Guns should be more difficult to obtain

I would like to start by reminding the voters and my opponent that no new evidence or refutations are to be posted in the final round (which will begin as of the end of this).Now, I will go right on to directly refuting each of my opponent's refutations to display how my points still stand.Con has focused much too much on suicide than the overall problem that guns provide: safety. I have underlined this thoroughly throughout the debate. 1 million people die from firearm-related deaths every year. Now, my opponent has addressed this by pointing out that this is little of the population, but it still is 1 million people who've died from gun-related deaths, and this can change easily by setting up simple restrictions that many other countries have. This actually links in to my opponent's response to my response to his second graph in round 2. He (fairly) called me out on not having my own statistics directly disproving it. I think this graph on firearm related deaths dated 2012 should prove my point: If you look, the Japanese have such adequate gun restrictions that their deaths per year were so minimal they didn't even appear. If we can just get on board with the rest of the world instead of remaining under the delusion that the year is still 1791 instead of 2015, maybe we wouldn't have death tolls like these.My opponent was a bit graphic in his description of rope-related suicide, but my point still stands. Although breaking your neck does not necessarily give you time to think once you have initiated the suicide, there is plenty of time in setup. With a gun, all you need to do is go down to your local Walmart, pay a small fee, and shoot yourself in the head.Con pointed out that my extension of the private transaction loophole is inadequate, but it as well still stands. A thorough background check and application for a gun license would be required for the would be smuggler in the example, (which involves someone from England, where guns are sufficiently restricted, to come to America, buy a gun through a private transaction with no background check, and smuggle it back to England), and it would definitely be much harder for this smuggler to get through.For his first "reason for guns," my opponent has made a claim one frequently sees made by the NRA: guns protect people. However, when actually further looked into, this idea is not a constant. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them." [1] This shows that although when first looked at, it appears that guns provide more safety, really the opposite is true.For his second "reason for guns," he claims that my point about the genocide of Native Americans is a "red herring." He specifies the example a little bit much, but he has a hint of truth. His main warrant is "the misuse of a tool does not correlate to an inherent evil nature in the item itself." While this is true, this tool has a strong potential for misuse. Does the tool not having true inherent morals really warrant us to give it out to someone who has "evil" intent?For his third "reason for guns," he gives an interesting turn on my statement about the second amendment, saying that we need firearms for food. I have two reasons this is not a general reason against my vote: utilitarianism and generalization. From the utilitarian point of view, that being that "beneficial" is defined by something being helpful to the majority, this is completely false. It gets into the whole hunting debate; the question: is it right to kill many other living things to provide for yourself? Though this is debatable, any utilitarianism will vote me on this topic, and it is controversial enough for speculation. The second reason is generalization. Is my opponent is saying that everyone in the US is a low-income rural family? Of course, in the example he provides in Northern Wisconsin, "feeding my family" would be a full and legitimate reason for a gun license, therefore fitting my requirements and actually strengthening my side.For his fourth and final illustrated "reason for guns," he chose tyrannical government. However, the example that he provides, (and any example he possibly could provide), is irrelevant to this debate, as in this instance laws are already being broken (such as firing at deputies).For his fifth and final "reason for guns," (it's not underlined, so I will call it not illustrated), he used an attack on my still-standing suicide point. He used two "absurd examples," which I take to mean they are the most extreme: cars and cops. Cars' benefits far outweigh the possible negatives, unlike guns. The purpose of guns is shooting to severely injure or kill someone or something, whereas the purpose of cars is to drive around. In addition, suicide rates from motor vehicles are 9 times less than those with firearms, citing his own graph: Therefore, for him to say this would be to say his sources are inadequate and that they should be disregarded.His second "absurd" example was suicide by cop, saying that we should take guns from every law enforcer. This would actually be detrimental; as we should not allow people to break the law seriously enough that it warrants a police officer shooting them. In addition, suicide by cop is not on the above graph, so again, he is claiming his own sources are inadequate.In conclusion, I have seen no adequate refutation to my points thus far from my opponent and so they still stand.I would like to finish by again reminding my opponent, the voters and myself that no new refutations or evidence are to be brought up in the final round. Any that are are to be disregarded fully.Sources:1. http://www.theguardian.com...