I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations!

R1: More guns = less crimeJust because crimes where committed with guns =/= control would work. People have knives. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. A loaded gun that is untouched wouldn't kill, therefore it is the persons actions that do it:Also he says more gun ownership =/= less crime. But then why when more people get guns why does crime go down?Despite dire predictions that striking down gun control laws and allowing individuals to exercise their Second Amendment rights would lead to more gun violence, just the opposite is happening, according to recently announced FBI statistics. [1]All from the source. This says when regulatory laws expired crime decreased.we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news. [2]YES GUNS SAVE LIVES!Likewise, law professor Glenn Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. " [3]one example.Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 [4]So they are used in defense more then when used for killing. Bannign guns = one less defensive tool. Bad guys woudl still have guns as theyare already criminals, if they plan to kill (if that gievs them life i prison) thn why does a extra few years Hurt? Also the black market.R2 Gun control doesn't workLet's use Uganda:The various tribes have a long tradition of inter-tribal cattle rustling, and the cattle-raiding would undoubtedly be less dangerous if perpetrated with stone-age weapons instead of AK-47s. But as a practical matter, there have been numerous instances of civilians who have voluntarily disarmed, and were then—despite government promises of protection—robbed by the competing tribes who remained armed. [5]When they where disarmed they where killed. So it doesn;t work vs crime, nor govermental relationships.Also I said murders increased under the control laws and backed them up with sources.The main point, however, is that homicide rates have decreased more in the U.S., where guns have become more common, than in Canada: in fact, since 1998, the homicide rate has dropped by 33% in the U.S. while it increased 3% in Canada. [6]Canada gun laws rose crimeIn the U. K., after the introduction of tougher gun control and a prohibition of handguns in 1997, as well as the general repression of self-defence (victims who defend themselves against violent criminals often get more severe sentences than their aggressors), violent crimes have shot up. [6]Voilent crimes: Murder, assualt, armmed robbery mugging, rape, MURDER etc."Utah has the nation's most permissive gun laws, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, but it has one of the lowest murder rates in the country. California, with the strictest laws, has a homicide rate higher than the national average. "[7]it didn't work in california. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law [8]didn't work in DCR3: Conceal carry lawsYou say just because it doesn't afect the amount of guns therefore it can't do anything. This is fase. It will lower crime as if NO one had guns the bad guys (who have them) would just mugg at random. If there are conceal carry laws they think "they might shoot back". If they shoot back then well you might die. It is the deterence of the unknown, I offer evidence you offer a statement:Gun enthusiasts claim a link between more private citizens carrying concealed weapons and the nation’s dramatic decrease in violent crime. [9]Makes sense, according to the source coceal carry permits are at a high, and crime is at a low.In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed. [10]Thats the detterent. They are scared of commiting crime as, well they have a chance at death themselves. No guns would mean their chance of deathwould drop, less deterence.Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. [10]Examples that they lower crime. ^My 11 source also has reasons WHY these laws deter, reasons above.When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent. In 1992, there were 18,469 murders; 79,272 rapes; 538,368 robberies; and 861,103 aggravated assaults in counties without "shall issue" laws. [12]These shall issue conceal carry laws lowered all crime. This source are written by experts by the way.R4: Crime in countries with gun control doesn't = it's gun controls faultYou say police have more of an impact then guns, proof?Also criminals are more affraid of armed citizens then police:In a vodeo "no guns for jews", a pro gun jewgroup, released goverment stats that 51% of criminals are more affraid of citizens with guns then police. [16]Another question to criminals:One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot?35% said they stongly felt that deterrence39% said it dettered themrest said no fear of guns [17]This shows many of them fear citizens with guns, so it is logical more guns less crime. Bannign guns would end this fear.R5: Israel, switzerland and norwayHaving mor eguns = less crime in studies said above. Their gunlaws do impact their crime [18]Israel: Having war =/= more crime. I talk internal affairs. A war is not crime, it is a war. :P. Also yes havign th etraied troops does help. But still, a soldier with no gun s fairly weak. A well trained armed society is a polite society [19]Norway: a reason they do not have these problems can be linked to guns as said in my former sources.R6: gun accidentsMy logic is better then what you have put forth. An argument pro regulatory people liek push is that there is a high risk of accident. That was saying if a reason to regulate is accidents then let's regulate cars. And you actually said let's regulate both. A car is a useful tool, a gun is a tool for defence. Either way agreeing we need to regulate cars is foolish.=no room=http://www.nraila.org... [1]http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [2]http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [3]http://gunowners.org... [4]http://reason.com... [5]http://www.lewrockwell.com... [6]http://reason.com... [7]http://www.justfacts.com... [8]http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [9]http://www.humanevents.com... [10]http://www.cato.org... [11]http://catb.org... [15]"No guns for jews" [16]http://www.nraila.org... [17]http://www.guncite.com... [18]Frontsight piatza video (oretation) [19]