Guns... US

Defense of arguments:-Deterrence- My opponents case here is not everyone will have a hidden gun, which is correct indeed. But missed the point, and actually does work. Now, lets assume a small portion of the state had this permit, oh 1%. Now, my opponent will argue this will do nothing, as the criminal will just say unlikely and run, but this fails under the logic presented. This would be a deterrent, under any study, [1] as any criminal would rather not take the chance with an armed victim (even if the chances are low, and a conceal carry amplifies the effect as they do not know who is armed). My opponent then uses the "what if" argument on what if they shoot everyone :O. Well, this under Lotts arguments [1] is called a what if argument, also he calls it the blood will run in the streets falsehood. Now, the argument fails as if this happened all of the permits would be revoked, and well sorry this has never happened before. The training the people take prevent these accidents. My opponents argument, well, never happens even in states with 1 million permit holders. If you look at the facts, conceal carry permit holders are more law abiding then the average citizen, and actually have their permits revoked less then 0.5% of the time, yes LESS THEN 0.5%. [1] My opponents argument, is well false and is essentially propaganda spread by politicians. -Stats-Extend arguments. Refutations:--Crime rates--My opponent goes onto say lookie! Gun control means less crime look at this. Well great! You misread stats and, well, forgot other variables. In China, for example, you get executed horribly for murder, and they are all essentially in a police where crime is instant death. Under deterrence theory almost no one would commit crimes. My opponent then cites Japan, UK, Iceland. First, In japan there is only one race, and having many races actually means more crimes, minorities no mater the race seem violent. Also based on socio-economics they will have low crimes, his stats are actually mainly influenced by other factors. Also, my opponent ignores trends, before and afters, as simple comparisons fail to see many other factors, population etc. So to actually effectively measure whether it actually decreases crime to ban guns, you mustn't compare countries, rather compare it to itself in trends. Let's use UK, an example you used. After many gun control laws and a handgun ban gun crime rose 340%. [1] The rates of ALL violent crimes soared as well. [1] As my opponents comparison argument fails on a level of other factors, the the before and after trends escape many of the compare UK to USA problems, the data I present is more valid. If you look at trends, gun bans RAISE crime once passed, simple comparisons fail on all levels. Then my opponent cites many countries that have no gun control. 2/4 of those countries actually have a drug war, not due to guns, therefore those 2/4 fail to show gun laws having any effect on crime. The high crime is explained by drugs, not guns. My opponent then cites the Congo, yet ignores their factors. There is a war there and the army is full of rapists, hence the country here is explained by other variables not guns. 3/4 so far of her arguments are false as the high crime rates are explained by non gun variables. Then he cites Zimbabwe, which actually does have gun control no right to own a gun, need a license to own a semi automatic gun (thats most guns lol), need a license for handguns, and therefore have restrictive gun laws. [2] When my opponent cited countries, I do not think he even looked into gun laws, just lied so people see the high crime and yelp. Most guns in the Congo are banned. [3] It deserves conduct that my opponent lied about gun laws. Also, Zimbabwe has other variables such as rampant poverty in crime. I doubt guns in these countries have an effect when the conditions are terrible. Also Columbia, an example by my opponent has high gun regulation. [4] Guns are banned in velesuala, one of my opponents examples. [5] So not only did my opponent LIE by saying these countries had lax laws, but also forgets there are other variables in crime trends, not just compare totally different countries. So, m opponents argument fails because:1. the countries that he said had high crime and no gun laws practically ban guns2. His lets compare arguments fail on a statistical analysis. He then claims giving people guns is a tool for murder, well so is a car, I can hit people with my car, should we ban them? This also assumes more people die in gun wars then in defense, which is false. There are millions (like 1 million) gun usages in defense each year, [1] 16,000 murders with guns in 2008. [6] Based on this guns already save more lives then they take away. So the question I pose is: Are we better off banning guns? No, guns save more lies then they end, therefore your argument is invalid. CONCLUSION:Vote PRO, also my opponent lied with the statistics which is worthy of conduct to pro. ____________________[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.[2] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[3] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[4] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[5] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[6] http://www.justfacts.com...