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

"I wasn't trying to prove causation I only was pointing out that where there are more guns there is more homicide."And my contention remains that my opponent failed to do so. Among the resources listed (but not actually referenced for any particular argument), are highly politicized, such as motherjones, politifact, thinkprogress, and huffingtonpost. Looking at others, such as amjmed, the conclusions only deal with deaths, not homicides, so it doesn't even link the resolution provided.Out of the other resources, I can only find where the researches had no choice but to inject regression or other manipulations of the data in order to get the results they desired in the hypothesis. I provided direct links to the raw data, without such manipulations, and no such correlations exist for similar sets of data.I would like for my opponent to be able to provide a single source that doesn't require any of the following: An obvious political bias, data manipulation techniques, or conflation between "homicides" and some other statistic that would include such events as suicide or accidents."... it isn't a far leap though to imply causation.... if makes sense that you are more likely to kill someone if you have a gun..."Except for the fact it doesn't make sense. The presence of a firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen would be used for the defense of their own lives or a family member, which would more likely prevent, not cause, a homicide. The lowest estimate I've ever seen for the annual defensive firearm uses in the United States is 55,000–80,000 [1] by the anti-gun researcher my opponent cited, David Hemenway [1]. Other estimates range from the hundreds of thousands to the millions [2][3]. In any case, all these estimates greatly exceed the annual number of homicides in the United States at a little more than 16 thousand [4]."con shows that guns went up and homicide went down in the country. that is an outlier though."What I find most interesting is that my opponent refers to the raw data, unmolested by statisticians with an agenda an outlier. If the resolution were common sense, then nobody would be required to make adjustments on a half dozen different variables. Understand, each time another variable is adjusted for, that introduces the possibility of error, bias, or noise being introduced into the data.The raw data only has one source of data...an unbiased one."if your position were true, there wouldn't be an effective consensus regarding my position."Incorrect. These are just opinions of academics who may have only done scant amount of research on the topic. Consensus among a group of researches who happened to have the word "firearm" somewhere on a study that they have ever done is hardly evidence of fact toward this resolution. It is common knowledge that academia tend to overwhelmingly self-identify as liberal [5]. If we polled residents of the Vatican, we'd likewise find consensus about matters of faith."con goes on to argue against two forms of gun control. i'm not arugign about specific types of control,"Two were discussed specifically, but my opponents seems to have ignored the 51 studied and that failed to be effective in reducing homicides. I suppose since my opponent isn't going to provide any argument or evidence affirming the second half of the resolution.... vote Con."...just common senese (sic) is enough to know that some people don't get guns cause they aren't allowed to..."The only people who aren't able to get guns are the ones who actually follow the law that doesn't allow them...the very people we would prefer to be the ones with the most access. The common sense is on the Con side here. Restricting access to the law-abiding only helps criminals, as they would prefer their victims to be disarmed.The focus of the remainder of this round will be as a response to the following my opponent had:" it's fair to think maybe the law is ineffective cause it's not broad enough."I grant concession here. The United States as a whole hasn't had broad enough changes with items I discussed in my previous round. For instance, the assault rifle ban only impacted less than 2% of the total gun supply We'll have to look at other nations or subsets of the US that have attempted gun control that would be considered "broad enough." I'll show one of each.The Failure of Gun Control in England and WalesConsider the two big firearm restrictions in England and Wales. The first is the Firearms Act 1968 and the other is the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 which all but banned handguns. If the resolution is true, we would expect the homicide rate to drop in the following years. The opposite happened. The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the 1968 gun control law was enacted. The homicide rate has averaged 15% higher since the enactment of the 1997 ban [6].The Failure of Gun Control in Washington D.C.In 1976 Washington D.C. passed a law that banned handguns and requried all other privately owned firearms to be unloaded and inoperable by either being disassembled or having a trigger lock. This is the law struck down by the Heller Supreme Court Case. During the time that law was in effect, the murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the time of its passage [7], while the homicide rate in the U.S. was 11% lower during the same peroid.ConclusionCon has provided multiple sources from reputable sources, linking directly to the raw data. Because the sources that Pro has used are from biased sources or where data was manipulated in order to fit a hypothesis, or are unrelated to the resolution, they should be considered invalidated.Pro has yet to offer any valid evidence affirming the resolution, and con has shown valid evidence refuting it, or showing the opposite to be true.[1] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...[2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org...[3] https://www.ncjrs.gov...[4] http://www.cdc.gov...[5] https://www.insidehighered.com...[6] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...[7] http://www.disastercenter.com...