Legitimate reasons to own guns

Thank you for your response, tmar. I feel, to avoid arguing what is instead of what should be, the word "legitimate" should be defined solely as "able to be justified with evidence or reason" (not "in compliance with the law"). In this sense, we shall be debating whether or not private ownership of guns should be legal, not whether they are or aren't (especially since you didn't specify which state or nation's legistlation we'd be using as a reference).So without, further ado, my arguments/rebuttals:I believe any nation's decision to allow private ownership of guns is something that could only jeopordize the overall safety of that nation. This is because guns are nothing more than tools of violence and as such only increase the liklihood of danger when present.Due to the U.S.'s high rate of gun ownership and legislation which allows its citizens to not only use them openly as self-defense in their homes, but even go outside in public areas with them concealed in their backpockets, their gun-related crime rate and deathtoll are through the roof compared to countries such as Japan and Sweden (where private gun ownership and usage is permitted only for the sport of hunting).HuntingIf hunting were still a necessity in this day and age, I'd actually be inclined to agree on this point. But seeing how it isn't, I'm not. Nowadays, hunting is nothing more than a sport, even if the entirity of the animal is used for some purpose post-death (meat to make stew, hide to make clothes, etc.).In Japan, the only type of gun a civilian can own is a shotgun and only for the purpose of hunting. Because of this, their gun crime rate is very, very low, but not perfect. On occasion, someone will use their shotgun to murder, so I must say the banning of hunting would only improve the society's safety and well-being even more.If you're hungry, go to Wal-Mart. If you're just sadistic and like shooting creatures, hop on Call of Duty. It's not worth the risk of allowing citizens to own hunting rifles (or pistols or shotguns) when the owners could use them against their fellow humans.Target ShootingThis point is little different than the hunting one, just this one is even easier to refute. Yes, target shooting may be fun (and some may find hunting fun), but that outlet of entertainment can and should be sacraficed for the purpose of protecting citizens' safties, the lives of whom should supercede the enjoyment one can get out of punching a hole in a paper target or wild animal.In the case of target shooting, however, a lesser form of it can still be permitted with the use of airsoft or paintball guns.InvestmentMany countries allow its civilians to collect any number of war paraphernalia, including guns and tanks (though non-functional). However, it's my belief that there should be a limit to what a civilian can own. Tanks, atomic bombs, and guns fall on the other side of this limit, despite how much historical value they may have. And no, I don't care how much money one can make by investing in such things. Human life ought to be valued more than whatever profit there is to be made.I'm all for the private ownership of a thing that looks like a gun but cannot possibly fire a bullet for the sake of collecting, but not of a gun itself.Home DefenseThis is, apparantly, "by far the best of reasons to own a gun" according to my opponent. I must disagree completely. Hunting was the best argument so far, as unconvincing as even that was.Anyway, my rebuttals to this are threefold:1) There are plenty of other things one can use to protect their own home; mace; tasers; an alarm system (who would continue rummaging through drawers for jewelery when there is a siren going off in their ears?).2) If the one trying to rob your home has a gun, then there is little chance you could get to your own in time to use it as a defense. If one is using proper gun safety, it will be locked away somewhere and, one way or another, unable to fire immedeatly (either the trigger is locked, the gun is not loaded, etc.). If, however, one is the type to constantly have his/her gun on person at all times, loaded and ready to fire, then he/she is paranoid enough to ought to be denied a gun.3) If the one trying to rob your home does not have a gun, then there is no need for you to have one either. Most robberies occur for the purpose of taking your electronics or other valuables, not to inflict harm upon the homeowner. And you shouldn't be allowed to open fire on a person for trying to take your TV unless the damage avoided is greater than the damage dealt (which, in that case, it certainly wouldn't be).Closing remarksEssentially, the debate on private gun ownership comes down to the question of what should we, as a society, prioritize above our own safety? Entertainment? Sentimental value? The freedom to own a gun itself? It's my belief that none of those things are even worth considering they may have more value than human life.Over to you, tmar.