Guns should be more difficult to obtain

Thank you, Con, for providing these new statistics and refutations. Con's first graph is actually supporting my side. It shows that there is a legitimate amount of suicides and homicides by guns. Also, I said that there are 10 in every 10,000 deaths every year. If you look at the graph, in 2012, it says there were 1 million deaths total ((Suicides + Homicides)*100,000). This just proves my side more correct. His second graph made a little more sense, but again, analysis is required. Here is why it is not fully relevant to this debate: 1. It uses only Canada to compare to. This makes it seem like suicide rates in other places do not match up with his claim of consistency. This not only proves that the graph doesn't support his side, it supports mine as well. 2. The only source on US suicide is the CDC, but it seems like the CDC wouldn't devote all their time and effort to counting the number of gun suicides. 3. The graph stops at 2007. Again, perhaps consistency begins to flicker past 2007. So, this graph again supports my side more than his. His third graph was more or less irrelevant to this debate. If you look at the other means of suicide, most of them take time, meaning that an individual can actually think through and analyze their decision. [1] A good example of this is provided by my opponent: 50% of suicides are with a rope (from my opponent's final graph). With a rope, you have time before you suffocate to think through your decision to kill yourself and possibly reason out of it. With a gun (and this applies to homicides as well) once you pull the trigger, there's nothing to do to stop it. He agrees with me on this, saying that guns are preferred to rope for suicide, and are "more efficient." In England, guns are banned, meaning that most suicidal people resort to the rope, which is less efficient. So, all this graph does, along with his helpful analysis, is support my side. I have no prejudice against non-citizens other than the fact that they are not fully registered. Someone from England could come over here, buy some guns, and smuggle them back to England. He cited the Second Amendment for a full and legitimate reason for owning a gun. This is a heavily controversial topic, possibly the sole actual idea for possibly supporting my opponent's side of this debate. But, the Second Amendment is somewhat irrelevant today. In the times when it was written, there was an actual reason for wanting to own a gun: to protect yourself against invaders, Native Americans (not that I supported the genocidal killing of Native Americans, this actually proves my side in reasoning I provide below), bears, or just for hunting. Today, those reasons are all pretty much nonexistent. Now, the killing of Native Americans actually supports my side. How did this genocide occur? With guns used by the settlers. My opponent is now arguing that it was just to kill an entire ethnic group for the reasons of the settlers: land. My opponent has halfway refuted the loophole involving private transactions. [2] This may be the only legitimate point made by him in this entire debate. However, he has pointed out the more important, irrefutable evidence: criminals. Until we make this easy fix, criminals will no matter what use it as it is much easier to just use this loophole than to use the "standard operating procedure" suggested by my opponent. Therefore, all of my points still stand and he has not provided any points for his side. At this point in the debate, the vote definitely goes to me. Sources: 1. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 2. http://www.ontheissues.org...