Tournament Debate: Gun Rights

CR1 - Guns cannot be controlled?Pro's argument here is that, since guns can be 3D-printed, we cannot regulate them without 'extreme authoritarianism'.But this is simply false, why not regulate who owns a 3D printer? They aren't exactly everyday essentials and they are only really used in particular industries. True, at present there is virtually no regulation on 3D printers but this can change and wouldn't be hard to enforce, since 3D printers are highly sophisticated and difficult to make. This is hardly authoritarian.Considering the statistical evidence I have presented above, it is worth regulating 3D printers in an attempt to reduce the homicide rate. Of course, this is still more speculation because 3D printed guns are still a relative rarity; most people cannot obtain one or would have no need to. My opponents second argument is totally fallacious. Just because gun control wouldn't be able to eliminate all guns, it does not follow that it ought not be introduced. The fact remains that increasing gun control will probably reduce gun ownership, even if it doesn't eliminate it, and a reduction in gun ownership will be better than no reduction.Pro's argument uses the same logic as 'we cannot stop theft, therefore we shouldn't try to prevent it'.Yet this is a blatant non-sequitur.CR2 - Abuse of guns?My opponent claims that the basic purpose of guns isn't as a murder weapon - yet this is simply false. The very first firearms were developed in China to use as flamethrowers (1). When firearms were first developed in Europe, they were battle cannons which went on to evolve into handguns (muskets) (2). All which were used in battle and created for battle.The sole reason these firearms were created and developed was to kill people in more efficient ways. Of course they have other uses such as hunting, 'looking cool' or self-protection; but the basic purpose of guns is to allow their owner to kill other people more efficiently, easily and safely than, say, a longbow or a sword.Therefore, killing people with firearms isn't abuse of them - because that was what they were made for!Finally, Pro refers to cases where a young woman would require a gun to protect herself against an assailant.Firstly, Pro would need to argue cogently that the lives saved in this manner would outweigh the lives saved from increasing gun control, and secondly Pro would then come up against the overwhelming statistics that demonstrate that relaxed gun control correlates with homicide rates.CR3 - Corruption?I never denied that the government could be corrupt, all I said was that it is extremely unlikely that the government would become corrupt to the extent at which its citizens would be in danger. Watergate didn't endanger the lives of citizens (at least not in a way that could be avoided by civilian gun-ownership).My argument stands that it is extremely speculative and unlikely that the government would become corrupt to the extent at which it would attack its own populace, and so we shouldn't prevent life-saving regulation now.Conclusion1. Whilst total gun control is impossible, some degree of gun control certainly isn't. And my burden of proof does not entail that I argue for total gun control, only that I argue for some of it.2. Gun's may have good purposes, but these are detractions from what the basic purpose of guns is. Also, gun control does not rule out licensed gun ownership.3. Guns are not necessary for the populace to have, otherwise it would be classed as a necessity. Yet most people don't own a gun and live perfectly happy lives that would probably not be improved by owning a gun.4. It remains very unlikely that guns would ever be needed to defend against a corrupt government that is attacking its citizens. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.nramuseum.org...