All citizens who have not committed a crime should have the right to purchase a gun.

OK, so your ENTIRE rebuttal was a defense of the attacks I made on your case. Keep in mind, you don't simply win if I don't land an argument against your case, I have given 4 well supported reasons why banning private ownership of guns would do FAR more good than bad. At this point, just by landing ALL 4 POINTS, I should win. But, I still have plenty of room, so I'll cover your case and reiterate my own. Quote: 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no? Rebuttal: 1- My number 1 point was stating that a minority of Americans currently own a gun, therefore, many people are "defenseless" already. So if I was to ban guns, the number of victims wouldn't rise all that much, assuming my 3rd main point falls out. If my point 3 stands (which it has) You are actually increasing the number of people victimized by guns, while I am decreasing them. Essentially, even if this point is right (which it is not), you cannot win with it because my arguments show that you still pose a higher level of threat for the general public. 2- Yes Criminals will still get their hands on guns, but with a complete gun ban, it will be much harder for them to obtain these guns. The main effect of this argument is that, there is a high possibility that the number of criminals will actually decrease, or at least not increase, if my ban was put in place. Which is just one more reason to vote con. Again, even if I don't win this argument, I have shown with any of my 4 points, that MORE citizens will be hurt by maintaining gun ownership than of we ban it. Since the only reason that criminals having guns is bad is because they'll hurt citizens, I outweigh you at this point. Since more law abiding citizens die on your side, I should win. 3- I already argue this in my point 3 against your case. I say that you are incorrectly assuming that police officers will break into lawful citizens houses and kill them. You give no reason whatsoever why this would happen. I see no examples, studies, rationale, or evidence of any sort to support this claim, there is no reason any voters should use it to vote pro. The only time a police officer would break into someone's home is if they were suspected of crime and the police had obtained a warrant. This means that your argument is actually defending CRIMINALS' rights to own guns and shoot at our boys in blue. This alone is another reason to vote CON!!! OK, on to my entirely unscathed case. If you look back to my main points, you will se that I firmly establish, with evidence, that: 1) More children will die if a gun ban is not established. Children dying is a bad thing, and therefore we should vote con to avoid it happening as often. 2) Domestic violence is more common and more deadly with the private ownership of firearms. This means that more women will die if we don't establish a gun ban. Since women dying is a bad thing, we should vote con to stop it from happening as often. 3) The private ownership of a gun is MORE likely to get you murdered. This is a huge argument because it directly disproves the idea that letting criminals have guns will increase the number of innocent citizens that will die. I support this with mounds of evidence and you provide none. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, so we should vote con to reduce that. 4) More people will commit suicide if firearms are more available. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD!!!!!!! So we should vote con to prevent it from happening as often. Let me make this as simple as possible. You hurt MORE citizens than I do, therefore, you lose. Because KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD!!!!! If you kill people, while I do not; or you kill more people while I kill less; I WIN. At this point, you don't have a leg to stand on and I have 4 main reasons why you conclusively LOSE.