How would do an argument for a rebuttal for Gun control?

When you say "I will be arguing that guns should be prohibited!!" do you mean a total prohibition like heroin, meth, LSD which even government employees are not exempt from? Or, are you talking about government using guns to remove guns from the general populace but keeping guns to use against the citizens?

In May 1970 there was a school massacre perpetrated by our government. Didn't that show that not even the government should be trusted with guns?

The only positives to support gun control is the fact that it is an emotional issue. People feel that bad guys have guns hence all gun owners are bad, this is a complete fallacy. The facts do not support gun control. If you look at the Constitution and why the Second Amendment was placed second only to the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights we can see how important the Founding Fathers and framers of our U.S. Constitution viewed these very important rights and how they support one another. I consider anyone that does not support the Constitution in it's entirety a treasonous traitor. Lately the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down some landmark decisions in support of the Second Amendment and in my view, rightfully so! Supporting your required anti gun issue is very difficult indeed unless you interject the emotional factor that is based on over reaction and is not fact based, nor is it Constitutionally based.

if they say something ignorant like "guns don't kill people, people kill people... you can just as easily kill someone with a knife or a baseball bat,"

then you can respond, then all YOU should need is a baseball bat or a knife to defend yourself!"

there are plenty of ways to use their own dumb arguments against them...

they might say, "guns even the playing field. It puts a defenseless woman in the same league as a 275 pound man..."

well a gun also puts a single person in the same league as dozens of defenseless people. And the more of them have guns to defend themselves, the more people will ultimately die in crossfire.

supply and demand is supposed to work like this. The more of something people need, the more of it is manufactured. the more people have a product, the less demand there is supposed to be.

But guns work the opposite way. The more people have guns, the more people need guns to defend themselves against the other people with guns.. Its senseless!!!

Well, I believe that the rebuttal would come after your opponent in the debate presents their side of the issue. You would take their statements and attempt to argue against their points.

You have a hard topic, since there has never been an act of prohibition that successfully kept any product or service from being available for a price.

Think about what your opponents will be bringing to the table as arguments ... then try to come up with arguments against them. I'll give you a hand and launch some ideas they might come up with at you.

Guns can be manufactured in a shop the size of an average garage, using machines that are readily available to any machinist, how would your prohibition of firearms prevent an illegal manufacturing plant from operating and making guns available to the criminals in society?

Guns are used by hunters to reduce the wildlife population, if guns are prohibited ... wouldn't the wildlife population become unmanageable? How would you prevent animals from over-breeding and becoming a problem to people?

Police response times are longer than the average front door can withstand battering, how should people protect themselves from criminals that would enter their home until police arrive?

Rural residents have a lot of potential issues that police can not address, and response times in rural areas are more than one half hour. How would rural residents protect themselves from aggressive criminals without firearms? How would rural residents take care of aggressive animals like coyote, wolf, wild boar, bear, and in the western states mountain lion? Hand to paw combat is a losing proposition for the human, without firearms the rural residents, and their livestock and pets, would be easy pickings for carnivorous animals.

We have thousands of miles of virtually unprotected borders with Canada and Mexico, not to mention more miles of shoreline than the Coast Guard can effectively patrol, how would prohibiting firearms prevent illegal importation of firearms from countries where the laws are not as strict?

Name one ban in the history of this country (or in the recorded history of the world) that has been effective in removing a product or service from civilization. Alcohol (18th amendment), so effective that the 21st amendment revoked it, the ONLY amendment to the Constitution of the US that was revoked! Prostitution? Nope! Most US cities have a range of "escorts" available, from street whores to high end call girls! Marijuana? Nope! Still so available that anyone that really wants it can find a supplier! Hard narcotics like cocaine and heroin? Still for sale, can be found by anyone.

Total bans only serve to make the criminal dealers the "sole source" for the banned item! Do we really want organized crime to have total control of the US firearms market?

That's about as much help as I can be, hitting you with the arguments your opponents might use. Good luck!

If guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns.

Not the latest shooting at Ft. Hood.

Those who got shot were obeying the law.

The one guy who did NOT obey the law shot people.

In the end he shot himself. He was not stopped by any other "law abiding" citizen.

You can say we will put no guns allowed signs on businesses who want to get robbed.