Need opinions on my gun control debate?

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a firearm, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Hitler increased gun rights for Germans. So, that argument is nonsense. Further, there has been no effort to 'banish' the NRA. Moreover, the NRA itself has quite a long history of supporting gun control, so if you're going to talk history, you're leaving out and ignoring much if it.

If you're on neg (negative), your primary purpose is to poke holes in the Affirmative side. Pay attention to the kinds of arguments used in the Aff constructive and argue causality (that the proposed action will not produce the desired result), in addition to providing your own constructive arguments.

The bad guys prefer unarmed victims!!.

When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.

Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!

**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**

So you are against the private ownerships of gun! Do you believe in fire extinguishers? Why, you can always call the fire department!!

Assult rifles are the only type of gun that would stop looters from destroying your home or business. Just think how quickly the problems in Mo. would be solved if people knew that others (blacks of course) would be defending their rights to be free and live peacefully and protect their property.