Gun Control is Bad

Hello, there, sir. As I write this, I'm listening to the "Peter Gunn" theme... GET IT? GUNN? Hahahaha... Anyway, time for the first rebuttal of your round 2 opening argument. I must say, sir, I admire you neatly you set this thing up. Very well organized. It prevents a "GUNfight" from breaking out... Oh, gosh, I kill me...Heeheehee... You open your round 2 argument up with a quote from a guy that I don't know about, futilely hoping that adding a quotation to your argument will give it a dash of credibility. I don't know who Milton Friedman is. Could he be related to Milton Bradley? Oh, I Googled him. He's an economics professor. How unrelated to the topic of gun control. Very sly move, there. You could just as easily put up any quote from any philosopher. It doesn't really matter. On paper, gun control sounds like a good idea. Very true. In practice, it falls flat on its face. Let me ask you, sir, how do you know that it falls flat on its face when used in practice? Has it ever really been used in practice? No, we're scared to change our laws. Very, very few places have any restrictions on the use of guns at all. Sickening, is what it is. Although, when used in practice, it could fall flat, the success of it depends on several outside factors, including how many people within a country are potential criminals, how many people in a country have a tendency to be provoked in fits of rage, how much money guns sell by, and so on. In a country where all these factors are set up just right, a ban on gun use could work out. But we'll never know how it works out, because gun control is something that only ever stays on paper. You go ahead and give us some dull statistics, hoping to rack up that big ol' evidence point from the judges, without realizing that long, dull statistics tend to bore audiences when they're not counterbalanced by peppy anecdotes or corny quips. Don't worry, though. I can provide evidence, too. Big, dull statistics. Here's a graph from 2016: https://www.statista.com... I highly encourage you to click on this graph. Then, look at it. See the undeniable, cold, hard truth. Then, imagine how the graph would look in a world without guns. I think it would look quite a bit different. You claim that, without guns, 2.5 million citizens would not be able to protect themselves. I have to ask, here, since your logic is so deeply flawed. In a world without guns, would those 2.5 million people need to protect themselves in the first place? No, because the other guy wouldn't have a gun, either. Use your head, for gosh sakes. You say that, when a citizen with a gun intervenes before the police, 1/8th the number of casualties occur. I'll leave a video here. But, I have to ask you, when does a person these days encounter a sociopath? Do you live in some kind of bizarre, alternate reality where shootings happen every minute? I mean, in my whole life, I have never been in one single bank robbery. If there are a lot of shootings, we need to amp up our police force, not give more people guns. You'll only need to use a gun about once in your lifetime, if at all. Why pay $100 for it? Unarming law abiding citizens does not protect law abiding citizens. However, unarming a man who's about to go do a big heist does protect the world from a man who's about to do a big heist. Now THERE'S logic. 'Then some more dull, useless statistics, and so on and so forth, never assuming that we could just dump all the guns in the world into a big hole and cover them with dirt. Seriously, you need to think outside the box, here, or you're done for. Guns don't kill people. But they play a big part in it. I await your next argument.