Banning guns

In my last round I said "Pro" instead of "Con" by accident. Just thought I would throw that out there...ConstitutionThis here is a straw-man fallacy [1] from Con. I never claimed that I did "not like" the constitution. I simply claimed that he gave no good reason to think it is infallible...Crime Rates My opponent's assertion does nothing to substantiate the notion that gun laws cause more crime; as his link was not accompanied by any statistics within his round, and you have to sift through the site to find exactly where Con sourced his information from. However, if Con does believe that correlation equates to causation pertaining to this area of discussion, then I have some references of my own accompanied with statistics within my round itself. Since the early 1990's gun violence has been decreasing in the United States. Also, the number of gun owners in America has dropped substantially since then[2]. There is a clear correlation there. I still maintain that if guns are out of the hands of the criminals, then civilians do not need guns. I would know, I live in Canada. We do not have much gun violence here (we also do not have that many guns either). In 2009, there were only 173 deaths by guns and Canadians legally own roughly around 9,950,000 guns [3]. In 2009 in the United States had 31,347 deaths due to guns, and 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 guns are owned by Americans [4]. There is a clear pattern. In addition, 19,392 of the 38,264 American suicides in 2010 were due to guns [5]. This means that guns are most likely aiding people in taking their own lives. One could argue that they would still find a way to kill themselves even if they did not have a gun. Yet, the truth of this is not at all obvious. Many people only go through with suicide if it will be quick and easy, as not everyone wants to go through the painful death of popping pills for example. Basically, Con has the burden of proof and he is failing to meet it. Sitting Duck ArgumentMy opponent says that having harsher gun laws makes civilians sitting ducks against the evil doers. This claim is justified by the claim that criminals can always get guns illegally. This argument is not convincing at all as it is presented, because there is no reason to believe that most crimes are done with illegal weapons. If most crimes are done with legal weapons, then harsher gun laws takes guns out of the hands of the criminals; thus making his argument void. The burden of proof has not been met in this regard either.Criminals Following Only Some LawsCon is not qualifying the difference in severity when it comes to certain crimes. This makes his argument here trivial. Self DefenseCon mentions that most assaults are not due to guns, but this is rather meaningless. Murder is much more severe than assault and most murders in the United States are done with guns. 11,101 of the 15,953 homicides were committed by guns [4], which shows a huge gun problem that needs to be solved immediately. Thus, since correlation equating to causation is an accepted axiom based on my opponents previous rounds, then my opponent has clearly taken an extreme beating in this round.Guns vs. DrugsComparing guns to drugs in this fashion is comparing apples and oranges. Also, it truly has no bearing on the resolution and can be disregarded.Police OfficersEven if I granted my opponent this point, it is still a red-herring [6]. I am not arguing that police should have their guns stripped, but this is how it is in England [7], so I do not know the point my opponent is trying to get across. Besides, between 1961 and 2009, 92% of all police officer deaths in the United States were due to guns [8]. Stricter gun laws are needed to protect police officers, who are way more vunerable to more gun injuries than stab wounds. The Colorado Massacre and the Sandy Hook ShootingHarsher gun laws need to be set in place to prevent more tragedies like the Colorado shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting, both of which were done with legally owned weapons [9][10]. You can only kill so many people with sticks and knives. Guns are the cause of massacres similar to these two. ConclusionNot only did Con not meet his burden, but I provided more solid and compelling evidence for my case. Since the validity of basing arguments off of correlation pertaining to statistics has clearly been accepted as an underlying assumption in this debate; it is clear that as it stands, the resolution has been affirmed. Sources [1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://www.theatlantic.com... [3] http://www.gunpolicy.org... [4] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[5] http://highlander.highlands.edu...[6] http://www.nizkor.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.statcan.gc.ca...[9] http://newsfeed.time.com...[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...