no gun control in america

For starters, I would like to say that I agree with your opinion that criminals do and will obtain firearms illegally, proven by the statistic in my previous round (90% are obtained illegally). My question to you would be how do you think our country could even become "gun free" when we both agree that those who misuse firearms aren't even using guns that they acquired legally. That math just doesn't add up, and it shouldn't to you or anyone else either. Thinking it is possible to get our country "weapon free" (as you stated above) is even more ridiculous. How can we really define what a weapon is? I'm pretty sure if I really felt like it I could do some serious damage to an unsuspecting citizen with a baseball bat, possibly even murder them. The same could most likely be done with a steak knife. It is truly impossible to define exactly what a "weapon" is. There are many items used in our everyday lives that could be used to injure/kill another human being, yet none are considered weapons. You began your argument that we could all be in danger if gun control laws stayed the same, yet I would tell you to refer to my above statistic proving that the United Kingdom is actually a far more dangerous place to live, despite it's much stricter gun control laws. You stated that the fact is not legit due to the United Kingdom being smaller in area than America. I have yet to find the logic behind that argument. The people of America have the right to defend themselves, and yet some of us (yourself included) are fighting to take our own rights away. You stated that Americans having the right to protect themselves wouldn't matter "because if families are being attacked, than they are usually attacked by a gang, that owns more weapons and criminals." This simply isn't true. Out of about 30,000 gun-related deaths in America yearly, not even 1,000 are from gangs. Granted that some gang violence may not be recognized, logically it is tough to imagine that number ever reaching over 1,500. Also, gangs mostly kill members of rival gangs, not random, unprotected families just for the fun of it. The majority of homes that have been entered by armed criminals had the criminal acting solo, not with a gang. So that statement is just plain wrong. Seeing the lack of sources to back that up makes me wonder whether that is even a fact that you misread or if it is just something you thought sounded good to write in this debate. On the topic of gangs, you stated that "inequality causes people to join criminals, gangs." I would like to say that every human being has free will over their actions, and that nothing forces an individual to join a gang or become a criminal. There are always other, legal, alternatives for someone who may be a member of the lower class who may be struggling than to resort to crime. That statement is just giving an excuse for criminals instead of making them be accountable for their wrongful actions. Saying "the other problem is overpopulation and depression" has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate. Why do either of those topics have anything to do with the issue of gun control in America? Your only suggestion to keeping the public protected was law enforcement. Not only are police officers vastly outnumbered by criminals, but the duty of a police officer is to protect the public as a whole, not individuals. Although police will always respond to a 911 call, it is often too late to stop the criminal from already doing damage. Police officers have been protected by law (backed by the Supreme Court) in case of such scenarios. The Supreme Court also ruled that it is an individuals duty to protect themselves and their family until law enforcement can arrive. Saying that police "should track and haunt down criminals, terrorist, and the Illuminati" would be unrealistic if the police were forced with the duty of protecting every single citizen from criminals with illegally obtained weapons. All of your arguments either contradict each other, are just your opinion, or have major holes in them. You said you were a Democrat, yet claimed to have no knowledge of the gun control issue and didn't know which political party viewed the topic. You gave no real points arguing my stance and facts on the issue, just stated your opinion. You suggested that the real problem was the "Gini, ban of drugs, and a bigger education with psychological test." This is no solution to the gun debate, although you did mention that if it was your way, you would ban all weapons, a completely unattainable and unrealistic goal. Basically from this debate, I can tell so far that you are extremely unexperienced to politics and debating. I appreciate the effort, but suggest at least some real points/arguments for next round, backed up with facts. You literally showed no knowledge of the situation at hand. The fact is, guns save more lives than they take, by a significant amount (150,000 to 30,000, with about half of the 30,000 being from suicides, not homicide). Guns are a right of the American people, and taking them away (as you suggested) would be Unconstitutional. The firearm industry is properly regulated (as it should be), the real problem (as we both agreed) was the unregulated distribution of firearms to criminals. Using basic common sense, it would be plain stupid to take our right to bear arms away when the overwhelming number of citizens owning a gun use it 100% safely and legally, and have as much of a right to owning that gun as we do freedom of speech. (The typos I made inside of quoted material from my opponent were copied from his writing above, not on me.) Sources: http://www.encyclopedia.com... http://www.nytimes.com...