Resolved: Guns should be prohibited.

I would like to point out that my opponent has not provided any evidence to substanciate his claims that society would be a lot peaceful and it manipulating people's minds. So his words are rather empty. His case is bearly worth looking at so I will just defend my case and show why he utterly fails in trying to refute my contentions. Defense 1My opponent states that I should use our own countries rates and I will be happy to ablige him and any of the voters that share this thought, but first I would like to make clear that his statement that crime in other countries and the methods used to stop it or keep it low can not be used as data for our country is absurd. Crime is ruted in the same things no matter what country we are in (violent crime at least). Criminals attack for passion, greed, insanity, etc. A gunman will kill over here to rob someone or because they are mentally ill the same as anyother country (including the ones that I listed). So the people reading should reject this absurdity and look at violent crime in the same light no matter what country it is in. Furthermore, I will also object to his assertion about using years such as 12 years ago in 2000 because 'times change', after all, we have had gun rights since our nations very founding and violent crime and the reason for which people commit it is has always existed. For example: that is like me saying that I can't say that National Socialism is bad because most of my evidence that shows this is from the 20th centery. Another example being that he would have to object to me saying that slavery shouldn't be legal because most of my facts stating that it would be bad is from well. .. since the beginning of civilization. His claim is completely absurd. Now as for the statistics in our own country, the U. S.1. First of all I will use our latest mass shooting as an example of why gun control only hurts the people who obey the laws. In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to carry concealed weapons and it is illegal to discharge firearms in public (unless it is the police) [1]. These laws didn't stop the massacre from happening, and they didn't even decrease the chances of the event from happening. No, they only helped the gunman! Can you imagine how many people would have surived or came out unscaved if conceal-carry was legal in that town? A lot of people could have made it out of there with their health, heck, the shooting might have not even have happend in the first place since not shooter would want to fire at a crowd of potential gun carriers!2. Within months of striking down Chicago's gun control laws, the violent crime rates plomitted and the murder rate fell 14%. Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12% [2].3. A rescent Harvard study concluded that banning firearms increased both homicides and suicides whereever they were found [3]. I will provide more facts in my next round if need be, but I am going to leave it at these and the ones I presented earlier. And then my opponent makes an unproven/unsourced assertion about the potential of all people to become criminals. Again, completely absurd, one can kill with anything, not just a gun. One can kill with knives, rat poison, bleach, hammers, crowbars, etc! In order for my opponent to stay consistant he must be for banning these items as well and I doubt he does. Guns act as a deterant, if everyone has one then no one is going to risk getting shot themselves (the sources given prove this). Defense 2"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people . .. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. " -- George Mason"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. " -- George Washington Our government is most certainly currupt. I have no idea what garbage my oppoent has been reading but, in the last few decades their has been a constant assault on our liberties. Wilson made it illegal to convince people to not join the military durring WW1 (a unjust war), there has been a all out assault on women's rights, their has been an all out assault on our own self-ownership rights as stated by the Constitution (drug war), we have a President that authorized a war without congresses approval, we have the state telling thousands of couples they can't get married (Same-Sex Marriage bans), the government passed the Patriot Act which guts our rights to freedom of privacy, and it enacted the NDAA which gave the President the authority to indefinately detain people for whatever reason without a trial [4] [5]. My opponent's fails, and my contention still stands. Sources[1]. http://cnsnews.com...[2]http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...[3] Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694)[4]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...