People should not have the right to carry, buy, or keep guns.

Thank you so much for responding. I have to say, i wasn’t expecting that quick of a response. I want to say that the fourth and fifth round cannot be used to disprove my bill because you cannot bring up any new arguments in a rebuttal round. Just add some of your arguments in your next speech and then you can add evidence to support it. “in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents " and 33, 636 died from firearms. With your way of thinking, should we not then try to ban cars? They are dangerous and can easily kill us.” First, I need to see your sources so I can thoroughly investigate your claims. Also without citing your sources, your evidence is counted as void and unreliable and will not be used. You did cite them in the comments but please include it in your next argument. I looked at the website and was surprised. The article was written by a doctor about his personal feelings about gun control. He is not defending that guns should be saved, in fact he does quite the opposite. “We would think it was absurd if someone said that it was their right to drive faster than the speed limit, drive the wrong way on a one-way street or not put their kid in a car seat. I can’t imagine someone framing motor vehicle safety as a personal freedom issue. We get that cars are dangerous. But somehow gun safety discussions end up being about rights — instead of safety.”-http://www.kevinmd.com... He isn’t defending gun rights, he is saying that we should respect guns and try to keep people safe. In theory, this article supports my claim! He does say that he thinks that we shouldn’t take away guns but he does acknowledge that guns are not safe. Also, I would add that you should try to make your sources credible. Your evidence came from a doctor. Unless this doctor has some degree that helps him with statistics, he isn’t a credible source. I get what you are trying to say, but please give me the original source of that evidence. Don’t give me a source to a doctor summarizing his feelings about the gun issue, give me the source to his evidence. Thank you. I also did some extra digging and I found this source, http://www.cdc.gov... which he cited. It is very interesting, as you will see when you visit it, that the death toll for poisoning is 48,545 deaths total or 15.4 out of 100,000 people, motor vehicle accidents is 33, 804 deaths total or 10.7 out of 100,000 people and firearms is 33,636 deaths total or 10.6 out of 100,000 people. This goes to show my main point, which is that we must attempt to stop the things that are being used to take lives. We try to stop poisoning, we try to stop car accidents, and now we are trying to take away guns. Second, if your evidence is credible, it still is a fair question. With my logic, shouldn’t we ban all things that take away life? Let’s go back to my logic, I said that “We should abolish or try to take away those things that set themselves up against what is threatening our lives.” I still will hold true to this, and I think you are misunderstanding me. There are different ways that we deal with preventing things that take away life. We try to lock murderers up. We try to get drunks off the road. We attempt to stop them. There are already gun control laws in the respect of how much ammo you can buy and such. I am proposing that we take the next step and take away the guns. See, we already are trying to lower accidents and death tolls. the solution to stop people dying in cars is to make the cars safer and upgrade our ability to see when drunk people are driving on the road. I hope that leads you back to what I am trying to say. As for your plan, I wish you would have organized it better and listed the advantages to your system over mine. Essentially you are running a counter plan on a plan already in existence. In a true policy debate you would be breaking the inherent barrier, but for the purposes of this debate, we will keep your counter plan. I will list the negative qualities of your plan. first off, your bill destroys the moral value of your argument. You said that guns can be used to hunt and are used as tools, yet your bill allows the possibility for the government to take away guns. Essentially, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say guns are a good thing and still give the possibility for guns to be confiscated. Please expound on this point. Can the police officers confiscate guns? Second, you didn’t add any extra information about the cards. If you want to pass a bill in congress with a new card or license system, please give some information about what it will include and more about its purpose. If you are creating a card, won’t that create more work? and how will the computer systems read it? Won’t people just be able to use a regular credit card?I need more information in order to understand your bill. Third, about your stress test. You really need to give some backing to this. I need more information. How does it test for stress? There is one question in particular that you MUST answer if you wish to keep this argument: “What is the standard for the stress test? How much stress is too much?” Also, please define stress. Is it regular stress, or is it a psychological problem? Fourth, what is the purpose of this statement? “If the police find a gun on someone, they can scan the type of gun and the gun's serial number, and find who owned it. Then they can investigate.” What are they investigating? Why investigate it? And if they are investigating, under what situation can they take guns? I will now take this time to support my main assumption. Before I start, I want to note that my opponent made no attempt to destroy any of them. “guns cause an increase in the risk of death in murder, suicide, and domestic violence. And taking away the guns will diminish this risk.” Over 50,000 homicides and suicides occur each year in the United States (1), making them among the leading causes of death, particularly for young people. In 2001, homicide was the second leading cause of death and suicide the third for persons 15–24 years of age (2). Approximately 60 percent of all homicides and suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm -http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... (1)(Arias E, Anderson RN, Kung HC, et al. Deaths: final data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003;52:1–116.) (2)(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2004. (Available at the following Internet website:http://www.cdc.gov...).) Kellermann et al. (13, 14) examined the relation between gun ownership and injury outcomes. After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8) (13) and an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7) (14). -http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... (13) Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med 1992;327:467–72. (14)Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1084–91. Both of these studies indicate one thing. There is a higher risk for death when a gun is in the home than if it is not. That is indisputable. We know that guns cause death, and when a gun is in a home then it increases the probability of death. We know that it causes death, so what should we do about it? My plan will take away the main cause of homicide and suicide.My plan is a fair, logical, and benefitial way of confiscating guns. If we don't pass my bill, then what happens? We keep the guns and the homicide and suicide rates stay the same. If we do pass my bill, then what happens? We lose our guns, the homicide and suicide rates go down AND we still have protection from criminals who still have guns! I prefer the second option. What about you? you are reading this and are going to make a desicion. Please think carefully. Which is more important? gun rights? or life? That really is what the debate will rest on. I also want to ask my opponent to please give some backing to his arguemnts. WHERE do we find the right to keep guns? WHO decides if we get to keep them. Most people say the second ammendment. (i said this to allow my self to argue it in the rebbuttals) I disagree with the second ammendment. (i will not expound becuase my opponent hasn't said anything on this topic) My opponent still hasn’t attacked my bill, and if he does not, then I win the round. He has to take away my bill, no question. He has to show one of three things: my bill will not stop the harms. my bill isn’t topical to the debate my bill is morally unacceptable. If my opponent doesn’t respond to this bill in the next argument, then he cannot talk about it AT ALL in the rebuttals.AND if he doesn't show why my bill is mortally flawed, then I win. :)