Effective gun control is a good thing.

To begin at the beginning, my opponent states that "That my phrase "To conclude, people having guns ends lives, the state having guns saves them (usually)". .. was a conclusion. My post was the support. " Pro never once supported that assertion. He never established that the state having guns "usually" saves lives, nor did he support that having guns "usually" (unstated, but presumed) ends lives (presumably unjustifiably). My opponent then goes on to make claims about a series of assertions that I have made. The problem with the first one is, of course, that it was in direct response to his own unsupported assertion. As has been said, "that which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. " I will concede, however, that "When something is a right, whether statistics show that right is abused has nothing to do with whether that right should be protected" is an assertion on my part. I didn't support it, per se, as I find it axiomatic that a right is a right regardless of whether someone else has abused it. Pro, who has BoP, never actually contested or established a reason why this would not be the case. I supported the next assertion, in my opinion, just fine. ""The constitution is no longer relevant in the 21st century" "I hope he realizes how ridiculous it sounds. " I stand by that response. He made the statement that the constitution (presumably as a whole) is no longer relevant in the 21st century. This is patently absurd for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that it is the law of the land in the US. I invited my opponent to clarify, but he has not, which brings us back to "That which has been asserted without evidence. .. " "it wasn't the forefather's intent to give everyone an killing machine. " (it was). " Actually, this point was fully supported. I quoted relevant passages from some of the anti-federalist founders. Also, my opponent had asserted the original statement based on nothing but his own intuition, which brings us back to "That which has been asserted without evidence. .. " "A lot of my points about weapon sales were purposefully exaggerated. .. " And yet Pro has no statistics of crimes committed with these heavily regulated guns, to show that the heavy regulation was not enough to stop crimes. I have already called him out on this. But further, he admits to purposefully exaggerating his case. How can any of his points be trusted, then? There is a difference between pointing out poor arguments by taking them to absurdity, and purposefully exaggerating your position in order to make your case appear stronger. Should I, then, have attempted to exaggerate the amount of unjustified violence perpetrated on civilians by the government, just to make that case more compelling? "The fact that this is a right is an argument that . .. I fail to see any justification of why this should be from Con. " First, I have given justification. Second, however, strictly speaking I shouldn't even have to. When someone is arguing for the eradication of a right, the onus is on them to explain WHY it should NOT be a right, particularly in this case where Pro has full BoP and is arguing for a change in the status quo. I do not have to justify why I want to walk down a public street, the onus is on the one who wants to PREVENT me from doing so to establish why I should not. To create another, more chilling concept: Imagine that one day, there is a knock at your door. "Sorry, you no longer have the right to life, we're here with the Disposal Team. " "Why? " "Well, your family has a lot of murderers in it. So we figure it'd just be easier to wipe you all out; we can guarantee, since some of you are definitely murderers, less deaths that way. " "But I've never committed a crime! What about my right to life? " "Well, like we said, we're guaranteeing less murders, so unless you can give us a good reason to let you live, you're going down the chute. " Absurd. "I"ve told you that people can"t have guns, legal or not, because I believe that by not having them, less people will die. " Pro repeats his claim, which has no more validity just because he's repeated it. As already noted: "saving lives" can justify an infinite number of ridiculous actions. It gives us, certainly, a reason to care about the debate, and is useful in that regard, but that fact alone cannot justify the complete removal of a right, or it could justify the complete removal of ANY right. "Less nuts means less nut allergy deaths. " And so nuts should be banned for everyone? "Other rights are abused in America, I know that, but the abuse of the 1st amendment doesn"t cause deaths. " Already rebutted. "The elimination of guns will, on large, affect the lives of gun owners in a very small way. " Actually, it will destroy gun owners as a concept. They will no longer exist. They will become non-gun-owners. It's like arguing that "The gym's closure will affect the lives of gym patrons in a very small way". Who is Pro to say how gun owners will be affected by their guns being seized? "As I have prior explained, pressure will be put on illegal gun trade as well, so the need to defend one"s self with a gun will be greatly less. " But the need to protect oneself from the threat of violence will still remain. After all, as already noted the UK has much higher violent crime rates. "The right to bear arms cannot be taken as a right anymore. .. " Pro's argument here about murder and suicide could be directly translated to: Cars. Knives. Gas ovens. And be equally valid. Soon, nothing will be legal, because nigh anything could be a means to end life. Pro then goes on to say that we are not near a government collapse (I note he consistently avoids engaging with "government abuse", which is not necessarily contingent at all on collapse). He then makes the spectacularly unsupported claim that guns do not protect. which is hilarious, considering when the STATE has a gun, he believes it does. "Two teens were shot to death last thanksgiving for breaking into a house. They are far too powerful to be home defence weapons. Especially when they"re not needed. Like the society I want to achieve. " The society you posited wasn't one without violence. It was just one where one cannot protect oneself from violence. In Pro's world, rather than the burglars, the 67-year-old man would have been robbed, certainly, and possibly attacked and/or killed. While that case certainly involves someone who went too far, here's a counter to Pro's "they never protect" arguments, that is ALSO a home intruder, and doesn't involve someone giving a coup-de-grace because he was laughed at: A woman, home alone with her kids, sees an intruder. She tries to go in the bedroom, then lock herself and the kids into a crawlspace, but the burglar still comes after her. And she protects herself and her kids. The sheriff agreed it was a "life-or-death" situation, and said that if she hadn't had a gun, he felt it likely he'd be working a triple homicide with no leads instead of a self-defense shooting. [1] Guns can save lives. Guns can be regulated. But the argument to completely prohibit them is, to me, a lazy and craven one that says "Well, the system we have now needs improvement. Let's destory it completely! " Pro skips over enhanced regulation, or permits, and goes straight to total prohibition. If he'd posited a world without violence, or a world completely without guns, I would have found it hard to suspend disbelief, but I wouldn't have taken the debate. By not doing either, Pro's arguments fail. I do think Pro did a fine job summarizing at the end, and I, too, enjoyed our debate. I wish him the best of luck, even as I finish by saying I maintain he has not fulfilled his burden of proof to carry his motion, and as such, urge a vote for Con. Thanks! [1] . http://www.cnn.com...