Gun control is a stupid idea

I would like to remind the audience that my opponent carries a clear burden of proof. To show that gun control is a stupid idea.On round 1, he didn't offer any proof at all. He just claimed to know the future.On round 2, he CLAIMED the ability to provide proof against mine but didn't, FALSELY claiming I would not accept that as evidence (see below). He then went on to expand his still unproved resolution to extremes, straining the inevitable Nazi comparison and some irrelevant ideas about the mind of drug addicts and conveniently absent police.On round 3 he has now introduced statistics and data he HIMSELF declares "cherry-picked" and only "seemingly unbiased", which makes it totally worthless for offering proof. He even admits that he considers all sources "inconclusive".My opponent has NO proof to offer at all, he is content with false propositions and "common sense", which is the truly classic "argumentum ad populum" fallacy.I will explain in detail:Data: The data aggregated on http://www.gunpolicy.org... comes from a great variety of sources, most notably, as far as my citations about Germany go, from this official report of the WHO on mortality: http://data.euro.who.int...Anybody accusing the WHO of "cherry-picking" would have to do more than provide sources he calls unreliable himself. I have thus shown that the number of people killed by guns in Germany has decreased consistently, with Germany having one of the strictest gun controls in effect. This statistic was even used by a website OPPOSING gun control. It can thus not be seen as cherry-picked.It is hence not subject to the same exemption my opponent would apply to all "cherry-picked" sources, as it's clearly and evidently unbiased - it is used by both sides. His proposition that all "gun control statistics vary wildly" is disproved.My opponent also has left the report and analysis from Australia unrefuted. It is thus conceded, proving gun control and gun buyback programs work. I admit they may not be as effective in the USA, but that is NOT the topic of this debate. The question is whether gun control is stupid as an idea, and saving people from homicide and suicide is never a bad idea."The threat of tyranny still exists in our modern world today and is a very valid reason for having the rights to own and use a gun."Despite me asking for proof for this, my opponent has linked to a site showing alleged examples of tyranny through gun control ( http://www.mercyseat.net... ), which are examples from 1915 to 1981. That's more than 30 years in the past, so hardly "in our modern world today". So, this point has been dropped and conceded.My opponent insists that I pick up on his drug-addict parable.Drug-addicts behave irrationally, especially under the influence of drugs. Very often, before a drug addict commits a crime to obtain his drugs, they will consume the drug to overcome anxiety, which means they do not act RATIONALLY anymore:"These crimes include those that are consequential to the ingestion of a drug by the victim or offender, causing irrational or violent behavior ... and intentional ingestion of a drug to "relieve anxieties and stimulate courage" in preparation for acts of violence (Goldstein, Brownstein, & Ryan, 1992)." from: http://www.safetycops.com...Which means that if I imagine I were a desperate drug addict, I would stop at nothing to get my drug or the money I need to buy it, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. After all, I'm ADDICTED. I would most probably rob the nearest store, as my top priority would be to fulfill my need. My opponent insists that the police won't arrive in time, so I won't have to worry about the cops. And being a "druggie" I would certainly forget to check whether the drugstore owner has a gun or relies on deterrence alone.My opponent wants me to refute his unfounded claim that gun control will take guns away from law-abiding citizens. That is quite easy, actually. "Gun control: regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns" from Merriam-Webster's dictionary.Gun control regulates OWNING of guns. As in, the STORAGE of guns, too: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...Gun control is actually what SEPARATES the responsible gun-owners from the irresponsible ones. Guns need to be stored safely, and this is already part of laws in effect, which my opponent has accepted by calling those who obey these exact laws "responsible".341,000 guns are stolen every year in the USA, according to US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns and Crime, 4/94). Gun control on safe storage could thus keep all these guns in the hands of the "responsible" owners, who don't have their guns conveniently lying around for criminals to kill innocents with. This is the exact opposite of what my opponent claims, in facts and numbers - against his "common sense".Nazi Germany: The link my opponent provides makes it clear: http://www.mercyseat.net..."The major German gun control law (which was not replaced by the Nazis until 1938) was enacted ... in 1928." - "On November 9, 1938 and into the next morning, the Nazis unleashed a nationwide race riot. Mobs inspired by the government attacked Jews in their homes, looted Jewish businesses, and burned synagogues, with no interference from the police. [34] The riot became known as "Kristallnacht" ("night of broken glass"). [35] On November 11, Hitler issued a decree forbidding Jews to possess firearms, knives, or truncheons under any circumstances, and to surrender them immediately."The "Kristallnacht" was not due to gun control. Both parties, Nazis and Jews, had at that time equal access to weapons. The problem was that police did not intervene according to that law and stood by and watched. Gun control aimed at Jewish people was released AFTER that fateful night, making no difference at all, as the site continues:"These Jews' passivity doubtless was the result of centuries of victimization in Russia." It was thus not the result of the gun control laws of 1928. My opponent's sources:"Research has found ... that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, ... that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence. [...] The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime" http://books.nap.edu...I admit that guns ARE used in self-defense. The statistics say nothing about whether the use was adequate. It's all based on surveys of gun-owners. I checked repeatedly and came up with nothing.I wish my opponent had supplied more (relevant) statistics to discuss. What he offered mostly refers to the reports of John R. Lott Jr., and the report I quoted right above is mostly in reply to those reports, and actually confirms my opponent's claim that THOSE are inconclusive. No doubt remains about the suicide numbers. As I presented above.The condensate:"Guns prevent a tyrannical government" is a false induction. Tyrannical governments have been established in a few countries where gun control was in effect. But tyranny can rise in countries without gun control laws. Iraq, most famously:https://www.lewrockwell.com...http://www.slate.com...So, tyranny did not arise in the UK and Germany - which have gun control laws - but in Iraq - which hadn't."Common sense" makes no argument, it's the "Ad-populum" fallacy.My opponent has failed his burden of proof.Thanks all, take care!