Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Crimes

First I will defend my cases, and then I will refute my opponent's. Like I said in my earlier statement, why would any person REALLY need a semiautomatic rifle? I understand that they might be adequate for self defense, because why wouldn't they be! They shoot off bullets really fast! What I am saying is not they have no functional uses... it's obvious that they could be used to defend homes. However, it would be much better if we discontinued the sale of semiautomatic and automatic weapons, because they are unnecessary. Like I said before- what can you do with a semiautomatic or automatic weapon that you can't do with a 12 gauge shotgun? You would still be able to purchase guns other than handguns. A glock 35 is an unfair example, as people would still be able to buy guns more powerful than such a weapon. I do not understand what you mean that my refutations were "acting out of mis-understanding." You ignored the things that I laid out for you, and they were valid reasons for gun control. I provided sufficient reasoning as to why, even though criminals will get around the law, we should still put the law in place. Just because people can still get their hands on cocaine doesn't mean that America should go ahead and legalize it! I would ask that you respond to this, and the other statements I am going to make, as they are completely valid and relevant to the debate. I also said that the "guns don't kill people; people kill people" argument is invalid. I am aware that guns don't normally self shoot. However, a gun's main purpose IS to kill something, be it man or animal. Like I said in my last argument, and I will restate now: People kill people with guns. Because people kill people with guns, wouldn't it be logical to make the laws that control the sale of them stricter? And like I said up there, this argument is like saying "people use forks to get fat." Completely reasonable." My opponent made NO attempt to respond to my assertion about universal background checks. Because gun control is defined as "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns" (1), and universal background checks do that, they are a kind of gun control. Therefore, unless my opponent has an argument against universal background checks, he concedes this debate. Now that I have restated my arguments in hopes that they will be respected, and defended my arguments, I shall refute Pro's. Now that you have shifted away from Chicago to the United States, I'd like to point something out. The United States is THE MOST ARMED NATION IN THE WORLD. (2) We have 88.8 guns per 100 people, whereas Switzerland only has 45.7 guns per 100 people. So, when you said that Switzerland has the "lowest crime rate in the world" (no source,) it was not because they have less guns. In fact, our ratio is almost two times theirs. Therefore, I assert that because we have more guns than Switzerland, we have a higher murder rate. I believe you have misinterpreted my argument, because I have never said anything about only allowing law enforcement to obtain firearms. I have always been clear that I wouldn't be eliminating them from the country necessarily... just making the country safer for our citizens by making the laws stricter. I am now done both refuting my opponents arguments and stating my own. I await a response, and I hope that pro chooses to address ALL of my arguments. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...