Gun control

I tank the negation for this challenge and look forward to a hard fought debate. In this debate, we are debating gun control which the negation correctly identified as what "generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms." However, since the negation did not specify any level or type of gun control, he is forced to defend ALL forms of gun control. Contention 1: Enemy Terrorists Firstly, it is preposterous that we sell guns to people who openly are going to use it to kill us. In the world of the negation (no gun control whatsoever) , we can sell guns to enemies of the country that we know will do harm with it. Also, the CIA came up with a reports saying that even arming allied terrorist RARELY EVER works, so why should we arm or enemies. Contention 2: Mentally Ill By definition, the con is defending the right of the mentally ill to have guns. The mentally ill cannot be trusted with guns because they are incapable of handling them and may have outbursts. Adam Lanza, the man who perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre was mentally ill. In fact, the NYTimes reports that Lanza's mental illness went largely untreated before the shooting. There is no reason to support giving guns to the mentally ill. Contention 3: Guns that explode and kill the carrier (without warning or prior knowledge of the fact while buying the firearm) By definition, the con is defending the sale of these as well. If hypothetically these existed, the con would have to defend why we should sell them. The reason to regulate (ban) the sale of these is obvious: they are literally murdering and deceiving the user. Contention 4: Children/Babies How can you trust children/babies with guns. One could accidentally fire one and kill somebody. Contention 5: Children/Babies selling firearms Technically not allowing children to sell firearms is a method of regulating the sale of firearms. Is the con defending child labor. And is he also suggesting that a 1/2 month old can handle and sell guns. Refutations: "Hello those who are reading this I came here today to debate the subject of gun control. Gun control: generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. They vary greatly around the world." So far, I agree. "The problem with gun control is that it does not work. In the United States we have close to 8,000 deaths a year caused by guns each year but in Mexico ( a country with restricted gun laws ) they have near 28,000 deaths a year." I have a couple of problems with this analysis: 1. Source needed. 2. Limited sample size 3. Doesn't take into account other causes. With such small sample size, this analysis needed to have no other plausible explanation for these deaths. However there are quite a few: a.Instability. It's literally a civil war between the cartels and the federal government. [3] b.Corrupt government[4] to name a few "98% of the time the first law indicated by a dictator is to disarm the public. That is the reason why the 2nd amendment was made so that the leaders of this country could never gain to much power, that is also why we do not allow presidents to stay in office for over 8 years." Problems: 1. SOURCE NEEDED 2. Gun control does not necessitate the disarming of the population. I don't think that any of Con's counterarguments stand and the Pro has provided a strong case. All in all, in order for con to win, he has to show why all forms of gun control possible are bad. Looking forward to the response of Con! VOTE PRO! Sources: 1. http://www.nytimes.com... 2.http://www.nytimes.com... 3.http://www.bbc.com... 4.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...