Banning the Sale Of Guns From Stores(REUPLDOAD)

My opponent in his first argument argued that handguns caused a mass shooting. That is true but when I researched into the types of guns used (Glock 19 and Taurus PT24/7) I found out that they were both SEMIAUTOMATIC guns. I already stated in my Round 2 that people should be allowed to have handguns as LONG AS THEY ARE NOT SEMIAUTOMATIC. People should not be allowed to buy THESE types of guns. So YES, handguns caused a mass shooting but they were semiautomatic which I already stated should not be allowed to be bought by civilians. I am only agreeing that we should ban military grade weapons such as semiautomatic rifles. This does not mean I agree with banning ALL guns from stores. ================================================================= My opponent also argued that gun regulation won't help, citing an article. However, a recent study has shown that better gun regulation does in fact help. https://www.sciencealert.com...... "As the US continues to stall on gun control talks, the largest study ever conducted on the topic has found a clear link between firearm regulation and fewer gun-related deaths around the world. Until recently, studies on gun laws have been limited to just one city or country, and have failed to reach consistent conclusions. But in 2016, researchers took a broader view - the team reviewed 130 high-quality studies conducted in 10 countries over the past 60 years... "Across countries, instead of seeing an increase in the homicide rate, we saw a reduction," lead researcher Julian Santaella-Tenorio from Columbia University told Zack Beauchamp over at Vox. To figure this out, Santaella-Tenorio and his team systematically analysed 130 studies that had been conducted across 10 different countries, including the US, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, and Austria... After analysing all of these studies, the researchers came up with three conclusions: It usually takes major legislation overhaul - not just one new law - to see significant change. Restricting access to guns and their purchase is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Individual studies need to be better executed and planned in future to get more convincing results." This goes perfectly with I am saying and you as well. You mentioned how more firearms equals more death. Thus by logic, banning CERTAIN firearms and making it harder to get other types firearms (not impossible) equals less death. It also goes well with what I am saying which is that we need to fix ALL aspects of our gun laws and regulation. Not just background checks or just one loophole in the system. We need to do it all. I wasn't able to use your link (the Deseret one) but just because California is number 1 does not mean anything. For one, this is just compared to the rest of the U.S. which still has lax laws. Federal gun control is still restrictive and as I said we NEED a overhaul. Also, regarding the background checks, we need to fix all aspects. Not just background checks. The best solution is NOT to remove guns from stores. ================================= You said it isn't fair to use personal examples in this debate. i don't understand why but I will refrain from this in the future. However, you must understand I was trying to make a point. You seem to think it is SO easy to just learn self-defense because of YouTube. The problem with this is just because you can learn something on YouTube doesn't mean you can do it well. I do not care if it is a black belt teaching you, it is not the same as being in person, especially with something like self-defense where technical aspects are incredibly important for performing a move. There is another element to detail you cannot get from a video. Also you just used a personal example: "I was a green belt in karate (lol) and I have pretty good self-defense skills." But never mind that, I am not saying mixed martial arts are a bad defense. I am saying that it is hard to learn them AND be good enough to stop a criminal. Especially one with a gun! It takes a lot of time. I can't expect to be good after two weeks which goes well with my next point which is money. Learning self-defense is expensive. To be good, I would have to take it for a while which is costly. Not everyone can afford it. You argue that if we take guns away, people can't get their hands on them. As i have already said, this is not true. If they are pushed onto the black market, people will get them! You keep framing disarmament like it is easy to learn. Watching something on YouTube is not the best way to learn. I don't care if you practice on your mom, it's not the same as when a robber WITH A GUN comes into your home and points it at you. What are you going to do? Run at the robber and hope they don't shoot before you reach them? What are the odds the robber is going to stand next to you so you can disarm them? Highly unlikely. You don't seem to understand how the black market works. Just because guns are banned form stores does not mean they are unavailable. For one, if we ban guns, America still has 300 million guns bought before the ban that are circulating through the country. So the guns we already have can be used in the black market. I buy a gun that you had before the ban and then I sell for more to other people--illegally of course. But let's say hypothetically that the U.S. managed to get all these guns and confiscate them (highly improbable), people still will just buy guns from outside the U.S. and bring them here. People smuggle. People bring things in illegally all the time. What makes you think guns will be different? "The FBI could have prevented it from happening, that means all this would've been stopped, so they technically knew about it." This is a fallacy. They could and should have followed protocol, they could have prevented it BUT they did not know. They did not know literally and they did not know technically. It is that kind of misleading language that fuels conspiracy theories like "Bush knew about 9/11". Stop saying that.