Guns should be more difficult to obtain

I will begin this round, and the end of this debate, by thanking my opponent. This was a lot of fun for me, and I hope it was for him and all the voters as well. First I will clear up an issue on conduct, then weigh the debate, then finally show the voters why I win on all fronts of this debate.Final RoundMy opponent, for whatever reason, has misinterpreted the rules of the debate. He asks for conduct points because I am pulling "shenanigans" on this topic of the final round. He asserts that I did not clearly state that round 4 is the last round for Con arguments in my opening round. Here is what I put in the opening round while on this subject: "my opponent will start in the end of this round. I would prefer that he/she puts something in the end of the final round instead of forfeiture, but only something like "end of debate." No extra information is to be added." These are clear rules asking that my opponent not post anything in round 5 and that thus, round 4 is his final round of debate. This however, is not the reason that I win on conduct, as I am forced to provide my own refutations in order for this to be fair. I will further elaborate on why I win on conduct, along with everything else, in the end of this round. SuicideMy opponent seems to have made a mistake. "I agree a reduction of guns will reduce suicides using guns, but what about suicides overall?" He agrees that a reduction of guns will reduce suicides using guns, thus he has acknowledged that suicides are a legitimate reason to ban firearms. Voters, how can this not affect suicides overall? If there are 5,000,000 suicides per year, and 100,000 of these are firearm-related, then there are 50,000 less suicides overall. Incidentally, I took these statistics using percentages from my opponent's own graph, which he has recently revealed is only from England, where guns are banned. I will further go on later in this round to show how his admission of this (though late) is actually yet another reason to vote for my side. For now, I would like to once and for all clear up the suicide issue on this topic. I used the example of going to Walmart as the longest time that it could possibly take any random individual that fits the very loose restrictions provided in round 1 by my opponent. Here are the steps and times that it takes someone to shoot themselves with a gun if there is one in the house:1. Get the gun. (At most 2 minutes, and usually under)2. Put it in the mouth, next to the head, etc. (2 seconds)3. Pull the trigger. (0.01 seconds)This is just a simple breakdown of steps that it takes to commit suicide using a gun, to show my opponent and the voters how incredibly short of a time it takes to kill oneself using a firearm.This is the end of the final attempts to shake the suicide point fully pointed out by my opponent, but he also sneaks in a last attempt to subconsciously win over the suicide points entitled "slippery slope." It describes the most radical example my opponent could find for another thing that causes suicides to ban: cars. He abandoned his policeman example because he "was unable to find any reliable statistics on police shootings." This is a warning sign that his guesses in round 3 are not fully reliable. Next, he uses unreliable statistics for cars as well. I examined his source for his statistics, as they seemed impossible. He used a summed up total of all deaths using land vehicles in any way versus all suicides, and the transferal is skewed. He calls the former 1 in 72 when it is really 1 in 85, and the latter 1 in 300 when it is really 1 in 115. It is also according to Medhelp, a source I would not really use over common sense. In England, firearms are banned, and still the suicide rate using firearms is 9 times that of using motor vehicles. In the US, where this debate is located, firearms are much more widely used, and there is nothing affecting motor vehicle suicides. As such, his point about suicide using cars is not comparable to those using firearms.As I have proven, suicide is actually a very viable reason to vote Pro by itself. However, there are many other reasons to vote Pro, as I will continue to prove throughout this round.HomicideMy opponent has dropped this point made by me in the second round and thus, homicides are a fully viable reason to vote Pro.ProtectionFirst, I will point out that my opponent's CDC card cited defensive gun uses of 500,000 to 3 million per year, not necessarily that in every case of those times, the victim would inevitably have been killed. This actually, though a seemingly weak refutation, is so very true that my opponent's statistics are proven irrelevant. I already provided this quote from the Guardian that my opponent seems to have dropped: "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them." To summarize, wielding a gun does not necessarily mean one is safer. They are psychologically encouraged to go to more dangerous environments and can also have the gun taken and turned upon them. Though my opponent noticed my quote, he only responded by comparing it to the CDC and calling it subjective. He didn't actually prove me wrong, and my quote directly refutes the CDC one. Thus, his claims of "protection" are inadequate.AnalogyMy opponent has, in a final attempt to refute my analogy of an English person obtaining an American firearm, has claimed that the said person will buy from arms dealers. However, we can still create an easy law banning the private transaction loophole. It is an easy fix and an obvious one, and my analogy, which my opponent has only semantically refuted, was one of many examples of this.HuntingMy opponent has dropped my refutation on generalization, and this is the refutation that I will carry through on the hunting topic to save time. My claim on generalization was that people that needed to hunt would thus have a full and legitimate reason to have a firearm, and would fit my prescribed laws. This is also where my opponent's major conduct violation occurs, which I will elaborate on later. He has also shown some indecisiveness, first inacurately claiming that everyone must hunt for food, then that we must hunt to keep the animal population down.Inherent MoralsMy opponent has made an attempt at a refutation to my claim that the tool not having inherent morals doesn't warrant us to give it out to someone who has evil intent. We are, with these "gun rights," giving out guns to anyone who has enough money to pay for them. He claims that we are hurting those with good intent more than those with bad, but he forgets the police who replace the need of these vigilantes that my opponent talks about.Tyrannical GovernmentMy opponent's final stand against my win was his tyrannical government point, that we need guns to overthrow the tyrannical government. First I will weigh on probability: there have been minimal incidents like this in the US, and there is an even more minimal chance of it happening in the future, as we are a democracy. Second, there are ways to display dislike for something other than rioting and shooting people. This is not a good reason to vote against guns.Why I winVoters, as I am sure you know, there are 4 things to vote on: conduct, spelling/grammar, arguments, and sources. Here is why I win on every one of these, or at the very least most.Conduct:My opponent has not only violated the general conduct rules and put in new evidence and refutations in the final rounds, but he has directly violated the 3rd rule set up by myself in the opening acceptance round of the debate: "All information must be used in the debate." My opponent agreed to this by accepting the debate, and yet he violated it by posting an entire animal rights debate. Voters, I obviously win on conduct.Spelling/Grammar:My opponent has made slight grammar mistakes throughout the debate, but they were only slight, so I will acknowledge this factor alone could be marked as a tie.Arguments:As I have shown throughout the debate and throughout this round, my arguments all still stand and none of his do.Sources:I have used very reliable sources including ABC news, World Bank, Harvard, the Guardian, and so on. The only reliable source I have seen from my opponent that is comparable to these is ABC news, which I have used in addition to more, and the CDC.My opponent's points have all been refuted by me. His last statement was that suicide should not affect those who continue living. This, evidently, is how he chooses to end his debate. Here is the final statement that I will leave you with, voters:Guns are meant to kill or injure things and people. By condoning the current standards used by the US, we are condoning virtually giving out guns to those who wish to kill themselves, those who wish to kill others, and those who do not intend to, but are capable of accidentally doing, both. There is no reason that we need to give out guns this way without asking why, and statistics prove that other countries who don't do this have exponentially lower firearm-related death rates than the US. We have people who protect us, the government, so why do we give out guns to people without a reason for needing one other than death?