more guns mean more homicide, more gun control means less homicide

"i cited some bias sources, but that ignores the majority of unbias sources which include literature reviews that represents a scientifi onsensus effectively."I reviewed every one of them, and described in general the problems I had with each. R2 I challenged my opponent to come up with one source that met unbiased, unmolested data confirming the resolution, while none was presented in the final round."if your position were true youd be able to find it. if ninety nine percent of engineers said a bridge was unsafe would you argue it was safe?"Just to dispell the analogy, the "consensus" isn't anywhere near 99 percent. The "consensus" of polling data has a positive response rate that very closely aligns the ideaological grounds I cited in R2. If my opponent wants to make the case that a consensus would require 99 percent, then that standard fails. To follow the analogy however, if a majority of engineers self-describe as misogynists, and a similar majority of engineers also claim a bridge designed by a female is unsafe...but only after manipulating the data through multiple levels of regression...and the raw data shows that opinion incorrect...then yes, of course I think it reasonable to have doubts on the claim those engineers make on the safety of the bridge."...if your position was true and it was as mushy as you claim, youd be able to find decent support for your position..."I wanted the challenge of attempting this debate using only neutral sources for data directly relating to the resolution. So far, I think the ones I provided, such as the FBI, crime statistics, CDC, all qualify, except one. That one, I only presented the raw data it utilized. I intentionally left Con's argument absent of the works by scholarly people such as Professors Gary Kleck, Don Kates, John Lott, or Gary Mauser. I'm certain had I presented them, Pro would have rejected them for the same reason I'm rejecting Pro's. They push an agenda. Raw data pushes no such agenda, and that raw data does not fit the narrative that Pro has presented.Raw data also doesn't require "decent support" from anyone, so this is a moot objection."...studies that say you are more likely to die where there are more guns..."What studies? There's no reference to these unnamed studies here. Take suicide out of the equation out of this and the other assertions Pro makes in this paragraph, and the numbers change to being in favor of Con."...i could show australia where homicides dropped up to fifty percent after gun control..."This is inaccurate, although my opponent does use "up to" I suppose to mean any number desired. I do commend my opponent for finally bringing to the conversation one gun control program, though the one brought up also doesn't affirm the resolution. The homicide trend was already declining 15 years prior to its buyback/confiscation program. The gun legislation cannot be responsible for a declining homicide trend that was occurring prior to its enactment. The rate of decline both before and after the ban was virtually identical. If the resolution were true, then I would have expected the rate of decline to accelerate. Instead, the rate stagnates, and continues the exact same path it was on before the ban, and in similar decline to New Zealand's homicide rate which did not have that law. [1] Also take note of the upward spike in homicides that occured within a few years of the failed policy. That upward spike, is another example where the resolution is invalidated."...and there was a mass shooting every year before that control and no mass shooting after"I'm not sure why my opponent doesn't include murder-suicide by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children in a shooting spree before turning the gun on himself in 2014. There was also the Sydney Siege in 2014 where 4 were shot, 3 of which were killed, but I'm not sure what might qualify as a "mass shooting" as far as my opponent is concerned. " con does nothing to attack the studies i show regardign gun control"I've addressed them all. Some specifically, like the politifact link that actually demonstrates evidence in favor of Con, and others in general."just look at the evidence... you are twice as likely to die in the states with the least gun control"This is a non sequitur. You have are 100% likely to die no matter what state you reside in. Supposing for a moment my oppenent meant to include with a firearm, we are including suicides with that statisticEven just assuming the accuracy of this uncited statistic, it remains immaterial to the resolution. When you take suicides out the equation, according to my opponent's source anyway, there is no correlation between state's homicide rates and their gun control policies.I want to thank Pro for this debate. Since all the sources Pro had provided were either from biased sources, manipulated data, or conflated suicides or other items not related to the resolution, Pro has failed to demonstrate affirmation. On the other hand, Con has demonstrated using untainted data, multiple instances where the resolution fails or the opposite is accurate.Vote Con.[1] http://www.hoplofobia.info...