Outlawing guns will not stop terrorist attacks.

By saying we should ban semi-automatic firearms, that should by presumption mean that automatics are also banned. As far as single shot or guns that you must prime (bolt, lever, pump, break, etc.), those are the ones I meant by all guns. My proposition was that you defend either banning some or all guns, and you are going down the road of all. ("Making guns illegal will help prevent terrorist attacks and mass killings.") I was basically giving you an option to choose, some or all. You choose all. United States is a good country to focus on for right now, and your definitions, although not cited, are agreeable (but your mass shooting definition is not clear: "A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant." [1] Four people minimum. I quote you right here in your fourth paragraph: "Nothing ever will completely obliterate the threat and possibility of mass killings." Exactly, that's what I'm arguing for. Not even a gun ban will stop attacks. You go on about the Constantinople massacre (again not sourced, but I'll trust you) in which thousands more were killed then the modern age (1984-2016, in which numbers in the most deadly attacks peak at only 218 murders) [2], where we have much deadlier weapons. This is not to say that we can't kill over 60,000 people with are weapons nowadays, but it just offers statistics that kind of shut your argument down (i.e. taking guns away will help prevent mass killings). It seems to me that back in the old days, without guns, there was more dead. You argue that taking guns away from the citizens will make attacks more rare. There's no way to know that for sure. But if you're going by the route of inference, let's do it. So, we made pot, cocaine, and the other deadly drugs illegal. Why? Well, they are deadly. And yet, does that stop people from using them? From importing them? From dying over them? What if they were legal? You might argue that more people would use them and die, but taking in the effect the thousands of people that die in the drug trafficking business [3], which would go down hopefully if drugs were legal, the effect would be less deaths. (Also, I'm using these two items, drugs and guns, as an analogy. You're thinking that's dumb because I'm comparing guns to a deadly material, but keep in mind drugs also have safe usage in the medical field. You depends on the user, not the actual thing.) As I said before, just because guns are illegal, doesn't make the inaccessible. People will die even if they are gone from stores. You told me I forgot to name the ways (Don't add those quotes around forgot, I really did.) Here they are: criminal supply train of guns, un-stamped handguns imported from other countries, straw purchasing, or even CRAFTING guns. [4], [5]. Yes, I do switch between mass killings and terrorist attacks. This is because I feel terrorists attacks are just a category of mass killings. By saying terrorists attacks I am being more specific. But I will also argue that school shooting will not be stopped/lessened, either. Once again you make another inference. You do not know what would happen if guns were taken away completely. It is true that guns are one of the best methods of killing, but I am telling you that THIS WILL NOT STOP MASS KILLINGS. It will not lessen them either. Bombs may be complicated to make, but guns are complicated to buy, at least legally. Also, setting off a bomb and killing hundreds instantly seems mighty convenient then reloading every ten seconds with an automatic. Also, driving a truck, and we can both agree that trucks are not hard to come across, is even more convenient to kill people. Simply find a celebration outdoors, packed with people, and drive. As in this case [6]. You conclude by saying insane people will not be able to possess or obtain a gun, which will lower the killings. False, I have showed ways to get guns illegally, properly sourced. Also, if they somehow can't get a gun, they can get a machete or a truck, time bomb formed from a clock, or other even more convenient weapons than firearms. You say that making guns illegal is a leap in the right direction, even though it will not prevent killing rates up to the 60,000s. If anything it will limit people's freedom and safety. I didn't want to say that because it's irrelevant to this discussion, but I had to let you know. Also, you said I didn't give ways to prove my argument in round 1. Will, here they are. (Also, you lacked sources in round 1 as well, because you 'forgot'.) (Blows airhorn). Sources: 1.http://www.bbc.com... 2.http://timelines.latimes.com... 3.http://narcosphere.narconews.com... 4.https://everytownresearch.org... 5.http://www.newsweek.com... 6.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...