more gun regulation should exist

Kind Regards, I will now precede with rebuttals to Pros claimsRebuttals:First of all I would like to note that Pro still has not given an actual argument. Thus Pro has not actually stated why 'more gun regulation should exist'. Furthermore Pro has, from 7 clear arguments Con provided in the previous round, tried to make a rebuttal of only 3 of them. Now, additionally, I will provide evidence as to why all 3 of Pros rebuttals are incorrect. Please note that Pro has not done that, Pro did not provide any evidence. 1.) Pro states that I have given 'anecdotal' evidence. Not at all! This information comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, (https://www.unodc.org...), I believe this evidence more than all the sources provided by Pro. Also we need to look at what focus Pros sources have. Lets start systematically.2.) I will dismiss the you tube video, as it is John Oliver, he is a comedian. His 'facts' always represent what he wants the audience to see and never the bigger picture. 3.) http://thinkprogress.org... This is an article about the US. The US is the only country with this 'problem' and I provided the evidence for that last round and Pro dismissed it as 'anecdotal'. I quote from the 'source', "The largest study of gun violence in the United States". Unrelated to Pros claim as to incorrect evidence. 4.) http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... Once again, same as above. "Data from a US mortality follow-back survey". Same thing as above, unrelated to Pros claim. 5.) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... . This one is interesting, as it kind of relates. But only one piece of evidence. Not that Pro would have known that, most likely. But I looked at it nevertheless. 'Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide'. Lets look at the source of this 'source'. http://jonathanstray.com... here, so anyone who wants to read it. Their research seems quite bad. I mean look, the number 2 on the homicide rate in 1994 is Northern Ireland. This is a bad joke. Finland unsurprisingly has a high firearm suicide rate, as because of its location. But in fact, the countries that have a high percentage of firearms, Germany, France, Norway and such have extremely low homicide rates. Suicide rates are another thing. If there is access to a firearm and a person wants to commit suicide, the firearm is the easiest way. But this is about firearm homicide. And seemingly it is unrelated. So once again, Pros 'thesis' about my 'anecdotal' evidence refuted. This all means that Pros statement that "but the studies I showed illustrate that the norm is as I stated" is incorrect, as already shown in my previous round. In fact the US is not the norm, nor is Pros theory that "the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur". In fact the countries with the highest homicide rates all have very low firearms per capita. Please Pro, provide evidence that this is wrong. Lets provide a graph. Pro, refute this. With evidence, please. Just if you want to check yourself, I will, though I normally do not use that, simply provide Wikipedia links and you can check yourself. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) international homicide rate, just click the 'rate' and get it to sort descending. Here is the link for the count of firearms per capita (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Now simply check how many firearms there are in the countries with the highest homicide rates. Not many. The US may have a high homicide rate if you look at '1st world countries', but if you look at the entire picture the number is very slim. Honduras, the country with the highest homicide rate, the number per 100.000 population has a rate of 90. 'Only' 18 times higher than the US. The second country, Venezuela, 'only' nearly 11 times higher than the us with a rate of 54. The US has a rate of 4.7. Yet, this number is constantly played up to be enormous. It is not. Look at the graph above. As for Pros claim that background checks and 'regulateions' do not contradict the 2nd amendment, yes they do. The 2nd amendment is so that citizens can be as armed as the military infantry, in case of tyranny and they need to fight to regain the country. Is this the case right now? No, certain weapons are prohibited and as such the right to bear arms is infringed. As for the war scenario, yes, this was far fetched, but possible. And Pro has not said that it is not possible. Switzerland is extremely armed, as every male who completes military training gets to keep his rifle. These are military rifles to mention. And once again, Swiss firearms per capita is high but their homicide rate extremely low. "besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns". Really? Regulation is the first step. In my home country, Germany, I can walk into a weapons store when I am 18 and buy an air rifle. In Australia where I live now, air rifles are considered firearms in exactly the same way regular rifles are. You in fact need the same license for an air rifle as you need for a 'real' firearm. A Australian friend of mine wanted to license his .22 when he was younger when he moved state and was laughed at because 'we don't license those'. Look at Australia now. Farmers, who would need a semi automatic firearm cannot possess one because they are illegal. Is this in a sense not just infringing peoples lives and liberty? Once something is regulated, it will just continue from there. So I can well understand why people in the USA do not want any regulations. And as I have proofed above, firearms control does not work in Australia. Criminals have them. People who abide the law do not. So why would you want to start this chain? "my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns". Oh, so weapons would be 'taken away'. Does this not mean that the 2nd amendment is not followed? The 2nd amendment is there for a very good reason and everybody who does not understand that should keep out of politics. Conclusion:Pro still has not provided an argument. Con has refuted all of Pros claims and the half hearted rebuttal by Pro in this round. I still note that Pro has made rebuttals for 3 out of 7 arguments provided by Con. This is less than 50%. Con has negated all of Pros 'evidence' that was used to 'support' a non existing argument. Overall Con still stands to their opinion that Firearms should not be more regulated. Kind regards, I am looking forward to your final arguments and conclusion.