Resolved: Guns should be Banned from civilians

There are a few things I would like to mention.My opponent seems to be arguing that a gun ban would safe lives. That is fine, but the resolution doesn't specify for what purpose the gun ban is for. So, I can argue for other reasons other than just saving lives.Also, my opponent has given his rebutall in the 2nd round itself. By DDO customs people would argue first, and it the next round would for rebutalls. I never specified such rule in my resolution, so that is fine on my opponents behalf, but Pro's rebutalls are complete, so he cannot provide extra rebutalls in the coming rounds. Only counter-rebutalls and conclusions will be allowed. This is keep the debate fair. So, for the next round, Con will have no choice to pass it, because he already provided the rebutalls. Note, this isn't a forfeit pass, so voters cannot take of points for this. RebutallsC1: AccidentsPro's arguments for accidents are that that gun accidents are to surpass car accidents by 2015, but doesn't give me any clear message on why a gun ban should be implemented. For Pro to win this debate, he needs to show that by banning (legally prohibitiing) civilians from owning guns, it would be a net positive, rather than a net-negative. This correlation to accidents isn't very clear, because there are many other factors involved.For example, in the sources Pro has provided, it doesn't specify whether the guns that were used in those accidents, but rather just a total tally of those who were killed with guns. The problem with such a comparision, is that cars and guns are not designed to do the same thing. For example, if a somebody is killed by a car, it is classified as an accident. With a gun, that isn't nessarily the case. You could use gun's for self-defense, to actually kill somebody, or misuse the gun, and cause a fatal injury by accident. So, Con's argument is a bit misleading, because that 32,251 number isn't just all accidents, but just the number of people killed by a firearm. This ties into my arguments I made on defensive gun uses, and my stat of 93% of gun crime is comitted by illegal guns in the black market. Pro's proposed gun ban, would theorectically only impact the 7% that is used to by legally owned fire-arms. Pro could argue for some sort of "war on guns" but that isn't what the debate is about. The purpose of a ban is only to prevent civilians from buying guns. All the "war on guns" is just extra.So, to the summarize, Pro's argument that gun bans would reduce gun accidents is misleading, because he only provides stats for the total deaths committed by fire-arms, rather than accidents.C2: School ShootingsJust from reading my opponent's arguments, I can tell this is filled with a load of emotion to appeal fallicies. First of all, Pro is saying that by me being 15, and going to school, I would be inclined to be pro gun ban. He then says, by being Con gun ban, you are putting gun's over the lives of children. Ok, so I'm not really offended by what Pro has said here, but this would really be offensive to some gun owners, and I would implore my opponent to never make such a comparision again, as it really is a baseless argument, without any substance. Being a gun right's supporter doesn't not automatically mean you do not care about the lives of children.I do understand the type of people Pro is aiming his message at, but those people are a very small minority, and most gun-owners do care about their family.Now, going into the crux of the argument. Pro is saying that compared to the U.K, the U.S does experience a lot more school shooting. I'm not going to dispute this claim, but there are problems when you compare 2 countries with different cultures, and different demographics. It actually is hypocritical Pro is saying this, because earlier, he talks about different factors involved for his R2 rebutall. The same would apply for the U.K and the U.S. To begin with, the size of the U.K and U.S. are vastly different. The U.S is much larger, and the # of firearms in the U.S is just over 100 times the amount of guns avaliable in the U.K(1) For any country, it would be alot easier to regulate and manage 2 million guns, compared to 300 million guns. To compare the U.K guns laws to the U.S, and say it would work here, is not a viable argument.To prevent school shootings, Pro is proposing we should ban guns, since stricter regulation would also not prevent school shooting completly. That is true, but the same could be said for banning guns. It isn't impossible for a person to obtain a gun illegally, as I have said before that 93% of gun crime is committed by illegal guns. Well, you may ask, well if both would not completely prevent a school shooting, which one should be choose? Gun control is a much better solution, because I have shown that owning guns has resulted in nearly 200,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. Banning guns would remove those defensive gun uses.Look, I'm 15, and it is sad to think about the innocent children who are shot at the age of 5. I want to end senseless gun violence, but banning guns is to stop gun violence isn't a viable option. universal background checks, and armed guards at schools will help with this a whole lot better. Improving our mental health system is also another huge one.C3: Effect on homicide ratesFor Pro's final argument, he talks about how guns are the deadliest weapon, when the wound was the intended location to cause death. So, Pro doesn't actually say what this actually means for his actual argument, but I'm going to assume that by banning guns, you would make it harder to kill people with. Again, this is easily refuted, when I bring my 93% factor into play. Even if the gun's are banned, what about the guns that already are on the black market, and are avaliable for purchase?I'm having a bit trouble refuting the the notion that increased gun ownership correlates to an increase in homicide rates, because my earlier source showed the exact opposite. In fact, Pro didn't provide the source for more guns more crime.So this comes to my original argument. Overall, would a gun ban prove to be a net positive? I have shown that there are several flaws in Pro's arguments, and that the defensive gun uses outweigh those murders that could have been prevented by a gun ban. I also show that a ban wouldn't stop the 93% of guns crime because those are committed by illegal guns.So, since Pro made his rebutalls in the 2nd round, he needs to pass the 3rd.