That we should ban guns in urban areas

That 43:1 ratio doesn't really mean anything. As I said before, it doesn't include situations where a gun is used to prevent a crime without firing a shot, such as if a homeowner subdued a burglar by threatening to use a gun, rather than just shooting a burglar, or if the criminal was deterred from committing the crime in the first place. Pro claims that even if the ratio of shootings of innocent people to shots in self-defense were 1:43, guns should still be banned, because of the sanctity of life. This is absurd. What about the sanctity of the lives that the guns saved? Pro is only counting deaths of innocent people by guns without counting the lives that the use of guns in self-defense has saved. 1. Pro is correct that I do not acknowledge the "rights" of a broader population. Only individual rights have any meaning. Pro claims that I did not respond to his point about guns infringing on the rights of life and safety. I did. I pointed out that if people do not want to accidently shoot anyone, they should not own a gun, and if someone doesn't want to accidentally get shot, they should avoid the property of people that do choose to own guns. Thus, the right to self-defense does not infringe on anyone else's rights. My opponent misunderstands the idea of guns as a defense against tyranny. It doesn't matter whether or not an armed militia can defeat a totalitarian government. The point is that an armed citizenry would be able to stop tyranny before it was too late. If you look at the rise of tyrannical dictatorships worldwide, they always disarmed the populace before committing genocide. Pro claims that he is placing the right to life above the right to bear arms. He is not. He is placing the right of some people to control others above the right of individuals to defend their lives and the lives of their families. He himself admits that he would rather see 43 innocent people become victims of rape, robbery, or murder than see 1 innocent person accidentally get shot. I am not putting the right to self-defense above the right to life. The right to self-defense IS the right to life in the most fundamental way, it is the right to save one's life, it is the right to not be killed. Remember that guns are used in self defense around 2.5 million times per year, and guns deter even more crime. Without guns, these millions of people likely be victims of rape, burglary, murder, or other crimes. 2. My opponent has misread my point here, again. I am not using crime statistics from the 1920s. I clearly said that during the time BEFORE the 1920s, when neither Britain nor the U.S. had gun control, there was much more violent crime in the U.S. than in Britain. Therefore, the fact that the U.S. STILL has just as many times as much violent crime as Britain cannot possibly be proof that gun control works. 3. Obviously, the supply of guns to criminals would be lessened somewhat with this ban. But the supply of guns to law-abiding citizens would be zero. Criminals would still have plenty of guns, especially if guns are still legal in rural areas and neighboring countries. But law-abiding citizens would be defenseless against these criminals. Criminals would have much more power over law-abiding citizens. Now, citizens can use guns to defend themselves against criminals with guns. Under Pro's plan, criminals would still have guns, although not quite as many. But the rest of the population would have nothing, and would be at the mercy of the gangs. Pro claims that giving the police the right to just arrest anyone with a gun would reduce the power of gangs. Does giving police the power to just arrest anyone with drugs reduce the power of gangs now? Of course not. Conclusion: a) Pro has not given any coherent argument for how the right to use a gun to defend one's life and family infringes on anyone else's rights. b) Pro failed to explain how the police would be able to adequately defend citizens against criminals. He failed to respond to my argument in round 3 during this round, which I can only assume means that he concedes this point. If the police cannot protect us, then Pro's claim that people don't need guns to defend themselves because the police can do that is completely invalid. c) Pro failed to respond to the argument that guns can be used to prevent tyranny, only stating that he doesn't think they'd be needed. d) Pro failed to respond to my evidence showing that guns are used in self-defense millions of times per year, and gun ownership means that victims of crime are less likely to be injured. e) Pro misread and failed to respond to my point that his statistic about violent crime in Britain and the U.S. is meaningless. f) Pro failed to adequately explain how taking away the guns of every law abiding citizen while slightly reducing the amount of guns criminals have will reduce the power of gangs. Pro has clearly failed to meet his burden of proof.