Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates

Clarifications:1 - I don't consider the specifics of regulations important to the debate, if we work off of the assumption that an agreed foundation for regulations can be established. That being said, criterion would include proving citizenship, a background check looking for criminal activity(robbery, burglary, assault, murder, and other violent crimes), and a training class on the safe handling of the handgun. 2 - Crime rates that are or can be affected by weapons should be considered, as reported by law enforcement agencies and published by the FBI and other agencies. Crimes should be considered on a percentage basis to avoid variance in population.Rebuttals:1 - Con states that an increase in available handguns would cause an increase in crime rate due to a higher percentage of people having access to said handguns. This argument focuses not on the cause of a crime, which is the criminal, but on one of the instruments of a crime. It is not the weapon that causes the crime, it is a person deciding to commit the crime that causes it.2 - Con states that an increased number of people capable of committing crime increases the probability of crime. The fact is, anyone who could commit a crime with a gun could also commit a crime with another weapon, or with their hands. Having a weapon available doesn't influence someone to be a criminal. Everyone(in general terms) is capable of making a fist and punching someone else, but the fist isn't the cause of the crime.3 - A background check removes the possibility of a gun being sold, or a permit being issued, to someone with a violent history. Con states that some individuals don't have a criminal history but can still commit crime. This is true, everybody has the capability to commit crime, but that doesn't inherently make them likely to do so.4 - A background check doesn't preclude one from getting a permit for something like jaywalking. Again, the focus of this debate is on citizens carrying handguns, with an assumption that we have preventative measures in place. Those I have clarified already.Further Arguments5 - Banning guns doesn't deter criminals from obtaining and using guns. In 1995, Washington D.C. had a murder rate of 65 murders per 100,000 citizens[1], during a time when handguns were banned(unless they were locked or disassembled). Of those murders, 81% were committed with firearms[2], even though they were banned. This shows that criminals don't care if guns are illegal or not, they show their disrespect for the law in committing a crime, and in using illegal weapons.6 - Stripping citizens of handguns only makes it easier for someone to commit a crime. For example, consider you decide to rob a bank. There are two banks in town. You know that the teller and manager at Bank 1 both carry guns. You also know that nobody at Bank 2 carries a gun. For the criminal, the defenseless Bank 2 is the obvious choice. It is similar for criminals in general. If they know that no citizen can legally carry a gun, they are less likely to encounter such deadly force in perpetrating a crime. If they know that any citizen could legally be carrying a gun, they are more likely to try and find someone they are sure isn't armed.7 - Despite the number of states issuing carry permits increasing drastically since 1987, the average murder rate in the United States has fallen 42% as of 2010.[3]8 - A study by criminologists Kleck and Gertz found that U.S. citizens use guns approximately 2.5 million times per year to stop a crime. Only 24% of reported incidents involved firing a gun, showing that 76% of the time a criminal will stop and leave with just the sight of a gun.[4]I appreciate my opponent's arguments, and look forward to the continuing debate.[1]http://www.disastercenter.com... [2]http://www.fbi.gov... pg. 193 [3]http://www.disastercenter.com... [4]http://www.saf.org...