Gun control works

In this, my final round for the debate, I plan to exploit the insurmountable flaws in my opponent's rebuttals, arguments and sources, and leave you with the clear understanding that the pro-gun debate is one of gun preference, not safety, and that gun control works.Firstly, my opponent ought not misattribute statements to me. "My opponent has made it clear in his round 1 introduction he was planning on advocating for a complete gun ban with the exception of the government's right to own guns." Um, no I wasn't? "He has failed to really connect his case study of a partial ban to one with full ban for private citizens". Not only is this a blatant misrepresentation of my position, his rebuttals, which are based on this, fail at the outset because of his reliance on this point. Naturally, I will continue by pointing out where his sources and arguments are clearly biased and misrepresentative in other ways, too.For context, this is what I said in my introduction: "This is not a complete restriction on gun usage; licences in certain circumstances can be granted, such as for sport, hunting and security agencies." Check it! My case study of partial-bans in Australia is therefore perfectly relevant, valid and useful, because I deliberately set my argument to be based around it.On to proper rebuttals.In your first paragraph, you quote Howard Nemerov. The piece that you cited is an extract of a post he made on an online hard-right forum, which was re-hosted by a right-wing think tank, with his only credentials being hosted on "NewsBusters: Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias". Not exactly, like, heaps credible, hey? Although you have cited some of his statistics, I suggest you actually check the Bureau's website before quoting them. Read on, the real stats are below. He cherry picked (badly) and this does not constitute a sound argument against gun control.Your second argument largely consists of the contention that the trends were going at the same pace before and after the ban so realistically the ban did nothing because it was declining anyway. Again, this just isn't true. Firstly, I suggest you re-read the source that you gave me from AIC, as it details that the rate of decrease accelerated greatly following the ban.Secondly, I already agreed that it had started declining; the point is that the astronomically rapid decrease was only visible after the ban, indicating that hundreds, if not thousands of lives were saved earlier than they otherwise would have been. This is the source from last round that I cited, which has in its title that it had already begun decreasing but that the ban sped this up to a statistically significant level:[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]The increased speed of decline SAVED LIVES and that is the key element here.You said, "These stats are just part of the same downward curve that we've been seeing since the 1980s".Nnn...no they're not. [http://www.gunpolicy.org...]Wanna check out that sharp decrease from 1996? I wonder what that's all about?Do feel free to continue arguing that it would have done that anyway without a ban, the fact is that the study that I cited (by the University of Sydney, not a right-wing Internet forum post re-hosted by a sketchy think-tank site by a guy without any credentials whatsoever) found a statistically significant correlation (which, they determined to a confidence of P < 0.001, was causal) between the ban and the reduction in homicides. You said guns would be making you safer. You say the downward trend in Australia is the same as in America, but America doesn't have a ban. They're the same, so control doesn't work in keeping us safe. Fine, then I say, "if they're the same, then guns don't work in keeping us safe, either, hey?" Although, to be fair, those figures are wrong anyway, so I don't rely on that argument.You then go on to say that if you ban guns there will be obviously be less gun suicide [etc].Yup! And as I illustrated in my first round, there was absolutely no evidence of substitution once guns were removed. The study found that it wasn't just gun-homicides and gun-suicides that decreased after the ban. It was all homicides and all suicides. Please scroll back and check the paper, because the relationship is confidently causal.Oh, you found McPhedren and Baker! I brought them up in my round, to warn you of their trap! Anyway, they were wrong, and lied, here's UNSW's Medical School's reanalysis: [https://med.unsw.edu.au...]Typical. "When bad people know that an old lady or a fragile female doesn't have a gun on them, they are more likely to victimize them." This just is not substantiated by evidence. Not to sound crass, but your stat about "sexual assault [rose] 30% and violent crime 40%" is absolute bullsh*t. Where are you getting your information? Oh, there it is! Free Republic! That's our friend Howard's forum! Here is the graph from the Bureau, which doesn't say what he says it does: [http://www.aic.gov.au...]. The only statistically significant increase was assaults, and while we don't really need to get into that here, the main reason was because of a change in domestic alcohol laws which is currently a topic of widespread public discourse. Howard made stuff up. Cue surprised face.My opponent is clearly debating someone else. He said, "he hasn't shown how gun restriction being effective, would mean an outright gun ban..."I didn't say that it would be an outright ban, and restriction is effective. And unless you think that fewer people being murdered and committing suicide is beneficial, then I guess I haven't proved that it's beneficial...? Pretty sure murder's a crime, pal. And other crimes are not increasing, as you say, due to reduced gun volumes. The removal of guns makes us safer. As a function of this, Gun Control Works.