Ournamestoolong, Pick Your Own Debate!

"My opponent opens with a set of statistics. I will counter with my own Italian population 2007: 59.8 million German population 2007: 82.2 million Japanese population 2007: 127.77 million United Kingdom population 2007: 60.7 million United States population 2007: estimated 360 million by 2007 (This is due to the fact that the US Census is taken every ten years. Based on the growth rate, one can assume we would have numbered over 360 million in 2007) Going by these numbers, we can clearly see how my opponent's statistics are completely plausible, and not in a significant way due to gun control laws. These numbers speak for themselves. " Forgive me if my statistics were unclear, I posted ratios, which are unaffected by population My revised statistics MURDER RATES: United States: 5.6 :100000 U. K. : 2.1 :100000 Japan: .5 :100000 Germany: 1 :100000 Italy: 1.2 :100000 Now that that is cleared up I will refute my opponents arguments. "He also makes the case that by banning guns we would not be violating the constitution. He then says that criminals are not a regular militia. What my opponent fails to realize is that the resolution is not about banning guns for criminals, but about for all United States citizens on US soil. What you now must realize is that criminals are not the only individuals applying to the resolution. Also pertaining to it are regular citizens, as well as military personal. Are they not US citizens? Are they not on US soil? (The ones stationed in the US) Are they not a well-formed militia? We can now clearly see that banning guns WOULD directly contradict the constitution, and even violate our safety. " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... miï¿½liï¿½tia Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles Date: 1625 1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service First of, you offered no resolution except for "guns should be banned in the US" Second, a group of citizens, is by no means, a well organized militia. The military has no need to have guns if they are stationed in their own country. The Constitution states "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" Because the security of our free state is not at risk, we do not need guns. "Having torn down my opponent's case" I don't really think you did. " I now present to you the fact that a gun ban in the US is unjust. First, we are guaranteed the right in our constitution. " I already adressed this "Second, we would endanger our safety. (Again, guaranteed by the Constitution)" Au Contraire, the clear, solid facts I gave clearly show gun control raises saftey "Lastly, if guns were banned, only criminals would have them. If that were the case, citizens would not be able to defend themselves. (Again, violating the Constitution and their personal safety) For these reasons a gun ban would be unjust. Ending on that note, I conclude round two of the debate. Thank you. " People can defend themselves other ways (pepper spray, martial arts, a dog) and if people need to defend themselves the police are failing. That IS why we have a police force. Thank you for this debate.