Any gun other than pistols should not be sold to citizens.

I. Ban pistols My opponent both agrees that they are used oftenly for homicides, but also the best self-defence weapon as they can be used at all times. He however fails to see that should the same case occur - an armed robbery, where ideally both the robber and the citizens have a pistol, now would become a robber with a bigger weapon, and a civilian with none at all. Is this in any way beneficial? No. Unless my opponent would argue civilians carrying big guns on them at all time. Con has agreed that long guns are not brought into the open by civilians, as it is very unethical. Many civilians would carry a regular pistol around, though. This proves my entire point, given that pistold provide a fair and ethical chance for every civilian to have a self-defense at all times. About hunting: Con again pretends he has won as I stated that there would be a license for huntsmen. He is so stupid to derive from this that every civilian would be able to buy bigger guns: No. In Europe, those bigger guns are simplistic shotguns or bolt action rifles. I thought it would be clear that assault rifles or other guns would not fall into the category of guns allowed to be bought by huntsmen. The list of allowed guns is very limited. Lastly, when having such a license, one is no longer regarded a "civilian" when going hunting: you require to wear a specific uniform so that civilians would not mistake you for people with illegal guns. Huntsmen, in a way, are looked upon like soldiers. This is exactly the system I proposed so that the sports of hunting would not be eliminated by gun control. As for the usage of bigger guns in conflict, you have ignored my actual argument: fleeing is better than standing your ground. I prefer no dead & wounded over a hero who died for his country. And, as I said, letting civilians matter in war only makes problems escalate: there won't be civilians anymore, just like in Japan at the end of WWII. Such a population would have no innocents according to their enemy, and be nuked mercylessly. My opponent has indeed given fine examples of civilians deterring an invasion, yet I have now countered it with the example more fitting in modern warfare - that which includes immediate destruction of all that stands in your way. II. Second amendment I focus upon my reply that there is no difference between homicide and democide, even though democide occurs more often. The fact that the agressor is well-armed does not mean the civilian should be equally as armed. It means civilians should be allowed to carry pistols at all times rather than - as Con chose to argue - facing a ban of their all-time defense weapons. Con must be reminded that he chose to argue the EXACT opposite of what I said: only long guns, no more handguns. And the voter can also read for theirselves Con has agreed that carrying long guns in the open almost never happens, even though it might be legal in some states. Does this mean Con says: you shouldn't be able to protect yourself against your government/agressor at all times? It would seem so. Please clarify your ideas here, con. III. More guns, less crime. But, bigger guns, less crime? My opponent persuades the voters to ignore my arguments again. This debate is really becoming sad. Con, I cannot argue about statistics. It is easy I know it is clear that gun control does not work, as civilians are too stubborn and that will never change. But this is not a debate like that, this is a debate about what an ideal world would look like if all juridical laws would be embraced by civilians. The reason I said you are manipulating here is that your statistics do not count for this debate, as you have nowhere proven that bigger guns in some way would also reduce crime rates. May I remind you that I am not looking for a full gun ban, as I have said last round, You have yet to reply to my points, as this is a point of your case and you have to either drop it, or show that it proves that bigger guns are in some way beneficial. "False dichotomy" These less useful guns fall into that category because, like I have said, you would only want to shoot them for fun: they serve no use for defence as you already couldn't carry them in public. My solution for those who wish to maintain their musket fetish? Get a huntsman license, or fire them at shooting ranges. "Easier for criminals" My opponent talks about the insane criminals buying guns, but somehow finds it illogical that buying a gun in a store is much easier than buying one illegal. If you make it just the slightest bit harder for criminals to get hands on big guns, it would be well-worth it. The fact that civilians would be deprived of these weapons is of no influence at all - except that they will be unhappy about that. Shopkeepers should be deprived of these weapons as well, as a pistol serves enough of a defence. The chances of them taking down a robber -whom is prepared and holds the shopkeeper at gunpoint immediately- are practically zero. As for home defence, my opponent would want to shoot any man intruding his house potentially dying himself before anything would happen. A man who is hidden and would only fire when necessary, is the one who is most likely to kill the intruder. You do not need a long gun to fill intruders with lead. The psychological impact of a gun is the same - be it a big or small gun. Every intruder will be cautious knowing the house-owner has a gun, that is, IF they are brave enough to enter. They know that when a bullet hits them, it's over, no matter what caliber round it was. Civilians tend to think the bigger guns are also the better ones to defend your house with, which is true. That is why long guns are bought more oftenly. Yet the actual difference between a pistol and a long gun when defending yourself is so small, while the amount of people you could kill with it is so much bigger. Assault rifles are a huge potential threat at, for example, markets. Pistols are not. So, in a way, you are giving civilians weapons that are only slightly more lethal for defending, with the chance that one in twenty million would go to a market and gun down a few dozens, who will be left defenceless. My resolution here is that bigger guns become more rare, civilians know how to defend theirselves with a pistol and no risks other than the usual ones (of organized crime) are being taken. "Easier to solve" No such statistics exist, I agree. But my point still holds water since I have given a fair example of JFK's murder being tough to crack. My opponent's "empirically proven impacts" are however time after time not truly relevant to his case. I admire his search for statistics and desire to prove a case in such a way, but you MUST agree that the amount of people who actually own long guns at home does not matter for this debate. We are talking about whether or not the hypothetical world without long guns would be better, regardless and inconsiderate of how many people have actually bought a bigger gun instead of a smaller one.