USA should have more gun restrictions

Ladies and gentlemen, please click on every single one of the links that my opponent posted in the last argument. Does anybody think it is strange that none of them work? I did not answer round two due to the lack of material to refute against. My opponent provided meager arguments. Spectators and voters, I would also like to point out that con enjoys saying "i've heard stats". Well I bet these statistics are quite reliable! In addition, again, click on all the links he posted that don't quite work. I believe that they are just for showing off the numerous "sources" that don't even work? My opponent does not make any sense when he says that "if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect". He is demonstrating irony due to his belief that the slaughter of victims without guns results in a "positive" effect. In addition, he says that "the idea is, if you don't have a gun you won't use it. if you do, you will." Not only does this sentence contain strange syntax and grammar, it is also ironic. Taking away guns from citizens will results in a "you won't use it" situation. Criminals who still have the guns will apparently "will". My opponent continuously repeats that if you have a gun etc. you are more likely to use it. Well the crime will increase since criminals KNOW that the citizens do not have ACCESS to their guns. Therefore, the casualty rate will INCREASE. Your Harvard source is not reliable (nor is any of your sources) due to the fact that it doesn't work. My opponent does not directly refute against my statements and utilizes ironic and fallacious reasoning over and over in his arguments. Why? All of his counterarguments zone down to the subject of LESS GUNS = LESS CRIME. But I have said over and over. When you take guns away from citizens, the criminals will not return them. The criminals will use their saved up firearms against the citizens. In his "common sense" points, allow me to answer them: think of someone on jerry springer": I do not understand of someone on jerry springer (whoever he is) having their arguments in the front yard? Who is having arguments? What does "they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun" mean? Um, get a gun where? and, are you willing to admit that one hundred": What does "that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one"? Your sentence makes no sense at all. If you are denied a firearm then you won't get one. You are not specifying who these "people" are, therefore, I can't make an argument against this. and, are you wiling to admit that having a gun doesn't cause any at all more prone" Can you please rephrase this? I wholly do not understand at all the sentences meaning. Allow me to rephrase it: Are you wiling to admit that having a gun causes people to want to use it to kill someone? Of course! If a robber breaks into your house, are you going to hide upstairs with a knife? No. You grab the gun and kill him! Please utilize the "common sense" you speak so highly of! His last statement, "the evidence is overwhelming". Evidence of what! Your "common sense"? Your links that don't work? So much evidence! Overall, I would like to conclude that my opponent has little to no knowledge of true information regarding firearms/guns. While I provided links that do work in my first and second contention, he provided none. While I used real statistics and realistic situations, he utilized "jerry springer", "front yard", and some other strange "common sense" statements. I hope the spectators will read my opponent's contentions and attempt to make sense of his/her's arguments, grammar, syntax, "evidence", "common sense", etc. Thank you and have a nice day, TheBunnyAssassin