Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

Alright, given that this is the last round, I'd like to sincerely thank (not to my other thank yous weren't sincere) my opponent for engaging with me on this debate. I really do appreciate his arguments, even if I fervently disagree with them. with that, I'll launch into some crystallization, which will include rebuttals of my opponent's arguments from last round. If you'll recall from the start of this debate, there were three basic reasons why I believe that the gun control measures I've espoused will be beneficial. The first of these was accidental shootings. Con provides some argumentation on this, but in each case, he's just said that the onus should be elsewhere. I've explained why this is unimportant to the debate, and why these measures would reduce the amount of accidental shootings (and therefore injuries and deaths) regardless of where the onus is placed. As he has provided no additional arguments here, every single one of those shootings is a reason to vote for my side. The second was suicide. As soon as Con admits that "Suicide is wrong," this should be an easy place to vote Pro, especially since, in R3, he admitted that guns do increase suicide rates. That's tens of thousands of people a year dying unnecessarily. He argues that a mass murderer committing suicide is beneficial, but never provides any reason to believe that even one of these cases of suicide would otherwise become a mass murderer. These suicide cases are almost all innocent of any crime, and their deaths are tragedies that weigh heavily on their families and friends, plain and simple. He says that an individual can survive a bullet and that knives are still pretty easy to kill yourself with. I've already made all of the arguments I'm going to make here, but just to summarize, I've shown that killing oneself with a knife is significantly more difficult and time consuming, allowing ease of intervention and higher survival rates than those with guns. The fact that one can survive a bullet doesn't make it less deadly. The third was homicide. I went over mass shootings, individual homicides, criminals brandishing guns to commit their crimes more easily, and murders in the home of women and children. None of these were specifically refuted by Con. In fact, the most Con manages to do is provide some mitigating reasons why some criminals will be able to acquire guns. He provided an assertion of their effects in deterrence that I've proven false, and has repeatedly argued that other weapons are just going to be used instead. Since he's no longer arguing them in this round, he apparently concedes that knives, hammers and cars are very different monsters, the former two found extremely lacking in deadliness, and the latter being massively regulated in ways that guns are most certainly not. The only thing he continues to argue here are that bombs will be used. I've already put out a number of rebuttals to this regarding the difficulties in manufacturing, transport, and detonation of the bomb, how they're less safe to utilize, that they're already banned, and that those seeking to make them will be tracked closely. I've also argued that just because people are likely to defy the law doesn't make the law unimportant, and in this case, I think that comes across easily. Just because some people are likely to acquire bombs doesn't mean we want to make it easy or legal for them to do so. But he argues this further, bringing it back to the realm of terrorism. Again, as I stated earlier, I don't have to argue that my policy ideas are capable of preventing terrorism, something that will remain just as potent following implementation as before. Terrorists have tried detonating bombs (though I'm not sure which situation he's referring to in 2010), though I'm not aware of terrorists attacking the Sochi Olympic games, nor am I aware of terrorists distributing their bombs to random people in this country who would otherwise go out and shoot people. I'd say that even if that's the case, the benefit is that those bombs are being removed from an organized group and given to people who are unlikely to use them successfully. That's a net win. Those are the three main points, and I think it's pretty obvious that and how I am winning them. But several more have come up over the course of this debate. Recall my points about the ability of assault and semi-automatic rifles to distribute death. The best response Con comes up with is that handguns are good at killing too. I think I've proven that handguns are ineffective by comparison, and that I'm still at least partially solving for handguns with registries and universal background checks, both of which remain mostly untouched by Con. And speaking of those two pieces, Con has completely dropped my point throughout these rounds that these will allow us to track down gun traffickers, effectively cutting off any sort of back-alley system for criminals to acquire their guns. He hasn't argued in the slightest that registries will encourage individuals to keep their guns more responsibly, reducing theft and accidental shootings. So there's a lot going to for my side in this debate. How about for Con's side? Well, he's got rights. He hasn't argued specifically how rights are denied by the laws I'm suggesting, nor how these perceived violations are harmful. He hasn't stated why these expansions of gun control demonstrably reduce rights from their current position, given that background checks currently exist and there are many other gun control measures already in place on a federal level. I've already made it clear that the Second Amendment doesn't afford the rights he thinks it does, how the USSC has stated that it isn't inalienable, and how his own argument seems supportive of certain measures. He inserts a new argument in this round, stating that: "People wont obey the laws and they wont listen they would either try to assisnate the person incharge of gun control." Several responses. One, it's not one person who's in charge of gun control. These would be laws passed by the legislature, signed into law by the president, and enforced by the ATF and FBI. That's an awful lot of people to assassinate! Two, they'll have a much harder time doing this if they have a criminal background, since they won't be able to buy a gun following its implementation. Three, I highly doubt this would happen. As I mentioned earlier, there is currently gun control in our laws. Why is this specific increase going to suddenly force people over the edge into a murderous rampage? All he leaves us with is that crime will still exist. I admit, I'm not ending crime with this policy. That would be a great thing to claim, but it's impossible. The fact that I cannot control for all of crime doesn't make my argument net harmful. Con asserts that crime rates will go up, but never warrants or sources that argument. It's simply not true. So, that's a rather long summary, but that's what happens in 5 rounds of debate. I think it's simple to see that voters should side with Pro given these arguments, especially as I appear to have persuaded my opponent as well! I look forward to his concluding arguments, and leave the rest to him.