Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Crimes

First I will defend my statements, and then I will refute Pro's. My opponent concedes that poverty is the main reason for crime. This means Switzerland and Chicago are essentially incomparable, because Switzerland has very little poverty compared to Chicago. Because of Switzerland's lack of poverty, they would have less crime, regardless of the amount of guns. In his last statement he states that he believes it is still a viable comparison, but that is disproved by the fact that Switzerland and Chicago are so different. My opponent says that not all burglaries and crimes involve guns, and that is true. However, a gun's main purpose is to kill. Baseball bats and knives and other things commonly used in burglaries have other uses, and therefore it would be ridiculous to ban them. That fact that we couldn't completely eliminate robberies and burglaries isn't a reason to not try to reduce the number. That would be like saying "only 49% of traffic deaths occur when one or more of the people involved is under the influence, so there's no reason to tighten drunk driving laws. " My opponent still hasn't cited a source for his ratio of "1 in 2 citizens in Switzerland owns a gun. " He also hasn't proven that that is more than the gun ownership in Chicago. In order for pro to win this debate, proof is necessary. In response to my opponents statement about "if there were a law saying everyone must own a gun," I say this. Because we have decided that poverty is a main reason for crime, I would say that criminals would still rob stores, regardless of the fact that everyone in the store would have a gun. They would still need money, and if they really needed it, they would just bring in 5 or 6 people with them to point guns at everyone. It would be better if we could just reduce the amount of guns. Reducing the amount of guns would also prevent shootouts that would happen in stores if everyone had guns. My opponent did not address my assertion that universal background checks would be beneficial to our society. They are a form of gun control. I ask that he does that in the next round. Now that I have defended my statements, I shall refute my opponent's. My opponent says "By taking firearms you may think the government is taking away it away from the criminals, but how do criminals still get drugs and narcotics? Well, it's the same with guns! Do you honestly think that criminals will follow rules? " To that I respond, when did I ever say I was going to take them away? People will still be able to get guns for self defense reasons. The only guns people would maybe not be allowed to have is semiautomatic and automatic weapons, which have absolutely no function other than being fun to shoot. You can't do anything to defend yourself with one of those weapons that you can't do with a 12 gauge shotgun. And to my opponents statement about drugs and narcotics, I ask him this question. Are you saying that just because people will be able to get around the rules, that we shouldn't have the rules in the first place? In that case, why don't we just make cocaine legal, because people can still get it anyway! The law would still help the country, regardless of whether some people got around the law. My opponent then says that guns don't kill people. I agree with that, but people kill people with guns. If more people have guns, more people will get killed. It's like saying "people use forks to get fat. " Completely reasonable. I have never suggested that we take people's ammunition for their guns. Although that may be a form of gun control, this debate is about gun control in general. If one kind of gun control helps, then con is the way to go. And like I have said in the past rounds, people will still be able to get guns for self defense reasons, so no one will die because they won't have ammunition and won't be able to defend their homes. If you do believe that your statements about homicide rates and gun ownership rates are valid, cite your sources. I don't want to have to take your word for it without evidence. You could just be making up those statistics.