Citizens shoot and kill twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). (Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America) Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." (George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993)) So the point that you make that " the more guns the bad guys have the more the good guys have to have guns", well the good guys would not need this if the police would protect the civilians more.

Of the 383,400 citizens who have received permits to carry their guns concealed, only 72 people have used their gun to commit a crime according to the Florida Department of State. This means that a citizen in Florida is almost twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a Florida Carry Concealed Weapon holder.

As I had mentioned earlier, America did try this method of eliminating guns, until recently, Chicago banned any and all transfers or sales of handguns (It was virtually impossible to get a concealed carry permit). Evidentially, Chicago became the murder capital of the U.S. in 2012. Gun owners in the nation's third-largest city no longer registered firearms which allows the police to track guns

In 2013, they removed ban on gun possession outside home and finally gave law-abiding citizens to protect themselves in the city.

How can you make that assumption that guns are used to kill people? According to, Gary Kleck, Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150 (1995-1996), citizens use their guns to DEFEND themselves every year, the majority wave their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound their attacker.

Where is this link you speak of? How can I know that what you are saying is true? Where did you get this information?

America did try this method of eliminating guns, until recently, Chicago banned any and all transfers or sales of handguns (It was virtually impossible to get a concealed carry permit). Evidentially, Chicago became the murder capital of the U.S. in 2012. Gun owners in the nation's third-largest city no longer registered firearms which allows the police to track guns

In 2013, they removed ban on gun possession outside home and finally gave law-abiding citizens to protect themselves in the city.

How do you know what the concern of an average American is? According to (Gary Kleck, Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150 (1995-1996) law abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals 2.5 million times every year, 6,850 times a day.

Police cannot protect -- and are not required to protect -- every individual, so why should we rely on them to protect our lives every time we are in trouble. The courts consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." (Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1). So again why should the lives of innocent people be taken away because people that are against guns say that we should.

Law abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals 2.5 million times every year, 6,850 times a day. (Gary Kleck, Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150 (1995-1996). Each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. (According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 40,000 deaths per year). Out of those 2.5 million self-defense cases, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. The majority wave their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound their attacker. ((Gary Kleck, Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150 (1995-1996))

Who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? Be more specific.

According the Federalist writer Sean Davis, economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn, he states that knives kill more people ech year than rifles. He says that according to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), knives are consistently used to kill people far more than rifles are used. Five times as many murders were committed with knives than were committed with rifles last year. In 2013, knives or other cutting instruments were used to kill 1,490 victims, however, rifles were the cause of death of 285 murder victims. Shotguns were used in 308 murders. Do people not kill people with knives? Should we now try and ban guns just because they kill people?

According the Federalist writer Sean Davis, economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn.Until recently, the Chicago banned any and all transfers or sales of handguns (It was virtually impossible to get a concealed carry permit). Chicago became the murder capital of the U.S. in 2012. Gun owners in nation's third-largest city no longer register firearms which allows police to track guns

Opening Statement: Today we will be talking about whether Americans have the right to own a gun with proper restrictions. Our opponents will point out that a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time or that citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police officers do. Our first point that we are trying to prove is that banning guns does not do anything. They attempted this is Chicago, making it virtually impossible to get a concealed carry permit, however, Chicago was the murder capital of the US that year. Another point is that guns allow the victims to defend themselves. Did you know that guns save more live than they take; preventing more injuries. Another point is that the police cannot protect and are not required to protect every individual. The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. Another point is that concealed carry laws helped reduce crime. Of the 383,400 citizens who have received permits to carry their guns concealed, only 72 people have used their gun to commit a crime according to the Florida Department of State. Overall, ownership of guns should be allowed.

Why is the celebrity endorsing a company before checking whether each component of the car was fully functional. The celebrity should also do a background check on the engineer.

You stated that it should be the companies fault not the celebrities. I disagree, the whole point of this debate is should celebrities be responsible for their products. It would be no ones fault if the celebrity checked with the company they are getting into business with and having a background check. Doing this would insure less problems.

People that are selling the products should be held responsible for it, this is reflecting off of the celebrities name, not their manager.

I believe that celebrities should be held responsible for the products they are endorsing because they are a role model to the audience. As a person to be looked up to, they should only advertise items/products that they believe in, it is not ethical otherwise.