Any gun other than pistols should not be sold to citizens.

This round, I'll refute my opponent's case as well. He finished last round by pretending he had already won, not giving me a chance to reply to his points. That is unfair. I will also reply to his counterarguments, all at once, so that we have one list of points to discuss. 1. Bigger guns or smaller guns, which are the more necessary? My opponent fails to bring any proof that smaller guns are more dangerous to society. He says that handguns are used more often for crime, but that is easy to prove: they are smaller. You can however be certain that if you ban the smaller guns, the bigger guns will be used more often. And those are more lethal. Conclusion? Keep it to smaller guns. Secondly, my opponents only rebuttal to my first point is the fact that I more specificallly spoke of "assault rifles" rather than simply "bigger guns". That is the one mistake I made. His rebuttal to how good small guns do as self defense weapons is complete bias as I have clearly said that you cannot carry bigger guns in public, ever. Robbery at your local store? You with your big gun at home would be defenseless, I wouldn't be. The fact that you WOULD have more rounds and bigger slugs means nothing if it only protects you at home. As for defending your house, my opponent would have to show that house raids occur so often that it requires you to have advanced protection (bigger guns) rather than standard protection (pistols). He has not rebutted my point about the psychological effect that simply owning a pistol has on house raiders. Lastly, the point of hunting, is something completely else. Hunting should be like it is in Europe: it requires a special license of a huntsman, and then you can legally buy the bigger guns. the Army & police can be seen as part of this as well. My opponent completely ignores my true argument: any bigger conflict, including a civil war, does not require law abiding citizens to carry around bigger guns. Letting them do so only lets problems escalate, therefore stimulating the conflict to grow even bigger: that is most certainly not what we wish for. The police & army should be the only ones to carry the bigger guns solely for the reason that they would have the upper hand should there be protestors etc. Civilians should not be given such weapons as they can most likely flee: this option is much better than giving civilians the means to stand their ground and most likely die. 2. Do they become more available to criminals if they are more available to the public? My opponent argues something entirely else here. I said that if civilians can get them in local stores, so can criminals. My opponent turned this around, as if I would have said that NOT selling them in local gun stores would make them unavailable to criminals. I am not that dumb to make such a statement, yet my opponent clearly misinterpreted my obvious point: availability rises for both civilians and criminals. Yes, criminals would still be able to get them. But again my opponent misses my point - insane people like Elliot Rodger would not be able to get illegal guns. They would buy the first weapon they see, and should that be a big gun or a small gun, that makes a lot of difference. An insane man would not be able to buy illegal guns, he would always simply go to the gun store. Organized crime would stay the same. I also don't know what my opponent figures under a "gunfight". Is it a long-lasting battle like in movies and games? It would appear he thinks like this considering he talks about advantages and disadvantages in combat. That is not how reality works. In reality, we can already conclude that bigger guns ONLY serve use when defending your home. The fact remains that the owner of the house actually knows the house, and any planning man would be able to call the police and then hide his family until the police arrives. It is truly stupid to buy big guns so you can risk your own life if it ever comes to it: your odds truly won't change. If you have a gun, no matter what size, shooting down a hallway will keep your robbers at a distance. Most likely, they will even flee as they know you've called the cops. This is, as I said before, the major psychological effect. The fact that you would have a bigger gun brings so little to the the table, it serves no use. 3. The usage of old muskets and other less useful guns These guns would ofcourse solely be used for the purpose of fun: you could still do that in shooting ranges, given that you do not take them home. They form but a small part of the category we are talking about, but they are included because that makes for a very strict and clear law. So far, my opponent has argued that bigger guns should be allowed as they are more useful, yet he agrees that these aren't and are only used for fun. 4. Does it make homicide cases easier to solve if it is comitted with a pistol? I agree that my point is a little absurd, but again my opponent misinterprets even the title: I spoke of homicides, and my opponent starts talking about robberies. That's completely ridiculous. My example of the sniper rifle was just one - that of the professional hitman. Any smart man will attempt to increase all distance between him and his target. With pistols, it is hard to do that. With rifles, it is not. JFK's murderer would count as a fair example. 5. Second amendment? I don't really see my opponent's point here. Defending yourself against your government can be done with pistols as well. I don't see how this contributes to the debate as all he proves is that the public does not want a ban (which is quite obvious, they seem to love big guns) and that there are plenty of cases of democide. What is the difference between democide and homicide? Only the one who commits the crime. Nothing changes to the victim's situation: he has to defend himself, and I have succesfully shown that a handgun is better to defend yourself at all times. 6. More guns, less crime? My opponent succesfully manipulates his point by suddenly speaking of "guns" rather than "big guns". He shows statistics of how armed civilians are effective, yet no proof that there is any difference between bigger or smaller guns. I agree entirely that owning small guns is very beneficial to lessen crime rates, but what do big guns have to do with bigger guns? My opponent even proves that conceiled handguns are incredibly beneficial to this society! Which side is he really arguing for? Not a word about big guns were said in this part of his argumentation. My opponent also tells voters what to ignore and what not to. And then concludes he has already won. Not only that, he openly agreed that he doesn't even understand what I meant when I said: "make a choice on what points you want to defend, because you have to argue either in favor of civilians defending theirselves OR be in favor of all types of guns to be allowed. You are well-aware that assault rifles are not mobile so will not give you a chance to protect yourself at all times." He has misunderstood that in his own conduct, he contradicts himself by first saying that smaller guns should be banned, and then saying that smaller guns are beneficial for self-defence. He would have to show that bigger guns provide a better defence (at all times!) or that all guns should be allowed. Make a choice because you left that contradiction in your first round. Please put a little more effort in this debate as you are already looking to wrap this up by concluding "vote neg" and "it's clear who has the greater impact". You are looking to refute my argumentation so desperately you are contradicting yourself. I was very polite to you, yet you're trying to make this a fight rather than a debate.