gun control is worthless

and since it seems like you cant read, I GOT THIS INFORMATION AT, www.politifact.com and hotair.comI did respond to that. Accusing me of illiteracy seems somewhat low at this point, especially after accusing *me* of antagonizing my opponents. Here is my response since you missed it in Round 3: By no stretch of the imagination are these sources viable scientific studies and thus they are irrelevant to an educated debate supported by facts. I cited an up-to-date 2011 Harvard Injury Control Research Center article. Basically anyone can create a website on the internet and write basically anything in it. This is why nobody in their right mind quotes Wikipedia, Snopes, or random people's tweets in scientific studies. Who knows when half of those web pages were last edited, let alone updated -- it could have been 1998 for all we know. Furthermore, your claim about gun control "failing" in California can be traced back to only one source: Cam Edwards, who works for NRA News. You see the conflict of interest there, right? Let's take a closer look at California. NRA says "failing", I say "succeeding", and so does data from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. California’s firearm mortality rate declined to 7.5 per 100,000 in 2010, while the rest of the nation was at 10.3. Between 1990 and 2010, California reduced its firearm mortality rate by 52 percent -- a reduction 24 percentage points greater than the rest of the US. http://wonder.cdc.gov....You say your conclusion will be deliberately kept "short and sweet", I say you have run out of arguments and are unable to respond to my challenges, namely that you (a) provide any valid evidence of your own, (b) support your claim (contradicting a Harvard analysis and raw data from the CDC) that gun regulation does not prevent gun violence, and (c) repeatedly conceded the debate to me, then finished off with several sentences of attempting to personally disparage me by expressing your disappointment in my character. You really want to go there? I provided a Harvard analysis stating that gun regulation in Australia was "incredibly successful in terms of lives saved". This means that you, by opposing any form of gun control, are arguing *against* measures shown to save lives, in favor of the uninhibited freedom to take lives. I didn't accept this debate because I wanted to harmoniously agree with you.Regardless, it is not our character but our arguments which are under voter scrutiny here. I hope it is quite clear that I have satisfied my BoP. I challenged you to provide evidence for your unsubstantiated claims; you provided none. I pointed out that you contradicted yourself, thus conceding the debate to me; you failed to respond, and repeatedly misconstrued the argument here, which is not whether gun control will end all violence but whether or not it is *worthless*. By once again in Round 4 saying it "could be true" that "gun control makes it harder to get guns" you're shooting yourself in the foot. As your opponent in this debate, I am not interested in hurting your feelings or making personal arguments against you, but it behooves me to point out when your arguments fail, when you contradict yourself, or when you play into my hands. You have conceded the debate to me, and failed to defend yourself when I pointed it out, instead falling deeper into a rut. people like you will never see that gun control is an empty worthless gesture and will never have a nation wide impactAt least people like me can read a Harvard Injury Control Research Center analysis literally describing gun control having a nation wide impact and reassemble their views to reflect reality. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu.... If this is my camp I embrace it.