Gun rights in the US

C1: Gun bans increase crimeNow, we must look into the facts on gun bans that have happened in the US, as there is always the crowd that calls for ban. Lets look into DC and Chicago, as John R. Lott writes in one of is online articles:"But it is not just D.C. that has experienced increases in murder and violent crime after guns are banned. Chicago also experienced an increase after its ban in 1982." [1] Also, lets look into farther into DC crime rates. In 1976 is when the handgun bans went into effect. At the same time, however, there where major increases in crime. Although the population and density was declining, there where only a few years where the crime was lower or the same as the year 1976, with this information we see the ban had an overall increase in crime. [2] Using a general trend line, we see a C shape, on its side. Before the law was passed, crime was declining slowly, after the ban we saw a continual increase in crime. This shows the cities gun ban actually rose crime. [2]What about other bans? Similar results. Lets look into Chicago. In the eight years before the law was passed, murders per 100k people decreased from 39 to 22, the years after the law we saw increases to 23, with continual rises. In the years following, we saw a similar trend as in DC, only 1 year after the ban was passed did it lower to under the pre-ban crime rates, but this means a general raise in crime trend. [2] How about foreign countries? We also see similar trends. When England banned handguns we saw a 340% raise in gun crime. [2] Other crime rates, robbery etc. Have also soared. In Jamaica, when they banned guns, their crime rate exploded and became one of the highest in the worlds, and double of many of the other Caribbean countries. Gun bans raise crime. C2: Conceal carry laws reduce crime If I can prove this, we can assume they [criminals] are scared of guns, and therefore we should allow guns. Having no guns means we would have no conceal carry laws. If I win this argument, I win the debate as then we should allow conceal carry laws due to their value to society. I will just post a graph:http://www.debate.org... (the computer wont let me post it :(])see source 3 http://polyticks.com...http://www.debate.org... C3: More guns less crimeMy logic stands with deterence. Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers. [2]Also, we should look at robbery. In the US, a small percentage of burglaries are "hot", "hot" burglaries = robbin a house with people inside. In england, almost 50% of burglaries are "hot". We now must ask, why does england have so many more "hot" Buglares? Unless my opponent can prove without guns americans are buff studs that scare the crap out of criminals I will hold to the thesis: Guns. Lott has asked criminals, do you rob at night, the usual response is "No, thats a good way to get shot". [2] (at night peopel are usually home). With this response we can assume they are afraid of people armed. C4: Second amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Now, the phrase we get caught up upon is militia, yet the funny thing is that ignors the historical proof that militia was people. in the 1700s the phrase militia actually rarely meant militia, and was more aimed at people. [4] So, historically speaking the document means more of a people not a militia meaning. Now look at the next statement; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". This says flat out right of the people to keep and bear arms, not right of the soldiers. And the last phrase; "shall not be infringed." With this statement, it assumes this is a right that already comes with the job, so to speak. So it assumes the right already exists. Also it was commonlife back then to own a guns, it would be, well, irrational to claim they meant militia. It is unconstitutional to ban total gun rights. Conclusion: If we ban guns, crime raises. If we ban guns, concealed carry goes away and crime raises. If we ban guns it is against the constitution. And havign guns is a benefit to society (crime). With this information, vote pro, vote for guns ;)[1] http://www.foxnews.com... [2] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.[3] "THE CONCEALED-HANDGUN DEBATE" John R Lott, 1998[4] http://www.guncite.com...