A jolly good debate on gun control

I'm not sure of the structure that this round will take. I'll start by doing quotations and responses and see how it looks at the end. "My opponent states that the statistic I have stated is wrong because I do not believe in restricting ALL guns."I didn't say it was wrong - merely intellectually dishonest. If you use this statistic to back up the banning of certain guns, you ought to be for the banning of all guns, as this statistic makes no differentiation between what type of gun was used."I apologize for any confusion. However, by eliminating more "dangerous" weapons, this statistic will more than likely go down dramatically. The less guns, the smaller the chance you shoot yourself." If we ban hammers it would reduce the number of people hitting their thumbs significantly. The question is; so what? Why should the fact that people are capable of misusing guns mean that guns should be banned in and of themselves? You are begging the question here."My opponent states that my statement "Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws" is an assertion without warrant."Well it still is as you haven't backed it up."However, the fact is, most people prefer to kill people with guns. It's quick, easy, and does the most damage compared to a knife, baseball bat, etc."Yes, I probably would choose a gun to kill someone if I had to. (Unless I had access to a SAM or something - speaking of which I got to hold an SA-7 at work today. So. Freaking. Cool.) However, if I couldn't get hold of a gun (and I believe it wouldn't be difficult even with gun control - more on that later) it would not prevent me killing someone. The knowledge required to make explosives is easy to aquire and explosives can kill people just as quickly whilst doing a lot of damage. I already made this argument last round. There are many economic substitutes for guns, so no lives would be saved by banning them. In fact, though people with intent would be able to kill (due to being able to aquire decent subsitutes), people without intent, that is, the victims, would be worse off than before! "1. My point is, is that people shouldn't be able to "pick up" dangerous weapons primarily because of accidents. A counter argument may be said that cars cause accidents. You must remember that cars are a necessity to many people. In my rural town, you can't walk from point A to point B unless you have a few hours to waste. Guns, especially fully automatic guns or guns with extended magazines, are NOT a necessity in our everyday lives." Guns are tools which facilitate a purpose, that is the protection of ones liberty. While you may need to use a car more frequently, frequency is not a worthwhile metric on deciding whether things are a necessity. (Nor is necessity a worthwhile metric on deciding whether something should be controlled or not!)"My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time." This argument you are making here seems very bizarre. Are you asserting that the rate of fire directly correlates to the lives saved? This is certainly an assertion without warrant, and the opposite has been demonstrated; if there is intent to take life, suitable substitutes can be found - for example non-automatic weapons would be just as effective. "My opponent uses oak chairs as an example. The fact is, murderers use guns more than they are going to use knives or high oak chairs. You might as well get rid of some types of guns to keep people safe from themselves and from others. You can hurt yourself with an oak chair or a toaster, but by taking certain guns off of the market, lives will definitely be saved" C-dizzle unfortunately completely misses the point here. He doesn't respond to argument that anything can be used to harm someone, and just because it is used doesn't ipso facto mean that they ought to be banned. C-dizzle also repeats his mantra that lives would be saved by taking certain guns off the market. I'm going to have to ask him once more to provide warrant for that assertion. 2. My opponent states that black markets would be created by restricting gun ownership. That's why it's the government's job to crack down on the buying and purchasing of illegal weapons.This is a total non-argument. It will be impossible to prevent black markets forming. I note that C-dizzle favours drug legalization (quite rightly) - I am sure that he understands how prohibition doesn't work. It ends up criminalizing a lot of people, but doesn't prevent those who want the good from aquiring the good.My opponent also states that explosives or other substitutes for guns could be made. It's a lot faster to load and shoot a fully automatic rifle than it is to detonate an explosive. Besides, there's always the chance that people move out of the way, you run out of explosives, or the explosive just doesn't work.I concede that on balance, despite my personal taste in the matter, guns are probably preferable to explosives for killing people. That explains why guns are the most popular method at the moment. However, should we be able to somehow magic guns out of existance, explosives would be an acceptable susbtitute for the murderously inclined. Or maybe not. Maybe they'd prefer something else. I can't really say. The point is, is that there will be an effective substitute, which will mean no lives are saved."3. My opponent thinks that guns allow people to resist tyrannical government. I think that this argument is basically obsolete especially in countries like the USA. What is a bunch of civilians with some guns against the Marines? You won't be resist anybody. You won't "resist" tyrannical government because it's impossible to overthrow it."Last I checked the population of America was a bit over 300 million - and the armed forces at around 1 and half million [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I don't know about you, but even making the implausible assumption that most of those solidiers would turn on their country men, I'd still bet on the 300 million with their guns.I would also like to add that my opponent completely ignores the fact of how easy it is to buy guns without a back ground check in the USA. I don't know about you, but I don't want convicted felons walking around with guns. Have they done their time? I'm assuming the answer is yes and that they aren't escapees from jail (and if your statement assumes they are, the only thing we could possibly draw from it is that the bakery as well as the gun shop should be asking their customers whether they have just escaped from prison). They've done their time and their liberty is restored to them. They are citizens, they should have the same rights as the others (I don't know if they do become fully fledged citizens again in US law with all rights intact - if they don't, then they are not valid examples due the definitions of citizens given at the beginning)Arguments dropped.The act of ownership is not an act of aggression and therefore is terrible basis for law Insufficient evidence to suggest that restricting guns would do anythingLack of moral authority to restrict gun ownership Thanks C-DizzleI hope you get back from what ever it is you are doing (I'm assuming it is a hardcore Christian metal concert) in time. I left my response as late as possible.