Citizens should be able to own guns.

Reconstruction: 1A. Pro said "999,980 per 100,000". That's bad math. I'll assume Pro meant 99,980 per 100,000. Let's follow the line of thinking, shall we? Pro believes: a) "The US violent crime rate for 2008 was 20 per 100,000. That means for the 99,980 people per 100,000 who weren't committing crimes were using guns to protect themselves." b) If that's true, then everyone mentioned in that statistic owns a gun, because if they didn't own a gun, that wouldn't apply to them and they wouldn't be in the statistic c) So out of 100,000 people, 20 use guns for crime and 98,000 used guns to protect themselves d) 100,000 out of 100,000 is 100%. Conclusion: Pro believes 100% of Americans own guns. I'm not going to do that for every one of Pro's statistics, I just want to show how utterly useless they are at being able to imply something else. For as Pro knows, stats and surveys are, for a lack of a better acronym, BS[2]. It's like saying having a toilet in your house means you'll be burglarized because every house in America in 1995 that was burglarized had a toilet. Regarding, "You only need 150,000,000 gun wielding criminals?", that is in response to my response of him saying my points would only be valid if "the crime rate exceeded 50%", which would be approximately 154,000,000 people. If you agree that my points wouldn't be valid if 153,999,999 people in America were gun-wielding criminals, then, well, you can stop reading now because nothing I can say will make you change your mind. Also, you disgust me. 1B. First of all, if someone knew Muay Thai or Krav Maga, I wouldn't attempt to attack them because I would get my rear end handed to me on a silver platter. Muay Thai is some scary stuff. Secondly, in regards to the idea that even a child or a brittle old granny can defend themselves with a gun, this idea is false. It takes training to be able to use a gun properly[2][3][4]. Do you think an average granny knows about the Weaver Stance? Also in martial arts such as Krav Maga, they teach how to disarm a gun from an attacker[12], so it's not as if guns are an "I win this altercation" tool. 2. Concession, I can't prove that any country is notoriously dangerous and homicidal, but then again, neither can Pro prove that any country isn't. We're both wrong and I acknowledge it was a weak statement. But I should mention that when I said "a notoriously dangerous and homicidal nation", I wasn't referring to America, because they already have guns, so that would be ridiculous. In his weak attempts to rebut an equally weak point, he mentions that a nation that heavily restricts guns, even from police, [5] has 3.5 times less rape and murder than a country who's ability to own guns is written into their constitution[6]. As I mentioned, this is a point in my favour. "I don't know how you got the idea that I insinuated anything along the lines of criminals won't have guns." I don't believe I insinuated anything along those lines. Deconstruction: 1. If I didn't talk about how guns save more lives then they end, which I believe I did, I'll do it now. If you killed every human being on the planet, you would save every life that would have ever been taken by the human beings or their offspring you killed. I'm willing to bet that until the end of time, which scientists predict to be about 5,000,000,000 years from now[8], more than 7 billion people[10] will will be killed. Let's say in total, 100,000 people were killed this year on Earth. You know what? Let's just count America. From 1960 to 2006 there were approximately 17,000 murders a year[9]. 16,000 over the next 5 billion years is 8.5e+13. I don't know what number that is, but it's a heck of alot bigger of a number than 7 billion. Following Pro's logic, something is okay if it potentially saves more lives than it ends. Under his logic, the murder of humanity as a species is justified. What I am saying, is that I don't agree. "guns save more lives than they end"? We can't know for sure, but even if that's true, that alone is not enough to justify them being allowed. "I made a argument and Cliff showed me why it was wrong, so I made a new and better argument". No, you didn't. You made the same argument to a different person hoping they wouldn't realise that your stats are very close to being completely meaningless. You even copy & pasted the hilariously ridiculous and ineffective point, "162,000 households believed that someone would have been killed if they didn't carry a firearm for protection". Check it yourself if you think I'm embellishing. Using the same arguments which have been proven false against someone else, hoping they'll buy into it, is a disgrace to debate as an art form and a medium of intellectual thought and you should be ashamed. Since Pro has the Burden of Proof and it's his responsibility to convince us why citizens should be able to own guns, and since in America you are already allowed to own guns, he obviously means guns should be legalized in a country that does not already have it. I don't believe Pro has accomplished this task and I doubt you, the voter will either. This also means that just about every statistic Pro has cited regarding America's policy, except to say that it has more rape and murder than the only country he's compared it to (England, a country that has very strict gun laws), is inapplicable in itself regardless of my rebuttals. He has also failed to mention his definition of a "gun". I kept waiting for him to do this but he didn't so he may very well mean it includes handguns, shotguns, rifles, arquebus, blunderbusses, submachine guns, gatling guns, nordenfelts and howitzers. Why? Because those are what guns are: "a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive". My Global Genocide point saves 1,359,000,000,000,000 lives in America alone while ending only 7,000,000,000 worldwide. My situation saves 194,142 times as many lives in America than it ends worldwide, while Pro's 3x rule saves 3 times as lives as it ends. By his logic, my Global Genocide is more justified than his. "Guns save more lives than they end" is basically my opponent's only point, which has spawned a myriad of useless stats and personal survey citations. It is not only a flawed notion because he can't know that, nor can anyone because it deals with hypothetical situations, but it is flawed because Q.E.D., something isn't justified simply because it may or may not save more lives than it ends. "Guns save more lives than they end" or "3x" argument is an argument that has been called by Pro, "the ultimate argument", has been used in his conclusion in every round that wasn't an introduction, and was referenced 9 times by Pro in Round 4 alone. I wasn't kidding when I said it was his only point. Conclusion: Nothing Pro said in Round 4 improved on his one point from Rounds 2 and 3 and I could have rebutted him by quoting myself from Round 3 & he has dishonored debate with his rehashed points and idiocy. P.S. "What this debate comes down to is logic v.s surveys [rhetoric vs facts] and cherry-picked statistics. My opponent's stats are flawed as I have demonstrated and hand-picked because he believes they are one-sided(they arn't), and I believe my logic is sound." You quoted someone and changed what they said. Good job, bro. [1]http://www.debate.org... [2]http://www.nrahq.org... [3]http://www.wonderhowto.com... [4]http://www.firearmstraining.ca... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org... [8]http://www.solarviews.com... [9]http://www.disastercenter.com... [10]http://en.wikipedia.org... [11]http://dictionary.reference.com... [12]http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com...