Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

If he wants to change his stance after this debate, I'd be flattered, but I'd rather that he aim to explore his views more thoroughly than completely shift them as a result of this debate. Now, into some rebuttal. "Gun control is not needed in order for that it is responsibilty that counts. " And yet responsibility hasn't been sufficient. Parents still acquire guns even if their "child is not a normal child. " All we need to do is look at Newtown, Connecticut, where Adam Lanza got his guns from his mother, shot her, and then went after Sandy Hook. [1] "Backround checks are made by the government and it is like stop and frisk. Backround checks have nothing to do with striter gun laws. " Since they're done at the time of purchase, no, I would say they're not like stop and frisk. And since, as I stated earlier, 2 million criminals have been denied access, they're not ineffective either. But they're most certainly stricter gun laws. Not sure what you're getting at there. "If the person wants to die let him be. " So now you're supporting suicide? I find this a difficult argument to stomach. Tens of thousands of people a year commit suicide, many with severe mental illness that could be treated. [2] Those lives could be saved and lived well. That's not to mention that thousands of teenagers are among the people doing so. [3] I have no problem with the idea of euthanasia, but I don't think we should be supportive of an individual's right to end their own life when they are not in their right mind. And knives dont even take a minute and you can still kill yourself should we take control of knives. I mentioned this before, but knife wounds are far more likely to be treatable as they are usually more shallow (kind of hard to beat the force of a bullet entering your body). If you need support, I can provide some:[4] It talks about how most forms of suicide with a knife are unsuccessful. Even wrist slashing is not a very effective means of committing suicide, since most cut laterally across the wrist, which results in limited bleeding and damage. Even if they cut longitudinally, it's not a sure death, since the flow of blood and still be stemmed and their lives saved. But it's generally ridiculous to suggest that knives should be restricted since their purposes in daily life are incredibly broad, especially in cooking. Limiting access simply isn't practical to any extent. "Also people kill themselves with cars should we have stricter laws" I think you would be even more upset if our gun laws looked like our car laws. Let's make a list of what restrictions and added costs there are on car usage: 1) The earliest age someone can even legally get behind the wheel is 15 and requires extensive driving training and testing. 2) Cars have major health requirements, especially vision. 3) There's a need to renew your license every 2-3 years. 4) You require a different license for different classes of cars. 5) Cars are registered, and the title and tag are required at each point of sale. 6) Cars require liability insurance. 7) The car has to be safety tested every 2-3 years. 8) Gasoline is taxed heavily (imagine if that were bullets). 9) Cars have trigger locks that prevent children from climbing in and starting themselves I'd say that my suggestions are less onerous, but whatever floats your boat. "Hnadguns are destructive and I am not hurting my case. " Hence I am for universal background checks and registration, regardless of the gun type. They're still not as dangerous as assault or semi-automatic rifles. "You said that guns should have a stricter purpose. " I don't think I said that, though if I did, make sure to quote me specifically on it next time. "Criminals do not obey laws they can still find a way to break through doors. : This is still an extra step, requiring breaking and entering on their part without a gun, entering a home that is somewhat likely to have one. At the very least, breaking down the door does nothing to actually harm the inhabitants. Having access to a gun before breaking into the property is another story entirely. "People could send and make bots and break open the door with heavy explosive bombs. " Again, bombs are completely banned, and acquiring the materials puts normally puts you under intense scrutiny from the NSA. They're also usually more expensive and difficult to make. I'm not sure where they'll get these "bots," but they sound awfully expensive if they're going to break down doors, not to mention difficult to build. "And what if those criminals robbed a bank with 1,0000000000 in it they would be able to afford bombs. " Banks tend to have security guards and steel-reenforced safes. Without guns and powerful tools, they're not going to get anything near that amount of money. Alright, as there is no more refutation, I leave to my opponent to finish out the round. 1. . http://www.businessinsider.com... 2. . https://www.afsp.org... 3. . http://www.aacap.org... 4. . http://dmmoyle.com...