Guns should be banned to the general public

I will first attack his case and then reaffirm my own. My opponent provides a belated definition of morality that is rather vague on the exact nature of what is moral and what is amoral. To refine the focus of this debate, I provide a deontological definition of morality, after Kant's categorical imperative, where actions have moral weight in and of themselves. Consequences of the action therefore have no impact on the morality of the action. This definition must stand for the duration of the round, as my opponent failed to offer a specific delineation of morality when given the opportunity to do so. My opponent contends that society is incorrect in that "guns are bad and can hurt people. " Putting the ethical question aside, my opponent does not rebut the claim that guns can hurt people. Guns propel bullets into the objects at which they are shot at high velocities. When bullets enter human flesh, they can damage tissue and bone, sometimes causing death. The intent of a gun is to cause harm to its target; in a deontological view guns are therefore inherently immoral. Through deont reasoning, it is then evident that gun usage is inherently immoral. My opponent claims that guns are less dangerous than doctors, but fails to provide any hard evidence that this is true. My opponent then asks "Are doctors morally wrong? " As per our definition of morality, the answer is obviously no, because doctors exist to heal people, not to harm them. See above for why guns are inherently immoral. We will treat the hypothetical situation posed by my opponent as a valid criticism. Note, however, the statistic cited in my previous argument that shows that in cases of crimes, guns were used for self-defense in an infinitesimally small number of cases, and of those cases, even fewer were successful. My opponent's claim that possession of a gun would make anyone safer is therefore fallacious. Even so, by shooting a gun, even at an intruder, intends to cause harm to someone, which is immoral. This once again edges into the area of practical application of the resolution, and is therefore no longer relevant. Furthermore, my opponent never directly addresses the content of the rebuttal of his second contention, meaning that C2 has been eliminated. Again, using the deontological framework that I have supplied, the metaphorical fist-swing is inherently immoral in its intent to cause harm. This rebuttal is invalid. My opponent assumes that correlation equals causation, which is untrue. He further fails to provide substantive evidence that the rise in gun ownership is causing the decrease in crime. This supposed attack on my contention is demonstrably fallacious and irrelevant. The question here is not the danger of guns, but the morality of guns. This purely hypothetical situation seems to suggest the use of guns as a deterrent. 1) How would an unknown assailant be aware of the existence/nonexistence of a gun? 2) Nevertheless, my opponent must show that guns are moral in and of themselves. He fails to do so. This rebuttal lacks a citation and does not address the deontological morality at stake in this debate. To summarize: All six of my opponent's contentions have been shown to be irrelevant, fallacious, immoral, or some combination thereof--in essence, his case no longer exists--whereas my contention still stands. My opponent has failed to fulfill the Con burden as specified in Observation 3, whereas I have shown definitively that guns and the use of guns are immoral and should therefore banned. I stand for any clarifications and await my opponent's rebuttal and voting issues.