Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it. Yes, laws are often neccessary, and often discourage things from happeining, but for this instance, it is not the case. As my opponent said, the law enforcement could have a superior weapon or even a gun. However, the law enforcement falls underthe category of 'everyone', as I have already claified, and this is not the case. The law enforcement would be almost powerless, and there would be a limited justice. My opponent has also brought up that people could have lesser weapons. However our current definition of 'keep and bear arms' is: "Right to keep and bear arms - people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons. (Usually interpreted to mean personal guns.)" Under this definition, all weapons, including blowguns, crossbows, and airsoft BB guns, fall under the definition of 'arms'. In addition, my opponent has stated: "Either way, people can have substitutes instead of dangerous guns." All weapons can be deadly. Even a rock can be deadly. For this reason, I would like to put forth a definition of 'weapon': -something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy http://mw1.m-w.com... Even peppermint spray falls into this category. Banning guns has not prevented violent crime in Great Britain. "An independent report, Illegal Firearms in the UK, to be published by the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College in London tomorrow, says that handguns were used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40 per cent. " http://www.gunblast.com... Again, a ban on weapons will not keep criminals from obtaining them. They will still be sold and traded through the black market. 2. Weapons have commercial interests. "Unfortunately, the gun industry refuses to recognize its responsibility to make its products safer, choosing instead to place the sole burden on the user - even when that user is a four-year-old child." Often, it is illegal for a four-year-old child to obtain a weapon. Why would we kill an industry as soon as it becomes slightly corrupt? The gun industry, as well as the other weapon industries, supply weapons to hunters as well as people who just carry them around for self-defence. Reforming, regulating, and/or consumer awareness could solve all of the problems my opponent has stated. 3.Violence does not even require weapons. As proven earlier, not having guns will not end violent crime either. Before guns, suicides often involve hanging one's self. Murders and assassinations have also occurred with the use of poison. Also, I present a new point (as deemed legal in r1): 4. There are other ways to harm people without weapons. Fists can be deadly. A punch to the neck would kill someone. A knee putting about a hundred pounds of pressure on the neck would also be deadly. Someone could be choked or strangled to death. Legs and arms can be broken without weapons (I myself have been in many martial arts classes). Ribs can be broken under minute pressure. A broken rib can then puncture lungs. I will further elaborate in later rounds. In addition, I challenge the validity of my opponent's sources. Wikipedia can be editied and information can be edited by anyone, so information on that website is not always accurate. Kevin Brady's political campagn website is not a place to look for facts, as he is a politician. Thank you.