"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)

"Firstly, you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of gun laws. Chicago has strict gun laws, and that means you can't bring guns into the city that don't fit the requirements. It doesn't mean you can just buy a gun somewhere else and bring it back. Your statistic just proves that people will bring guns that don't fit the laws into areas with strict control and commit crime with them anyways. The guns that were siezed by the police were not from law-abiding citizens, they were from illegal gun smugglers. I do not see the point of your statistic, as it rebuts itself." - So I win this point. This was originally a rebuttal to my point about gun laws and how they reduce crime. I read through your source, and it says guns are bought where gun control is lesser. In other words, if the whole nation had strict gun laws, this trade would stop and it would be harder to get a gun in Chicago. And this really isn't a rebuttal. No matter how strict gun laws are, it will be near impossible to stop illegal guns from coming in. But, most illegal guns come from states with weak gun laws, like Indiana. Your own source says this. Obviously, if Indiana passed stronger gun laws, then this trade would go down, and Chicago would have less gun crime. "The constitution was written for the people, it wasn't written for the states, it wasn't written for militias. It was written so that we as a people had a clear understanding of what rights the government cannot take away from us, and what our country stood for. The rebuttal you have provided to my point is complete nonsense. I actually did provide a source at the bottom of my previous arguement, proving that you did not even check my sources. Look at my sources and then rebut that Point please." - I saw no sources to back up anything. I definitely looked at your sources. You notice that in my rebuttal, where I specially mention I read your sources. Maybe you didn't read my argument. Also, you are supposed to make the argument. Your source shows where you get the data, or where you get the argument, from. You can't just say, "This is my argument -link to another video by someone else." So as far as I'm concerned, I win this point too, as you are unable to prove how this comma proves anything. And, you didn't respond to my question. What is the point of the, "Well regulated militia" part then? Please listen to this point. Passing more gun laws won't violate any interpretation of the second amendment. You can still buy guns. Only bad people can't buy guns. Law abiding citizens can still bear arms. My proof of this is the States. States with more gun control have fewer murders. Link in earlier argument. "As I said earlier, just because M.r Crowder is biased doesn't mean the facts he provides are false." - No, I'm saying this because in his article, he has no sources. So why should I believe what he says? "The rebuttal you provided countered my point in saying it wasn't all that effective, but you completely disregarded the point of that whole section of writing, which was that the technology existed, so the founding fathers most definetly knew that there was more than one shot rifles being developed. They were not fools, they could see that there was advancements being made in technology. - The only gun you actually showed was the Girandoni Air Rifle, in service in Europe. How do you know the founding fathers knew about it? The constitution was written in 1787. How do you know that at that time, the founding fathers knew about that technology. Even if they did, take into account its' effectiveness and the time the second amendment was written. First, the time. This was at a time when their were not gangs and tons of gun crime. This was when there was no strong US army, and the founding fathers knew that the people would need to be armed to protect the nation. Plus, this gun can't of been in many hands, so the fathers probably didn't care about it. And again, this gun was horribly ineffective, as your own source points out. Like it needs 1500 pumps just to shoot a few rounds at a very low velocity. This is the kind of repeating gun that existed. Not the modern rifles we have today. So my point still stands. As technology improves, laws need to catch up. This is why I provided the example of drones to back up my claim. Hell, president Madison protected a citizen ships right to have cannons on it, in a time when cannons served purely a military purpose." - Yes, I checked your source, and it said Madison allowed the ship to have cannons FOR a military purpose: attacking enemy shipping. We are not in a war. We don't need private ships with missles, we have a navy for that. This is a reoccurring theme for this debate. We don't need private citizens to be armed. We have others to protect them. We have the strongest military in the world, so the people don't need to be armed in the way the founding fathers intended. "You got a laugh out of me with that one. You're asking for me to prove the second amendment exists." - My point is that you can still bear arms, regardless of whether guns are banned. The second amendment mentions "Arms". Not firearms, but arms. If you want to play semantics, I can too. Even with your interpretation, it only gives the right to bear arms. So if you restrict guns, which doesn't even violate the second amendment, people can still bear arms. Just not firearms. "The only people who can put out a maximum rate of fire accurately are militarily trained and proficient shooters. A civilian cannot grab a gun and ,without training, put out a maximum ROF with accuracy. I love how you asked me for a source." - Who says you need to put out max RPS? I've shot guns before. I'm no military trained personnel. But do I need to be? The gun I shot was easy to reload, and it has little recoil. I knew how to reload, aim, and fire it. Do I need to know anything else? And, this is such a lackluster rebuttal. Anyone can shoot guns and be deadly with them. Look at all these mass shootings. Few had military training. But do they need them? My point was that to use the old guns, you need a bunch of gunpowder, and to be trained in reloading it [1]. Not today. "As for your rebuttal to my main point, rates per 100,000 are, like you said, rates. They aren't going to be equal for countries with 10% of the population of us. Had you watched the Crowder video, or actually looked at my sources, you would have understood that." - Oh my god. Do you understand how rates work? First, you have to post the argument, not steal from someone else. Secondly, you ignored my second example, of states. By your logic, why does New York, a state with tons of people have a lower gun murder rate then Alaska? New York has more people, so why is its' rate lower (source above)? Now for some math. In 2011, Japan had 11 gun murders, and it is around 1/3 of the US population. So multiply the murders by 3, and you get 33 gun murders for an equivalent population. The rate is still the same. The U.S. had over 8500 gun murders in 2011. You can see why the Japan rate is so much lower. Because per capita, they have fewer gun murders. What you are thinking of is a count, which isn't controled for population like rates are. The way they find rates is simple. They take the population, divide it by 100,000, and then divide the amount of gun homicides by the quotient. This is controlling for population. Here is a link explaining what rates are: https://www.stats.indiana.edu... Please learn what rates are before you make these claims. "They aren't going to be equal for countries with 10% of the population of us." - Proof? "Had you watched the Crowder video, or actually looked at my sources, you would have understood that." - If he doesn't understand how rates work, then your sources are even worse. "Now onto your added fuel, which I will provide sources for, becuase the rest of this arguement already was sourced, you just ignored them because the provider of the facts was biased, which is the point. I wouldn't be on their side if I disagreed with them, and I'm obviously going to be biased towards my side, as are you." - No. I rejected one of your sources as your source had no proof, and only the author's say so. That is why I rejected it. "Guns cause more suicide" is complete nonsense. Guns don't cause suicide. Guns don't bully you. Guns don't push you over a mental line. Guns are an effective tool in ending your life, but so are cars, toasters, prescription drugs, knives, blunt weapons, hands, water, all things we have rights to. Maybe instead of gun control we need a means of not letting people get to the point of wanting to end their lives, because if they want to kill themselves, they don't need guns. - Did you even read my point? I provided a study showing that states with more guns have higher suicide rates, and vice versa. You didn't rebut that. I win this point. I'm low on characters, so I'm not posting your next argument. My point is that if you require safety devices, gun safes, and training courses to buy a gun, this will go down. "While you are more likely to be shot in the occurrance of a shooting,you are also far less likely to be involved in a shooting or violent crime if you carry. A study found that you are far likely to be engaged by someone with criminal intent if you have a firearm on you." - This is actually a bad thing. More criminals carry guns because more people carry guns. So stop concealed carry. In conclusion, I have shown that gun control reduces crime. My opponent has been unable to rebut this point. It is constitutional, and even if it wasn't, laws concerning tech need updating as tech updates too. Good luck! Sources in comments.