US citizens should have the right to bear arms

In launching my debate, I would like to remind pro that this debate is not about gun control, but questions the basis of the Second Amendment. I apologise that I did not stipulate this clearly enough in the motion. However, I must also consider the generalities which pro is guilty of. Pro assumes that a society with gun control is less safe, yet does not take into account that the USA is one of the very few, if not only, developed countries in the world that does not just allow guns, but places them as a civil right for its citizens. In addition, of all the developed countries, it has the highest gun related mortality rate, suggesting that it is not any more safe than Germany or Norway. Much to contrary, killing someone with a crowbar, although plausible, is not nearly as effective as killing somebody with a gun. America's gang violence is mainly attributed to the use of firearms, yet if there were no firearms, that does not mean that they would all resort to using blunt force weaponry and have the modern day equivalent to a swashbuckle. Simply put, if an effective means to an end is taken away, it provides a deterrent towards that end. An individual may feel safer with the protection of a gun, but that does not relate to the Second Amendment's wider social context. Indeed, society is less safe when each individual has the potential to efficiently kill one and other. This argument of mechanised death can be seen in recent massacres throughout the United States and if we were to accept the premise of my argument then we also must accept that these massacres would have been prevented had there had been no right to the Second Amendment. In regards to his points on resisting tyranny, pro is using the theoretical argument of the Second Amendment, subjective to the 18th Century Founding Fathers and, although, it made sense in its historical context, that does not necessarily mean it is relevant to modern day practice. Indeed, it could be considered outdated and impractical in regards to the 21st Century, much to the fact that its conceptualisation was contextualised by the "evil tyranny" of the British Empire. In terms of society, I have already outlined why it is not practical to the modern day, as guns do not solely serve their intended purpose, but a whole amalgamation of them, many of which are ethically wrong. The probability of a dictatorship rising in an industrialised nation needs to take into account political science before it can be argued. There is no reason, beyond speculation, to believe a political dictatorship has any chance of arising in the USA. Before proceeding to my next point I would like to point out that the intended use (Founding Fathers) of guns is not their utilitarian use. Their utilitarian use is to put a bullet into a living creature, to the effect of injuring it or killing it. It is thus, up to the individual to decide what this utility will be toward. The intended use of giving Afghanistan weaponary during the Cold War was intended for them to fight the Russians, but the de facto result was them using it to fight us in the modern day. In the event of overthrowing government, for whatever reason, the utilitarian use of a gun would open up the possibility of smaller social groups to establish their own rights, rather than the rights of the American people as a whole. All the more so with the varying social groups of the US. In the event of a destabilised government, any group, for example Neo-Nazis, could establish power as dissident groups across the US. To this effect, pro is using a simplistic argument, which in reality is subject to the differing variables of socio-political reality. Pro also has very very limited knowledge of the rise of fascist parties across Europe. Europe is a more progressive society than the US as a whole, with note to Northern Europe and these groups are very marginal and have little hope of attaining power, politically or by force, because they do not have a right to arm themselves. Indeed, marginalised groups in the US have a greater possibility of insurgency, as they have access to weaponry. I could argue this with the massacres that have already taken as unaffiliated, individualist insurgencies, commonly ending in suicide. In rebuttal, I would also like to note that the Second Amendment does not only affect the US, but its neighbour, Mexico. Firearms are continuously traded with the cartels in exchange for drugs and have empowered them to take over much of the country, with resultant damage. In conclusion, pro does not take into account the utilitarian purpose of firearms, merely their intended use, as outlined by Second Amendment, which is a dated piece of legislation and has no relevance to how the Second Amendment should be considered in the modern day.