cause of the low crime rates2- Prove that these three locations somehow resemble or justify the effects of implementing gun rights around the world. Although I would amend the 2nd one to say America instead of three locations now. Still a big burden to overcome. IV. Weakens our chance at military success. One of the main benefits of having American citizens who are armed is that if an invading force, for whatever reason, happened to overpower our standing army and moved in on the civilians, our civilians would have a chance to fight on equal grounds - gun vs. gun. The problem with granting gun rights globally is that this strengthens the civilian infrastructure by giving citizens guns. Can you imagine the difficulty we would have encountered if every citizen in the middle east had a gun? It would have been horrible for our brave soldiers over there protecting American interests and resources, especially when some of those citizens view America as the "Devil". Pro is literally advocating that we allow our enemies to arm themselves... it makes no logistical sense in terms of military benefits. That would only serve to harm our current military efforts and surely increase the death rates as our soldiers would now have armed civilians who could potentially harm our soldiers with guns they purchased legally. V. Actually maintaining legalityNot every country is as technologically advanced as we are here in America. Here, we can electronically check someone's background, in other countries that might not even be possible. Furthermore, not every country keeps track of every citizen born like America tries to with social security numbers. So, basically anyone can lie to a store-owner in a 3rd world country and get a gun, heck we don't even know what there standards would be! Pro fails to present a plan to counter-act such scenarios. In closing, I've presented additional arguments to maintain my side of the burden, as well as rebuttals for each argument raised by Pro. I extend all unresolved challenges and now return the floor to Pro. Thank you.