Gun Control

DisclaimerI am writing this at 1 in the morning after a crazy psychedelic and philosophical experience at a party with some friends, I’ll leave it at that. So I apologize beforehand for grammar and other weird stuff. Con never established the BoP. Since he presented arguments R1, and the debate is two rounds long, and I was challenged to this, I will respond directly to his arguments and not provide my own.If I can successfully negate all of Con’s contentions, I win this debate. RebuttalStarting off, Con claims that 88 of 100 people own guns. This claim goes unwarranted and thus has no impact. Con’s argument is that more freedom will result in less crime. Con claims that cities where there is more gun freedom there is less crime, and that this is an undeniable, irrefutable and an unquestionable fact (and then does a little taunt at anti-gun media, which has no impact but is still cute).Con then says that because of Texas’s low gun control, they therefore have very low violent crime rate (Con gives no source for this argument and it goes unwarranted). This is interesting because Texas has the second highest murder rate from firearms of all the states. [1] This is awkward for Con, for his argument no longer has any impact. Con then brings up the after Georgia passed a law requiring a gun in every home, the crime rate dropped. This argument has no evidence whatsoever, and therefore has no impact. But there is evidence that Georgia has the fifth highest firearm murder rate in the country. [1] Con then mentions Switzerland, but then never brings it up again…Con then says that the notion that people view guns as evil in the hands of citizens and good in the hands of the government (Con also brings up criminals but gives no explanation of this, so it has no impact). But I don’t see what this has to with whether there should be gun control, seems just to be another jab at an invisible enemy.Con then says that New York and Chicago have the some of the worst violent crime rates in the world, and then suggests that this is because of gun control. This is absolutely false, because there are thousands of factors that can be a reason for why there is a high crime rate, such as how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, state culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability and hundreds more upon hundreds more. Con does not establish why gun control is the cause of this. Causation is different from correlation, which Con fails to understand. Chicago also doesn’t have a bad violent crime rate. As you can see, Chicago is actually well below the national median in so far as per capita. [2]ConclusionI have effectively negated each and every one of my opponent’s points. My opponent had more than enough character space to post his next nine points in this round, yet chose not to. I don’t know why yet, but I do know it will only cause problems for me in the debate hence forth. [1] https://www.fbi.gov...[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com...