Gun control does not reduce crime (USA only)

My opponent is having DDO coding issues. Its unfortunate. We agreed that I would allow him to post the remainder in the comments for me to rebuttal as a former round. R1: Correlation is not Causation Even though my opponent accounted for some variables, my point was he didn't use any statistical methods to account for all variables. For instance, New Hampshire has more guns and less murders, but its because the area is rural in nature. The state doesn't have a heck of a lot of hand guns, which are most commonly used to kill someone, unlike other states such as Hawaii. Source: http://nhpr.org... As criminologist in the article pointed out rather well, New Hampshire almost leads the all states in higher income per capita, employment, etc... Its no wonder that it doesn't have a heck of a lot of gun trouble. These factors are not accounted for when looking at Hawaii. Even then, even though the state has more guns, it also has a heck of a lot of gun regulations behind it as well. The state is a “may issue” state, meaning you still have to get a permit for a gun in the first place, as only suitable people in the state may posses a firearm. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org... As per my original point his source only accounts for homicides. Not gun related homicides. A huge issue. R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire I believe I just answered this (above in R1). My correlation is not causation fallacy accusation of my opponent pertains to more than just one area, so I think its okay to leave this here, as it applies to both and I'm just essentially repeating myself. R3: Empathy/Fear in Psychopaths I agree with my opponent that we need to try and reduce casualties as much as possible, but again this is the very purpose of the police. These individuals are trained in handling these critical situations, something typical gun owners are not trained to do. Worse yet, because they probably do not have the same legal knowledge as someone in the law field, their claims of self defence might not actually be the same in the eyes of the law, and thus more crime inadvertently happens. In fact, I pointed this out in a previous round. In point 4, most judges who overlooked a case of self-reported self defence claims, claimed that they were not in fact self defence and thus liable for jail time. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... This unequivocally shows the problem with more guns, they do not reduce crime, they enhance it by empowering people with little legal knowledge to shoot first and ask questions later.As for the Fort Hood Shooter and the Naval Yard Shooter, again, we needed more, not less, gun control to have gotten guns out of their hands. My opponent just drops my whole point: the database is for convicted criminals. However, most databases also do not permit the mentally ill from having one either. Both shooters were suffering from psychotic breaks and thus, if flagged, would not have been given a gun. This is an argument for more gun control. Not less. This would prevent the seller from being liable as well because of the lack of information. I mean imagine the guilt of a gun store manager for selling one of these goofs a gun! How do they feel? R4: Bad Gun Ownership (comments) The source claims a majority. This means 50% +1. My opponent unfortunately plays semantics here. Further, in the scenario, my opponent proves my point. If he was correct, pulling out a gun and attacking the robber did not prevent a crime, for the shooter themselves has committed one: manslaughter. The problem being that the store owner committed an imperfect self-defence and thus has committed a crime inadvertently. Worse yet, because a thief only wants goods, the gun resulting in death just proves my point, the issue gets escalated to one of a loss of life. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_law)#Involuntary_manslaughter R5: Chicago Okay, my opponent brings this up and thus I need to as well. My opponent is simply wrong on Chicago. Again, because correlation is not causation, and again because the police powers are not given to seize illegal guns in the first place (a form of gun control) gang violence and organized crime runs rampant. This would be true regardless of if we were to hypothetically rid Chicago of all guns. Because most guns in Chicago come from out of state. My opponents claim fails to take this into account. Furthermore, because urban segregation is still an issue, along with poverty rates as well, a variety of other factors makes crime more complex than simply picking a state and comparing gun crime with gun laws. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... In fact, even within my own source, if I were to take the same standard as my opponent, I could easily argue that gun control worked. Because in recent times, the crime numbers today compared to 1965 are still lower. Even though on the whole Chicago nationally has a pretty bad crime problem. Finally, and I quote my source: “ Chicago police instituted several initiatives in an attempt to reduce the bloodshed, including a “summer surge” of officers working overtime in high-crime areas and an expansion of its “custom notifications” program, in which officers knock on the doors of gang-affiliated individuals to put them on alert, connect them with social services and even set up meetings with family members of gun violence victims.” My opponent dropped my meta-analysis of gun control. My opponent dropped my point on statistical signifgance, and correlation as well. Thank you to my opponent for a lovely debate. I hope you audience will vote for me :)