I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations!

R1. More guns = less crimes. Your logic guns do not kill people, people kill people is completely correct. But, guns make it easier for people to kill people as it is easier to kill someone with a gun rather than a knife. You see if you have a knife you have to get up close to the person and they WILL fight back if they value their life. With a gun you can be 20 feet away and kill the person. It makes it easier to kill people. Once again, your source does not distinguish between handguns, which 86% of crimes utilize, and rifles which 3% utilize. Therefore, my source still is valid as it does distinguish between two and, therefore, gun ownership =/= less crime; and more handgun ownership == more crime. Now as for the crimes stopped, well there would be less crime in the first place without guns. R2. Gun Control doesn't work. Uganda: Here's another socioeconomic issue. The key word here is "voluntary" suggesting that they did not want the weapons and choose to get rid of them while others around them did not. You say murders increase under control law. I say that murders increased because of lowered police presence and socioeconomic issues. Police are the ones who directly control crime. RIFLES are more common, and more are being bought, which do not contribute much to crime nor are they used for self-defense. Handguns which stay constant contribute the most to crime and for self-defense. That must mean crime with rifles, which never had much of an impact in the total crime, neither do they have much regulation. Basically anyone can buy a rifle. So crime with rifles, something which aren't used for much crime, is decreasing. While crime with handguns is increasing (the biggest factor in gun crime). Here is a picture of violent gun related crimes in England: http://www.justfacts.com... As you can see crime spiked in 1997 then decreased. This is because of a reduced POLICE force. Your comparing Utah with California...Utah has 2,784,572 people according to the Census Bureau California has 36,961,664 people. So just wondering, how can you make an accurate comparison between two states with such different populations. Besides you cited source 7....where does that source even say that... California has a higher homicide rate because of...socioeconomic reasons. Besides you do not distinguish homicides without guns to homicides with guns. All this shows is more people kill in California it could be with knives. As you can see with Washington DC, that chart shows that the murder rate stays constant from around 1976 until 1987. Then it increases 11 years after the gun law came into effect took place. It increases until 2006. Then in 2008 the gun law is repealed. So nobody can assume it is because of this law that the increase takes place seeing as there were 11 years of stability, even a dip in homicide. R3. Conceal Carry Laws Where does it say "ban guns" all regulations do is make it more difficult. Furthermore, if someone points a gun at your head and says "give me your money" it's not going to matter whether he/she has a gun; the mugger has a gun to your head. Your not going to draw your weapon....furthermore, whoever shoots first only has to hit then the other person and guess what they're to distracted to draw their weapon. If they were criminals how were they deterred from a crime? They already committed a crime obviously they weren't deterred. Ok prove that these statistics from the FBI are related to solely one another and do not have any other factors in play. Prove their direct relationship. Once again prove that the statistics you provide have a direct relationship and were not influenced by any other factor. R4. Crime in countries with gun control According to Justice Department, police use strategies such as patrolling "Hot Spot Areas" to deter and prevent crime. According to your unverifiable source which provides an unverifiable statistic it does not. So wouldn't they just rob houses when people are not home? Or "find out if his potential victim is armed"? R5. Israel, Switzerland, Norway. First of all, they were statistics not studies. You use a statistic to make your point not be your point. Switzerland: "one of the advanced nations with strict handgun laws" (your own source). Israel: I never said a war is a crime. But, most people in USA are not well-trained (or there wouldn't be high murder rates to begin with) so therefore, we're not polite either. Besides, I never say to completely ban guns. Just stricter regulations. Norway: How does having more guns = having a better economy? That makes no sense. R6. gun accidents. Once again I refer back to YOUR original logic. S1. Guns, x, cause fatal accidents. S2. Cars, y, cause accidents which may or may not be fatal. S3. x is regulated. S4. y is not regulated. C. Neither should be regulated because one is and the other is not. We ALREADY regulate cars. Cars cause accidents. So why not regulate guns? Guns cause accidents.