A jolly good debate on gun control

My opponent points to my first statistic. What I'm trying to say is that if you take away certain types of guns, don't sell guns to people who shouldn't have guns (teens, people with mental handicaps, people convicted of crimes, etc. ), lives will be saved. Should we take away all guns? No. However, the government should do some small changes to protect society and not punish the average responsible gun owner. My opponent states that if we should ban guns, we should ban hammers because people hit their thumbs using them. First off, hitting your thumb is a lot better than being shot. There is no need to own certain types of guns (fully automatic weapons, extended magazine guns, etc. ). Gun owners say they want "target practice" or "self defense. " You can shoot targets with a hunting rifle or shot gun. You can also defend yourself with a gun. I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable with everyone owning an AK-47. My opponent says that I can't back up my statement that lives would be saved by banning certain types of fire arms and not letting certain people (that I mentioned above) buy guns. I think it's just common sense. Look at the Tuscan shooting in Arizona. The guy had mental problems. If the government would put more regulations on these gun companies to see who they're selling to, the people killed at Tuscan, Arizona was still be alive including one little nine year old girl. My opponent talks about substitutes for guns. He thinks that if we ban guns, then substitutes will come up. Am I saying that we will end murder in America? Of course not. We just can save some lives and slow down criminals. How do guns protect our liberty? Do you honestly think we can defend ourselves from the army? In the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers thought that people would have the same technology that the army did (in that age, everyone had a musket). Now, we are not allowed to own the same types of stuff the military has, therefore, we can't "protect our liberty" from the big, bad government. Let me clear up what I said when I said: "My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time. " By banning fully automatic weapons and weapons with extended magazines (so you don't have to reload as much), lives can be saved. If you're in an office building with a fully automatic weapon, you can spray bullets everywhere almost non stop. Let's say you had a shot gun. You wouldn't be able to shoot nearly as fast. Someone could simply tackle you while you were reloading. It goes the same way with hand guns with extended magazines. Again, I bring up the shootings in Tuscan, Arizona. The guy shot a hand gun 31 times without reloading once. After he ran out of bullets, one of Congressman Gifford's staff ran up to the guy and held him down. What if he could have only fired 10 times? Maybe that nine year old girl would be alive. Maybe Congresswoman Giffords wouldn't have been shot in the head. Yes, it is impossible to stop the creation of black markets now. We just need the government to crack down on the buying and selling of guns and ammunition especially for certain types of weapons. My opponent says that it is quite possible for the American people to overthrow the government. Out of that 300 million, there are elderly people, children, women, and smart people that wouldn't want to overthrow the government. Either way, it's not going to happen because nobody wants to overthrow the government (except some people with very extremist views), and the people brave/crazy enough to try would instantly be knocked down. I don't care if you've "done your time. " If you're convicted of an armed robbery or have attempted to or have murdered someone, it's not safe for you to be able to own guns especially fully automatic ones.