Any gun other than pistols should not be sold to citizens.

I. Ban pistols Last round, I stated that during robberies (which occur more than house raids) the robber would switch to long guns and civilians would have nothing. That is the case my opponent is pleading for, and he has not replied to this at all except for saying civilians can buy long guns as well - which they would then leave at home, resulting in them still having no weapons at all. The fact that pistols are the go-weapon for murder and crime is simply because they are cheaper. Ban them and they will be replaced by bigger guns. I also don't see what my opponent does not understand about my statement here. Is it not clear that only pistols should be sold to civilians, as they provide the most excellent defense (you conceded upon that)? And that I am only arguing to ban those bigger weapons, which make a bigger threat to society? As for people running around publicly with a long gun, wouldn't you feel very threatened in a society like that? That is why it is unethical. The fact that it's inconvenient is another argument on my behalf, a reason why Con's idea of banning handguns should not be followed. On the hunting topic, Con presents no reply. He did not understand my analogy that hunting is seen as a profession, like being a soldier. You are enlisted and no longer a civilian if you wear the uniform. Hopefully Con will not ignore it this time. The case of an invasion is so extremely rare, but staying alive is more important than standing your ground. Immediate surrender is the best thing to do, maybe not for the country, but most certainly for the population. If anything, people can hand in their already bought long guns and take them home should an invasion actually occur. Civilians can join the militia, or just pick up their guns in state of war, but there is no apperent reason for them to have such weapons when there is peace. II. Second amendment Please, voters, my opponent hasn't even made clear what he is debating for. He is simply negating me wherever he can rather than being consistent in his visions. "Does gun control work?" No, and I have already said why you should ban long guns from civilians: it increases the potential threat a person can be exponentionally. "Pro argues that civilians should be allowed pistols because they can then defend themselves against government at all times, but democide doesn't work like that. It's almost always the gradual deprivation of rights to a group until their extermination, if these people were armed they could resist encroachment on their rights or at least have a chance. " That seems like a naive perception. Please give an example. III. Guns and crime I have immediately said in round one that I am not familiar with any statistics as I am not an American. How can I succesfully defend myself if you now alter the very rules you accepted? You knew I was not going to come up with statistics, and I allowed you to come up with yours. I must remind the voters that in round one, I have immediately said that stastics is NOT how I will defend my resolution. I have said that it is clear gun control doesn't work, as civilians are too stubborn. The ideal I propose is one that civilians would accept, completely trusting their government. My world is a hypothetical world, not an "ideal world" as con said it. A realistic world, which is better than the one we live in now. Neither do I want to disarm the citizen, or benefit the criminal. I do the exact opposite: I make a civilisation where the more lethal weapons are harder to get, and where civilians do not become a potential threat. My opponent concedes that his statistics in this point is useless, agreeing that he lumped together big and small guns with similar effects on criminals, proving it not to be a point for his case as there is no difference or distinct advantage in having a bigger gun rather than a small gun. 'False dichotomy' Again, Con, having guns solely at shooting ranges or being a huntsman (~soldier) is entirely different than being a civilian allowed to buy guns and consider them their own property, taking them wherever they want. "Easier for criminals" Con's source says that 40% gets their guns from friends and families. Where do the friends and family get their guns? I am also waiting to see proof as to why shopkeepers would need bigger guns rather than smaller ones. The article provided by con is simply built upon the idea that smaller guns could not have accomplished what the bigger guns could. Besides, we were lucky the Koreans did not fire at the crowd. Less rational people might have done so, resulting in the death of many. This case is rather unique as 1) no larger institution was present to intimidate the riot group and 2) the Koreans were civilians at its best, being rational enough to have mercy for your agressor. Con is an example of someone who would've "filled them with lead", and I'm sure many others think likewise. This is however not the good solution, and in this sole case Koreans have used the assault weapons in the only correct way that exists (in the hands of a civilian, at least). "Easier to solve" Look above to see comments on statistics. And I must admit that this point was kind of a last resort, my main arguments are the ones that count. That the people who own long guns does not matter was not related to this point, by the way. This is what I have literally said: "We are talking about whether or not the hypothetical world without long guns (being available to civilians) would be better, regardless and inconsiderate of how many people have actually bought a bigger gun instead of a smaller one." And my opponent negates the very title of this debate by saying that "it's [about] whether or not we should ban them." This debate is about the ethical question if selling any other guns than big guns to civilians. The fact that civilians would never agree to such a law is a fact, but does not matter! We are trying to reason, unlike civilians, and not trying to create a ban on big guns. We're discussing about whether the hypothetical world where no big guns are sold, is better than the world where they are. That is, completely theoretically and believing that the people will take whatever laws their juridical system desire. I am debating that this would have a positive impact on society, but that we couldn't make this plan a reality due to the lack of civilian co"peration. Con must agree to this, or else this debate serves no use at all. He cannot possibly alter my stance in the debate. Con however thinks straight-forward and pretends we're the government debating about a gun ban. This is realistic, but I like to think as John Locke would: the people need a government to rule them, as they are not capable of ruling theirselves. This debate is about what a good government should decide given that the population will have to follow their decisions, rather than oppose them.