Gun rights in general

Okay, first of all, could you please actually READ the debate CLEARLY and THOROUGHLY before you make any 'random' assumptions. I did not rebut any of your points because we agreed that Round 2 was for ARGUMENTS only (apologies, I cannot italicise). So I would like to ask everybody to ignore Pro's incorrect statement which would have been easily avoided if he wrote and worked with a little more caution and awareness. As we agreed, the final round is for rebuttal and conclusion so Pro does not need to worry himself that I have neglected that promise. With that being cleared, let's begin. ******* Rebuttals: 1. Con says that "if a robber enters your house and asks for cash, you can open the drawer you have your gun in and shoot his hand while calling the police". Realistically speaking, if a "robber" tried to enter your house, their primary purpose is to 'rob'. So, they would try to steal when there is nobody in the house. Therefore, when "robbers" see the owner of the house, they will try to escape. So if you "shoot" the "robber" in the hand, how does that make the situation any better really? A normal robber wouldn't try to inflict harm on the owners of the family if their main aim was to steal things. I don't need any sources or statistics to back up my point because I am confident that everybody here would agree with me. In fact, I think "shooting the robber in the hand" is a very IMMATURE suggestion to be honest. But I forgive the opponent because he is only fourteen- a year younger than me. 2. "A high-profile target such as a politician (...) could have (...) a bodyguard with a licensed gun" I completely agree with this statement but I am afraid that Pro has negated the resolution. The motion of this debate is for gun rights "in general" and as you kindly pointed out, that means normal people. I don't think a professional bodyguard classifies as the 'general majority'. 3. "If we have a revolution happening, and the police fires at a crowd of protestors that includes you, you could easily fight back". Again, I think that this is clearly, a very unrealistic suggestion. It is illegal for the police to fire at a peaceful crowd [1] unless a crowd is a complete danger to society. 4. ""In 2010, 67.5% of all murders were committed using firearms and out of all the crimes that occur in the United States each year, 4% involve guns" Weren't fire arms and guns one and the same thing? If not, then it's only 4%..." PLEASE 'READ' THE STATEMENT!! It says that 67.5% of MURDERS (which means killing people) are committed using guns and 4% of CRIMES involve guns. A crime refers to any criminal act. 5."Moreover, any decent parent would instruct their child to keep away from guns" Unfortunately, based on my research (link in Round 2), I have already PROVEN that that is indeed not the case. Please read it again. 6.You said that if guns were banned, they would still be in fact be sold illegally. That is true. But let's say that drugs were made legal. Do you think that there would be more drug addicts if drugs were allowed or if it were not allowed despite the illegal selling of them? Yes, I thought so. 7. "He (she) hasn't managed to rebut my points and his (her) arguments are only subject to the US" I have already explained that rebuttals were forbidden in Round 2. My arguments are not just relevant to the US but to every country in the world. Every country should ban guns. I only used the US as a primary example because it is there where people are beginning to question gun banning. In conclusion, Pro negated the resolution, did not read the debate clearly, forgot the rules and did not provide any sources throughout the debate. Thank you everyone for reading. Vote Con! Citations: [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...