This house would ban the use of guns in the public.

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "This house would ban the use of guns in the public.". Your opponent's style: BP debate coach who can point out the lack of reasoning or incomplete of evident, and show me how to do it properly.

This house would ban the use of guns in public. Guns kills. and for this instance, even if you are using gun to protect yourself, you are doing it at the cost of other people's lives.

You've constructed a classic false dilemma here - the idea that defensive gun use automatically costs "other people's lives." That's fundamentally backwards reasoning.Your argument collapses on its own premise. Studies consistently show between 60,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year, with an average of 1,820,000 defensive gun uses compared to 1,100,000 reported crimes [2]. That means guns save more lives than they take in criminal acts. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is assuming every defensive gun use "costs other people's lives." That's backwards - most self defense situations never involve a shot being fired nor a report being filed [5]. The vast majority of defensive uses simply deter crime through display or brandishing. The criminal runs away, nobody dies. You're creating a false moral equation where defending yourself somehow makes you responsible for the attacker's choices. That's like blaming a rape victim for fighting back because it might hurt the rapist. The person "costing lives" is the one initiating violence, not the one stopping it. Your public gun ban would eliminate these 1.8 million annual defensive uses [2] while doing nothing about criminals who ignore laws anyway. You're disarming victims, not perpetrators - making the innocent more vulnerable while the guilty remain armed.