Gun Control is Bad

I apologize for this being so late. It is clear that my opponent put a lot of effort into explaining why the gun is the most logical choice for a murderer's weapon, and I applaud him for that. The only problem is that I never said that the gun isn't the most logical weapon for murderer's to use, but I did state that if all guns were taken away, then criminals would resort to other weapons. That was the point that I was making. "So, if you were at a shooting, would you have your gun? Would you have left it at home? " Ever heard of concealed carry? And even if we consider the point my opponent was trying to make in this statement, it helps me out more considering that in states where it is an offense to carry a gun around, there are more shootings. Just because we don't have a tyrannical government now doesn't mean that we will never have one. Not only that, but crime still happens quite a lot in the U. S. To say that we have "little crime" is ridiculous. The areas that do have "little crime" in the U. S. are, coincidentally, the areas that have little to no restrictions on gun ownership. "If we take away things that are used for killing, people will stop being killed". Again, this is false. My opponent has still not responded to my claim that murderers will resort to using other weapons. I hate it when I rehash my points, but the weapon is not the murderer's motivation. Their personal desires and goals are their motivations. Unfortunately, my opponent has never responded to that point, and that is most likely because there is no response you can make to it from a gun control advocate standpoint without completely lying. I would like to edit scenario 2 for you if you don't mind. SCENARIO 2 (In reality)- The world with guns (our current world) Joe is in a church. Suddenly, a crazed madman holding an AR-556 shoots and kills tons of people. Someone nearby hears the shooting. That person then pulls out their gun and takes the shooter down, and the shooter eventually dies. The main difference between the pretty picture my opponent painted in his "scenario 1" and my edited version of his "scenario 2" is that the edited version of scenario 2 actually happened. I basically just summarized the Texas church shooting that happened recently. Every victim dying from a shooter is a tragedy which should have never happened, and that is why I oppose gun control. If another person in the church had a gun, they would be able to defend everybody in the church by taking down the shooter before a nearby listener. Something we must keep in mind is that all of my opponents points are predicated on the fact that without guns, the world would be a better place, yet even my opponent admitted that it would be nearly (which the word nearly should be omitted here) impossible to take away everyone's guns. This basically means that all of his points are invalid. I, on the other hand, had used facts to support my side of the resolution, that gun control is an inefficient measure for preventing crimes. My opponent has not upheld his side of the resolution but has went on an unprecedented emotion-based tyrade on how we need a world without guns. Not only that, but my opponent has not responded to any of my factual claims. He ignored everything that proves gun control is inefficient. My opponent talks about how the police will still be able to defend people against criminals better than the people themselves, but has ignored my evidence (the situation in Kennesaw in which citizens were required to own guns) that proves otherwise. When voting on this debate, consider these things. Imagination is nice. Thinking outside the box is nice. But realistically speaking, a world without guns won't happen.