Gun control in America.

As you can see, my opponent forfeited the previous round, hinting that he could not rebut to my arguments. I find it a shame as he was bringing strong arguments to the table. But I strongly encourage voters to take this into consideration.Since I have no material to rebut against, I will make some final points and sum up my argument.One voice in the comments brought up a smart point about how citizens have a right to defend themselves in cases such as a robbery. I invite you to read the conversation. But this person's thought reminded me to make another point.One of the things that bugs me about the US (as proud a citizen as I am) is that people seem to think we need to live in this perfect, utopian world. Unfortunately, these "worlds" are defined by certain parties (i.e.- the Republicans or Democrats), and depending on one's party identification, these worlds go to the extremes. Republicans envision this world with guns everywhere, and Democrats envision it with no guns at all (to an extent). This extremism leads us to no progress. I don't understand why politicians (or even regular citizens) today are so caught up in their viewpoints that they can't even reason with the opposition. In other words, compromise looks like defeat in our country today.I would reason that most of the users on this website have jobs out in the world. Assuming I am correct with this assumption, I am speaking to that majority at this point. In your jobs, do you work with a team of people? On that team, do you not always get your way? Do you have to give and take to reach a strong endpoint? Do you sometimes have to go with a plan that you may not fully agree with or have complete faith in? The answer to all of these (I would hope) would be "yes."So take these skills of compromise in your daily jobs and apply them to a larger sense. Apply them when you think about political issues, mainly concerning gun control. You may not always get 100% of what you want, and you may have to give a little. At the end of the day, we are trying to make these new legislations to benefit the people. There will always be those minor imperfections (i.e.- you may not have the automatic rifle to hunt or you may have to place trust in the police during a robbery, etc), but a law is imperfect by nature. You must not focus on those imperfections and instead think of how it is benefiting society for the most part. At the beginning of this debate, I said that I was willing to take the compromise, so people can still have those small pistols. I was not 100% satisfied, but I know that is a reasonable step to making progress, and the opposition still gets some of its way as well.I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to do something. As my opponent mentioned, we don't have the highest gun ownership rate, but we have one of the highest gun violence rates. So it should be pretty clear to everyone that we are doing something wrong. If we proceed to do nothing, we are only letting ourselves keep slipping down this endless pit of homicides, suicides, mass shootings, and terrible injuries from gun violence. I suggested a middle way idea...one that could keep being revised until we have reached an endpoint that will truly benefit the entire society (and soon). Please keep an open mind and realize that guns do pose a threat to our society. People might kill people, but guns make it all the easier. (http://www.nytimes.com...) We need to take action.Thank you, and I do truly hope my opponent will post his final argument. I thank him especially for a good debate. Now I leave it to the voters.