Resolved: Guns should be Banned from civilians

Defense C1: Accidents Both guns and cars were not designed to kill innocent people yet both of these do kill innocents - not always on purpose. Both can be used irresponsibly to kill innocents and both can accidentally kill innocents. There isn't much of a difference between the two of these things. Actually, the source specifically speaks of accidents with guns - not all of those who are killed with guns. My opponent has stated that there are many other factors involved however they have failed to list any examples of these factors. This is problematic for my opponent since without examples for me to refute this part of their rebuttal has no impact on the resolution. My opponent comes to the conclusion that if you get hit by a car it is classified as an accident. This is also false. It is not impossible for somebody to seek revenge on another by running them over with a car. All I need to do is source one example of a purposeful car accident and my opponent's point is contradicted. My opponent agrees with me that with guns it isn't necessarily the case but the same is for cars as I have just demonstrated. I thought that I addressed the gun statistic regarding 93% of guns being committed by illegal guns. As stated in my previous round regarding robbery, these guns would be a lot more difficult to obtain if guns weren't sold legally. All somebody has to do is steal a gun for it to be classified as illegal (according to my opponent's source). In the UK it is close to impossible for a UK citizen to get their hands on a gun. Why is it difficult in America? The reason that it is difficult is because they sell guns legally. If guns are sold legally then all somebody has to do is break in and steal a bunch of guns. Therefore the statistic would not only help to remove that 7% (which is actually a lot if you put it into figures), it would also reduce robbery of guns; the usage of illegal guns and the illegal reselling of guns. In addition to this, my opponent seems to have misread my source (or read the wrong source) because it clearly shows that these deaths are solely related to accidents. C2: School Shootings My opponent's argument is bewildering. It appears that he is providing me with statistics to help with my argument. They say that it is obvious that the US is going to experience more school shooting because of the number of firearms. This is what we are disputing. Without such a large number of firearms in comparison to UK, the US would experience less school shooting. I thank my opponent for the statistics which saves me the trouble of finding them. My opponent concedes that the US has over 100 times the amount of guns. If my opponent thinks that this is supporting their claim then they are mistaken. This shows that the US has too many guns and a guns ban would help to prevent school shooting and will reduce the number of firearms available. My opponent seems to have gone back to using his (already refuted) statistic. They have stated that imposing a gun ban will only stop 7% of criminals that use guns. But my opponent's source clearly states that the percentage of illegal guns includes stolen guns. With a gun ban there would be fewer guns to steal and these guns would be concealed by the government for policemen and the military. There is far less crime in the UK. Here is a quote regarding self defense: "The day after 21-year-old Dylann Roof allegedly shot and killed nine members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, Fox & Friends claimed congregants could have defended themselves if someone had a gun.But a timely study from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) concluded that guns are rarely used for defensive purposes. According to the most recent data that"s available, there were 8,342 criminal firearm homicides by private citizens (non-law enforcement members) in 2012 " as opposed to 259 justifiable homicides. In other words, there were 32 criminal homicides for every killing of a felon who was in the process of committing a crime. And 13 states reported zero justifiable homicides that year.As noted by VPC, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) observed a similar trend in previous years. Between 2007 and 2011, 29,618,300 people experienced a violent crime, but only 235,700 " 0.8 percent " of victims used or threatened to use a gun in self-defense. Findings from both the VPC and NCVS supplement studies verifying that more guns lead to more crimes.Still, gun advocates keep arguing that guns are great for self-defense."C3: Effect on homicide rates My opponent has tried to bring his 93% factor into play (again) which has been refuted twice now. My opponent concludes by stating that he has shown that 93% of gun crimes are by those of illegal guns, which is true, however if you analyze his source you will find out that illegal guns also refers to guns that have been stolen. I have demonstrated that guns cannot be stolen as easily. I have also demonstrated that banning guns will have many positive effects including: - Less crime-Less theft-Less illegal reselling of guns -Less illegal transportation of guns to other states / countries -Less deathSummary To summarize, I believe that I have won this debate since my opponent has failed to provide any rebuttals that have any impact on the resolution of the debate. My opponent has continuously used the 93% statistic to attempt to refute my points however this statistic has been refuted and therefore this is not a valid rebuttal. I have refuted all of my opponent points with different statistics for each individual point depending on what the subject of the point is. This is so that the statistic is more individual and is related more to the point of the rebuttals and contention. This is also so that I do not make the mistake that my opponent has made. If one of my statistics is found to be untrustworthy or false, then I can rely on my other statistics to back up my point(s). Due to the fact that my opponent has heavily relied on one source that has been refuted, they have failed to meet the burden of proof and I have met mine because of their insufficient rebuttals. I thank both my opponent and voters for reading this debate and I urge voters to vote Pro!Sources http://thinkprogress.org...Guns in America: A Reader, page 219 -- accidents statistics