Gun Control

====FRAMEWORK====I will be going over rebutalls, before proceeding on to votes.===== REBUTTALS===== "You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1."I agree with this, however I also agree that you have succesfully made arguments that have defeated your own case as you have argued pro control throughout this entire debate on several occasions. Thus I must assume that if you agree that some good control is good, there should be no reason why you should not think that ALL gun control is good. "I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles."To be honest, all me and the voters are going to see from this, is you conceding that gun control is okay. Which you have already done on several occasions. Thus since you believe that guns should be kept for some reasons, how are we going to regulate them so strictly, if we do not know most people's motives? Why complicate things and put any restrictions on gun control? Also what exactly are the restrictions were going to be supposedly putting on in the AFF world?"I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging." Glad you brought this up. You make gun control policies sound all fine and dandy, but you have yet to explain a situation of how we should enforce these policies. Even if you think we should restrict them to only certain people, how do we determine which people need guns? How do we determine which people are likely to have a home invasion? Given that the PRO requires BOP, and this is already the final debate round, all of the questions have gone un-answered. Even if the audience does buy your loopholey arguments that support the CON side, how are they ever going to see how enforcing gun laws is okay, if they don't even know how to enforce it, if you haven't given me or them, anything to look to?"Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense."Even if you agree that we should have gun safe, this in no way helps your case in the slightest. Your goal is to prove why we shouldn't have guns. We have hundreds of safety procedures in act that go along with our gun rights, but removing or controlling them is not the answer. "So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home."You can safely cross applt my resposibility Contention here. Every person has a basic right. Once that right is taken away, we lose it. But that doesn't mean we should never get the right in the first place. Responsibility means keeping the firearm a safe distance away from a child who may happen to wander upon a firearm. Also, even if not every state is confined to keeping weapons in safes, most laws require that a firearm not be loaded when being stored. If a firearm is not loaded, a wandering child should not have this problem. National law also requires that children be under direct supervision. So again cross apply my responsibility contention here as well."Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us."I am sure thats what the british thought too during the revolutionary war. Independence can always be breeched when needed, there are plenty scenario's all over the world. India, Pakistan, The United States, etc. Guns enforce our freedom from government tyranny."The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one" This claim is highly unsubstantiated for a few reasons. 1. You still have yet to offer a plan to carry this out.2. Why is a shopkeeper getting guns over anyone else? What about lawyers, doctors, Contractors, or any one else for that matter? Are they not entitled to their own safety and rights? How are any of them less likely to be mugged then a shopkeeper?3. This claim is unsubstantiated and lacks the evidence neccesary to be a proper argument. Thus it is a logical fallacy. "I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise."Not in the slightest. They all serve the purpose of protection. Didn't you say that protection was an okay way to use gun control? "I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle."A guns purpose is to stop someone life. That is the point of your own self defence argument. So what difference does it make on how that gun is used to complete that action. Contra-diction. "Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up."I explicitly cited drug abuse for this reason. Price doesn't matter. The people who will own and operate guns illegally are criminals. Price doesn't matter. Self defence is depleted when any sort of criminal owns a weapon and civilians do not. So you again contradict yourself.====MY CASE==== RIGHTS:ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND.RESPONSIBILITY:ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND .FREEDOM: "The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals."I have already refuted this. WE have had gun control for about 200 years. While there is a couple cases here and there where incidents have happened, having them has proved to be much better as we have used them for selfdefences. Our average civil life with gun control is not a gun control, so we have no reason to believe that it will ever be after retaining these rights for so long.====VOTERS====I feel I have won this debate for the following reasons. 1. In order for my opponents gun control policies to be effective, he requires a BOP strategy of how to implement them. He has not done so, thus we have no alternatives, or evidence to alternatives.2. My opponents arguments contradict his arguments. My opponent has conceded several occasions that guns ought to be held for self defence, hunting ans sports, yet also doesn't define who particulary gets these rights.3. My opponent has dropped 2 1/2 of the arguments on my case. Thus we must look to those when evaluating the round.I had great fun in this debate. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period, it's been a pleasure.