The gun control debate is not this simple (see for details)

I accept.

Most guns used illegally trace their roots back to a legal source[1]. The general practice is that someone buys the weapons out of the store, and then sells them to criminals privately. If guns were illegal, this practice would be impossible. The BoP is so ridiculously skewed in my favor that I don't think I really need to work any harder than this. So, I'll start the debate off with this fact, which quite clearly shows that the debate isn't as simple as the picture suggests. Peace.

Source:
[1] http://www.pbs.org...

It is our 2nd Amendment right. People have died for this right in specific. If we did not have our 2nd Amendment right, then all of the other's would have nothing to fall back upon. Our rights are protected because of the 2nd Amendment, which, I remind you, says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

None of your rights would matter anymore, if you could not protect them!

Moving on to what you said. Your general practice theory, is not true. I will give you an example.

Do you remember the Aurora shooting in 2012? The shooter, James Holmes, bought his weapons legally bought his arsenal of weapons. His arsenal included 4 guns, mass amounts of bullets, and legal chemical grenades. Could you imagine how DIFFERENTLY that shooting would have happened if there were a man carrying a firearm in there? Other's agree, the third source I put will show you what a trained gunman with 29 years of experience has to say about the shooting.

My friend also would like to input, what would other's do if there was a gun control law, yet a small variety of people still use their weapons to hunt, and put food on the table for their family. What are they supposed to do?

I think you have overstepped your boundary about regulating the only thing that protects your right to be here right now. Be thankful.

Sources (Plural):

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.slate.com...

My opponent is supposed to show that the picture I presented in the first round represents all possible legit points to consider during the gun control debate.

My opponent is actually doing me a service when he says that 'it is our 2nd amendment right', because he is indeed bringing up a valid point that is not referenced in the picture.

My opponent's friend also does me a service by bringing up hunter's families. That is another legitimate point to consider, and one which is not portrayed in the picture.

Perhaps some of the voters are disgusted with me, which is fair, as I'm allowing Pro-Gun Rights' points to work for my win, when I am clearly in favor of gun control. That being the case, I will attempt to negate my opponent's points, to be somewhat sporting about this.

In response to my fact about where most criminals get guns, my opponent uses a singular case as a refutation. Immediately we can see this is a problem. Anecdotes do not supersede statistics. But onto the anecdote itself, he says that since James Holmes bought his guns legally, I'm wrong. But if guns were illegal, James wouldn't have gotten a hold of those weapons, so this anecdote doesn't really help my opponent at all. The point that a person with a gun could stop James Holmes is like putting a band-aid on a wound. The extra gunman might defuse the situation sooner, but there's still a good chance people will get hurt, whereas if guns had been illegal, James couldn't have gotten one, and there would've been no need to defuse any situation.

And to my opponent's friend, the hunters could use bows. Laws don't go into effect immediately after passage, generally. So a person who hunts with a gun could learn to hunt with a bow before the law goes into effect.

Keep in mind that my BoP was fulfilled before the refutations, so even if those weren't to your taste, I am still winning the vote.

Good.