Gun control is a stupid idea

So, my opponent chooses to simply declare my sources unreliable.http://www.liberales-waffenrecht.de...Well, this picture is taken from the official police statistics in Germany, and it is found on a site called "Liberales Waffenrecht", and even people who can't understand German will be able to tell what "liberal" means. This site advocates a liberalization of gun control, yet provides the same statistic: a decrease in gun related deaths in SPITE of German gun control.Here's the article to which this relates, you can clearly see the title above.http://www.liberales-waffenrecht.de...So, despite my opponent's desperate claims, my statistics are factual and official, and are even used by opponents of gun control.The resolution claims gun control to be a stupid IDEA. Ideas are not bound to national borders, nor has the opening resolution shown any indication of national restrictions.In Germany and the UK, gun control has proved to be a very good idea, with the death rate by guns being significantly lower than in the USA.My opponent now wants to expand on his original argument.He claims that laws serve as restrictions to freedom. So, we are now arguing that all laws are bad because they limit freedom? Did my opponent not say that "Criminals don't obey laws" anyway?So, the discussion about laws is - by the parameters set by my opponent - totally irrelevant and serves as a mere distraction here.Then my opponent talks about Nazi Germany, which is the classic "appeal to the extremes" fallacy. We do not live in Nazi Germany. And to believe that gun control was a substantial part in the genocide is totally unfounded. Germany, as opposed to the USA, has never had a history of armed resistance against the government.We were originally discussing "one thing": "What would stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns and using it on an armless public?"Now we are apparently discussing "tyranny"? Another distraction.But Germany has had the worst tyranny ever, and despite gun control the tyranny has not broken out again. So, there's no indication that gun control leads to tyranny. In fact, Germany and the USA are allies."The constitution allows Americans the right to bear arms as a personal right because the founding fathers recognized the threat of tyranny and the need for self-defense."Oh, do we have witness accounts for that or is that just an inductive conclusion?"The threat of tyranny still exists in our modern world today and is a very valid reason for having the rights to own and use a gun."I say it's not in our society. Tyranny can be found in countries where armed militia roam the streets and there is no gun control in effect. Provide proof of your allegation.As for my explicit SIDE-NOTE:Thanks for your opinion on this. It does, however, not pertain to our debate, so I will not delve much deeper into this."Gun control commits the fallacy of assuming that guns in circulation will be eliminated once gun control laws are enacted. They won't."My opponent does not know the future. In Australia, guns have been collected and the number of gun related deaths has decreased."In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth. Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected firearm homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."http://ftp.iza.org...So, fact again goes against the precognition of my opponent.I will under no circumstances try to imagine how the mind of an addict works. Only an addict can understand that."Guns are self-defense for the vast majority of responsible gun owners" - which, as I pointed out, will not be negatively affected by gun control."protection from the threat of tyranny" - criminals, about which this debate is, will not protect society from tyranny."and common sense to acknowledge guns won't be removed from circulation once gun control laws are enacted." And fact in Australia and Germany goes against this alleged "common sense".A final question for my opponent: If we do not control guns, will that not just mean guns are far more easily accessible to NON-RESPONSIBLE gun owners and criminals? Will this not put the RESPONSIBLE gun-owners who can easily obtain a permit under gun control in disadvantage?My opponent's arguments make little sense in that regard. Gun control is not about taking all guns away, it's about leaving guns only in the hands of responsible gun owners.It is thus not a stupid idea.