Gun control legislation and deterring crime

To begin, the topic of this controversial debate is gun control legislation and deterring crime. My adversary is attempting to defend his/her claim on this topic being a broad topic to discuss his/her irrelevant rocket launcher example. The topic is an implicit title of the debate and if reading the opening statements, it should be very clear what the specifics of the debate are precluded to be based on. Since in my opening statements starting the debate with the Sandy Hook Massacre, the gun control legislation that is currently taking place is explicit towards the provisions of what is to be legislated upon in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre. So therefore, rocket launchers being used as an example are an absolute absence within the provisions of our current legislation, and is an irrelevant example to use. Furthermore, my adversary is attempting to clarify his/her statement of contradictory, but manages to contradict himself/herself even more. Stating that "Obviously, people will always be ale to get what they want in some form or fashion, but banning assault rifles will make it significantly more difficult and dangerous to obtain an assault rifle". My adversary is well aware that people will no matter what kind of legislation is passed, will be able to obtain an assault rifle, but still states that it will make it significantly more difficult to do. Well once again this type of legislation does nothing, but hurt the law abiding citizen who follows the laws. This only affects the criminals who already do not abide by the laws, hence criminals being labeled as criminals for the crimes that they commit, such as breaking a law of illegally obtaining an assault rifle, just like Adam Lanza had done. I also had stated that there are multiple logical reasons to obtain a firearm when my adversary claimed that "other for hunting" there would be no logical reason to obtain an assault rifle. My adversary even admits that this makes sense, but claims that this fact to obtain them is "ridiculous". Well I find fault in this statement because an American citizen practicing their rights is not "ridiculous". These assault rifles are collectors items and used responsibly by a substantial majority of citizens and gun advocates, because they are fully aware of the immense power of this weapon's capabilities. "Gun ranges could have specific licenses allowing them to keep assault rifles in stock for customers to use on a gun range, simple solution". This is sure not a simple solution when the rights of law abiding Americans are infringed upon. "The simple fact is that the tiny amount of benefits that come from owning an assault rifle don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects that these guns being sold over the counter bring to society". How is it that an extraordinary amount of citizens obtain assault rifles, but very little crimes are done annually by them? The Federal Bureau of Investigations confirms statistics: "There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles." (1) A small amount of Americans are claiming assault rifles are a problem, but according to consistent crime statistics of much credibility, state otherwise. It states here that hammers, clubs, hands, and fists are more lethal than assault rifles. So does this mean we need to take hammers and clubs away because they cause a lot of crime? Of course we wouldn't because that would be an outrageous legislation considering hammers and clubs are used for various activities that are beneficial to society other than for crimes, such as hammers for construction purposes or clubs taking various forms as a golf club or a baseball bat. Hammers and clubs have various uses just as assault rifles have various uses. But hammers and clubs are not being legislated upon control but cause more crime annually than assault rifles do. When my adversary states that the Framers of the Constitution "had no way of knowing what technology would be available to United States citizens' in today's world" is an uninformed assertion. Framers of the Constitution were well aware that as times change, everyone else in society changes. "The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change over time. But the application of those principles must evolve as society changes and as experience informs our understanding" (2). Of course it would be absolutely ignorant of anyone to have concrete laws that do not change overtime as mankind does. But the fact of the matter is the Framers of the Constitution developed core principles to uphold throughout our democracy. Being aware that legislation will take affect to adhere to the current situations of our times, the fact of the matter is that core principles are to be the foundation of the legislation. Therefore, the specific text in the 2nd Amendment is to not be altered, but the contemporary times that we are living in need to adhere to these principles for just and equal legislation. This does not make it okay to legislate against the people's will, because the Constitution allows flexibility within it's provisions. Furthermore, to state that I am "blatantly ignorant" is an unnecessary statement due to the fact I am very aware of the economical situation of the United States' education system. The fact that our government pointlessly spends taxpayers' money for unnecessary entities, is a disgrace, and is so wrong. Examples of our country spending an astronomical amount of money on unnecessary entities is; The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it, the federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos, China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn"t stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China, the U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly, and the list goes on (3). So my adversary likes to state that arming guards at schools when 90% of teachers across America want them, "the amount of money to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy". By seeing where taxpayers' money goes unnecessarily, when it should be going into a program to help our own country is opposed to others is not impractical. So supposedly, it would cost $23 billion to do this according to a Cleveland State University Economics professor, but our country has spent millions on frivolous entities and not the safety of our country? If the money was not put into other countries, pointless research studies on responsible drinking for prostitutes, and a soccer field creating recreation for people plotting attacks on our country their whole lives, we can substitute this money into our schools. And my adversary stating what would we do for shopping malls and movie theaters? That's simple, because we have police already patrolling these areas, but there are no police guarding schools leaving them the most susceptible to crime. In my closing statements, I will state that gun control legislation does nothing to deter criminals from the commission of crimes, because breaking the law is what they do. This legislation infringes upon the Constitutions' fundamental rights. Sources (1)http://www.newsmax.com... (2)http://www.democracyjournal.org... (3http://endoftheamericandream.com...